Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:22, 7 August 2018

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 75 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 52 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 51 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	20	29
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	4	4
RfD	4	33	37
AfD	0	12	12

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 29 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Maddy from Celeste. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 15 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (35 out of 7770 total) ^(Purge) WATCH
Page	Protected	Expiry	Type	Summary	Admin
Operation Golden Hand	2024-05-30 02:48	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Kidnapping of Naama Levy	2024-05-30 02:42	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Alex Dancyg	2024-05-30 02:36	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack	2024-05-30 02:19	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Draft:Palani Baba	2024-05-29 21:25	2024-11-29 21:25	edit,move	Persistent sockpuppetry	Ponyo
2024 Gaza freedom flotilla	2024-05-29 21:17	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA	Ymblanter
Suraj Mal	2024-05-29 20:46	indefinite	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry by WP:LTA; WP:GSCASTE	Abecedare
History of the chair	2024-05-29 19:57	2024-08-20 04:53	edit,move	Persistent sockpuppetry	Ymblanter
Template:Sources exist	2024-05-29 18:00	indefinite	edit,move	High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info)	MusikBot II
Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war	2024-05-29 05:35	indefinite	edit	Currently on the main page and the article has only just been moved; just avoiding that we'll create a redirect.	Schwede66
Rakon	2024-05-29 03:34	2025-05-29 03:34	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Hamas war crimes	2024-05-28 22:07	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Irene Tracey	2024-05-28 21:23	2024-11-28 21:23	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA	Ymblanter
Bill Shields	2024-05-28 19:39	2024-06-28 19:39	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry	Rosguill
Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)	2024-05-28 13:40	2025-03-12 13:45	move	Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP 2 weeks for RM discussion to run its course	Robertsky
25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes	2024-05-28 13:08	indefinite	edit,move	WP:RUSUKR	Robertsky
Draft:Palestinian civilian involvement in the October 7th attacks	2024-05-28 12:26	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR	El C
Anti-BDS laws	2024-05-28 01:27	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR	El C
Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)	2024-05-28 01:12	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR	El C
Tel al-Sultan airstikes	2024-05-28 01:11	indefinite	edit	Move warring: Move requests only from this point on	El C
Human wave attack	2024-05-27 22:16	indefinite	edit,move	Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR	Daniel Case
Tel al-Sultan	2024-05-27 22:10	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Karla Sofía Gascón	2024-05-27 21:36	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Tel al-Sultan airstrikes	2024-05-27 21:26	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action	Daniel Case
Asian News International	2024-05-27 21:10	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Tel al-Sultan massacre	2024-05-27 21:10	indefinite	edit	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Rujm el-Hiri	2024-05-27 11:06	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR	El C
Far-right politics in Israel	2024-05-27 04:27	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Twitter Files	2024-05-27 04:05	2025-05-27 04:05	edit,move	Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action	Daniel Case
History of the Jews in Gaza City	2024-05-27 02:45	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	Izno
Accusations of United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war	2024-05-27 02:03	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
List of equipment of the Pakistan Army	2024-05-26 20:58	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:IPA	Ymblanter
Wars of the Deccan Sultanates	2024-05-26 14:11	indefinite	move	Move warring	Ivanvector
Meritt North	2024-05-26 14:00	2024-06-02 14:00	edit,move	persistent removal of AFD template while AFD discussion is open	Bearcat
User talk:46.35.177.94	2024-05-26 13:51	2026-03-29 00:00	edit,move	Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP	Favonian

User_talk:Timathom/Archive_1

I attempted to break up the archive for User_talk:Timathom, but was unsuccessful in doing so. Can you please advise me on how to go about breaking up this archive, if I can not get the talk page deleted? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you're asking for. The current split, while irregular, seems fine. Killiondude (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Killiondude:, ideally, the archives should be User talk:Timathom/Archive 1, "User talk:Timathom/Archive 2", "User talk:Timathom/Archive 3", etc. Someone refused to delete the page such that this could be done. Additionally, User talk:Timathom/Archive 1 is over 200 kB, and the bot is not splitting it properly. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it is up to the "owner" of a talk page to archive the page. Not somebody else. The Banner talk 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem odd that Jax has now taken it upon himself to archive inactive user's talk pages without their permission and actively looking for user talk pages over 100K in size to do so. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @The Banner:, as it turns out, on behalf of the user, someone else already archived the page here without splitting it into multiple pages. I changed the archive period, which caused the talk archive to be further split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bump - --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you "bump" your section when it seems that the requested split has already been done by Lowercase sigma bot and nothing needs to be done further, certainly nothing that especially needs admins? If you have a technical question, WP:VPT may be the better place for this. Fram (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Fram:, 'ideally, the archives should be User talk:Timathom/Archive 1, "User talk:Timathom/Archive 2", "User talk:Timathom/Archive 3", etc. Someone refused to delete the page such that this could be done. Additionally, User talk:Timathom/Archive 1 is over 200 kB, and the bot is not splitting it properly. Please {{ping}} me when you respond'. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That page is only 4K since 26 July, it hasn't received a human post since 2014, and the editor hasn't edited since 2016. That the pages aren't at the absolutely ideal pagename but something that works as well in the end is not a problem. We can better spend our time on actual problems that need fixing or admin intervention, not this... Fram (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by User:BukhariSaeed

BukhariSaeed (talk · contribs) put the following unblock request on their talk page and asked me to copy it here for a community review. There was a previous review in November 2017. Huon (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During the past several months i have realised that i have committed mistakes and i will not repeat the same mistakes (i.e. sockpuppetry, violation of WP:BLOCK, bad behaviour) and i assure that no harmful or destructive activity will take place no sort of vandalism, no sort of sock puppetry or any type of rubbish stuff will be seen.— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose and I think we should consider a WP:SNOW close here. The user clearly knew about our policies around WP:SOCK and repeatedly violated them during 2017. Claiming they suddenly realised their mistakes "during the past several months" stretches credulity past the breaking point. There's nothing in this unblock request that convinces me they'd behave if unblocked. However, note that I am not aware of any block evasion over the past six months. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there appears to have been primarily "sock-puppetry to create the illusion of consensus" here, though there was some block evasion noted in their appeal in November 2017. They managed to get blocked within 7 days of creating an account, and had a whole bunch of immature behavior in response. They've been fairly active on other wikis (such as Urdu) since then. I do have some language/competence concerns; will this user be able to understand and follow site policies? And if they do inadvertently violate a policy or guidelikne, will they learn from their mistake, or will they resort to vandalism and sock-puppetry? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see any specific TBAN that will be of benefit in an unblock. I do specifically want to emphasize the need for references when adding content here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am an admin and bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia. Bukhari is one of the most active user of urdu Wikipedia, I see him editing on daily basis and his edits are very constructive. He knows Wikipedia’s rules and policies very well and now he’s eliminator on Urdu Wikipedia. I request English Wikipedia admins to unblock him please.--Obaid Raza (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with topic ban -- I administered the indef block for socking and understand Yamla's concern: User:BukhariSaeed began their editing career here with persistent conflicts, disruptive agenda-based editing and socking. In unblock requests, they swore on an "oath of god" that they would never sock again [1], [2], and yet were check-user confirmed to be creating socks at the same time. Similar misbehavior resulted in a separate indefinite block on Simple Wikipedia. Their Standard Offer request [in November 2017 determined they had still been socking again. But as power-enwiki states this appears to be a case of immature behavior -- as well as an overzealous agenda to promote religious figures. Since then this user has shown that they can contribute effectively at Urdu Wikipedia and Commons. My inclination is to unblock with a topic ban on Sufi and Christian Saints broadly construed so that they can first demonstrate the ability to adhere to policy. The topic ban can be reviewed after six months. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Per WP:CIR. BukhariSaeed who couldn't understand WP:SOCK even after months of the block,[3] and he was asking other editors to proxy for him. It is clear that it is going to be very hard to teach him the policies and guidelines whenever he will do anything wrong. It is also apparent on Urdu Wikipedia that he is indulged in off-wiki canvassing there.[4] Above unblock request is too unconvincing because it doesn't show what he will do if he was unblocked. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about proxying. I told him today that he should ask for email to contact him personally. We, Urdu wikipedians, are very connected on other social channels. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was asking other editors to make edits for him while while he was blocked.[5] Read WP:PROXYING. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymond3023:, i was not convassing him, i find his edits on اللو ارجن, thats why ask for his e-mail or phone, i want to add him on Urdu Wikipedia whatsapp group, and he gave me his email address. If you dont trust me you can confirm from any Urdu speaker. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC) -- Since BukhariSaeed cannot reply here, I'm copying his comment from his user talk page. Huon (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap, and it should be made clear that a quick re-block is coming his way if he screws up again. --Jayron 32 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ROPE. Despite having got into trouble and having been blocked ("until the end of time" according to Google Translate) on Urdu Wikipedia about a year ago, the user has 93k global edits and holds advanced permissions on several sister projects, and has an Urdu admin here vouching for them. It seems reasonable to assume the user has mended their ways, until there's some evidence here to the contrary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with topic ban: I agree with CactusWriter. --Muzammil (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: First of all I want to say that he's amazing person. We created together an International collabration called "Peace Spirits", to create some articles about India, Israel and Pakistan, BukhariSaeed did amazing work from his side in Urdu Wikipedia and I trust him to not break the rule again. Actually, I was suprised about his block, I couldn't belive that he opened a sock puppet. So I'm Supporting, I belive him. Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reason has been given how WP:ROPE applies here. Unblock request is poorly written and it doesn't show how he can benefit this encyclopedia. Onkuchia (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "During the past several months i have realised that i have committed mistakes" that maybe sound for the first offense, not for repeated violations. Unless he could show significant contributions from English Wikipedia sister projects then only there would be some solid basis that why this account needs to be unblocked. BukhariSaeed has only 274 edits, of which nearly half of the edits were made on his own user talk page and mostly for requesting unblock. He has been blocked four times and I don't see how those numerous problems won't reoccur. Lorstaking (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no indication that the potential good from unblocking outweighs the known potential for disruption. Unblocking is not in the best interest of Wikipedia because of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per CactusWriter. We have evidence they have improved on sister projects. WP:ROPE, etc. I do support the minimum 6-month topic ban. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The recent message from BukhariSaeed that "i was not convassing him" when he was asking other editor to make edits for him while he was blocked.[6] This shows BukhariSaeed's inability to understand policies on multiple accounts and blocks. It seems that 6 months reset[7] never helped him to understand the policy and thus we have no reason not to oppose this request. Oppose. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He asked him to write an article on a specific topic? I don't think that's proxying. Or canvasing in any meaningful sense. Or is there something I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked editor is not allowed to ask others to make edits for him. I was also saying that BukhariSaeed had his block reset for another 6 months for such evasion but still he is not learning.
I should also note that BukhariSaeed is sending me emails to support unblock on him. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user shared the screenshot of the message he sent for clarification. Please check this --Muzammil (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Oppose - BukhariSaeed refers to his multiple socking and creation of inappropriate promotional pages as "mistakes". A look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed/Archive (note that the account was renamed - Hammadsaeed is his old user name) shows what these "mistakes" were: repeated recreation of promotional pages, sockpuppeteering to keep these pages, creating socks with user names impersonating users in good standing, and personal attacks. He referred to his socking as a "mistake" back then as well and promised to stop for instance here, which he didn't - there were a number of socks and IPsocks after that, as can be seen in the SPI, and as pointed out above. As Yamla mentions, it's not as if BukhariSaeed didn't know about the sock policies when he created all his socks, which means that his definition of "mistake" is a bit unusual - maybe a language barrier issue, but still. Now, this was a while ago and people can change (he has clearly done good work at other Wikipedia versions), but the unblock request says nothing about what he means to do at English Wikipedia if unblocked, so how can we know? If the block is lifted I very strongly support the suggested topic ban on topics related to saints. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: I know this user Bukhari is one of the most active user of urdu Wikipedia, Urdu wiktionary. and others wiki project I see him edit basis and his edits are very constructive. He knows Wikipedia’s rules and policies very well, If they are banned then the Urdu wiki community will be a big loss, J. Ansari Talk 05:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia is not any extension of Urdu Wikipedia. Show us if he has contributed well in an actual English Wikipedia sister project like Simple Wiki or Wikivoyage or others. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: J ansari updated their post above after Accesscrawl's reply.

J ansari, replying to your new phrasing here: I agree that his English Wiktionary work appears to be good, and that is a positive sign, but I am still wondering what kind of work he would be interested in doing on English Wikipedia. I have posted a question on his user talk page asking specifically about that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support with topic ban i worked with this user in my cultural exchange project and he is very active in collaboration in Urdu, Punjabi and Arabic. I found his behavior here very strange and unexpected from him but i think the topic ban for 6 mouths (reviewable after that period) will do the job and stop his behavior. Regards--مصعب (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this suggestion. Topic ban is for those who are disruptive for a specific subject. BukhariSaeed's problems have been more than just editing in a specific subject. That's why topic ban is not an alternative. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear friend, you are perfectly justified in holding a different view, which you've done while voting above (Just after Hobit). So is perhaps the case with مصعب. CactusWriter and some of the other users. IMHO, nobody's views should be downplayed because they are not inline with yours. We should respect each other. --Muzammil (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems are clearly bigger than misconduct in a specific subject. Sorry but topic ban cannot be used as a scapegoat for avoiding block for broader issues. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per WP:CIR -- I don't see any indication that this editor has stopped canvassing or asking other editors to proxy for him in the light of above examples.[8] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with topic ban: The topic ban can be reviewed after six months. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased Wikipedian

Required actions carried out. Fish+Karate 08:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've sadly found out that User:Markhurd passed away in September 2017. Could an administrator do the required actions? Thanks. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has been done - the user page is fully protected and user rights have been removed. Per WP:DWG that's it. Hut 8.5 18:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have done this at the time. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill

Unanimously opposed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

I am bringing forward, for community review, a Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill. I have re-enabled their talk page for the sole purpose of answering community questions that may be asked during this review. The investigation page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive. Checkuser @Ponyo: has been consulted and he has agreed to this review and has also checked the account.

The appellant says: "It has been a year now since I last used a sock [9]. I want to apply under WP:STANDARD OFFER. I believe I can yet be and prove myself a decent, respectable and productive editor who can improve this website?s output in both quality and output. Despite my editing history I had extensive readings into and citations to scholarly sources. Given this chance I believe I will improve the encyclopedia's faithfulness to scholarship.

I initially want to confine myself to subjects and articles related to Islam and Sufism such as Tawassul and Mawlid. Eventually I want to appeal my ARBIPA topic ban so I can one day return to editing the Kashmir articles."

The community will see, in the investigation report, several IPs that are marked as 'Suspected sockpuppets'. I queried this with Towns Hill who responded: "The last IP I used is this one. [10] I got it oversighted on May 8 this year. I think it was @Primefac: who sent me the confirmation email when the IP's contributions were oversighted. The rest of the IPs listed were not mine. If they were I would own up to them in my standard offer application since they are all from at least 6 months ago"

I have no position on this appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose See this. If this is the case, TH hacked an account, and that beyond a shadow of a doubt is a deal breaker for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when applying for the standard offer it is incumbent upon the person asking for it to convince the community that the unknown potential for good outweighs the known potential for disruption. I don’t see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Aren't you supposed to request unblock through your main account which was Faizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? We don't grant unblock requests to sock puppets. "I want to appeal my ARBIPA topic ban so I can one day return to editing the Kashmir articles", that would be a nightmare. As mentioned on this SPI, whoever reads this request should know of this recent incident because there is much suspicion that this account continues to make edits on Wikipedia through suspicious accounts and IP addresses, targeting same articles, restoring same edits because of which he was topic banned and later blocked for sock puppetry when he was restoring the same edits through confirmed sock puppets. I see no reason to grant unblock. This account had been a totally net negative from the beginning and even after being blocked for sockpuppetry he was engaging in off wiki canvassing to get his opponents blocked (User talk:Towns Hill#Re: Your email). Lorstaking (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorstaking: see RickinBaltimore's link. Faizan is deceased; Towns Hill hacked the account in 2017. ansh 666 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People say anything when they want to get unblocked. Why it took Faizan months to come up with such unconvincing theory? He had many warnings and general notifications on his talk page before he was blocked. It is doubtful that he would wake up only after he was notified about the block and come here to claim he was hacked. I sense there was significant account sharing, but that cannot be construed as "hacking" since "hacking" is operating other's account without consent. Lorstaking (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering he is dead now and there appears to be a living person behind the account making this appeal, I would say it’s fairly likely that they are not the same people (and please don’t respond to this if you are going to claim that other trusted Wikimedians are lying about his death.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, Towns Hill is tagged as a sock Faizan per user page[11] and socks are not unblocked per the policy (WP:SOCK#Blocking). There was no account hacking since "Faizan" account has edited from both countries, Pakisan and Australia,[12][13] during the same period. Towns Hill resides in Australia per his userpage[14] and per his admission that he used this IP. If there was any account "hacking" then the CU could identify it. This is a case of account sharing and Towns Hill should better spend some time proving how his account has no relation with Faizan before requesting unblock. The Faizan account tried enough to prove otherwise during those on-wiki unblock requests as well as UTRS appeals (that I can't see) but none of them were successful.[15] Lorstaking (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not being unblocked has more to do with the fact that there was no way for them to verify their identity. Policy is to not unblock under any circumstances in that case, and has nothing to do with a presumption of guilt. There is no way without a CU to tell where someone is editing from, and the check resulting in the block didn't seem to find anything unusual (i.e. the edits in the time range probably all matched Towns Hill). I won't comment on the UTRS appeal except to say that it didn't include any useful information. ansh 666 07:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clicking through the link provided by RickinBaltimore, I think we should turn this request down. The hack claim is extremely plausible (the timeline is troubling) and is, as RickinBaltimore says, a dealbreaker. --regentspark (comment) 02:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RickinBaltimore. That's not okay at all. ansh 666 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Above discussion shows concerns with the ownership of User:Faizan and much of discussion is about the alleged hacking and confirmed sock puppetry related to that account. None of the statements in unblock request have addressed it. Oppose. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-What is TownHill's comment about Faizan account at the UTRS ticket?∯WBG^converse 07:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Towns Hill I realise that my past behaviour was not the best. I am not exactly proud of that. But I do have thousands of bytes worth of verifiable content to my name. The quality of my contributions were good. I realise that my behaviour of edit warring and socking was bad. I want to make a fresh start with my good side only this time. I understand some people doubt my application because of the Faizan incident. Faizan is now deceased and I don't want to dwell on his story too much out of respect for the deceased but his hacking claim was not the truth. I had been recruited (and rejected) at various times by Faizan, Kautilya3 and others for meat puppetry and in Faizan's case he told me to make edits from his own account. I can share these users' emails to me with admins in private if they wish to verify what I am saying. I will share this non-public information of other users only privately. Those days of allowing myself to be used as others' meat and using socks myself and edit warring were not exactly my best days. I am not proud of it. But I don't think this should be held against me forever. I do believe I should be given another chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the blocking administrator, I am not happy that I wasn't even notified of this discussion or Ponyo's consent to it (Ponyo is a "she" btw). Beyond that, one of the things that disturbs me about this unblock request is TH's most recent comment above where they claim other users (some not named), including one existing editor, Kautilya3, "recruited" them. For that reason alone, I oppose.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything that would give me cause to trust this user again. The whole Faizan thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth; whether he was "invited" to use Faizan's account or not, that's a gross and knowing breach of Wikipedia's terms of use. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My only involvement in this request was to respond to a CU request at UTRS where I noted that the IP used by Towns Hill to submit their appeal had not been used since January 2018 and that Just Chilling could bring the block here for a standard offer review if they chose to do so. I imagine not notifying the blocking admin of the request was just an oversight.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Ha! It was a deep dark nefarious conspiracy between you and Just Chilling.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per everyone above. Alex Shih (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -TH needs to address the elephant in the room first, Like the above I don't trust this user at all. (I'll also add if the hacking thing is true then TH should pretty much be banned for life). –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--As Davey2010 told.∯WBG^converse 12:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the assertions of being recruited-for-editing is seriously bizarre and needs to be dealt with by the functionaries.Either TH is speaking the truth (which shall lead to a site-ban of both him and K3) or he is alone fabricating things, which shall again lead to a ban of his.
I would have trashed the claims, given that I personally hold K3 in high-repute.But, the entire Faizan-TownHill sockpuppetry is downright confusing and it's highly doubtful as to whom of the two (Faizan or TH) spoke the truth.∯WBG^converse 12:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Longest Page in Wikipedia

Page deleted (by Ansh666), creator blocked (by Bbb23). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone kindly delete this. I can't even load the page to add a speedy deletion tag. GMG ^talk 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also apparently 1,000,000_Digits_of_Pi. GMG ^talk 14:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And 100,000 Digits of Pi as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a slightly condensed version, say 33,000 Digits of Pi? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) .... would probably still be a lot shorter than User talk:EEng.[reply]

This was an oddly amusing find. That is a lot of numbers - 1 MB raw text. lol --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and might we consider blocking, or at least warning, User:TheProgrammerBoy (formerly WindoRant) who created both of them? --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I warned the user. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you're going to do that you could at least put in some more effort. That page was only about 20% longer than List of compositions by Franz Schubert. Hut 8.5 18:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get create protection? The first two are just asking for trouble and the third was also an article in 2015. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not protect, please. A similar page (existing as a redirect) was kept at RFD, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Longest Wikipedia Article. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Longest Page in Wikipedia, but what do you think about the Pi articles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected them to Pi#Modern_quest_for_more_digits where there is information on when that many digits of pi were reached.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I thought this was a reference to the only page that can be seen from space. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These have tended to split opinions at RfD: a nomination in 2014 resulted in "keep", but the oucome of a similar discussion three years later was "delete". – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala and Emir of Wikipedia: the only reason Longest Wikipedia Article was kept is that Special:Longpages used to be there for a short time in 2005, so it ostensibly protects against linkrot (a horrible reason, IMO, but it is what it is). There is no such history regarding Longest Page in Wikipedia, so I R2'd it. ansh 666 00:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't the only reason the redirect was kept at RfD. As for the one you've just speedied, I don't think it should have been speedied: there was a comment in the previous discussion that R2 doesn't apply to these redirects, but more substantially, this one is unlikely to gain consensus for deletion if nominated at RfD now. – Uanfala (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just get a general system protection against the creation (or saving) of pages of that size? I can't see any legitimate reason for having any. bd2412 T 19:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about user talk pages that are so large, among other issues? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Same. There's no good reason that user talk pages should be allowed to get so large that their size itself impedes communication with the user. bd2412 T 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's something related in the 2 MB limit to the "post-expand include size" of a page, where any parts of the page beyond this limit don't get displayed. – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There's a lot of pages on the Special:Longpages list that could use editing attention; I removed a bunch of unsourced "results" from Minuta slavy supposedly about 2019 and 2020 TV shows, and Forcade should probably be turned into a set-index article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody do something about User talk:Arunram...with 675 threads and with a total size of 944.7kB(approximately) it should be awarded the prize for the Longest Talk Page on the planet. — F R ⁺ 10:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we ping them? @Arunram: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think User_talk:EEng has him beat. Fish+Karate 11:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and karate, in light of the discussion above, would you mind reverting your protection of Longest Page in Wikipedia? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: Happy to if you can explain why it needs to be create-able. Fish+Karate 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... salting is only for the cases where there is consensus against the creation, right? To recap what was said above, this redirect is very similar to a redirect that was kept at RfD, it was created by an established editor in good standing, and it was subsequently deleted using a speedy deletion criterion of contestible applicabilty. I personally have no opinion on whether the redirect should exist (the main issue for me is only the miscapitalisation), and I think if it were nominated at RfD, the most likely outcome would be "no consensus". I don't see how this could be the kind of redirect whose creation should be a privilige reserved for administrators. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly agree, in that the similar redirect was retained for its historical reasons (in the old days, before the Special: namespace, Longest Wikipedia Article was where the longest pages were listed), but nor do I care that much, so have unprotected the redlink. In the unlikely event of its being recreated I'm sure it will be deleted, and then we can all go round in circles and have this discussion again. Fish+Karate 12:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A attempt to overrule our BLP policy with an RfC?

See discussion and links at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Musk part 2: can an An RfC overrule our BLP policy?

May I request that an administrator evaluate whether I am right about this being a BLP violation? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Musk_part_2:_can_an_An_RfC_overrule_our_BLP_policy?. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I've said the same thing at BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC) @Guy Macon: I messed up the ping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything resembling overruling our BLP policy. More than likely, this is a case of WP:CRYBLP. - Mr X 🖋 20:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ill check that out. I still have no idea what the supposed BLP vio is.- Mr X 🖋 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I do believe that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. And I don't think that simply omitting the name does enough to protect him, given the ease of searching on 'musk pedo diver' --Guy Macon 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[16]

"Agreed, in fact the situation is astonishingly obvious.... if notable person A says non-notable person B is a pedophile (later withdrawn), repeating the slur throws mud at B, some of which would stick. It could be argued that the effect of this article would be negligible but that is no reason for us to do something bad. Also, this article will exist for many years when the name of B would be totally irrelevant and the current news reports will have been forgotten. If the wording is kept, this article would still cause some readers to think there just might be something behind the attack." ---Johnuniq 07:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[17]

"I've removed it as a blatant BLP violation. The BLP is written precisely to protect living individuals against this sort of smear. If someone wants to re-write it without including the diver's name, that would be at least compliant with the policy. However its tabloid gossip. WP:NOTNEWS. (Also no WWGB, I am under no obligation to re-write it myself to remove the offending material. It would need to be substantially re-written and I am not interested in enabling gossip. The onus is on those who wish to include the information to do the legwork to make it compliant with out policies.)" --Only in death does duty end 10:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[18][19]

"Its flatly impossible to cover this without Identifying either directly or indirectly through linking to the material. Since the diver is a non-notable non-public figure, I am not satisfied after looking at the various sources that it is possible to comply with the BLP and cover this while protecting the diver. BLP applies regardless of if the person is explicitly named if they can be easily identified. Now you need to gain consensus to include the material, do not replace it again." --Only in death does duty end 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[20]

"I previously reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk. The subsequent comments on that page made it clear that this is an unambiguous BLP violation to be removed on sight, and that the removals are exempt from our edit warring rules." Guy Macon 20:03, 30 July 2018[21]

Also see:

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq hit it on the head with their RFC comment: "There is no reason for Wikipedia to name the person. It is fine to link to references which include all the details, if the material is found to satisfy WP:DUE as far as long-term significance for Musk is concerned." No one is explicitly arguing in the RFC that the other person's name appear in the article. Quite the opposite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this is about? For crying out loud—leave the non-notable person's name out. Problem solved. Why the hysteria? This reminds me of the religion in infobox hysteria, which I recall also involved Guy Macon.- Mr X 🖋 21:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX, you're missing the point; what's being argued is that even if the non-notable person isn't named, even mentioning the incident would be a BLP violation because it could potentially inspire someone to look him up. See also WP:ANI#Elon Musk. ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone learns about it, they might looks him up? That's ridiculous. By that reasoning, we shouldn't have an article on Elon Musk because someone could read about him and be inspired to look for more information. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I'm not missing the point; I simply don't agree with the novel interpretation that citing sources would ever be a WP:BLP violation. Specifically, I don't agree that that citing sources would harm the person who's name is already indelibly recorded in numerous sources. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind.- Mr X 🖋 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "even if the non-notable person isn't named, even mentioning the incident would be a BLP violation because it could potentially inspire someone to look him up" goes much too far in interpreting the scope of BLP policy. Natureium's rejoinder is valid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would hasten to point out that the credibility of the accusation in question is virtually nonexistent. It was basic name-calling by Musk, based on the concept of Sexual tourism and Thailand's lowered age of consent compared to Western countries. It had nothing to do with the argument between them, and it was the comment's sheer immaturity that made it newsworthy (in the same vein as all the coverage POTUS's twitter account gets). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: On that, any ideas why Ages of consent in Asia#Thailand says the AoC is 18, whilst Age of consent#Age of consent by location reckons 15? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 Either because it was changed on one article but not the other, or because the law in question applies different rules to different situations and people got confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Serial Number 54129: Sexual crimes are compounded if the victim is under 18, but the actual age of consent is 15. At least, according to legal blogs and other apparently reliable sources. Note the {{cn}} tags in Ages of consent in Asia#Thailand. I'm gonna try and dig up the best source I can and fix that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I seem to recall there was some drama over this a few months back, maybe a year or so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds phenonomally likely :) Thank you bo th, interesting. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, calling it an "accusation" or a "claim" gives the wrong idea. It was more of a side remark rather than an accusation. If the wording is fixed I don't see how it would be an issue. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about weak sources that were including the name, I'd fully agree with MPants here, we'd be talking about weak sourcing of a very serious BLP violation. But the fact that (with just a quick search) NYTimes and CNN both name the person, it seems impossible for us to hide with strong RSes are presenting. We can take care to not name names (the person was not a public figure), but we can't help the fact that the RSes we'd use for this name the person. That's out of our control. --Masem (t) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tsma73

Tsma73 and HelpUsStopSpam are unrelated, according to check-user comment. The former is also currently blocked as a sock of Schekanov. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could somebody please take a look at the activities of User:Tsma73, in particular User talk:HelpUsStopSpam/Archive 1#HelpUsStopSpam creates vandalism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 1#DataMelt? I'm tempted to indef them for WP:NOTHERE, but it's possible they're the legitimate victims of some kind of wiki extortion attempt, so I'd like other admins to take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsma73 is a sock and other than being involved in the same AfD and slinging wild accusations at HelpUsStopSpam, the two users have nothing to do with each other. Not sure how HUSS is able to retain that username, but that's another issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at their website and found this. The mention of them receiving paid editing emails is concerning, although given all these accounts are clearly very closely connected to the subject they shouldn't have been involved with the article in the first place. BubbleEngineer (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They brought up the abstract "blackmail" [22] [23] claim here on Wikipedia, too, but never gave any details - and as usual reporting in a vague third person "From what I've heard". Their conjecture is wrong that these offers relate to my edits. These emails will likely be the usual SEO spam as seen on Quora: https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-an-expert-Wikipedia-content-writer-or-editor . Also, the entire idea of blackmailing to delete does not work for a very simple fact: only admins can delete articles. Users like me (or BubbleEngineer, who started the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataMelt) can only propose a deletion discussion, which will be reviewed. So any such "gang" or "troll farm" would need an admin member. So who is the dark lord?

What brought Datamelt onto my radar were the obvious COI edits of Special:Contributions/104.55.212.99 in April, showing repeated self-cite book spam all the way back to 2016 in Jython (spamming the datamelt/scavis book into the Jython article); and this [24] clearly verified the COI ("jwork.org administrator") - so obviously I put a COI warning & lack of independent sources on the article. Actually it was not me who nominated the article for deletion... all the sockpuppeting, IP canvassing, personal attacks [25], now even off-wiki attacks etc. of course do not help either. And I am not sure I can trust their claims anyway: you can see them sockpuppeting even on their own site: [26] "P.S.: This article is submitted by a Wikipedia editor who asks not to disclose his identity." (most likely, this "editor" is User:Tsma73, and potentially a WP:COWORKER/WP:FAMILY "meatpuppet" sharing the same IP). LOL: pretending they are their own users, since they don't appear to have any... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unblock requests claiming colocation, when IP is not blocked

I often patrol Category:Requests for unblock and over the past few days, I've noticed a number of unblock requests similar to the one posted at User talk:2A01:CB15:A7:B700:4C99:C6B2:BF3B:8C60, where the person claims there's a colocation web host block or perhaps a proxy/vpn block, only... the IP address is not blocked. Now, I understand the block can apply to the range instead of the single IP address, but that's not the case either. If it was an autoblock, they'd be using unblock-auto. User talk:27.63.93.0 is another example, as is User talk:69.181.189.249 and User talk:60.25.10.137. In several years of patrolling, I don't remember so many unblock requests for addresses which don't appear blocked, so I'm concerned there's a real problem. I haven't ruled out WP:CIR (on their part or mine) or trolling, though. --Yamla (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that in a lot of occasions with the new template changes - the VPN/Proxy is being turned off prior to the request. I've been noticing these a lot too since the change. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Right, of course. That's plausible. They were on a VPN, they are blocked, they copy the block template, turn off the VPN, and post the request. On an IP that isn't blocked. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is plausible. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what's happening, could the editor be cookie-blocked? I don't know what kind of notifications editors get if that happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested it, it's identical to an autoblock. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to lift topic ban (Sharkslayer87)

Topic ban request by Sharkslayer87 is declined and said topic ban shall remain in full effect. Before appealing, it is recommended to follow the advice in Vanamonde's comment. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was topic banned on May 1,2018 for violating several wikipedia policies while editing a caste article. I was relatively new to wikipedia and was not familiar with the policies. I know that ignorance is not an excuse. I apologize for my rude behavior. Since then, I have been making good contributions in other areas without any complaints so far. I promise I will continue to abide by wiki rules and remain a good editor. I request to consider my appeal to lift the topic ban. I have appealed for a lift in the past but was turned down. I am requesting again. I am ready to address any concerns you have about me. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous decline --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that this be declined. While Sharkslayer has mostly stayed free of conflict, their edits since the ban are minor in nature; dates, film cast members, etc. I would like to see some evidence that they can use sources properly in more difficult situations, before we let them return to the caste-related minefields. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to lift topic ban (Light show)

The topic ban is not lifted at this time and shall remain in full effect. Light show is to keep clear of all biography articles indefinitely. Light show is also reminded that this topic ban may be appealed again after six months has past (February 2019). Please refrain from appealing early and follow advice given. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please consider lifting this. I understand why I was banned, will do my best to avoid similar issues, and therefore don't foresee any more problems. My previous request was denied. It's been about a year since the ban was placed. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure." .... This question is a clear cut violation of that topicban and as such NeilN's blocked LS for a month, No objections to this being reopened if an admin believes this was toosoon, –Davey2010Talk 23:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive297#Request_for_guidelines_on_sexual_allegation_sections

~~That's not one year, that's four months ago --~~ and it's a topic ban which explicitly states that you can't appeal it for at least six months. So that's ~~one false statement and~~ one topic-ban violation already. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, don't drown us in the details on what you learned, how you've changed, etc. Please, those are superfluous. byteflush _Talk 01:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Light Show is in fact correct that the initial ban was placed nearly a year ago [27], what Calton’s link shows is that they were still trying to end-run it four months ago, which is enough for a hard no from me. I think the community would expect at least six months of no activity whatsoever related to this ban, and personally I would start that time only after this current discussion is closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I misread that as a new application of a topic ban, not the quoting of the already existing one. It's still less than six months since the appeal and the subsequent one-month block for violating the ban. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No - Personally I feel it would've been more wiser to have waited a year before returning ....No explanation has been given as to what they understand and what they wont do going forward, Either way I'm not seeing any valid reasons to lift this. –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - Where's their "act of contrition" by stating what they understand about the reason for the ban? Where's the plan they should provide to show they won't revisit the same behavior? At Commons, LS had been blocked for years of multiple copyright violations on images, asked to be unblocked, it was granted, and then returned to the same behavior again while making excuses for the behavior - and not once admitting they were wrong. Needless to say, LS has been indeffed there. Their behavior there that didn't change - which is quite similar in attitude to their IDHT behavior here - why should we believe it will change in en.wp? Especially since they have no plan presented, no explanation of what it is they now understand about their block. I see nothing in this request that persuades. They could try to persuade if the request is done that shows some soul searching. I'd like to see some acknowledgement and promises from them first. After that, if the TB is lifted, I suppose it could be put into place again, but... does anyone want to go through that? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - Problems with this editor have historically been endemic. There is nothing in this request that changes that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - just saying "I understand why I was banned, will do my best to avoid similar issues, and therefore don't foresee any more problems." is not enough to address the whole host of issues that have historically happened with this editor. I would expect a bit more than this in order to consider removing the topic ban. Only a little over 100 edits since the last request to lift the topic ban does not show me that the behavioral issues have been addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since I linked to my previous appeal, I saw no reason to simply repeat my answers which I gave there to essentially the same questions. I even explained it again with a separate AN comment, where I said: "Basically, on more than four occasions where I've either complained or simply asked about apparent violations of policies or guidelines, it's resulted in me getting banned or blocked."

And as we all know, I've never (seriously) been accused of violating guidelines about civility, being neutral, tag teaming, harassment, assuming good faith, using reliable sources, etc. In other words, following guidelines and editing properly are not and never have been an issue. And as far as I can recall, the only time I edit warred was when I tried to prevent an SPA editor from defaming Denis Avey, a British war hero. Go figure.

The main issues have come from complaining about violations by others, and about which I offered a simple suggested compromise. In fact, now that two members of that 3-person team have resigned, that's another reason that problems aren't likely to reappear. I hope that addresses the "misbehavioral" issues you're concerned about.--Light show (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I linked to my previous appeal, I saw no reason to simply repeat my answers which I gave there to essentially the same questions.'

You mean the reasons that were already rejected? Not a good start.

And as we all know, I've never (seriously) been accused of violating guidelines...

So, essentially, you did nothing wrong. Not helpful to your case.

now that two members of that 3-person team have resigned, that's another reason that problems aren't likely to reappear...

It's also just a plot against you. So I'll call that "strike three". --Calton | Talk 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The main reason it was rejected was because I supposedly violated the topic ban by relying on BANEX. So you're partly right, in that I "essentially did nothing wrong." --Light show (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Based on their reply, above. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No - if one of the conditions of the ban was to wait 6 months before appeal and it's only been four, well, that in and of itself is more than enough to reject it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a complicated society, and rules are needed to regulate any complicated society. If you cannot follow the rules of your topic ban, how can we trust you'll follow the very important rules of BLP? John from Idegon (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was 8 months before I first appealed, not 4. --Light show (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Light show, please follow the advice given by Winkelvi in regards to future appeals. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked from Saving Ryan Hampton (author)

Page moved by Luk --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, When I tried to save a stub I wrote about Bryan Hampton (author) the action was blocked with a message that said: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you."

I think this person should have a Wiki article, and I am not sure why it was blocked. I found the request for the article on the "Request for Articles" page, here. All I wanted to do was write a short article about Ryan Hampton. Thanks, Stregadellanonna (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background info, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Ryan Hampton (Author). ~ GB fan 09:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stregadellanonna: I suggest you create a draft at User:Stregadellanonna/Bryan Hampton (I created the page there) and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. There are concerns about this author because some illegitimate users tried to create it before. Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 10:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luk, I know the header and the first sentence says Bryan but the requested article that Stregadellanonna is mentioning is Ryan. ~ GB fan 10:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course I meant Ryan. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try and create the article according to your suggestion. Thanks. Stregadellanonna (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Oh, it makes more sense (a cursory web search for Bryan returned no meaningful result). I moved the page, thanks! -- Luk ^talk 10:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

TBAN for paid editor

I am requesting a topic ban of User:Danilo Two from Bank of New York Mellon. This person works for the firm, Buetler Ink.

Why?

While this person has disclosed and is putting things through the peer review, the proposals are not grounded in the mission of WP and the policies and guidelines, but rather are raw PR for the client. We have TBANed people in this situation before, for example this thread from April 2017.

The final straw for me is this RfC posted today, which is absolutely un-neutral.

Earlier, they had made a proposal here which as I noted here, was trying to turn the WP page into a proxy for BNY's website, reflecting its current business and status only, and not an encyclopedia article with information of enduring interest. I noted that problem at their talk page in this diff.

Subsequently here they wrote These graphs were not provided by BNY Mellon, but a third party.. They offered no explanation as to why graphs that are independent are somehow "worse", here in Wikipedia. I pointed out that problem to them, on their talk page, here. I also noted at the article talk page that no policy based reason was given.

And now the RfC linked above. I called their attention to how un-neutral the RfC was at their talk page here. They responded by tweaking the RfC here. The RfC statement still makes their argument, instead of posing the question neutrally.

There is no sign that Danilo 2 intends to do anything other than represent what the bank wants. That is not what editing privileges are for, and is an endless time sink for the editing community. Paid editors need to be Wikipedians first, and if they won't be, then we should politely close the door. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you is not grounds for a topic ban. Have you tried Wikipedia:Third opinion? Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never request a Third Opinion with Beutler. If they don't get it, they will then go to DRN, and if necessary to WP:ANI (although with no real issue at ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never attempt to service an edit request for Beutler. If you try to help them, they treat you like an employee and think that they have the right to censure you for failure to do their job. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I complained because another editor had shown a pattern of highly idiosyncratic interpretations of content guidelines in responding to requests. I quickly found there was not a receptive audience here, and so I went back to working through these challenges. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamaliel You have missed the point. Being here to represent the bank, without regard for WP's mission, policies, and guidelines, is not an acceptable use of editing privileges. This is not about the content dispute but rather Danilo 2's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's on the talk page starting an RFC, it looks like he has a lot of regard for WP's policies and guidelines to me. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He sort of knows how to work Wikipedia. I have not denied that. But the RfC itself is far from neutral, which is not valid DR. But thisis again not the point. Using the talk page and certain DR processes in order to advocate for what the bank wants, regardless of the content policies and guidelines, is not being here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to do PR. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (tweaked w/o redaction, since this has not been replied to Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

As long as he's trying to build consensus on the talk page, not editing the page itself, and is fully disclosing his interest, I see no reason for a topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the paid policy and COI guideline is a minimum - necessary but not sufficient. As noted -- we have TBANed people in this situation before, for example this thread from April 2017. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the editor appears to be diligently following the paid-editing/COI rules. The RFC seems to be worded neutrally-enough; while the argument about different corporate entities isn't terribly convincing, I don't think it's biased. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki on what planet is giving an argument to do X in an RfC about what to do, considered "neutral" in Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth, apparently. I haven't figured out how to get to any other planets yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The wording Should the three graphs covering data for 2000-2008 in the Historical data section of the BNY Mellon article be removed or kept? seems fine to me; the original wording seems acceptable as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki everything above the signature is part of the RfC question. You correctly identify the actual question in the fist line as simple and neutral. But in both versions there is an additional paragraph giving the bank's/Danilo 2's argument. Everything above the signature is part of the "request". Neither version is even close to neutral.Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to respond here to defend myself a little. I think a lot of the issues that Jytdog raises are misunderstandings and some come down to preferences on information to present.

First, the request that Jytdog says was aiming to turn the Wikipedia page into a proxy for the company website was aimed at updating the Operations section which typically represents and is framed as the current operations of a company. I am not trying to remove historical data entirely from the article, nor turn the whole page into a company profile, but offer some suggestions to streamline the information and bring it up-to-date. After Jytdog offered his feedback, I didn't push this request further and I've in fact collapsed it (earlier today) and noted that I'd refocus my suggestions based on that feedback.

Second, with regards to the graphs, I believe the way I worded my note has caused some confusion and I'm sorry for that. It was not my intention to say that third-party materials are not appropriate or that information from BNY is better; I was trying to respond to Jytdog's prior note that suggested it would be ideal to add new graphs showing a greater range of information, rather than delete the existing ones. The situation is that the existing graphs were provided by a third-party that owns the copyright; that third-party has produced more up-to-date graphs but they're copyrighted, so can't simply be added to the article due to that. I wanted to clarify that the graphs were produced by someone other than BNY Mellon, to explain that I didn't have access or ability to provide ones that were up-to-date and that keeping the graphs updated would be complicated.

Third, for the RfC, as Jytdog notes, I adjusted it to make it neutral and I'm open to editors' suggestions.

Finally, as Jytdog and others have noted, I'm keeping to the guidelines here and am not editing directly, and I'm responding constructively to feedback. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving your client's reason for removing the graphs in the statement is not neutral. That you are here arguing it is, is pretty much exactly what I am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Talk:Ogilvy_&_Mather#Edit_request:_Updates_Round_1 is another example of the kind of thing I am trying to articulate. The page has been almost entirely rewritten with reviewed content from Buetler folks - first Heatherer and now Danilo 2 is stepping in. People generally review proposals, and everybody being busy, what usually happens is that the foundation is kept and really just the copy is checked to remove puffery and to ensure the content is supported by the sources. But the aim and overall messaging remains. You will see this if you review the talk page.

Now... Ogilvy & Mather, like most PR agencies today, has been struggling to adapt as more and more companies bring "creative" in-house and as the industry changed from emphasis on "creative" to buying ads in digital media (per this for example; likewise this)

Our article doesn't provide that context (it should, briefly) but different companies have responded in different ways at different times.

Ogilvy responded by profilerating divisions or subsidiaries to handle different aspects in different regions.

Two years ago new management came in, and they have completely done over the company, consolidating most everything into one entity and creating new divisions within it to handle different things. There is an interesting business story there. something people could learn from.

The proposal Talk:Ogilvy_&_Mather#Edit_request:_Updates_Round_1 would just erase the old structure and write in the new one. No context, no sense of history. Just turning the page into Ogilvy's website with a bunch of woo about "rebranding".

There is nothing about building an encyclopedia there. I am sure the proposal will be duly reviewed and implemented and the page made over into Ogilvy's image.

Like the intention at Bank of New York Mellon. Erase history, try to drive the page to express the Bank's messaging today. About today.

Is that we want? I say no. I say that just disclosing and putting up (absolutely formulaic WP-content-looking edits that are actually just PR dreck) for review is not what we want. It is a time suck on the community, and even the best intentioned volunteers generally just polish the turd and don't ask paid editors to write encyclopedic copy (and if they won't, just saying "no thanks" or ignoring it) Leading to pages in WP becoming polished PR turds. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I don't see why we should bother with a TBAN. Indef and be done with it. All this account has been used for is PR; they are clearly not interested in helping us write an encyclopaedia. The paid editing guidelines are a minimum requirement to comply with the WMF's terms of use. They're not a license to ignore our core content policies and behavioural guidelines (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, WP:DIS & WP:GAME, for example). – Joe (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support indef-My primary impressions align with Joe.∯WBG^converse 06:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what Joe said. If you can get paid to write a good encyclopedia article, I've got no problem with that, as long as you are being open and honest about it. We have some paid editors that do just that. But if you are here to spin a Wikipedia article for your client, go away and don't come back. Y'all haven't forgotten Tony Ahn yet, have you. Stop the time sink now with an Indeff. He gets paid to promote his client. Working our system to do so will always end up in the paid efiedi getting what they want. They are earning their bread and butter by working the system. At some point, every legit editor will have to back away so he or she can go support their family. That's a glitch in our system that we absolutely cannot let paid editors exploit. John from Idegon (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef No one needs to query my stance on paid editing. Be gone Danilo Two and refund your customers. I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing this editor has done is out of line with what other paid and COI editors have been allowed to do. We allow [Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-10-08/In_the_media political operatives] to edit articles about political opponents, so it's ridiculous to block a paid editor who is completely following policy. Gamaliel (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose any sort of restriction at this time. The editor has worked to resolve issues from what I have read of the interactions on the talk page. Describing the RFC as non-neutral can be fixed simply by adding a signature to the first paragraph, which looks like a sufficiently neutral question to me. (I do not know if Jytdog is simply unaware that this is the fix to this issue.) The RFC starter is allowed to give his opinion first in an RFC. I am definitely not seeing any failures to meet our core content policies by the paid editor, nor any of the behavioral ones--and we don't topic ban users unless they do fail to meet the intent of those. --Izno (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Izno to be clear, what I am saying is that they are violating WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV by working consistently to make pages simply reflect their client's current business and current messaging, with no regard for our mission to write encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not meant to be a proxy for organization websites. However much the content proposed by Danilo Two looks like normal Wikipedia content, it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic-Ban - Beutler is in the business of systematically trying to game the system and is a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia. (If there is a proposal for a block or ban, I haven't seen it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TBAN (preferred) or block if that can't be worked out. Robert McClenon is spot on here: a threat to the integrity of the project. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to weigh in here, except my name has been invoked a couple of times, and Danilo Two is on vacation this coming week. It goes without saying that I oppose placing any editing restrictions on this user, who is a colleague of mine. Let's back up a moment and recognize that WP:TBAN or WP:INDEF are reserved for editors who are disruptive, which Danilo most certainly is not, and WP:BLOCKNO advises against blocks based on content disputes, which is what this really is (Jytdog opened this thread after Danilo started an RfC). Except Jytdog is trying to make a more abstract case, that simply being a COI contributor is a violation of WP:HERE. This is a novel and dangerous theory to advance: whether you like "paid editing" or not, it is regulated by the WP:COI guideline, and Danilo has followed the advice of pages like WP:PSCOI to the letter. To propose any block or ban would not only be wrong on policy, but it would not serve Wikipedia in the long run. If COI contributors who disclose their relationships and avoid editing mainspace articles are blocked, only undisclosed paid editors will remain, and that would be a threat to the integrity of the project indeed. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @WWB Too: A few points. One, I raised WP:NOTHERE and proposed an indef block, not Jytdog, who as always has displayed an admirable dedication to giving paid editors a fair chance, despite the evident lack of appreciation. Two, it is not remotely "novel" to block editors who are here solely to promote the interests of external organisations. WP:NOTPROMO is a much older policy than WP:COI, and is policy not a guideline. In any case, COI contains the text: If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts; continuously wasting the time of our volunteer encyclopaedia editors with POV attempts to further your clients' PR agenda is disruptive. Paid editors like yourself seem to find it convenient to ignore everything in WP:COI except for the bare-minimum requirements that let you carry on your trade within the terms of use. But in fact, if you actually read it, the overriding message of the guideline is don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop. Discussions like this are the consequence of ignoring that very good advice.

Finally, the tired excuse that you are the lesser of two evils holds no weight: yes, undisclosed paid editing is harder to deal with, but we don't solve that by giving disclosed paid editors a free pass to flout Wikipedia's core principles because they have a template on their talk page. Veiled threats aside, what does this project lose if we revoke Danilo Two's editing privileges? What has he contributed to our shared goal, when he's not being the errand boy for a bank? – Joe (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought that Danilo Two's actions did in fact "flout Wikipedia's core principles" I would agree with you. But the case for this is non-existent; please look below to my new subsection explaining the underlying disagreement and let me know if you still think it sounds like Danilo was trying to subvert Wikipedia to the company's PR gain. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" on Bookfarce. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I came here from a note on the CREWE Facebook page. Looking over the material, Jytdog's case is solid. Topic ban or block - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support a TBAN at the least, and likely that is the best for all accounts that have a COI with this subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose the support votes are largely in favor of a back-door attempt to ban paid editing at an inappropriate forum; such a proposal should be an RFC advertised on WP:CENT. I don't see any other argument for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: how is TBANning one specific group of editors who are continuously polishing articles that they have a disclosed COI with a 'back-door attempt to ban [all] paid editing at an inappropriate forum'? We are not discussing a change to policy or anything here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are being TOU bludgeoned by a spammer who doesn’t want to follow WP:NOTSPAM, a core policy. Our disclosure and COI review process does not exist to facilitate promotion, and those who use it as such should be sanctioned. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't reviewed much of what User:Danilo Two has posted, but I'm disturbed by many of the comments above. In particular, Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not require paid editors to contribute non-paid hours in order to be in good standing. This discussion should not be about (a) why such a (new) policy/guideline is desirable, or (b) getting in yet another swing at the goal of banning all paid editing. I will note that the cited thread from April 2017, is not at all similar - in that example, the editor had edited only one article; used sockpuppets (blocked); had an article ban put in place against her; and was caught placing articles in the press in order to use them as sources. All of that, plus her non-cooperative postings to the article talk page, would be sufficient to get her banned from Wikipedia even if there was no obvious COI. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Broughton I don't believe anyone has said that paid editors are obligated to volunteer. They are however obligated to follow the content policies and guidelines, and trying to turn WP pages into proxies for company websites and into PR violates WP:PROMO as well as WP:NPOV; articles about companies should be encyclopedic, covering their whole timeline with no particular WEIGHT on the company's current business. But this Danilo Two's proposals consistently do just that, which you would see if you did review their contribs. I had suggested removing them from just that one page, to try to bring their attention to this problem with their approach to WP. Others have taken it further. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - it's those users who have taken the matter further that concern me. Comments like "don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop", and "I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation" aren't relevant, or helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Broughton I see. Thanks for clarifying. Discussions like this bring out people with strong feelings on the topic. I disagree that those expressions are irrelevant. Paid editors should be mindful that paid editing is tolerated, not loved, by the community, and that this tolerance is pretty easily exhausted. I write about this some on my userpage at User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular...but !votes paying attention to the particular issues are of course most heeded by closers. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef as ArbCom has already ruled, and WP:PAID makes clear, disclosure is a minimum. Individuals who are paid must also follow the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, one of which being an absolute prohibition on promotionalism (WP:NOTSPAM). If someone doesn’t get that, they have no businsss editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef. Working under the WP:PAID rules is fine for editors who are helping improve an encyclopedia article in line with NPOV guidelines", but that's not what I see here. What I see is a persistent bludgeoning approach to try to get this article to reflect what the company's PR wants it to say. And that is an abuse of volunteers' time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if indef does not gain a consensus, I support a topic ban as my second choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself: a fair reading of the discussion at Talk:Bank of New York Mellon will show that Danilo's proposed changes were based on policies and guideline concerns. No one has explained how WP:NOTSPAM was actually violated; any such argument would be extraordinarily weak. Likewise, I've seen the word "bludgeoned" used to describe Danilo's participation twice, but this is uncharitable in the extreme. Danilo and Jytdog previously had a perfectly cordial relationship on this page going back to September 2017, and it's quite baffling to me why this latest round of requests has produced this result. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the original disagreement

Editors commenting here should read the original discussion that led to the RfC that Jytdog identifies as his reason to make the TBAN proposal. Danilo Two had suggested the removal of this paragraph in the BNY Mellon article because it was outdated, lacked context, and wasn't helpful to readers. Jytdog stated that it would be better to update the charts, so Danilo explained the challenges to doing this, which included a desire to avoid COPYVIO. It was a civil conversation, which could have used more voices—this is why Danilo opened the RfC. And when Jytdog found fault with the way he presented the RfC question, he agreed to adjust the wording. I must ask, is this behavior worthy of a TBAN? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to cast this as a mere content dispute. The TBAN request is due to behavior issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the behavior issue? Yes, Danilo Two did include his perspective in the first version of the RfC, and that was a mistake. When you objected, he changed the wording. He is clearly willing to take constructive feedback, and is unfailingly polite. So which part of WP:WHYBLOCK did he violate? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently trying to turn WP articles into proxies for company websites, focused on their current status and messaging, and erasing history while doing that. That is not what we do here. The minimal requirement for paid editors to be members of the community is to follow the PAID policy and COI guideline. But like everybody else paid editors need to aim for the mission and follow the rest of the content policies and guidelines. I have now almost verbatim repeated myself. That is tedious to me and I am sure everyone else, and I have no more to say to you here. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Jytdog, but that is simply false. Danilo suggested removing an iffy section, but that is not "erasing history". Furthermore, in several instances he suggested moving outdated information to the History section. It's just wrong to say he was only serving a PR purpose, and not trying to make it a more accurate and informative page. If this is your last comment, that's too bad, as we've been having a more constructive version of this conversation on your talk page. I am certain there is a solution here well short of topic-banning an editor whose edit requests you think are wrong. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you disagree. I am uninterested in entertaining further debate with you about your employee and I will not further tolerate your misrepresentation and misframing what I have been saying as a content dispute. I suggest you stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker status removed unfairly?

NOPE

It seems pretty clear that there is a consensus that the removal was appropriate. Adamstorm.97 may re-apply through the normal process at WP:PERM.Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just over a year ago, xaosflux granted me rollbacker rights after I proved that I understood what constituted vandalism on Wikipedia, and in the time since I have only been questioned on my reverts a few times and been able to clear up those issues through talk page discussion. I have continued to use the standard procedure of reverting with edit summary and discussing at the talk page for any non-vandalism issues. Then, today, NeilN removed that status and the only explanation I was given was that I apparently misunderstand what vandalism is. My interpretation of vandalism has not changed since I was told it was correct last year, and from what I can see at WP:VAND, WP:NOTVAND, and WP:ROLLBACK my actions are still covered by those policies and guidelines and line-up with how I have been approaching the tool all this time. I would like to be given back the rollback tool, or at least be given an actual explanation for where I have been going wrong so that I can learn and earn the right back. NeilN is the one that directed me here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom, please inform involved editors using talk page notifications. That is mandatory.

For the benefit of other editors, here is the ANEW report against the user which led to all this. Lourdes 21:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Those are definitely all vandalism, from adding unsourced content to adding information on the post-credit scene (there is clear consensus not to add this)." Adamstom.97 was given a chance to step back from this. They did not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adamstom.97, you rolled back two edits (at least): [28], [29], which were clearly not vandalism. At the ANEW report, rather than realizing you made an error, you defended doing so: "Those are definitely all vandalism, from adding unsourced content to adding information on the post-credit scene (there is clear consensus not to add this).", and then defend being unwilling to discuss your reverts: "I think it is fair not to have to explain my reverts when the edit history contains dozens of examples of the same revert by multiple editors and the issue has already been discussed at the talk page." Given that, I agree with removal of your rollback permissions, as it is clear that you are unable to determine what is vandalism and what is not, and instead used rollback during a content dispute. No matter how right you think you are, you cannot do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did send a talk page notification to NeilN who is the admin in question here. And secondly, those two edits are deliberate attempts to ignore discussion, are not covered by WP:NOTVAND, and are very clearly covered by points 1 and 5 of Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. I did not use rollback during a content dispute, I used it long after a content dispute to revert blatant attempts to ignore discussion and consensus by multiple misguided editors. If that is not allowed, then perhaps the instructions on how to use the tool need to be updated as this is all part of what I was told I could do when I first gained this status. I am also not impressed with the way I have been treated here - you could have said that I made a mistake, explained what that mistake was, and then left me to learn and earn the right back, but instead I had the right swiftly removed from with no explanation because I dared to defend myself! That is not the community spirit I have come to expect on Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: - Regarding using the rollback tool to revert an edit inconsistent with consensus, see the very first point at WP:NOTVAND, as well as the third point. And you are correct, your very first edit after posting this was to inform. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a pretty big stretch to refer to these as "bold edits", and I don't think that sets a very good precedent, but I can also see that I'm not going to get anywhere with this either. Now I just want to know whether I am going to be able to request the rollback tool be reinstated moving forward, or if I am going to be prevented from doing that by the petty behaviour that was displayed at the ANEW report. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: As I said at ANEW, you get rollback access after you demonstrate you know what is considered vandalism, not before or as you adjust. The fact that you're still considering the edits as vandalism is deeply problematic. Editing against consensus (if it exists) or ignoring the talk page is not vandalism or misguided. It's simply disagreeing with consensus or the existing content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Seraphimblade's analysis of the two given diffs: not vandalism-->rollback abuse. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal (edit conflict × 4) - this editor evidently understands neither Wikipedia:What is vandalism? nor the requirement to be willing to discuss one's use of advanced permissions. The policy page says that rollback is to be used only when the reason for reverting is absolutely clear; in any instance where it may be necessary to explain why content is being reverted (such as enforcing the result of a talk page discussion) rollback is not to be used, and the reverting editor is advised to use a different method to undo the edit which allows entering an edit summary. More from the policy: "Administrators may revoke the rollback privilege or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it like this: If you're reverting because an edit is against longstanding consensus or because it's poorly sourced, it is particularly important for you to say so in an edit summary. Otherwise, the person you're reverting is likely to make the same mistakes elsewhere or even just repeat them on that page; they also won't have any idea what they need to do to address your objection (finding better sources or reaching a new consensus on talk, respectively.) Rollbacking vandalism is a thing because when something is clear, bad-faith vandalism, we can assume the editor understands what they're doing wrong, so there's no point in humoring them by explaining it to them. In all other situations (whenever an edit is in good faith), discussion is a vital part of the process. If you just revert with no explanation, you haven't fixed anything in the long term. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming very clear that there is a deep-seated holier-than-thou attitude here that is not conducive to discussion. However, my question has still not been answered, and I would like it to be before I move on from this discussion. Once again: will I be able to prove that I have learned from this experience and deserve to regain the rollbacker right, or will any attempt in the future to regain it be derailed by overzealous admins that do not believe a person can ever learn or change? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Your attitude isn't helping but yes, show that you've taken on board what you've been told here, and you should be able to get the right back in a few months. Conversely, continuing to call good-faith edits vandalism will result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)On behalf of overzealous power hungry abusive rogue admins everywhere, let me just say that we can be surprisingly forgiving if you do show a real ability to learn from your mistakes. So far you’ve not done so. Thanks for asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Miniapolis 22:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was invoked... yes, I added rollbacker following a fairly routine request at WP:PERM (see Special:PermaLink/788098447#User:Adamstom.97 ). RB bar to entry is low and this editor had been around a while and had a plausible request so I added, it wasn't so much of proving capability as AGF the access would be appropriately used. I have not reviewed any recent events. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal I'd recommend waiting 3-6 months to request re-instatement; you may want to try WP:TWINKLE in the meantime. (but please be careful) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adamstom.97: "I am also not impressed with the way I have been treated here" - You mean the part where NeilN opted to not give you the 24 hour block for edit-warring you clearly deserved, allowing you to instead volunteer to stay away from the page for a week? And of course, no block log entry, so your next edit offence will be treated as a first offence and you'll use that as an excuse for for a free pass. Nice way to thank the guy... - ^theWOLFchild 08:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I'm tired of seeing users mislabelling edits they don't agree with as vandalism to justify misuse of the rollback privilege. It happens a lot on RFPP too. Fish+Karate 08:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

INC sock?

see - Special:Diff/853180521 - another INC sock? I blocked it anyway as vandal only. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant WP:PERM/AWB backlog

Backlog has been cleared, no requests open. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wouldn't normally point out a backlog to AN, but the backlog for AutoWikiBrowser permissions is now 2 weeks, which seems really excessive. There's only 6 requests which should be pretty quick to deal with. Sorry to nag like this, but I've been waiting for 10 days to be able to start work on a template restructuring!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add to this, the WT:AFCP backlog is growing in length too. Iffy★Chat -- 09:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be dealing with these tomorrow. I've been travelling and have not had as much access as usual. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Block review for Clockback

BLOCK ENDORSED

This discussion has gotten absurdly long for something generally as straightforward as an unblock request. Add to that a previous attempt to close that was reverted and the obvious issues with canvassing and it all adds put o big mess. However, at the end of the day it seems clear that the community at large not only endorses the original block but also the revocation of talk page access. Clockback is therefor now “community blocked” meaning that only a future community discussion can result in their complete unblocking. They may still use UTRS to appeal the revocation of talk page access unless and until UTRS admins find their appeals disruptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

Clockback is in real life, British journalist Peter Hitchens. He was recently indef-blocked by JzG. I will argue here that the block, while warranted, was too harsh and has outlived its purpose. The circumstances are as follows. The matter is a bit delicate, so please bear with me.

Clockback's block log is clean. The current dispute concerns George Bell (bishop), in particular, the section Child abuse allegations. Hitchens has written a lot about this matter in the British press. Clockback has sporadically edited the article in the past two-and-a-half years, largely without incident. They have also used the talk page thoroughly (I count 22 comments by them). This is by way of preamble, to stress that Blockback has been largely restrained and largely proper in their edits and discussion.

In late 2017, the Carlile report on the matter was published. Please see this BBC or this NYT article for an overview. Around the same time, there was a long discussion on how to re-organize the section in light of the report. Clockback participated in that discussion, again, largely properly. For various reasons, the editor who started the discussion didn't find the time for a rewrite (or perhaps it was a failure of WP:BOLD). So the matter rested there.

On 21 July Clockback made two edits to the article edit1, edit2. Both have edit summaries and seem like good-faith edits to me (I take no position on their correctness). They were also explained on the talkpage. Another editor Charlesdrakew reverted Clockback's edits with no explanation; Clockback reinstated the edits. On 28 July, Charlesdrakew reverted the edits again, simply saying that Clockback has a COI and should get consensus first, but no direct explanation of the revert. Clockback argued more on the talkpage, but no further discussion happened.

At this point I should mention that the two editors had butted heads in the past. Charledrakew had complained (about an earlier version) that the section gives too much space to "professional loudmouths" and that the section thus "looks like a whitewash". I take no position on whether these concerns were correct, and whether or not Charlesdrakew intended to address Mr. Hitchens. The important point is that Clockback took these comments as a personal affront (Hitchens is quoted in the section).

Things spiraled quickly after the events of 28 July. Clockback made this edit as a humourous (he says) rejoinder, which tried to express his frustration with a reductio ad absurdum. After he was reverted, he edit-warred to keep the text in. It was at this point that JzG blocked Clockback to stop the edit-warring.

I tried to mediate between the positions, and reorganized the section thoroughly. You can read my explanation here. Both Clockback and Charlesdrakew, while not entirely happy, seem to be satisfied with my rewrite.

Clockback's repeated unblock requests have been denied because the admins say that he has refused to acknowledge his improper editing. This charge is undoubtedly true, but I would ask people to read the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride. On the important matter -- namely the text of the article -- Clockback has already acceded to a reasonable consensus. One should not expect people to grovel. The block is now only punitive.

The punchline to the story is given in my !vote below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Endorse initial block but support unblocking now: The edit-warring obviously needed to be stopped, and a (short) block was entirely proper. I would, however, argue that matter has been resolved satisfactorily, so the block no longer serves a purpose. Clockback's edits were driven by a sense of frustration, and were not typical of his other edits to the page, which were largely restrained and largely made in good faith.
Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia bureaucracy can be forbidding to a casual editor. Clockback tried to discuss his edits thoroughly, but he was not well-versed in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, which led to this downward spiral. For instance, he was not comfortable with starting an RfC. I promise to help Clockback on this point. (Incidentally, many other people have told me the same thing: RfCs are very confusing. I routinely see people screw up RfCs.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblocking, an immediate indefinite block for the first offense? No. Fish+Karate 08:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm not saying a block is wrong, just that an indefinite one is excessive. Fish+Karate 10:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. The tone of Clockback's response to notification of this discussion, as well as that of previous unblock requests, suggests to me that this block is still necessary. I've yet to see any indication that Clockback understands the problems with his editing; the edits for which he was blocked are symptomatic of a longer-running issue, and until there's some suggestion that these editorial and COI edits won't recur, I'm in favour of retaining the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblocking, an indefinite block for the first offense is too harsh.Keith Johnston (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own block obviously. I mean, seriously? An editor with a COI, adding "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco", that fails WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR, frankly.

This is also as clear an example of m:MPOV as you could wish for.

If unblocked he needs to be TBANned from COI edits, which is, to a good first approximation, 100% of his editing to date. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. Hitchens only edits in areas where he has a massive WP:COI. From his talk page it is clear he isn't going to change. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. As I stated on his talk page, I would need to see some evidence his behavior would change, and I haven't yet. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Clockback's edits...were not typical of his other edits to the page, which were largely restrained and largely made in good faith. - Kingsindian

Really? "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco" was his addition to the ARTICLE. That prose wouldn't be acceptable in news reporting, let alone an encyclopedia. If he wants to promote himself and grind his axe, he's got The Mail on Sunday for that. --Calton | Talk 10:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect people to read properly. My comment was explicitly NOT about this edit, but the edits PRIOR to this whole unfortunate mess. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I expected you to note that was single example of how wrong you were -- and maybe note the others who've commented about his track record, but I guess it's hard to read properly when you're up on your high horse. --Calton | Talk 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblocking The continuation of this block appears to be purely vindictive.Themunimentroom 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Themunimentroom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Endorse per Yunshui, Roxy, and Calton. Gamaliel (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblocking - surely blocking is a last-resort measure for vandals and those who cannot be reasoned with, not people an editor has a conflict of opinion with. It can be argued the editorial reverting of changes was unwarranted, and needs explanation. Otherwise, the whole edifice of wikipedia (of people setting down facts) becomes under threat. PS, I read he has a COI with the page dedicated to his brother - if this is the measure of COI then practically nobody shoudl be allowed to edit anything, as they all have a COI with the topics they care to write about! User:gbjbaanb 14:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — gbjbaanb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Support unblocking - really believe that a temporary block is enough, this is in keeping with the spirit of openness that Wikipedia should be known for User:theheatwick 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — theheatwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Endorse continued block, as unblock requests to date have pretty much consisted of i-didn't-do-that and you're-a-bunch-of-totalitarians. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close we don’t accept 3rd party unblock appeals. A sanctioned editor must appeal themselves and address the issue. Every admin who has reviewed the block until now has declined to unblock, and none of them felt the need to bring it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, notifications to @Yamla, 331dot, and MaxSem: as the admins who previously reviewed this block as they don’t appear to have been notified that it is now at AN for review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, in a complaint about the heartless Wikipedia bureaucracy, your solution is ... more bureaucracy? No wonder Wikipedia is dying. Also relevant, in light of all the brouhaha about COI and so forth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party appeals aren’t usually allowed because they miss the point of the entire unblock process: discussion with the blocked editor. They also tend to waste a lot of energy for no reason and are dramafests that quickly become disruptive. There is nothing special about this case meriting AN review outside of the normal process at the request of someone other than the blocked editor. Their appeals will be considered on their talk page, and the advantage there for them is that they aren’t considered banned and don’t require future AN review if the unblock is declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the purposes of WP:AN is to review blocks. Nothing substantial would change if I copy pasted Clockback's last unblock request above my own statement. It's pointless WP:BURO. And if you hadn't noticed, I have been copy-pasting Clockback's comments from the talkpage here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, bringing it here on your own without the active appeal is the exercise in bureaucracy: we just don’t do that except in cases of unambiguous abuse, which this isn’t. There is now an appeal on their talk. This should be handled there by discussion with them instead of being made a spectacle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? There's a block review of an AE case just below this section. Blocks are reviewed here all the time. I am going to ignore this trolling now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE blocks have to be brought either here or to AE. Unblocking without consensus leads to desysop in those cases. There is nothing special about this block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I give you an instance of the scores of block reviews which had nothing to do with AE, and were not brought by the blocked party, you'll go away, right? How about this one? Or this one? Or this one? I can do this all day. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from just a couple days ago where the block was overturned. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie:@Mr Ernie: So what is your opinion on the block? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment The user is currently WP:CANVASSING support for his unblocking on Twitter here and here (feel free to move/remove this if I have commented in the wrong place). Endymion.12 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block, this editor doesn't seem to be prepared to participate constructively. Max Semenik (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Clockback please - having read the material, he is entitled to express those views, however controversial and unpalatable they may be for some. And he has made some grave points and should not have to beg for forgiveness for expressing his, founded, views. Ours is a plural society, please reflect the same on this platform for Mr Hitchens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.192.69.53 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no he's not. He is entitled to express his views, founded or not, in accordance with the bounds of the law while writing for the paper, or on his own website or blog or anywhere else that welcomes it. However wikipedia is an encylopaedia written based on sources. Discussions here are intended to be about how we improve wikipedia. The views of random editors of stuff unrelated to that purpose aren't really welcome. Given our goals of building a community, there's some limited acceptance of editors express offtopic stuff like their views of subjectw within reason but this needs to be limited. Notably if several other editors feel that someone's specific expression of their views unrelated to how to improve wikipedia is harmful, it probably is since it's seemingly not improving community relations here but harming them. Note that I have not looked into the details of the case other than to know it doesn't appear to involve a living person since it's beside my point. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblocking, an indefinite block for a first offence is way too much, Huldra (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block - Guy's reasoning stands up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that Hitchens has now made 4 unblock requests on his talk page, and all have been turned down (by 4 different admins) because they did not address the reason for their block. Filing multiple frivolous unblock requests generally leads to shutting off talk page access. In this case, Hitchens being a public figure may be working in his favor, as admins may be shying away from that course of action so as not to be named in the inevitable follow-up off-wiki commentary from Hitchens about Wikipedia's "autocracy" and "liberal bias" - but since that's going to happen anyway, no matter what happens now (even an unblock won't stop it), someone should just bite the bullet and shut him down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block - Canvassing one's twitter followers in order to get oneself unblocked certainly means that a user should never be allowed to return. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. I am sympathetic to KingsIndian's position here, as I often am. But in this case I don't agree. We have just been through the Arbcom case of Philip Cross, where we had people involved in RW disputes editing about those disputes here in WP. This is not good for anybody. If you look at their edit count you will see that Clockback has pretty much only edited about himself, his family, his books, and things he pundits about in the real world.

Back in 2015 I tried to explain COI management in WP] to him, and he replied: I've tried it and it doesn't work. You'll just have to trust me. If I restrict myself, as I have for more than a decade, to correcting errors of fact, I can't see any problem. the temptation to rewrite the whole thing in better English is immensely strong, but I have resisted it all this time and will continue to do so. I really don't see why doing this, openly, is a difficulty. That was after he had just been edit-warring completely inappropriate content into mainspace about some picture of himself. (diff, diff, diff). An unrestrained temper tantrum. His claim is also somewhat contradicted by his actual edits to the page about him, which includes things like this

At the Bell page, folks have cited the edits at Bell - the first part about A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.. Has anybody looked at the rest of that diff? It also included This was a ridiculous statement, as under English law any accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Away back in 2007 he was all up into contesting the reality of ADD in his Mail column (e.g here. And sure enough he made around 30 edits to the ADD page including beauties like this.

Clockback obviously feels quite entitled to use WP like he would a column or blog to express his opinion and have temper tantrums. Wikipedia is however not his column, and he has not given us reason to trust his self-restraint. His temper tantrum over the block, is quite in line with what I have seen of him here.

KingsIndian I do get it that WP can be difficult to understand and navigate, but for as long as Clockback has been around, he hasn't really engaged with what we do here, how we do it, and why. There are many people drawn here to edit about themselves or some other external interest. Some of them take the time to "get it"; Clockback has shown little to no interest in WP's mission but a great deal of interest in using WP as yet another platform to express his opinions. It's just not what we do here. It is fundamentally a SOAP thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block Indef block is suitable for such disruptive editors. So what if he's Christopher Hitchens' brother? Wikipedia is not his soapbox, and the editor hasn't recognized what they did wrong. I think, as a whole, we were way too lenient on them - seeing that they still have their TPA intact. byteflush _Talk 03:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I tried to close this as "no consensus to unblock" before sufficient time had elapsed for this to be considered a "community block" (which is a block that ends up endorsed after "due consideration" by the community, thus becoming a de facto CBAN). I did this in an attempt to avert unnecessary drama, prevent the escalation of an unintended CBAN, and to let this user retain the normal options for unblocking. Both the OP here and the blocked user have objected to the closure as too quick, and while I thoroughly explained to them the much more serious consequences of a formal community-endorsed block that has been given "due consideration", the OP has strenuously insisted that they want a fair trial. So, if the consensus to endorse the block continues to hold for a reasonable amount of time, that is a risk that the blocked user was made aware of and decided to take. Swarm ♠ 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock A week would be sufficient, some people seem keen to support the block because of who he is. User:Charlesdrakew seems to be one of them and that his attacks are ignored indicates we aren't treating this case fairly and neutrally, which is another reason to unblock. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock as time served. If nothing else, they are clearly keen to discuss the matter, and they are equally clearly WP:HERE. I consider the block harsh for a first offence, and although Clockback does have a transparent COI, they apper to have been up front about it from the start, and with the exception of a couple of instances, adhered to our guidelines. Although of course WP:VOL says we do not, of course, have to do anything we don't want to do, I can't help but suspect that if they had received a litle more traction on the talk page, we might not be having this discussion. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- On edit: I see Govindaharihari made an eminently sensible suggestion in the archived ANI thread which, personally, I think should certainly be revisted: A topic ban from George Bell and from editing his own biography, he can request edits to his biography on the talkpage. This would appear to address the issues at hand as well as inhibiting future reoccurance. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with the assessment that Clockback is WP:HERE. To date, the overwhelming impression I have gotten from his edits to both articles and talkpages is that he is interested in making Wikipedia read and operate the way he would like it to read and operate, without regard for Wikipedia's community, policies or processes. I've seen no indication that he has any interest in working on the encylopedia outside of areas in which he has a conflict of interest, and there is a definite hint of righting great wrongs to many of his contributions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, a ban from conflicted edits is a de facto site ban, Clockback only edits where he has a COI and this has been the case for at least ten years. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblocking - having a valid opinion on an issue is not a "conflict of interest". Zacwill (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block per Jzg and Jytdog. Really now, editor has continuously edited either with a direct COI or to support their own viewpoints contrary to npov etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block At first I was hopeful that this might be resolved relatively quickly but it has become clear from Clockback’s umpteen unblock appeals that he has not taken any of the advice in WP:GAB and is incapable of admitting that he has done anything wrong, and is continuing to attack his “opponent.” He has given no indication that he would not do the same thing again. I cannot see how we can unblock here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block I agree with TonyBallioni that a third-party block appeal misses the point. Discussion needs to take place with the blocked editor. Given the amount of discussion that already has taken place with them, I'm not convinced that the behavior leading to the block will not continue. The goal of a block is not punitive, but to protect the encyclopedia, which this block is doing. In addition, the behavior following the block (and relating to the block) is quite concerning to me, including the canvassing on Twitter and continued attempts at finding appeal proxies rather than handling the matter themselves per WP:APPEAL. The COI issues, editorializing, etc., don't have a place on Wikipedia and they don't seem to realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or blog. I think they should be given the standard offer and see where it leads in time once cooler heads prevail. Waggie (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unblocking. I have for several years donated money to this organization with the understanding that it would be of good use for a non-profit organization such at this is in order to uphold this great informational website, available for all interested, had I known that this organization with its self proclaimed high values in the shadow uses censorship I would have never donated and will from now on never do it again until this unwrong is fixed. Quite amazing to see such a big ”trial” for what should be a small matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhellstrom (talk • contribs) — Mhellstrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

So you've given lots of money, but never edited before today? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a frequent reader, not an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhellstrom (talk • contribs)

Your donations to WMF are irrelevant, and do not give your comment any more weight. If anything, what gives a comment additional weight is if it comes from a Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, of which they are examples on both sides of this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. No remorse and the posts at User talk:Clockback fail to persuade me that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Indeed, they seem to confirm that disruption is going to continue[30]. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite block until Clockback’s attitude changes. I initially assumed this was going to be a partisan dispute of right wing versus left wing editors voting and was open to idea of supporting an unblock, but examining the facts and carefully reviewing his unblock requests, it is clear that this editor is disruptive and is draining of people’s time (he is behaving like the world and Wikipedia should revolve around him and he has the right to drain people of their time so he can WP:SOAPBOX his opinions (so much so he had to have his talk page access removed), instead of just editing productively and being willing to admit to mistakes. Should his attitude change only then can I support an unblock request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unblock with ‘mentoring’ by myself I have changed my vote having read kingsindian’s posts in clockback’s defence which triggered me to look even more deeply into this issue and I’ve found substantial evidence of Clockback seeking consensus and working collaboratively with other editors on COI talk pages, e.g. Talk:Peter_Hitchens/Archive_4. I would agree to mentor him (in the form of helping him with disputes and pointing him to relevant policies and guidelines or instructions as a major issue he had was how to deal with image approval and dispute resolution processes, etc). I do not think Clockback is a bad lad, he cares passionately about social issues which can create biased editing but the evidence of him working collaboratively with other editors most of the time to achieve neutrality makes this less of a concern. The block has served it’s purpose to prevent edit warring and to warn him that editorialising with original ideas not supported by sources is not acceptable. Give the guy a second chance. If I am wrong, well, it is easy to just block him again. Why deny a guy a second chance, are we that unforgiving as a community?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clockback has appealed, albeit disruptively in article body text, for help and guidance from editors in areas of policy and guidelines where he is still a newbie, so I think he would likely accept a mentor (someone he could come to for advice or assistance navigating complex Wikipedia rules or to help resolve a dispute).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock I think an indefinite block is excessive in this case. I have looked through some of Clockback's contributions. He appears to always state that he is Peter Hitchens when giving his view on talk pages, and the recent edits at George Bell seem to be uncharacteristic of his editing. Edits such as this, the canvassing on Twitter, and other similar behavior display an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, but I believe his edits are fundamentally in good faith. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indef somewhat reluctantly, after reading the user talk page. I do not endorse a community-ban; perhaps once the situation has cooled down (and they've stopped trying to get randoms from Twitter to get them unblocked), they'll realize just how ridiculous contributions like [31] are, and that none of their excuses for it were believable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block he writes: "I was blocked indefinitely, an absurd over-reaction to a legitimate bit of mild mischief entirely explained and justified by the appalling behaviour of the unpunished 'Charles'". Until he recognizes he has to follow community guidelines. -- 73.170.168.69 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) — User:73.170.168.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Endorse block (Non-administrator comment) I've looked over the George Bell article edits and Talk page discussion, as well as the discussion on Clockback's Talk page. Clockback added inappropriate content to the article, edit-warred to keep it in, and declared that he would continue edit-warring. He calls the content "mild mischief" but to my mind, mild mischief is equivalent to mild vandalism. It is appropriate to indefinitely block someone who is edit-warring to preserve their mild vandalism no matter who they are or how long they've been here. Indefinite does not mean infinite and editors are blocked indefinitely all the time for first offenses (examples include vandalism, username issues, and legal threats). It would have been rather simple for Clockback to get unblocked but instead of doing that, he's said he can't guarantee he won't do this again and is blaming the other editor. Therefore, the block is preventing further disruption. I hope that we won't see any new appeals for at least six months; if that means that this block is converted into a community ban, I support that because he has shown himself through his editing (as detailed by JzG and Jytdog) to be NOTHERE. If Clockback is unblocked I support a topic ban on COI edits. Ca2james (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Unblock Ought one be indefinitely blocked for causing certain people annoyance regardless of the importance of their contributions - and, potential contributions? It seems those in charge have forced Mr Hitchens to drink hemlock and, when he refused, into exile. Apologies if I have inserted my comment incorrectly. I have a feeling of trepidation while writing this and expect to be reprimanded or 'tagged' as I have just opened an account and this is my first edit. Is this the sort of atmosphere an interactive 'encyclopedia' should instil in its more sensitive users? Crosslaa01 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Antony (user: crosslaa01)[reply]
Endorse block for the original reasons plus the reprehensible canvassing. Nihlus 13:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock I've examined all of the details and I believe the Indef block should be removed. Clockback seems to have been overwhelmed by the bureaucratic and sometimes kafka-esque system of blocks and sanctions. Nobody should have to beg, and the initial unblock responses by Yamla and Max seem to emphasize process over content. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining to Clockback that there is a guide to appealing blocks, and that they are virtually guaranteed to be unblocked if they simply follow the instructions there. Reading the guide and submitting a compliant unblock request would have probably taken them less time and energy than the rambling diatribe they replied with. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block based primarily on off-wiki canvassing. I do not agree with the way Clockback handled the original dispute. However, I think that under all of the poor rhetoric, there might be (by stretching WP:AGF) an argument that he was trying to improve the project. (NB: I have fully reviewed the arguments here, and skimmed talk page and edits.) But there is no argument for the off-wiki canvassing if he truly wants to be part of the project. Again, assuming he was unaware of the policy on canvassing, after bringing that policy to his attention, he could've deleted his tweets. He has not. He asks the community to have faith in him, but he demonstrates no faith in the community or willingness to productively engage. Endorse block, though I would welcome revisiting this in a few months under the normal standard offer criteria if there is demonstrated remorse. If Clockback demonstrated remorse, I think that would be such a drastic shift from his current positions that it would warrant serious consideration by the community. Thanks to all the editors that have taken their time. --Policy Reformer (c) 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Block per Ca2james. I've read through their talk page and don't find anything WP could gain by retaining him as an editor. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please see the discussion on Clockback's talk page. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As above, please see the discussion on Clockback's talk page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have suggested a topic ban as an alternative to a full block, but as Clockback is effectively a single issue editor he might not regard that as an improvement. Assuming this is Peter Hitchens, which I have no reason to doubt, he is too closely involved with the subject to edit without conflict of interest. Hitchens has long been a leading member of the Bishop Bell fan club and rants about it in his Mail blog.

While Bell is long dead the women who complained is alive and deserves respect. I have modified Kingsindian's rewrite slightly so that it does not look as if the Carlisle review is a vindication of Bell. It is not, being entirely neutral and criticising the church's treatment of both the complainant and Bell's memory.Charles (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following reply by Clockback is copy-pasted from his talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If 'Charles' cares to look, he will see that my personal link with the sign-on 'Clockback' has been confirmed by me according to Wikipedia protocols. There is no need to raise any question about the matter. My involvement in the Bell case is wholly disinterested. I have never met George Bell, am not related to him, I am not paid by him or his family. I took up this case because it seemed to me that an injustice had been done. I don't wish to boast, but merely offer this comparison for an example. Would Emile Zola have been disqualified from any role in the Wikipedia entry on the Dreyfus case, had there been a Wikipedia at the time, especially if he had intervened ( as I have done) cautiously and with referenced fact to back up my edits? ? Please note the hostile and pejorative use of the derisive term 'rants' to describe my writings about the subject. I also note his derisive use of the term 'George Bell fan club' to describe a group which includes Frank Field MP, Lord Lexden, several prominent churchmen and women, and a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, a distinguished QC and a retired judge. It has attracted support from both left and right, and from different wings of the C of E, including from the Very Revd Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Revd Giles Fraser. It is quite nonpartisan.
How 'Charles' can portray himself as a disinterested or impartial editor while behaving in this fashion (or how his claims to be such can be accepted ) I have no idea. I remain amused that this behaviour goes unnoticed and unrebuked, whereas my actions get me blocked *indefinitely* . This behaviour by'Charles' is of a piece with his abusive and ad hominem use of the term 'loudmouths' and his insulting use of the term 'whitewash' to describe efforts to clear the name of an unjustly pilloried person. I am not a single-issue editor, as it happens, but I do have a special and close interest in the Bell case, and ( as most of my fellow-campaigners for justice for Bishop Bell are even older and fustier and unskilled in the use of computers than I am), it has fallen to me to try to get the entry to try to reflect the considerable efforts of that campaign, and indeed its success, in overcoming the original mistaken and unjust presumption of guilt. I have always been very careful in doing so, because I understand that some people might think my intervention improper. I have only ever done so when it was clear to me that important changes needed to be made, and that nobody else would do them if I did not. I have explained myself fully on the Talk page and always been open to compromise.
'Charles' informs us: 'I have modified Kingsindian's rewrite slightly so that it does not look as if the Carlisle review is a vindication of Bell'. He then asserts:'It is not, being entirely neutral and criticising the church's treatment of both the complainant and Bell's memory'. This causes me to doubt if 'Charles' has read the Carlile report, or, as I have done, spoken to Lord Carlile about it. He cannot even spell its author's name correctly. It is a devastating rebuke to the church and the Sussex Police, and a demolition of the case against George Bell. It still amazes me that it forms such a small part of the Wikipedia entry, and that there was not, until I recently added it, even a direct link to it there. Lord Carlile said to me on the record at his press conference that he would not, were he a prosecutor in the case, have expected to secure a conviction of Bell on the evidence which he has seen (and he has seen it all). As Lord Carlile was specifically prevented, by his terms of reference, from ruling directly on the issue, this was as close as he could come to it. Charles says 'the women who complained is alive and deserves respect'. Why does he say this? I know of no occasion on which I have not shown respect to the claimant. I have never doubted that her accusation was sincere, and have never uttered a pejorative word about her, nor sought to insert anything uncomplimentary to her in the entry. Nor would I. Nor would any member of the group seeking justice for Bishop Bell. So what is the purpose of this sentence in this intervention by 'Charles'? This is about the Church, and the police, and those parts of the media which were beguiled by them, and always has been. Surely an alert and fair editor would be aware of this? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll make a comment myself, because I find the situation more and more distasteful. I don't know whether to laugh or weep. See this section on the WP:ANI page, where Clockback appealed for impartial eyes on the matter. To remind people: at that point, the only talk page discussion was by Clockback, and he wasn't getting any feedback at all, except constant reverting.

What he got instead was an indef block by JzG, who says that they didn't even know that he was Peter Hitchens. If he knew, perhaps he would have seen this edit not as "editorialising" or WP:NOTHERE, but rather as a little bit of self-deprecating humour. I thought the British specialized in such humour? Or maybe being a Wikipedia admin requires one to be a humourless pedant. It was definitely wrong to try this sort of thing in a medium like text where humour doesn't carry very well. But this kind of edit deserves an indef block?

Have people completely forgotten how difficult and forbidding Wikipedia is to edit, especially for new and casual users? And when that user tries to complain or get some help, he is met with an indef, instead of someone probing beneath the surface and trying to help them out? The humourlessness, arrogance and officiousness displayed in this thread is truly distasteful.

Finally, a word about COI. Clockback has publicly declared their identity. He was not blocked for COI, but for "editorializing" -- JzG doesn't mention COI once in their block rationale, because they didn't even know that Clockback was Peter Hitchens. Now to suddenly shift the justification (but to keep the punishment) smacks of "sentence first, verdict after". It is truly a looking-glass world here in Wikipedia.

The justification doesn't even make any sense. People with a COI aren't absolutely disallowed from editing pages. I can give you tens of examples, including WMF board members and Wikipedia arbitrators who have engaged in "COI" editing in this sense. As I mentioned, Clockback waited for over half a year before making these edits -- the person who had proposed the reorganization didn't find the time to do it, so Clockback did it themselves. Anyone who has ever dealt with COI editing on Wikipedia knows that this happens all the time. I can give tens of examples (again). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the COI makes it worse, not better, right? Declared or not, it's over a decade since Clockback made a single mainspace edit that can be remotely plausibly argued not to be COI. So the harder you look at the problem the worse it looks. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, even though COI had nothing to do with the block, one must keep the block, because COI? It seems to me that you have already decided on the sentence, and are looking for reasons to convict. If you apply Cromwell's rule for just 10 minutes, and cease your motivated reasoning, you might reach a different conclusion.
And, if the real reason for blocking is COI, why not unblock Clockback, and open a real discussion here (or elsewhere) about COI, where they can defend themselves? There's no imminent disruption here which requires a block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that everyone here is aware, Hitchens has been tweeting about his block, and this block review (I won't link to every tweet he's sent, but these 2 are directly related: [32] [33]). Iffy★Chat -- 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not an expert in these things but I'm guess canvassing your Twitter followers to come to this thread and !vote here in support of unblocking will not be kindly looked upon....--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think PH has come to realise what many of us have known for some time: that wikipedia is currently in the hands of an anonymous and somewhat oppressive autocratic elite who are accountable to absolutely no-one.

Mr Hitchens is perfectly entitled to make this subject public. Telling others about this matter is not a crime!

Those interested in "wikipolitics" might want to research the Philip Cross affair which has recently been the subject of numerous interesting discussions about the true nature of wikipedia.

I can still remember the time when wikipedia was largely a bit of fun and it really was a platform on which anyone could edit. Those days are long gone. Some pages are jealously guarded and editing them is impossible. I for one now largely avoid it. John2o2o2o (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You, for one, only have 211 edits in 6 years (at least under this account name) or which only 34 edits (i.e. 16%) are to articles. The bulk of your edits (167, 79%) are to talk pages. So, really, your opinion, as someone who has done little to nothing to improve the encyclopedia, is fairly negligible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasted from Clockback's talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better respond to the various claims of 'conflict of interest' now being added on to the Kangaroo charges against me. I am probably the only living person in a position to know my father's actual function aboard HMS Jamaica in December 1943, and so perhaps nobody else could have removed the rather embarrassing claim (which my father and my brother would have hated) that my late father was in command of that fine cruiser at the time. As far as I can remember it was Captain Hughes-Hallett RN. The mistake arose from a misunderstanding of the Naval Rank 'Commander', which does not mean 'Commander of a Ship' (though some Commanders do command ships) . But if this is to be damned as 'conflict of interest', where are we? Nobody without such a 'COI' could have corrected this mistake. Should it then have been left uncorrected? Bizarre. I don't believe any such rule can be , or is consistently applied. As for my supposed crime in writing:' "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco', every word in it is absolutely true. But the qualification is only necessary because of the insistence by 'Charles' - who utterly refused to discuss the matter and who is emerging in this discussion as a thoroughly partisan and POV person on the subject of George Bell (would a topic ban be appropriate, do we think?), in retaining the pointless section on the non-calling of the police. One could likewise write, of this current dispute that the United Nations Security Council were not called in. But anyone who understood or knew anything about anything would not write that, and any editor of any sense would remove it. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Another copy-pasted comment:

I feel it is now necessary to address the behaviour of 'Charles', and were I not blocked, I would do so. It is quite absurd that I should be muzzled while he faces no criticism at all. I have noted here 1: His refusal to engage with me on the Talk pages except to allege COI against me. 2. His repeated use of pejorative and hostile terminology directed at me and my associates ' loudmouth', 'whitewash', and now 'rant' and Bishop Bell fan club'. I think this amounts to a clear declaration of hostile bias on the subject under discussion. This is made worse, in my view, by the fact that (unlike me) his real identity is not declared and we cannot know what his interest in the issue may be, if any, whereas mine is quite open and undisguised.Those here who are so anxious to condemn me, mainly for mistakenly assuming they possessed senses of humour, are now aware of the behaviour of 'Charles' and cannot therefore ignore it. By *their own standards*, is this really acceptable in someone who boasts of a 'Platinum Star' for his editing? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: It isn't a "first offence", he has been blocked for a long-term tendentious editing, WP:COI editing, and edit-warring. Please review the details. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Endymion.12: what I meant, was that this was his first block. To go from zero blocks straight to indefinite seems excessive to me. (It can of course be warranted, but then you would have do have committed a "wikideadly sin", say Outing, or legal threat, etc. That is not the case here.), Huldra (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Given that they apparently do not understand why they have been blocked, and have refused to acknowledge that they have done anything wrong, I would suggest this block is preventative. They have already filed four unblock requests, each of which has been turned down. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply from Clockback -- on the COI issue. I am simply posting the diff here, because this section is already very long. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the freaking lines? There's no reason that Clockback's comments should be set off any differently than any other editor's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final statement from Clockback. Copy-pasted from their talkpage, in response to this diff from Jytdog. Any admin can assess consensus and close this block review, if they wish. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where to begin? I appear now to be on trial for actions many years ago, and for my supposed attitude, though the actual block was my punishment for being foolish enough to ask formally for editorial help in a dispute with 'Charles' who still goes unrebuked for calling me a 'loudmouth', and accusing me of 'rants' 'whitewash' and equally unrebuked for repeatedly ignoring my talk page requests for discussion and his autocratic, unexplained reversions of my explained and well-justified changes, for which I had been arguing on the talk page for more than *two years*. I should have thought my long-stretched patience with him, and my readiness to compromise show clearly that I *do* try to abide by the encyclopaedic spirit . Instead of help I got an *indefinite* block, which cannot possibly, in my view, have followed proper consideration of a dispute that had actually been simmering for more than two years. Perhaps Judge Dredd here has a toothache or an ingrowing toenail, which make his temper short. The fact that I am a newspaper columnist ('someone who is a pundit in the real world')is alleged against me, thus : I am 'treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms '.On the first, I freely admit that many years ago, I foolishly attempted to edit the page on 'Attention Deficit Disorder;' so that it reflected the considerable disagreements on the subject and the grave scientific weakness of the case for 'ADD' and its treatment with amphetamines. I may, it is true, have lost patience from time to time. I have learned since then that entries on such issues (and even on less contentious matters too) have guardians who will not allow them to be altered and who have the barrack-room lawyer's close knowledge of the regulations which makes them impossible to fight without an army of supporters and limitless time. I have neither. I learned from this, mainly not to trust any Wikipedia entries on issues of current controversy. But also not to bother. To bring these ancient scuffles up as evidence in this case is plainly absurd. Likewise the ridiculous suggestions that I am seeking to advance my own cause in factual edits to my Wikipedia biography or my late brother's. Oh, honestly. Hilariously, before Judge Block realised who I was he was consumed with fury at me for having described *myself* as having 'sabotaged my own education', in the belief that this was a malicious, destructive edit. Well, he can't have it both ways. It *would* be a malicious edit if an anonymous person who was not me did it. But precisely because I did it, it cannot be. Doesn't this show, that by including material critical of myself in my own biography, that I am not self-seeking here?
I have a strong belief that most of the faults of the internet are caused by anonymity, and so never hide behind it. I decided, as far as I can recall, from the first that I would say exactly who I was on Wikipedia, as I do everywhere else. If I did not do this, most of the allegations of supposed COI could not be made, because nobody would know. But the implication, that I am so stupid that I cannot tell an encyclopaedia entry from a newspaper column, or vice versa, and that I think I could or should get away with interfering in entries which concern me in a way that suits my case, *while using my own name* is rather insulting. I am just not that thick. Actually almost all my edits on these sites have been tiny factual matters where editors have just git it wrong, and I know from direct personal knowledge that they have. I can't really see that this is a serious breach.
The George Bell case is, I agree, wholly different. My involvement in it is wholly disinterested, in that I am not a relative of, or a friend of George Bell, or in any way obligated to him personally. It is, however, true, that I have been prominent in a campaign to get justice for him in this case of alleged child abuse . When I say justice, I mean precisely that. If a proper fair tribunal finds him guilty as charged, I shall accept it. If it does not, and there has so far been no such tribunal, then I shall continue to demand that public bodies, newspapers etc treat him as if he is innocent of these charges, as is proper under English law. I understand perfectly that some people will view my involvement in the Wikipedia entry as questionable. That is why I have used the talk page to encourage others to make edits which I regard as essential if the George Bell page is to be accurate . For good or ill I am one of the people who is best-informed about it, and I do not see why i should kepe that knowledge udner a bushel, when i could sue it to ensure a more accurate entry. This would have been a lot easier in the absence of the abusive, unresponsive, uncompromising and openly partisan editor 'Charles'( who as well as calling me a 'loudmouth', describing my work as 'rants' , characterising my efforts to get justice for an unfairly condemned man as a 'whitewash', describing a nonpartisan campaign containing many powerless people. the Revd Giles Fraser, and some other notable left-wingers as 'right-wing' and ' establishment' sneered at a disinterested and highly serious group of people ranging from members of the Chichester cathedral congregation, a group of former choirboys at that cathedral, a former chaplain of George Bell (and decorated naval veteran of World War Two) who, though dying, yet gave testimony in his favour, the daughter of a victim of Hitler helped by Bell, several distinguished academics, a retired judge, a QC and a dissident Labour MP to the former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the Dean of Christ Church as 'The George Bell Fan Club'). I have been most restrained in my interventions. I wish others would take on the task, but most of those involved in the Bell campaign and so knowledgeable enough to do so, have even weaker computer skills than I do, many are even older, and it was left to me. The satirical edit for which I am condemned (though every word of it was true) was never intended to stand, but it was intended to break the deadlock caused by the obduracy of 'Charles'. So it did. But my formal appeal for help got me ....blocked. That'll encourage the others. Well and good, that was a risk I suppose I ran. But it was clearly a ludicrous and hasty over-reaction, and people should stop making up retrospective reasons for it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose nobody cares that Calton (who has participated in this discussion, so is not uninvolved) has now hatted the above section, which includes my comment here. What gives Calton the right to go around hatting sections? Nothing is going to surprise me now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report

This appears to be the investigative report mentioned above by Clockback that they seem to want to write about in Wikipedia. I have not read it all but it seems relevant here that it discusses "jounalist Peter Hitchens" on page 25, para. 110; and page 52, para. 204. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COISELF says "If you have a personal connection to a topic . . . you are advised to refrain from editing . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He did refrain from editing. For more than half a year, in fact. The COI guideline does not absolutely disallow editing, but expects that you discuss things on the talkpage. Which he did. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The COI guideline does not give editors with COI any authorization to go ahead and make policy violating edits under any circumstances, to the contrary, it prohibits it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you something. You make a point about COI guideline saying that editors being advised to refrain from editing directly. I reply to this point. You don't even acknowledge what I said, and go on to make another point, one which I never disputed. Are we talking to the void or having a conversation? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had replied to your point, but if it is unclear, your attempt to render null the community consensus in the guideline's various provisions advising/telling/asking/imploring/prohibiting the COI editor not to edit, is irrelevant wikilawyering. It is what should be done, it being a guideline, and that means a COI editor should do it, and 'I am not getting what I want' is not a valid reason for not doing what should be done by the COI editor.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI stuff

Let me address the point about COI raised by several people, including the initial blocking admin JzG and Jytdog above:

According to the WP:ANI thread which resulted in Clockback's indef block, JzG wasn't even aware of their identity when they blocked them -- within 15 minutes of their post at ANI -- indefinitely. This means that JzG never even looked at Clockback's userpage (where Clockback self-identifies). Does anyone feel that a summary "sentence" -- in which such basic material facts as the user's self-declared identity weren't considered -- might be a tiny bit problematic? We report, you decide.

An obvious example of how identity is relevant

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In particular, if JzG was aware of Clockback's identity, they would not have fingered this edit (cited in their ANI response), as some kind of WP:NOTHERE or "unsourced" and "editorializing" edit. The source includes the quote by Hitchens "[I] made sure I would never get into Oxbridge. It was my own fault". To render this source as "sabotaging his own education" is a perfectly acceptable WP:summary style edit. And why would JzG tell Hitchens what he does or doesn't know about his own actions?

COI was not mentioned in the block rationale. Clockback made 5 unblock requests. None of the admins -- none -- mentioned COI while declining the block.
Now, this new charge of COI has been added to the chargesheet. Why? Supposedly the conduct is so bad that it merits an indef block without any prior warning or discussion? Where is the disruption or imminent disruption?

I submit that this is a severe case of "bad block". If the COI issue is really important, the proper way to proceed would be to first dispose of this unrelated matter. Hopefully unblock Clockback, and then talk to them or discuss their actions at a noticeboard. See this discussion by Jytdog, for instance. I will only say here that the COI guideline does not directly disallow people from editing the articles. I said above that I can provide tens of examples of editors (including WMF board members, and sitting and past arbitrators) who have violated the COI guideline in this sense. Test me if you want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The general issue, and then the specific one.

The general point on COI: COI guideline says that -- with a few exceptions -- conflicted editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. I believe that this notion has fairly broad and deep consensus (there are very vocal dissenters, of course). There is good reason for this guidance and the consensus behind it. When conflicted editors edit directly, they tend to add bad content and tend to behave badly trying to retain it -- edit warring and making tendentious arguments to keep it. Accepting the restraints of the COI management system spares everybody that drama, grounded on an acknowledgement by everybody involved, that a conflict of interest is present, and needs management.

As a last general matter: I acknowledge that there are cases of glaring COI editing. WP is shot through with garbage content along with good and like any human institution has flaws and hypocrisy in its administration along with good. But I am somewhat dismayed to see you, whom I respect, making an othershitexists argument.

Now to the specifics: What I tried to emphasize in my vote, is that with Clockback we have someone who is a pundit in the real world who is a) treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms and not engaging with the mission of WP and the ways the community has developed to realize it and b) editing about themselves and the issues they punditize about in their RW platforms. The latter is where the formal COI is, but the former is the deeper problem, which the COI only exacerbates.

The block log says Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.

In my view that aptly summarizes Clockback's entire career here in WP. It summarizes a) above, and b) above helps explain why Clockback behaves this way. Many people have a hard time seeing the mission clearly and engaging with it and the ways we realize it; conflict of interest makes it yet harder yet for people to clearly see what we do here (and hard to not see WP as a soapbox/platform for promotion). Someone whose real world occupation is writing their opinions will have a very hard time. We should not unblock Clockback until he shows some glimmer of self-awareness about how incorrect his approach to WP has been. (and btw, expressing self-awareness is not "grovelling"; that is, sadly, how many tendentious, indefinitely blocked editors frame this essential part of the community reconciliation process.)

I'll add that I trust Guy's instincts a great deal. Not perfectly, and I have been on the wrong end of him shooting from the hip. But he has a great sense of whether somebody is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia or not, and understands that good faith is not a suicide pact. He indefs perhaps quicker than most admins. I have breathed a sigh of relief after many, many of his indefs.

A question I will turn back to you:

What evidence do you have that Clockback understands or even cares about a) our mission to create an encyclopedia with articles summarizing accepted knowledge, working in a community of pseudonymous editors, and b) the way the community realizes the mission -- namely by placing authority in reliable sources, not on the opinions or claimed expertise of any editor, and striving to summmarize those sources neutrally? Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that you didn't address a single point I raised. You say you sympathize with my points. I don't want your sympathy. And you can keep your faith in JzG. I have no interest in such things. Unless you address my points -- all directly relevant to the block -- I'm afraid, there's no use talking.

Here's a direct question: Does indef blocking a Wikipedia editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without taking into account their self-declared identity, without even checking their userpage, and making at least one demonstrably wrong assertion about their edits, indicate "due diligence" to you?

And what does COI have to do with anything? That's not what the block was for.

I promise that if you address my points, I'll address yours, even though I consider COI to be essentially a red herring. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring? You named this section 'COI stuff' --- the account was blocked for non-policy compliant editing over years --- but that there is WP:COI, would be a probable explanation for such an editing pattern. Others think that enough talking with the editor about their problematic editing did occur before the block over those years. Indef does not mean infinite, it means address understanding (and/or formal restraints) for/of issues/pattern/policy, so that the disruption will not re-occur.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI was not the primary reason for blocking, but the edit that triggered the block absolutely was COI (along with many other tihngs) and more than a decade of nothing but COI edits in mainspace is a great reason for not unblocking IMO. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian I am sorry that you feel I didn't address your points. I feel I did. Let me walk it through:

Your first sentence: I submit that this is a severe case of "bad block".

I addressed why I thought it was a good block per the block rationale, which in my view accurately summarized what Clockback has been doing in WP. I also discussed the particulars of Guy's blocking style and how this fits with that.

Your second sentence: If the COI issue is really important, the proper way to proceed would be to first dispose of this unrelated matter.

I tried to explain that in this matter, COI helps explain Clockback's pattern of behavior, but I very explicitly said in (a) that the fundamental problem is Clockback's lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it. I even used the little "a" and "b" to try to make the difference clear between the problem "a" and one cause of it "b". I also tried to explain (and I will elaborate here) that COI matters come to the community's attention because of the kind of content conflicted editors tend to generate, and because of how they tend to behave. There are content and behavior problems. These problems can be described without any reference to COI - violating NPOV, adding unsourced content, edit warring, tendentious arguments on talk, etc. These issues can also be addressed at ANI or by admins without any reference to COI. We bring COI into it, because if there is a COI and the person acknowledges it and how it creates problems in this particular environment, they will generally start to behave better and edit better -- the understanding by the conflicted person is essential. COI is a definable, well-understood thing. This can lead to better outcomes for everybody. I try to do the same thing when somebody edits as an advocate and creates bad content and behaves badly -- I try to help them become self-aware of their own passion, so they can self-manage it better. Advocacy is less well-defined in the real world, and much harder for everybody to think about and manage. But again, what calls attention, is the bad content and bad behavior -- the observable, diff-able things they do in WP. These are what were addressed in the block notice for Clockback.

Your third and fourth sentences: Hopefully unblock Clockback, and then talk to them or discuss their actions at a noticeboard. See this discussion by Jytdog, for instance.

I directly addressed this and said that the block rationale was solid, and Clockback should not be unblocked until he shows self-awareness that he has been using his editing privileges incorrectly - namely as an extension of how he writes in his columns and blogs without regard for WP's mission and the methods by which we realize it. He seems to be unaware (and unconcerned) with what we do here and how we do it.

Your fifth sentence: I will only say here that the COI guideline does not directly disallow people from editing the articles.

I directly addressed this.

Your sixth sentence: I said above that I can provide tens of examples of editors (including WMF board members, and sitting and past arbitrators) who have violated the COI guideline in this sense. Test me if you want.

I directly addressed this.

So... ? I do not agree with you, but I did try to speak to everything that you raised. I did try. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog

It should be pointed out that [34] would be inappropriate whoever added it. To say that someone "sabotaged" their education would require robust sourcing even knowing that it was added by the subject. This had no source. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: My points are numbered. There is a big chunk of text before the "first sentence". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry let me directly address them as well.

1) you wrote:According to the WP:ANI thread which resulted in Clockback's indef block, JzG wasn't even aware of their identity when they blocked them -- within 15 minutes of their post at ANI -- indefinitely. This means that JzG never even looked at Clockback's userpage (where Clockback self-identifies). Does anyone feel that a summary "sentence" -- in which such basic material facts as the user's self-declared identity weren't considered -- might be a tiny bit problematic? We report, you decide.

As I noted, the problem was Clockback's pattern of observable behavior. Those who are in the "content not contributor" camp and oppose addressing COI matters much if ever, should be delighted that this was based solely on diff-able observable behavior without regard for who this person is. Unmanaged COI has been (as I have now said twice) a cause of the behavior, but the problem is a deeper lack of engagement with what we do and how we do it. See discussion above about what calls our attention to APPARENTCOI in the first place -- observable, diff-able behavior.

1a) You wrote "In particular, if JzG was aware of Clockback's identity, they would not have fingered this edit (cited in their ANI response), as some kind of WP:NOTHERE or "unsourced" and "editorializing" edit. The source includes the quote by Hitchens "[I] made sure I would never get into Oxbridge. It was my own fault". To render this source as "sabotaging his own education" is a perfectly acceptable WP:summary style edit. And why would JzG tell Hitchens what he does or doesn't know about his own actions?"

I really didn't want to respond to this (which is why I haven't so far) but now that that I am, I will say "Jesus fucking christ." Think about that last sentence. So you would give people who verify their identities more authority here in WP than other editors? Shall we also give company reps more authority? Shall we just hang up our hats and call this "PRopedia"? What the hell? (first question is real; last three are rhetorical)

Calming down, and dealing with the ref and the edit -- did you look at what else he did in that diff? Look at the block of text that includes "as part of the group of reporters accompanying Margaret Thatcher After witnessing the collapse of the Communist regimes in Czechoslovakia and Romania". There is unsourced autobiographical writing. Not OK here.

With regard to the bit that you pull about "sabotage", yes that does have some support in the source and Guy was incorrect about it being unsourced; that is a valid "gotcha". However, that phrase is something that should catch anybody's eye as "color" in a BLP article and does call for examination. Looking at the source -- there is an intentionality to "sabotage" that is not necessarily present in the quote. Fucking up in a way that turns out to have longterm consequences (as passionate young people often do), and owning the fuckup and its consequences, is not the same as intentional destruction i.e. "sabotage". A lot depends on what "Made sure I would never get into Oxbridge" actually meant in that conversation. To resolve which it is, would require discussion and looking at what other sources say about it.

2) you wrote:COI was not mentioned in the block rationale. Clockback made 5 unblock requests. None of the admins -- none -- mentioned COI while declining the block.

As I noted, the problem was Clockback's pattern of observable behavior. It is appropriate that COI was not discussed.

3) you wrote:Now, this new charge of COI has been added to the chargesheet. Why? Supposedly the conduct is so bad that it merits an indef block without any prior warning or discussion? Where is the disruption or imminent disruption?

As I already have written, it is not so much a "charge" as everybody going "yep that explains some of the behavior" and "yep unmanaged COI is a problem". I have consistently been trying to separate out the long term behavior and the underlying lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it, from this cause of the behavior. I am starting to feel like I am repeating that too much. gah.

I have written too much but I just want to end the same way I ended my !vote. Clockback has not shown they understand what we do here nor how we do it. It is a WP:NOT problem -- It is fundamentally a SOAP thing. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I will go back-and-forth (once or twice max.) with your reply to my points (just to clarify the points). After that, as I promised, I will reply to your own points. Feel free to end the conversation any time, but let me know if you do.

Let me make a general point first. Perhaps I am unfair, but it seems to me that you're trying to find reasons as to why your position is the right one. That is not the correct way of evaluating hypotheses. So, if one is in a Bayesian model, one can have a prior (say, "JzG is usually right about COI or indef blocks, so this block is good with probability 90%."), but must be willing to update it. I don't see any updating at all here: you may concede a point here or there, but ultimately, you change no positions. None. That's not really an argument; that's just providing justifications -- what theologians call "apologetics". Sophisticated theologians can construct quite elaborate apologias.

Let's be specific now. When you say Those who are in the "content not contributor" camp and oppose addressing COI matters much if ever who do you mean? Do you mean me? I never said or implied anything even remotely like this. So why construct this elaborate strawman? Could it be that you're trying to find reasons for justifying the block, and and not updating the probability of the hypothesis "the block was made improperly"? Again, I'm telling you how it looks to me. It looks like apologetics.

Let me make a simple assertion: The identity of Clockback was indeed relevant to his editing. Everyone in this discussion agrees with this assertion. Indeed, people are now insisting that his identity is hugely relevant to the matter, because "COI! COI! COI!". So how could it not have been relevant when he was blocked? It follows directly that a basic, material fact was disregarded before passing this summary "sentence" of indef block. As far as I can determine, you never challenge this simple point. This is evidence for the hypothesis "the block was made improperly". You seem to disregard this. Apologetics.

Let's look at the "diff-able" behavior. It is not me that "pulled the bit" about "sabotage"; it was JzG. You concede that I am largely correct about the matter. Ok: more evidence for the hypothesis "the block was made improperly". But you quickly move over this concession and try to find other evidence -- which JzG doesn't cite -- for the hypothesis "the block was made properly". Apologetics.

Lastly, you read my sentence: "none of the admins ever mention anything about COI while declining unblock". You read it, acknowledge it, and skip right over it. No updating anywhere. Apologetics.

Ok, you decide if I'm being fair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think smaller bites might be helpful.

Is ~think~ you are perhaps asking "was the original indef valid?" and the answer you are hearing is "based on my evaluation of this person's behavior, the indef is fine".... and that is not answering your question. Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made several points. My first point was about irregularities in the original block. And I was pointing out that because of the irregularities, COI was not and could not be a factor in the block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you made many points. Hence "smaller bites". This was the first small bite. Which you did not make clear and instead smooshed over and brought up other unclear points. The broad conversation isn't working and a step by step one isn't working, so I don't know how to proceed with you. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Yes, I was directly responding to a request for a "smaller bite". You asked me to clarify what you ~think~ I'm asking. I told you what I'm asking. I actually did it once above. Here, I'll restate it for you (in the form of a direct question): "Do you think that it was proper to indef block an editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without even looking at their userpage, without even knowing their self-declared identity? And that one of the two diffs cited while blocking was a misreading (at best) of the source."

Every word of what I said above is true. What I have an issue is that you acknowledge these facts -- plainly relevant -- and skip over them to try to find other reasons for the block. But you are still taking the validity of the block as a given, and never seriously consider the possibility that the original indef, when riddled with this many irregularities, could be wrong.

Again, to take the Bayesian analogy, you never update the hypothesis in the face of the given evidence -- cited by the blocker, not me -- and instead try to search for more evidence in favour of the hypothesis. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question to Jytdog, JzG and others who claim that COI is the real issue here. There is a big schizophrenia in this thread. On the one hand, there are people (to pick Ca2james's comment as a random example, also every admin who responded to the unblock request, also Swarm), who claim that this whole drama could have been avoided if Clockback weren't so damn stubborn and unrepentant, and if only he acknowledged that their edit (about the Tesco and Fire brigade) was improper, he cou aould have been unblocked. This is accompanied by the intonation: "indefinite is not infinite". On the other hand, you have JzG and Jytdog claiming (and people agreeing with them), that the "real problem" is the long COI record, and thus he shouldn't be unblocked because he has and will engage in COI.

I submit that the latter is simply rationalization after the fact (I have given proof of it above, and won't repeat it here). The former is wrong because Clockback has already accepted my rewrite; all he wanted from the start was impartial eyes on the article, because he was making no headway in the talkpage discussion. Instead, he got a kick in the face from JzG. I do not support his edit-warring -- but the conduct deserves pity, not contempt. Also, see this comment by Clockback. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to explain this? The original block was for WP:TE/WP:DE/WP:EW (and WP:POINT, frankly, and possibly WP:CIR, certainly WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS), the block review that you instigated has shown that in addition to being tendentious and disruptive, all this user's edits for the past decade are also WP:COI, despite numerous past warnings, and many are WP:PROMO. This is a user who simply does not accept our COI policy and who views his opinion as ineffable truth (m:MPOV). Add WP:NPA and (of course!) WP:NCR, leading to TPA removal, and I am left thinking that the only reason for unblocking at this point would be for comedy value, to see if he can collect the full set of policy violations before the next inevitable block. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice series of blue-links you have thrown there. Considering that you were demonstrably wrong on one of the two diffs you cited in your block, I wouldn't crow too much about WP:CIR. As for the claim that it's only a matter of time before the next "inevitable block", clearly, Wikipedia administration is completely useless, since Clockback has never been blocked before. Indeed, an undeclared probably paid/COI editor merrily edited Education Policy Institute and never bothered to even post on the talkpage, while Clockback did discuss the matter extensively on the talkpage. Now Clockback is indef blocked while nobody gives a fuck about COI. Out of sight, out of mind. Nice work. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingsindian, ok, the small bite. The block. So Guy's statement at ANI, in its entirety, was "I have blocked Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on a review of contributions, which skew heavily towards highly biased editorialising e.g. "sabotaging his own education" and "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco". This looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and m:MPOV. Undoubtedly WP:TE, and the opinions are unsourced." at 08:24. That was a response to Clockback's OP made at 08:09. I've already quoted the block notice made at 08:21 (this is where you got the "15 minute review" thing) but will do it again here: Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.

So. you have accurately pointed out that the last sentence of the ANI statement is only half-correct (one of the two, was unsourced). Guy cited two examples. I do not believe that these were meant to be exhaustive, but rather examples. Anybody can click through large edits in Clockback's contribs and find those and the others and reach the same conclusion that Guy did, as expressed (with an error) in his ANI note or his block note, each of which focus on Clockback's lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it. Without considering who he is.

So I find the initial indef very valid. I figured since 2015 that this is where he would end up. That is my actual a priori here... based on my own past interactions with him and having considered his contribs before. If it ever would come to a drama board, he would not survive. Too many bad edits, too ignorant, too arrogant. (I always find it so weird and kind of sad when intellectuals make a bunch of drama about losing editing privileges when they have obviously not spent any time trying to understand what has made WP possible and write things that are just ...silly, yet said with such gravity.)

Now, in addition you seem to be saying that Guy's analysis of Clockback's contributions would have reached a different conclusion, if Guy had taken Clockback's identity into account.

I have a sense that you (and some others who have !voted to unblock as well) want to cut much more slack to people who come here who want to edit about themselves, especially if they do it under their real name. Be somehow more simple and gentle about things; smoothing over rough spots where they get caught and then kind of scooting them on their way. Like one would do with a child. If that is where you are coming from, part of me finds that lovely. And (if that is correct) there is something good there about not taking this whole thing too seriously. Is that at all accurate? Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

@Jytdog: Thanks for answering my direct question. In your opinion, JzG's block rationale was not supposed to be exhaustive, just illustrative of something fundamentally wrong with Clockback's editing. JzG sensed something was wrong, but they couldn't pinpoint it since they didn't know Clockback's identity. JzG themselves says roughly the same thing. Please let me know if I've misunderstood you. Ok, let's take this position seriously, and address it. And this reply will address your initial points as well.

For just a moment, consider the following hypothesis seriously: "Clockback is in the 95th percentile of COI editors. His edits are restrained, largely justified, largely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and any harm they did is minimal." You may respond with disbelief: "WTF Kingsindian? Are you mad?". Well, I am indeed mad, but am I right? Let's apply Cromwell's rule.

For evaluating such a hypothesis, one needs to look at all the evidence, not scattered diffs. And then we update the probability of the hypothesis accordingly. Space does not permit me to offer a full accounting, but here's what I'll do: I'll take three articles which Clockback edited, and look at all the edits they made to the article, as well the edits they made to the talkpage. Note that these are the articles which JzG and Jytdog themselves cited, so I am taking the hardest possible sample.

Article 1: Education Policy Institute: This was the state of the article before Clockback edited it. It was largely written by, as I mentioned above, a likely paid/COI editor. JzG seems to have indef blocked the editor after I pointed it out, but that was never my point. Clockback pointed out on the talkpage that the article nowhere mentions the link between this organization and the Liberal Democrats. They discussed this matter on the talkpage. This information is present in the lead of the article now. I count this a clear case of WP:HERE.

Article 2: Peter Hitchens The edits to this article go back a long way. I will only look at the edits post-2009 -- namely those discussed in Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 4 and Talk:Peter_Hitchens. I count at least > 90% support for my hypothesis. Let's take a look.

Examination of talkpage edits

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This section: As far as I can see, Clockback is > 95% right. And they thanked the editor who fixed the problem. No issues.
This section: Clockback is entirely correct. Another editor implemented the suggestion. Clockback thanked them. No issues.
This section is trivial and no importance.
This section is WP:FORUM thread started by some random editor, and is of no importance. It is largely civil.
This section is entirely correct. We discourage such cases of "Jew-tagging" on Wikipedia.
This section. Hitchens is, let's say, at least 80% correct. All good-faith arguments. No issues that I can see.
This section is complicated. I think we can all agree with the assertion: "The Peter Hitchens article is improved if there's a photo there". Clockback went to great lengths to try to achieve this end, and it was finally met, albeit after lots of teeth-gnashing. See also, this section, where editor Maproom helped them out by cropping the photo. At least a few of Clockback's edits were improper. This was due to frustration with WP bureaucracy, which does not excuse it, but mitigates it. Here's the main thing. The edits improved the article, and did minimal harm. I count this > 50% WP:HERE.
This section is purely discussion with the editor and Jytdog. I see no direct effect on the article, so it's hard to judge. It's probably best if I simply don't comment on this.

Now to article space:

Article space edits

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First, a general comment. I count 21 edits by Hitchens in the past 500 edits. This means that to an overwhelming extent the article does not have any kind of spin that Hitchens themselves put on it. It is largely written by other, independent editors.

Now specific edits. I can't look at all 21 edits (this reply is already too long), so here's what I'll do. I'll look at the 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 21st edit.

1st Simple date correction. Entirely proper.
6th This is the edit JzG cited. As I mentioned, JzG was > 90% wrong about this.
11th Simple correction. Entirely proper.
16th Bad edit. Jytdog calls this as a "temper tantrum". I have discussed this case just above (see the discussion about the photo).
21st Simple edit, add photo. Entirely proper.

Article 3: George Bell (bishop): I'll carry out the same procedure. First look at talk space edits, then article page edits. Again, I submit that there's > 90% support for my hypothesis.

Talk page edits

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This section. As far as I can see, Clockback's comments are entirely proper and civil. They are very restrained, and they first ask other people to make the edit. The other editor Relentlessly apologized by saying that they didn't have the time before, but helped Clockback out by fleshing out their contribution. Clockback thanked them. Editor Charlesdrakew averred that the section gives too much weight to certain things, and Clockback discussed it politely. This is a classic content dispute. Another editor GroupCohomologist added material on the German Wikipedia based on the entry here, and thanked Clockback for their contributions. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, Clockback is almost certainly WP:HERE in this section.
This section is where relations between Clockback and Charlesdrakew deteriorate. As anyone knows, this is often what happens when there's a content dispute. Clockback is almost entirely civil and on-point here. WP:HERE again.
This section is about the Carlile report. Clockback discussed the matter thoroughly on December 17. They waited 2 weeks. Almost nothing happened: the article contained a very short (and completely weaksauce) sentence about the findings of the Carlile report. Clockback discussed on the talkpage again, imploring someone to fix this state of affairs. In response to this, a new-ish editor finally made a somewhat substantial edit to the article about the findings of the Carlile report. Clockback waited another six months for their next edit, and explained it thoroughly on the talkpage. I have discussed the aftermath in my opening statement, and don't need to repeat it here. WP:HERE or no? You decide.

Now to article space:

Article space edits

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I will only consider the edits PRIOR to this unfortunate affair. As I have already said, a (short) block for edit-warring is entirely proper in the circumstances. No dispute there. Therefore, I will look at the edits prior to 26 Nov 2016. Clockback made 27 edits in total (most of them are copyedits). I'll consolidate the copyedits and discuss them all.

This edit is the very first discussion of any criticism whatsoever of the Church's decision. This was the state of the article at that point. WP:HERE, clearly.
Another criticism. WP:HERE clearly.
This edit is from a House of Lords declaration. It's a primary and not a secondary source, but the source is WP:RS. One can find secondary sources discussing the matter. Example, a BBC article.
Clockback added several more criticisms, which might have been a bit too much (hence Charlesdrakew's protestations). But it is clear that there was a LOT of criticism of the affair. One can WP:AGF here and call it 50% WP:HERE.
This edit is not good, and might well fall under "editorializing". Perhaps I can add some context here, now in the light of the Carlile report. The Carlile report criticizes the police action (in a serious though understated manner typical of lawyers), and especially the use of the word "arrest", which he says was very prejudicial, and likely led to the whole mess with the Church. Clockback makes exactly the same point, somewhat clumsily -- only once -- Charlesdrakew reverted them, and they didn't repeat it, but rather discussed on the talkpage.
This edit is not ideal, because it's a primary source and probably not WP:RS. However, secondary sources can be found easily. Example from The Guardian. Let's say > 80% WP:HERE.
This edit is the connection of the George Bell case to the wider case of historical abuse. Jytdog calls a similar edit of their own "important context". WP:HERE.
This edit is the first reference in the article to the Carlile review. WP:HERE.

Punchline: I have tried to make a case for a hypothesis: "Clockback is in the 95th percentile of COI editors. His edits are restrained, largely justified, largely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and any harm they did is minimal." On its face, it looks absolutely absurd and is rejected vehemently by the "endorse block" people here. Consider, please, that you might be mistaken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I can interject here, Kingsindian: I am convinced clockback’s editing is good faithed, but he has adopted a battleground mentality such as recruiting people via his twitter account to come here and vote against his being blocked and other issues (this could well be due to a lack of familiarity with our policies). Many of his contributions were indeed helpful and he has the potential to be a productive editor, without the drama. I am not convinced there were major COI issues, outside of him being emotional about social causes and issues - especially as he was open about his identity and was willing to use talk pages. If he could familiarise himself with our policies and guidelines, and agree not to repeat certain problematic behaviour, I would likely, after the standard six month period, support a later appeal to lift the block. I would like to be pinged if a future appeal is submitted. You are making me think Kingsindian, and making me look closer at what motivates clockback’s editing, and I think behind the emotion and drama is a decent guy who means well and cares about injustices and people, it is just the community doesn’t want the associated drama is the issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your good faith does you credit, but all the available evidence is that Hitchens edits only where ha has a COI, and many of his edits (e.g. to the articles on his work) have very strong overtones of self-promotion. His interest in Wikipedia appears entirely restricted to advancing his off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this COI page, Talk:Peter_Hitchens/Archive_4, taken as a random example, he is interacting diplomatically and seeking consensus with other editors. He is definitely opinionated which could be seen as biased in several subject areas he edits, but this is not necessarily the same as having a COI. I am not in denial that he has behaved poorly and warranted being blocked. However, I would have liked him to have talk page access so that I could discuss some concerns I have and offer advice, but that right was taken away from me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsindian. Your description of my perception of the initial block is not correct, but I don't want to quibble about that. The bulk of the post seems to be what you have been wanting to say for a while now, and I am glad you have had the chance to say it.

Before I respond, would you please clarify if this "95th percentile of COI editors" language is based on some data or if we have data to evaluate it with, or if that is just use of the anchoring tactic/rhetoric (and by that please read "bullshit")? If it is the latter I would be happy to have a conversation about a hypothesis like "Clockback's behavior as a conflicted editor has not been unreasonable" or the like.Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: "95th percentile" just means "better than the vast majority". I don't have any hard data on this, no. But as you know, I have been a regular at the site-that-should-not-be-named, and have seen tons of COI editing on Wikipedia. So I believe my general impression is not entirely inaccurate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. :) I am happy to have a conversation about how his behavior fits in the range of conflicted editor behavior, based on our experiences/observations of conflicted editor behavior. I have real world stuff today; will respond tonight. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, how about supporting an unblock with mentoring? I just changed my vote to this, and I offered to mentor and I imagine Kingsindian might help as well. Clockback actually asked for Wikipedians to help him so should accept mentorship, albeit in a disruptive fashion of inserting this appeal into the article text! I assume Kingsindian feels a likely injustice is occurring here and would like people to reevaluate the situation and how they voted, so.....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Clockback has any interest -- not a whit -- in understanding what we do here and most importantly, how and why. I tried back in 2015. You can bring a horse to water... Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's look at their edits to the EPI article and its talk page.

1st diff 4 Nov. 2016. Unsourced addition of "closely associated with the Liberal Democrats. No edit note
2nd diff. 16 Nov. 2016 Inappropriate unsourced editorializing in mainspace. No edit note.
1st and only talk page contrib 26 Nov. 2016. A bunch of unsourced opinion and speculation including What is more the EPI received corporate donations of almost £300,000 in its last recorded year. Given its governance, it seems more than possible that these donations came from supporters of Academy trusts..
3rd diff to article 5 December 2017. Terrible edit. Strips tags without addressing the issues including the "COI" and "primary source" tags. Adds unsourced opinion from 1st diff again. Adds a bunch of primary sources -- in fact only primary sources (!) and content based on them. Adds content about their "current" leadership. The next day the edit was very rightly reverted.
4th diff. 7 December 2017. Again restores the Liberal Democrat thing, now sourced... wait for it.. to his own blog post entitled.. wait for it.. "How Many Journalists Realise what the Education Policy Institute Is?"

I do not consider anything there as good faith, aiming for the mission, or even remotely concerned with how we generate content here in WP. It is a perfect example of him abusing WP like it is his own soapbox/blog.... Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Ok. Let's do look at the edits to the EPI article. Let us first establish the truth of the matter (is the truth important, or isn't it?). Educational Policy Institute was rebranded from "CentreForum", which was indeed very closely associated with the Liberal Democrats. This information is present in the lead section of the article now (the sources aren't great though -- I'll update them). This claim is extremely true, and extremely relevant. Here is proof of it, having nothing to do with Hitchens, all in reliable secondary sources:

Channel 4 News Incidentally, the source they quote, Mark Pack, describes "CentreForum" as "the closest thing the Liberal Democrats have had to a think tank".
Schools Week Please read the entire article -- it's all about the matter.
The Economist ...Centre Forum, favourite think tank of the "small state" wing of the Liberal Democratic party...

Ok, having established the truth, we now look at ALL of Clockback's edits.

We first note that at the time Clockback edited the article, there was no mention of this extremely relevant and extremely true fact. Indeed, Clockback's initial attempt to add this information was reverted by ... wait for it ... the likely undeclared paid/COI editor who I mentioned before (and who is now indeffed), and who never bothered to discuss on the talkpage -- and who also didn't use an edit summary for a single edit.

After being reverted, Clockback opened a talk page discussion about the matter. What you call "unsourced speculation" is actually the truth -- editor Seaweed confirmed its truth in the discussion itself. Clockback says in effect, please update the article to acknowledge this extremely relevant and extremely true fact, and says that he will wait till December 15 (twenty days after his post), so that someone gets around to it.

Editor Seaweed makes some edits to the article, but as you can see from the version here, there is STILL no mention of the extremely relevant and extremely true Lib Dem connection.

One year later, nothing had been done. Clockback tries to add the completely relevant and completely true information again. I don't understand much of the edit, because Clockback actually says that In June 2016 CentreForum became the Education Policy Institute – focusing its research on education and young people’s mental health, and making clear it is an entirely independent, politically impartial organisation. This is the opposite of the point which Clockback has been trying to "push" into the article. So I interpret this as trying to provide some amount of WP:NPOV -- perhaps this is simply too much WP:AGF from my side. The edit was, overall, clumsy (as you note) and was reverted.

As of this moment, the article is still in a terrible state. It could easily qualify to be in the "Crap articles" and "Obvious paid editors are obvious" threads on the un-nameable site. However, one thing is for sure: the person who was trying to add extremely true and extremely relevant information to the article has been indeffed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI does not contain an exemption for situations where you don't get what you want, and Clockback's talk page commentary makes it absolutely clear that he will follow COI rules only as long as he does get what he wants - pretty much as you outline above, in fact. Soon we will have namespace-based blocking, at which point we can change the block to mainspace only and that will be fine. He only edits where he has a COI, he does not respect COI policy if he doesn't get his way, so we can control that with a mainspace block when it becomes available, thus we get the "benefit" of his talk page commentary (I am not convinced, but you seem to be and I take that on trust) without the problems caused by his COI edits to the encyclopaedia itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has heavily edited George Bell (bishop) and was reasonably blocked for policy violations on this article. What is the alleged COI on this article? To me he has formed an independent opinion (without a COI) which might be POV and possibly biased and has been vocal publicly in his opinions but I don’t think having a strong opinion constitutes COI.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI says: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns", it further covers actual, potential, and apparent COI: Here, "journalist Peter Hitchens" -- the person -- is in the apparent Bishop George Bell Report, "journalist Peter Hitchens" is mentioned material in the report's investigation of the topic of George Bell (bishop). One may be forgiven for not knowing that "Peter Hitchens" is discussed in the apparent report, if you just read Clockback's representations of wanting to write about that report on the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic, and that this User read the entire report, because Clockback apparently fails to disclose on Wikipedia that "journalist Peter Hitchens" is actually in the report - a seemingly telling omission by Clockback of relationship and connection to the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a COI, he is mentioned in the report because he has a POV and pushed it in public, but doing so is not a COI - if it is then somewhere between 99% and 100% of WP editors on Donald Trump articles need topic banned as a matter of urgency, but who then will edit the article.... Anyway, Peter Hitchens is just mentioned briefly in the report and he did not have any involvement, to my knowledge, in writing that report. He doesn’t have to disclose he is mentioned in the report since it is irrelevant. In fact, even if he had wrote the whole report by himself he could still cautiously cite it, per WP:SELFCITE. Still not seen any evidence he has a COI in George Bell article, in other articles he edited, sure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is WP:COI. Come on, now. You obviously have no proof that many Trump editors are also writing about Trump reports in which the User is discussed, nor any basis to claim that. You may somehow think and contend "Peter Hitchens" is irrelevant to the Bishop George Bell report and topic but that is just your baseless unsourced contention, because the investigator included "Peter Hicthens" in the report making, "Peter Hitchens" relevant -- your "lack of involvement" claim is also misleading, again because "Peter Hitchens" is there in the report, which is involvement. I was coming back to expand that I did find Clockback disclosed on the talk page that he is a "partisan" (and therefore he was reluctant to write in the article) on George Bell, which is a type of disclosure, even though he did not disclose "Peter Hitchens" is in the report. His reluctance to edit was correct (he should have stuck with that and not edited) because that is a type of WP:COI editing, you can't be a party, and be discussed in reports about the topic, and also write about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clearer: My reference to Trump editors was about people having a significant POV and then editing the Trump article, i.e. having a POV and pushing it is not a COI, I did say being mentioned in a report you had no control over is irrelevant to COI. I read the COI page and quoted SELFCITE to you, it is your opinion that is unsourced to policy and guidelines. Yes, partisan, as in biased (like 99% of our Trump editors) which is not necessarily the same as COI - and your example of him preferring to use the talk page rather than edit the article because he is partisan shows evidence that he was trying to work with people, not against them, but things obviously went south and he was justifiably blocked. The question is whether this block should be indefinite or if he deserves a second chance. I have been persuaded that he deserves a second chance. Can you link to policy or guidelines that prevent him from using that source he is mentioned in? I linked you to WP:SELFCITE on WP:COI page; he could have edited the article even if he wrote the report himself. It appears there are other editors who have the opposite POV to Clockback who helped to maintain NPOV, so I am not overly worried about that article being turned into a POV monster. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your odd-diversion to WP:SELFCITE is nonsensical because it has no basis in fact, here. (Similar to your made-up Trump claims). Yes, the WP:COI guideline says use common sense, the common sense that arises when an editor says they should not be writing on the topic, and the facts here are, the report makes "Peter Hitchens" relevant to, connected to, and in relationship to the George Bell topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Literaturegeek and User:Alanscottwalker... i kind of struggle with "COI" being applied to Hitchens with respect to the George Bell article. What is very true, is that Hitchens was very embroiled in the real world dispute over the church's handling of the allegations. I noted here at the Bell talk page that the noted Carlile report (the definitive "postmortem" on the church's handling of the matter) had a paragraph that said: There was a perceived problem that people such as the journalist Peter Hitchens, who recently had described Bishop Bell as a personal hero, would regard the Church as ‘caving in’ and would cause a media storm if the Church was insufficiently robust in its position. In this context, it was recommended that it was important that the Church openly should say that it had ‘settled a claim’, so that it was clear ‘there has been a legal test and an investigative threshold has been set’." The report overall found that the church "oversteered" its process toward a position sympathetic to the woman, for several reasons. This was apparently one of them.

Somebody that involved in a public dispute has no business getting involved in directly editing the topic. It is really an WP:ADVOCACY issue more than COI per se. If you check his edits to that page they are a continuation of his real world raw advocacy. In other words, exactly like his edits to the EPI page, but this time on steroids.

I will say that edits like this (which is also full of unsourced opinion) encroached on BLPCOI by changing "female victim" to "female alleged victim" which is moving very much toward dehumanizing her - a living person. (the "alleged" was restored by him again here... it remained until I did this, changing it to simply "the woman"). In fairness to Hitchens I think he generally tried to be respectful of that person. But that kind of advocacy edit pretty much trampled on her.

It is really abuse of WP as a soapbox. Which is what I have been saying all along. Kingsindian has been framing this as some kind of strict COI claim, but this is not what I (at least) have been emphasizing.

I also call your attention to the recent Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles, which is a bit different as it involved WP:BLPCOI (which is only marginally at play here with Clockback, if at all) but yet relevant, as it was about somebody abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox with respect to recent British politics. I have had that case very much in mind through all of this, as I reckon (I am only reckoning; I do not know) Guy did; Guy brought that Arbcom case after having been involved in administrative matters relating to it prior to that. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the old common sense adage 'don't become part of the story'. When you are part of the story because the independent report discusses you, there is a conflict when you seek to write encyclopedically on the story that you are now part of. (All the more so, because we can't dislcose in our encyclopedia article, 'Dear Reader, I'm 'so and so', I was involved here and here is my take, and opinions of what went on . . .', to give the reader a tip-off) As for a more general case of opinion-writers coming here to cite themselves and/or write up their own opinions in Wikipedia, it seems doubtful anyone could think that's a really good idea under any of our alphabet policies. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he does not say that he will follow COI rules only as long as he gets what he wants. You keep repeating this unfair claim without any proof. In fact, Clockback was not very happy with my rewrite of the George Bell article (I was almost entirely ignorant of the matter, so my rewrite wasn't very good). But he accepted my rewrite as a reasonable compromise position. On the matter of the EPI, he happened to be right on the facts of the matter, so he tried to insert the extremely true and extremely relevant information very infrequently, after nobody had done it for a year after he had posted on the talkpage. This is a massive failure of the supposed ideal COI process: "oh just make your points on the talk page and we'll deal with it. If you actually dare to edit the article, we will screw you.". Doesn't being right actually count for anything? Or are we all just wikilawyers here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be the only one who disputes this interpretation of his talk page statements. Have you ever read his column? I need to check the article to see if "opinionated" is actually his baptismal middle name. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, in the EPI edits, you seem to have missed that at the time they inserted the LibDem claims, this was already outdated. You give sources supporting their addition, but all these sources are from before the change of affiliation. When they made this change in Nov 2016[35], they reverted the article to the situation before June 2016[36]. When a think tank has officially severed its ties with a political party and has become independent, it is not a "factual" or "neutral" edit to remove "independent" and replace it with "is [...]closely linked to LibDem". It was wrong in 2016, and the way they readded it in late 2017[37] was a lot worse, both the contents, the extreme COI source, and the edit summary. Defending these edits as "the person who was trying to add extremely true and extremely relevant information to the article" is a very charitable view of what was clearly one element in his pattern of COI editing, ignoring the changes made to the structure of EPI earlier and casting it again as the political thinktank it used to be, with his own unreliable POV blog as source. Trying to argue for unblocking based on the edits to EPI seems very misguided. Fram (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Clockback's point was that "independent" is a self-described label, nothing more. When an organization which was started by Lib Dem politicians, was very closely associated with Lib Dems, and even now is headed by a former Lib Dem politician (David Laws) some people might feel that calling it "independent" is a bit much. I see the same sort of fights over whether to call B'Tselem as "leftist" or "started by leftists". Go to the talk page and see these arguments. Nobody claims that people who wish to insert this kind of stuff should be banned from the B'Tselem page. The EPI article contains a big section on the history of EPI, where there is a throwaway sentence about it being a liberal think tank. Isn't a sentence or two summarizing this section appropriate in the lead?

These are all essentially content disputes. A blunt instrument like an indef block is not the way to deal with them. Again: Clockback waited for over a year before someone did something about the points he was raising. Correct or not, it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the removal of "independent", but about the insertion of the political affiliation as a currect fact, after this was no longer the case, and sourced to his own blog which makes it quite clear that his point was not simply the removal of "independent". "it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith." YMMV. Fram (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit did both things. The second part, to be clear, was calling it "closely linked to the Lib Dems and the Academies movement". I have already given the connection with the Lib Dems. As Hitchens points out in his blog, the latter includes notably Sir Paul Marshall, Chairman of ARK Schools and also Chairman of EPI, and Sir Theodore Agnew, a Trustee of EPI and also chairman and sponsor of a multi-academy trust based in Norfolk. Again, the claim is neither wrong, nor wild, nor made in bad faith.

One can debate if and how to present these things in the lead. There's a section on EPI's history, maybe it should have been presented there first, and then summarized in the lead. But these kind of disputes all the time on think tank/NGO articles (I already gave the B'Tselem example, and can give many more). These are essentially content disputes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Paul Marshall (investor), who left LibDem in 2015 (i.e. before the edits under discussion), and Theodore Agnew, Baron Agnew of Oulton, who never was a LibDem (as far as I can tell) but a Conservative? In what way is Agnew, past trustee of the rather more conservative Policy Exchange think tank as well (founded by Michael Gove and Francis Maude), evidence that EPI is a LibDem affiliated think tank? Oh right, because Hitchens says so on his own blog... he is cherry-picking evidence (taking the LibDems as evidence that it is a LibDem thinktank, but ignoring the non-LibDems, who are not important enough to counter the political affiliation but suddenly are important enough to establish the "academies movement" connection), to support his POV. Since that is all he has done here this year (and, as discussed here, in 2017 as well), and he gives no indication of changing this approach in the future (in the many declined unblock requests), I see no reason to unblock him. Fram (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued enough here, and I am rather tired of the whole thing. Do what you wish. This will be my last comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Kingsindian meatpuppet edit the disputed claim into the EPI article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_Policy_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=853843921 -- 2603:3024:200:300:280C:B160:52AA:3448 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody restore Clockback's user talkpage access?

There is a strong consensus that the talk page access removal is endorsed. Alex Shih (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I told Clockback that he can respond to the points raised here on his talkpage, and I'll transfer them here. It's somewhat tedious, but working. I have done this process before with other blocked users. For some reason admin Jpgordon has swooped in and removed talkpage access. They are not responding to messages, so I suspect they're offline. Can some admin restore Clockback's talkpage access? It hurts nobody and makes this process fairer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse TPA removal. If jpgordon hadn't removed TPA, I would have. The discussion there was not productive and Clockback had taken to canvassing for support on the above discussion. They may use UTRS. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want to remove talk page access in the middle of a block review? Why? What possible justification could it have? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the discussion above seems pretty clear in terms of a result and the reason for it. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to prematurely close the discussion? Nobody died and made you king. Ridiculous. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am flabbergasted, frankly at the amount of correspondence this issue has generated. The individual who has been blocked (from his own talkpage) has revealed his identity as Peter Hitchens. Mr Hitchens is, and has been for many years a well known and respected journalist in the British media.

The arrogance of anonymous admins such as "331dot" and "jpgordon" is frankly staggering. Have you people nothing better to do than bully other users? Mr Hitchens is perfectly entitled to talk to others about issues affecting his life and you have no right of any kind to prevent him from doing so. What are you people? Some sort of Orwellian thought police brigade?! What moral right do you have to dictate to other users of this platform? I disagree with you 331dot. Are you able to handle that? Can you bear to have others disagree with your position? (That is a rhetorical question).

This episode, to my mind highlights a very big flaw in the functioning of wikipedia. Namely, that certain users who have an elevated status: "admins" are able to act without impunity. I believe that in order for wikipedia to work effectively, these individuals must be subject to some sort of public accountability. Perhaps the elevation to admin status should be accompanied by a requirement for them to reveal their true identities (as Mr Hitchens has done) in order for others to hold them truly accountable. They should not be able to simply hide in a cowardly fashion behind their aliases and bully other users. John2o2o2o (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon isn't anonymous. He's J P Gordon. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John2o2o2o You are certainly entitled to your views. I am perfectly capable of handling disagreement, that isn't the issue here. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you "331dot"? And thank you, but I don't need your permission to express a viewpoint.

Mr Hitchens is also entitled to his views. You should immediately restore his access to his page and leave him alone. In my humble opinion. And the issue at hand here is the high handed actions of "admins".

Furthermore, I have never heard of J P Gordon. Perhaps you would like to explain to me (and again this is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer) in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens? John2o2o2o (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you (213 edits in 6 years), of all people, should question the bon fides of 331dot (admin, 73,070 edits in 6 years) and jpgordon (admin, checkuser, 62,984 edits in 14 years). What the hell have you ever done in the service of Wikipedia? The most you've ever edited an article was 4 edits to Ancestry of Elizabeth II. It appears that all you really do is chat on talk pages (78.4% of your total), where you like to present your own opinions as an "professional genealogist" as being more reliable than reliable published sources, claiming you discovered facts before the first published mention of them, and failing to give your sources when asked to (i.e. [38], [39], [40], [41]) Other editors can make their own assessment of what that makes you, except, at the very least, it makes you someone who is not at all conversant with Wikipedia policy, and really has no place at the table for this discussion, because, frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't granting permission; my permission is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John2o2o2o: See my reply to 185.192.69.53. People are allowed to think whatever they want. Outside of wikipedia, they are allowed to say whatever they want within the bounds of law and if wherever they are saying it allows it. On wikipedia, the primary purpose of discussion is to improve wikipedia. There is some limited tolerance of other discussion but it's inherently limited and any discussion which harms wikipedia is not welcome. Notably we consider that it's harmful to use your talkpage when blocked for anything other than requesting an unblock which includes responded to any unblock discussion but does not include canvassing others to help you get unblocked. In fact canvassing is a more harmful use of you talk page than a lot of other nonsense that goes on on blocked editor's talk pages. (Canvassing is harmful regardless of whether you're blocked.) Note that as I said below, I have no specific opinion on anything that went on here. Actually what I said to 185 still applies. I have not looked at the specifics and frankly probably won't be doing so. I am simply dealing with your apparent belief that wikipedia is a free for all where people can talk about whatever they want. It isn't. In the modern age, there are so many forums and social media, plus the easy ability to start a blog or website where people can do that stuff. And as I understand it, the subject is a journalist anyway likely giving them even more avenues. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon removed talkpage access and immediately went offline, leaving no response to messages. What kind of WP:ADMINACCT is this? On these grounds alone, the action should be reversed. This whole matter is bringing out the absolute worst in Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins or any user are not required to be on Wikipedia 24/7. People have lives and are all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody asked them to be on 24/7. However, if they have to leave, they should at least have the decency to not take admin actions at the last moment, actions which directly impede an ongoing discussion. It's rather sad that I have to explain this to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we required admins to be online for several hours or more after their actions, we would surely have a lot of problems because things simply aren't being done. It's entirely reasonable for an admin to take non contentious actions just before they expect to go offline, and it surely happens many times every single day. I agree it can be problematic when an admin takes some contentious action and then is offline for a prolonged period although speaking generally, it's easy to see it's not always going to be obvious when an action is contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They left less than 15 minutes after, not "several hours" after. And are you saying that removing talkpage access in the middle of a block review is an example of a "non-contentious action"? Meanwhile, here's what WP:ADMINACCT says: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. They could have posted in this thread to say that they're leaving, and maybe someone else could have handled it. A hundred things could have been done. I'm rather stunned that people are defending this behaviour. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes or a few hours is largely besides the point. Ultimately if someone is not online for a few hours, there's no guarantee they are going to be online to deal with any fall out. Even a few hours doesn't guarantee it although if it takes a few hours for anyone to notice there's a reasonable chance it's not that important that timely action results. Do you not understand what 'speaking generally' means? In case it's still unclear I have no specific comments on the specific actions here. They are completely besides my point. I was simply replying to obvious nonsense suggesting something which would be extremely harmful to wikipedia namely that admins should not take action unless they expect to be online to deal with any fallout. This is clearly utter nonsense and I can't believe anyone would actually say that. And let me repeat for the last time, I have no specific comments on what happened here. They are entirely besides my point. I only wished to deal with utter nonsense express on AN suggesting something which would be incredibly harmful to wikipedia. If a page clearly needs to be protecting because of persistent proxy vandalism, or a non proxy vandal is going on a vandalism spree or whatever other nonsense that clearly requires quick admin action, I should not have to waste my time finding an admin who is going to be online in 15 minutes or whatever the fuck time period someone thinks is necessary. And yes this is a big deal to me because I live in NZ and at certain times of editing, somewhat less in than in the past but it still happens, there are a lot fewer admins around. And I don't like wasting my time dicking around with IRC or whatever the fuck you think I should waste my time dicking around to find an admin to take action who is going to be around for however the fuck you think they should be to take action which anyone who has spent any time on wikipedia knows is needed and does not need someone to hang around for. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related: UTRS appeal #22275. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Jpgordon removed talkpage access and immediately went offline - disgusting action - see Gordon s recent activity is total minimal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jpgordon - to jump on this is awful authority. This admin action and the block itself is embarrasing, see and read Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability- Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Disgusting" I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant "disgraceful", which would not be true either, but would at least be apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin who wants to is welcome to restore the user page access. I know nothing whatsoever of this conflict other than what I was drawn to as a result of the request for unblock. Just like his unblock requests, the verbiage on his talk page did not seem to be addressing the reasons for his block, and did not seem to me to be going in a useful direction. As far as "who is jpgordon", well, I'm probably one of the least anonymous editors on Wikipedia; I've been entirely public in my networked life since the early days of usenet and BBSing. But that's meaningless here. The question is asked, "in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens?" That's easy. I'm one of 1,211 administrators on Wikipedia, and, like each of us could, I exerted blocking authority regarding the Wikipedia user account identified as User:Clockback, with the intent of reducing disruption to Wikipedia. Obviously it has failed in this instance; the disruption instead increased. Oh well. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you shouldn't have jumped in should you. No one cares if your anonomous or not or who you are you are a wikipedia admin and should adhere to standards for that. Your comments are exactly similar to the blocking admins claim , ow, I didnt know anything I just blocked , I just removed talkpage access - laughable that our admins are aware of so little what is going on and that they use tools we provide them and trust them with without checking what the full picture is. Sadly, I am fully aware that Gordon and Guy are both really smart fully aware experianced editors and know exactly what is going on and it would do them and us a service if they both admitted that. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "standard" or policy which requires admins to be available around the clock, regardless of what action they have taken. Please take a look at WP:ADMINACCT to see in what ways admins are accountable for their actions. Jpgordon removed Clockback's TPA at 14:15, 4 August 2018, posted about it on Clockback's talk page, and then went offline. Their very first edit once they returned online is the one you see a few comments above this one, explaining their action. That is the very definition of administrator accountability. Your complaints are totally without merit, as are Kingsindian's, and you both need to calm down and stop bloviating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those of us with less hyperactive imaginations, could you detail what, precisely, you think Guy and Gordon have 'going on'. Nick (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoring talk page access: I think his talk page access should be restored. I understand his behaviour was disruptive but the community needs to be able to consider any further comments for evidence of remorse/regret and willingness to change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He had ample opportunity to do that, and chose not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Literaturegeek: Clockback appealed his talk page revocation via UTRS and I can confirm for you that there was absolutely zero hint of "remorse/regret and willingness to change". He flatly claimed that he was blocked out of spite. Swarm ♠ 00:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think allowing him temporary talk page access for one or two days while this unblock request is in process is a big drain on the community. My line of thinking is that talk page access is necessary, or at least helpful, in the hope he could reflect on himself and realise that needs to and will stop being a WP:DICK and be able to voice this to the community who are voting on whether to unblock him. I realise that it is bit of a long shot but he deserves that chance to prove himself to be a long-term benefit or negative editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He'll almost certainly get temporary talk-page access back at some point. If the community endorses the indef block -- as it certainly seems it will -- the block then become a community ban. If and when Clockback appeals that ban, some admin will likely restore TPA so his appeal can be copied over. Under normal circumstances, they might even unblock him to participate in the appeal directly -- but in this case, that's quite unlikely to happen, given Clockback's behavior after the indef block; I don;t think even the AGF-ingest admin would trust him with that license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse TPA removal - Clockback was using the talk page to file frivolous unblock requests which blamed other for his block, and did not address the reasons he was blocked. Further, he was also using it for WP:POLEMIC purposes. The primary -- if not only --- purpose of a talk page to a blocked editor is to deal with getting unblocked, but Clockback showed by his actions that he did not take that seriously. Hence the removal of TPA is appropriate and should be continued. Clockback can pursue an unblock via UTRS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TPA removal - finally; I already mentioned above that I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. If this editor was not related to the famous Christopher Hitchens, this would have been done a long time ago. They had enough time to violate WP:NOTTHEM multiple times, hadn't read a single policy, guideline or essay linked to them (WP:GAB, WP:COI, WP:FREESPEECH, WP:MEAT - those first came to mind, surely there are others), made several frivolous unblock requests and yet they were still pushing their PoV on the talk page, saying that the block was unfair. And - as the icing on the cake - some editors even supported their unblock request. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. byteflush _Talk 00:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are missing the entire point of why this talk page removal is bad. I told Clockback that he could respond to stuff written here on his talkpage, and I will transfer it over. I have been doing this, as I have done so for other block reviews for other blocked users I have carried out in the past. When Jpgordon says that he saw lots of "verbiage", this is what he saw. What possible disruption is so huge that it couldn't wait till this review is over? As for people claiming that he was disrupting by opening unblock requests, that is also false. The last request was when Jpgordon declined it, and Clockback opened no more unblock requests before this wholly unjustified action by Jpgordon. What is wrong with you people? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that you telling an editor something does not in any way constrain an uninvolved admin's actions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything like this? I was giving explanation of why Jpgordon was seeing "verbiage" on the talkpage -- this is because I told Clockback that he could respond to claims here (this is completely standard practice). Jpgordon himself has taken the position of "I have very little familiarity with the whole matter, so please excuse me if I stepped on some toes". And I'm not allowed to give him context so that they may change their mind? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But much of that "verbiage" was not relevant to his being unblocked, and was, in fact, attacks on other editors - like all the stuff about "Charles". You really should not have copied it over, since by doing so you gave heightened visibility to those attacks. It was also a mistake on your part, since that stuff just made him look worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was responding to an AN thread. So of course there would be comments on editors. That is the whole purpose of an AN thread. To discuss user conduct. If I had a dime for every personal attack made at ANI, I would never need to work a day in my life. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are, as you state in the edit summary, tearing your hair out, you are too invested in this matter. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse TPA removal. When consensus is against you, and you have to say "What is wrong with you people?", it might be time to also ask "Am I really in the right on this?" - and perhaps "Am I helping X, or hurting them?". I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone canvassing off-wiki, nor can I see much reason to re-instate access to someone whom causes plenty of disruption here without access. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TPA removal. Entirely within policy and justified under the circumstances. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TPA removal, unless I somehow missed that WP:NPA is now optional. Max Semenik (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TPA removal He was wasting everyone's time, and frankly, providing even MORE justification for the indefinite block. Why Kingsindian is choosing this particular hill to die on is beyond me. --Calton | Talk 09:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why these comments about "dying on this hill" or "I'm too invested"? I'm still alive, and I am not aware of having broken any policy. I am quite calm in real life, rest assured. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

AE block appeal

The block has expired prior to a formal reading of consensus here. For the record, however, the appeal was unanimously rejected. Swarm ♠ 08:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been blocked for a period of 72 hours for allegedly violating WP:1RR. Even though I haven't been blocked previously, I was handed a three day block while other users have recently been given lenient blocks of just 24 hours. Firstly, the user that reported me has been making reverts on the same Human rights abuses in Kashmir article himself, that too without engaging on the talk page and I am the one being blocked. The blocking admin didn't even wait to hear from me. The first diff reported was a revert from 28 July. The second diff reported was actually an edit that I made on 2 August and not a revert. The third diff reported is the ONLY revert that I made on 2 August that too when the reporting user had reverted me. Now if both me and the reporting user made a revert on 2 August, how does that violate WP:1RR and why I'm the only one being blocked? This was simply a content dispute where the reporting user never engaged in a discussion but the admin decides to block me without a violation of 1 revert per 24 hours even occuring. Son of Kolachi (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Copied from [42] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 1, Revert 2. I typically block for 72 hours for first time violations when doing AE WP:1RR blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly edit warring over time, but I don't see that they were ever notified that there was a 1RR restriction in force. They attempted to discuss on talk, but weren't able to bring in enough people to establish a consensus in either direction. I'd support a reduction, or even time served. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Liborbital#21_July_2018. This account is clearly a sock of someone who is here for disruption and POV pushing. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: They were notified of DS and the article has the proper edit notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the editnotice now, thanks, and their edits aren't tagged as mobile, so objection withdrawn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline unblock Normally, I would grant an unblock request for two reasons 1) the block was genuinely in error or against policy or 2) the person in question cops to what they did, and convincingly argues they intend to play by the rules. The diffs above show the block was justified; 1RR was clearly violated. The person's response show no indication of culpability, it's all deflection onto the actions of others. For that reason, I cannot support an early unblock at this time. --Jayron 32 18:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline both edits are reverts, the first one removes some text which was recently added to the article by someone else and the second is a reinstatement of the first edit. That there's discussion on the talk page is not an excuse for edit warring. I don't see any evidence anyone else has recently violated 1RR on this article (the "other user" mentioned only made one revert) and even if they had that would not be a reason to lift the block. Hut 8.5 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pending review"

Fixed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could someone enlighten me as to why my recent change to Chuckle Brothers ([43]) is deemed by the software to be subject to "pending review"? I'm assuming it's some technical glitch, though I don't know which technical board to go to to ask about it. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was caused by a "pileup": an IP's edit needed confirmation, and this affected all succeeding edits. Should be fixed now. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Does this usually happen after one edit that needs review? I'm sure I've edited after such edits before, without this occurring. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, yes. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it must happen. The idea is that someone must approve the IP edit or take action such as revert, and this is why all subsequent edits are marked as not reviewed until the action has been taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request Move

Done by Beyond My Ken --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can someone move this page pls, see talk (page already exists). prokaryotes (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review of NAC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Please would an uninvolved administrator review the close of the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Chains RFC by user:Steelpillow. There has been significant discussion of this closure in the following section (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Units and conversion) in which the closer has participated. There are objections to the closer from multiple people (most notably Redrose64, Johnuniq and Andy Dingley), with the primary reason being that the closure does not relate to the actual discussion - note that it hinges on "defining" (which was not mentioned by anyone in the lengthy discussion) and is at best tangential to what the question actually was and seems to be largely based on the closer's interpretation of the outcome of a different discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note the following, for your information:

I made the close following this discussion on this noticeboard.
MOSUNIT (aka MOSNUM) was mentioned by the OP as a relevant guideline. "Definition" is just its way of expressing a particular nuance to the central discussion in the RfC: when to use and when not to use an oddball unit such as chains. I chose to follow the wording of MOSNUM, but I need not have.
The RfC ran through, to my count, eight distinct proposals, none of which led to any clear consensus that I could see. None of the several related discussions, linked to by the OP, fared any better. I confess that I am now equally unclear as to how anybody can define "what the question actually was" sufficiently narrowly to claim that I ignored it.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me. Chains were a primary unit for permanent way infrastructure for most of the period up to the diesel era, and the position of items along the way is still referred to as "chainage" - the specific point Steelpillow made re "the nearest watering point is 43 chains further on" appears to be incorrect, since the watering point would be referred to in miles and chains and thus the distance in chains would be defining. I need to go back to my photo references but I am pretty sure that the minimum curve radius for rolling stock was specified in chains on the plates until at least the 1950s. Yes, it's archaic, but equally, so are many of the subjects of our articles. There are still lever arm signals in use, after all. We shouldn't be using MOS to override actual real-world practice. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is, in essence, a reconsideration of the MOS guideline, so the appeal to it is essentially a demand to have the same discussion all over again, which is a sin against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in my opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe: Not really. The discussion is basically "how should we interpret and apply the various bits of guidance in the MoS and elsewhere in relation to this specific topic area where the underlying facts are significantly different to the general case." The discussion about it at WT:MOSNUM began as a fork of this one. This is a similar sort of misunderstanding of the discussion that the closer made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would not be my interpretation of the discussion, since anything other than the status quo would be to not do what the MOS directs. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The MOS does not direct anything, it guides and like all guidelines it explicitly notes that it should be applied with common sense and that exceptions may apply. MOS:UNIT explicitly notes: "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in." (as noted in at least one of the various discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an awful close to me; by basing it on things not discussed in the RFC but on their own personal opinion, it's a blatant supervote (and IMO a clearly perverse result as well, as anyone with the vaguest knowledge of the UK railway system knows that for reasons of cost and tradition the metrication process has bypassed it, and distances are still officially measured in miles and chains). Reopen it. ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I looked over the close and post-close discussion yesterday and it seemed to be a supervote as well. The close didn't even attempt to discern the consensus of the discussion. ansh 666 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closure was requested at WP:AN/RFC by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) with this request at 11:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC). Some days later, Steelpillow (talk · contribs) offered to close it with this post at 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC). This offer was accepted by Mjroots (talk · contribs) at 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC), and closure occurred at 12:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I do not think that twenty-four minutes is enough to read and fully digest the discussion that was closed. It certainly does not give enough time to also read the prior discussions at Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London and Talk:East Croydon station#Chains nor the ancillary discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains and Talk:Chain (unit) (at least three relevant threads). In this post, Steelpillow admits to have not looked at the earlier discussions, although in this post they claim to have "taken note" of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-four minutes is indeed not enough. I had been looking at it for some time before I made the offer. I have also been criticised for drawing from the MOS discussion, so it is not consistent to also criticise me for not drawing from some of the others. There is a strong aroma of "I don't like it" about a lot of this. Nevertheless, I take some of the criticisms as valid. I have a suggestion for a way forward but it is my bed time now, I will post again later. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the closure is to be reviewed, there is no need to reopen the discussion in the meantime. Editors had plenty enough time to give their input whilst the RFC was running. For now, let's wait for Steelpillow to post his suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That closure is a mess, and I would hope Steelpillow's way forward is to revert himself and let an admin close it as per the guidance at BADNAC. To say "Beyond this, the arguments presented on both sides have shown no clear conclusion" is a nonsense, there's clearly a consensus for option 3. The closure is, as others have said better than me, a SUPERVOTE, there is indeed a strong aroma of "I don't like it", but it's coming from the closer. If Steelpillow doesn't recant that close then I would imagine we shall be back here asking for the close to be undone, which it could and should be under BADNAC. Fish+Karate 09:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit hard. Six (VI) proposals. I think that each proposal should have been addressed in the close separately. Then, each result compared, and probably put to a refreshed discussion. Multi-choice discussions tend to be very hard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused as to why whether the user is not an admin is relevant. You are not required to be an administrator to close any RFC. The close might be bad (I have not judged whether it is so), but BADNAC applies only to deletion discussion. --Izno (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact it's in the deletion section doesn't mean it's not good advice. Fish+Karate 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. RFC closes can and should be contested when they are bad closes, but this one cannot be overturned under the rationale of BADNAC, nor can the user be sanctioned for such an act. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested revision

'Morning all. As I said, I acknowledge some criticisms of my closure. I gave no status headline, leading some editors to wonder what I was saying at all. The second half tried to offer a suggestion, which unintentionally strayed into supervote territory. All in all, I wrote too much, and too incoherently.

But I stand by my view that no real consensus emerged: of the many proposals, most had split votes. The last one was not only not voted on, but only around half-a-dozen editors engaged in discussion and they did not discuss a key suggestion in it, that the primary units in the lead should differ from those given in the body. That appears to go against MOS:UNITS, though it is not clearly stated whether the participants were aware of that. I did not, and do not, judge that final discussion to have established a clear overall consensus to differ from MOS:UNITS. The situation had not fundamentally changed from when SMcCandlish wrote this.

I would be willing to substitute a much shorter closing summary, say: "No consensus to differ from MOS:UNITS. No consensus on the implementation of that guideline." That seemed to me at the time to be overly short and unhelpful, so I went and erred the other way. I would be happy to modify my closure as just quoted, perhaps with some short commentary to be agreed here first.

But if you all conclude here that a consensus was actually reached, then my closure should be rolled back and another editor make it. May I suggest that to save time you address this point first.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would be best if you were to roll the closure back yourself and allow an admin to close it, per WP:BADNAC point 2 - "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator". And of the proposals, proposal 3 at least had a comfortable majority in favour (22-7), so I'm not sure you could quantify things as no consensus. Whether you consider the proposal to differ from MOS:UNITS is your opinion, as that's definitely a matter of fine distinctions, and your opinion should not be imposed on the closure. All of this combined tells me you should undo your closure, before it's undone for you (as that's where this will go, I suspect). Fish+Karate 10:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to close this; I'm uninvolved, and as someone who once worked for British Rail in the dim and distant past, I'm familiar with the subject. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NACs were supposed to be able to replaced unilaterally by any admin. Not sure if that remains in the documentation? I note that the best NACers are very quick to revert when approached. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the guidance to which you refer is that added over ten years ago in this edit. It reached substantially its present form with this edit last year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with F&C. @Steelpillow:, I think perhaps the message hasn't been clear enough: the general motif is not that you tweak / alter / shorten / lengthen your original close, but that, since this RfC was always—from day one—going to be controversial, you should not have closed it in the first place. WP:BADNAC has already been quoted above, but to reiterate: he outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. All of that sentence applies. Most of the questions were a close call and there were (therefore) several (or no, which would be equally controversial) valid outcomes arising from them. And as such, yes, the close would have been left to an admin.

NACs, after all, are intended to draw the weight from admins and act as a time saver. The fact that your close has led to this AN thread and is now taking up the time of multiple editors clearly suggests that, as an exercise in time-saving, it has failed spectacularly.

I also agree with SmokeyJoe that the best NACers are very quick to revert when approached, and draw it to your attention. @Black Kite:, I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I thank you for it. Hope this helps! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to repeat something I said just above, just for emphasis: I am a bit confused as to why whether the user is not an admin is relevant. You are not required to be an administrator to close any RFC. The close might be bad (I have not judged whether it is so), but BADNAC applies only to deletion discussion. (You should respond above, because this comment is not relevant to this subsection.) --Izno (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's supplementary to WP:CLOSE, which is not specific to deletion debates. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be an administrator. As I said, the close may be bad, but that doesn't mean BADNAC should be cited. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's mentioning sanctions? The point is that it was a bad close (unlinked, if you prefer), and should be reclosed by someone with more experience and / or appreciation of the nuance; which is all this discussion has been about.—SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until you, F+K, and Smokey all brought up/referenced BADNAC explicitly, it was just about a "bad" close (scare-quoted because again, I haven't reviewed it). I did not think the user would be sanctioned, but I did wish to make it clear that wasn't okay either. If you are challenging the close, that should not be one of the bullet points even remotely related to why you are challenging the close. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, CLOSE makes the same point I am making at Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.[3] under section "Challenging other closures" --Izno (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons admins do this. First, we have specific experience in weighing policy versus voting. Second, we have thick skins. This needs an admin to lose it because otherwise (as we see here) there will be drama. In addition, the close does not reflect consensus. A "no consensus, case by cse" close would be OK, bit this close is a supervote and unacceptable on its face. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 30)

Deleted and moved. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, please remove (delete) this page to allow The Simpsons (30th series) to move here. --Patriccck (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: Thank you --Patriccck (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review of UpsandDowns1234 block

User:UpsandDowns1234 is requesting a community review of their block. The previous review was closed as "no consensus". The text of their appeal follows:

At this point, I truly understand what I absolutely did wrong that merited my block about a year ago. First, I completely obsessed about policy pages without taking into consideration whether it improves the encyclopedia, which is disruptive. Second, I abused talk pages (including my own talk page) and Twinkle for no apparent or good reason at all. Third, I see many places where I can improve on articles, particularly accuracy, vandalism, and images, such as the articles for musical.ly and Tik Tok (app). Fourth, I have abused my own userspace as a webhost, which violates the user page policy, and wastes time of RC patrollers who have to patrol each and every userpage edit (this is the reason why I requested to be blocked about a year ago in the first place). Fifth, I created pointless redirects that was the same problem on wikiHow and got me blocked there. Sixth, I created project and policy pages that did not line up with community guidelines, and was too vague in my edit summaries for any admin to interpret them as a good or bad edit (or set of edits). Seventh, I obsessed too much about the MediaWiki software, such as that extremely long discussion about changing the title of the main page and explaining why it would be technically impossible (also got me blocked from wikiHow). Finally, I see that whatever business I am doing on wikiHow does not affect my block over here, which at this point, for the next 6 months-1 year, I have to either shape up or shape out. I absolutely am sorry for this, understand the reasons for the block, and promise that this will never ever happen again. My incompetence was because I was attempting maintenance of Wikipedia without actually gaining experience on Wikipedia. My (not deleted) mainspace edits are <500, and if I were to narrow them down to not include the pointless template-adding games, they would probably be less that 100. And as Iridescent said, I have promised way too many times to not play games. This time, I actually mean it. Once again, I absolutely am sorry for whatever disruption I caused on Wikipedia, and hope to get my edit access restored soon. Ups and Downs (↕) 04:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser shows there is no evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion on their current IP. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose an unblock at this time. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support but suggest the user is monitored for a while to ensure they truly have taken on board the issues raised. Happy to do this. Aiken D 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock and a second chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in that the user does seem to recognise the wide-ranging issues exhibited, let's assume good faith and give them a chance to demonstrate improvement. Fish+Karate 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure TonyBallioni (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, having effectively tanked U&D1234's previous SO appeal here. I would be interested to hear User:Iridescent's feelings, as they were very much involved with this editor—and the myriad issues that that involved—from the start. Leaning support in spite of hearing from them, though, as if IIRC, Iridescent did support that last appeal, which tbh was not half as convincing as this one. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support, seems to have taken criticism on board and wants to learn to do better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The appeal clearly shows they now know better and needs a second chance to demonstrate that. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ROPE. Nihlus 18:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed - COI, outing, Wikipedia email confidentiality, etc.

I need some advice please. I have received an email via Wikipedia from a user asking me to edit an article on behalf of the subject of the article. The name of the user making the request is the same as the name of the CEO of a company of which the subject (who has also been a politician in one of the more disputed parts of the western world) is Chair, and in the email the user says that the subject is Chair of "our company". The user has previously edited the article, but without making any declaration of COI. I do not appear ever to have edited the article. The information the user provided to me is that submitted by the subject to a well-known directory of people in public life. Now obviously I am not going to carry out edits on someone's behalf like this, but what is the etiquette about revealing that such a request has been made, another user's COI, etc? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: I think the best course of action is to forward the email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org, per the information at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Waggers TALK 11:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this, and emailed the user to tell them of this and to point them to our guidance on COI. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS is not the correct location for this. The functionaries mailing list would be. You can send it to them at: functionaries-en

lists.wikimedia.org. Please remember to include email headers. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the content matter, OTRS can handle. So DuncanHill did the right thing there. Outing etc? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Login help needed for Textorus, continued

This is a continuation of a request for help I made a month ago, now archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive300#Login_help_needed,_please

I have been away but now am back, and am really hoping some kind soul will take pity on this old geezer and restore my access to my original account, user:Textorus. I have made a new account, but of course it lacks my 12 years of history and contribs, etc.

Many admins responded to my first request, and I appreciate that, but the consensus was that there was nothing they could do. Someone suggested I go ask for help at phabricator, but that was misguided: I did that yesterday and here is the response they gave me: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Uibpipy0i2ug8k2u&topic_showPostId=uid9wiuuvlzwowt8&fromnotif=1#flow-post-uid9wiuuvlzwowt8

So once again, I ask for my password on user:Textorus to be reset so I can get back to work making the Internet not suck, in my small way. I understand from the first discussion that I have no email address on file (I must have deleted the original when I got a new email years ago and somehow forgot to enter the new one); and that therefore, all the rules say I am screwed. I also do not know any other Wikipedians who can vouch for me personally.

However, from having worked 40 years before retirement in business and government with computer workstations, and frequently interacted with IT administrators, I do know that resetting a user password is a very simple thing, and in the world outside of WP is done all the time. I realize many delinquents and malefactors are also causing wikitrouble night and day, and I have no way of proving that I am not one of them - but guys, why would some hacker hoodlum want to impersonate a boring old guy like me and take over my boring old user account? When he could much more easily create a dozen clever, crafty new accounts on WP in the time I have taken to type this request? I ask you.

I am not a high-profile Wikipedian, but as a now-retired professional editor and educator I have for many years enjoyed clarifying, correcting, and sourcing wikiarticles, which is a nerdy but inexpensive hobby, and which does, I hope, contribute in small, unnoticed ways to the greater good.

So can someone please take a chance, WP:BRAR, and give an old man his wikidentity back? Thanks in advance for any help. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Textorus2: there are no English Wikipedia positions that have the technical capability to reset your password. The only people that can do this are developers, and you need to file a phabricator ticket to request their assistance. The link that you were provided at mw:Topic:Uibpipy0i2ug8k2u is the link to phabricator. You can see what an example password rest request look like here: phab:T198536. If you convince the developers you are the person that should be in control of your account they may be able to reset your email address so you can generate a new password. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Xaosflux, but the link I was given is "to report a bug" - I have no bug to report, just a password reset request, which is the simplest thing in the world - my bank does it over the telephone, no photo ID or fingerprints needed. The second link you gave shows someone asking for a password reset, but I do not see how to get into that discussion board. I am old and retired from a long career, and my brain is too tired to decipher and burrow into all the technical complexity there. If no one has the time or patience to help me out, maybe it's just time I retired from Wikipedia too. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Textorus2: WMF does not have telephone support, the intake system calls everything a "bug". Unlike a your bank, we don't know may private things to authenticate you (like "what is the amount of your last deposit, who did you write check number 3212 to, etc", which is why this is hard. The basic steps to open this "request" are below:

Go to this link
Fill our the form with what you want, include some links to discussions, etc.
Ensure there is someway to contact you privately (You can tell them to use the wikipedia email you registered with this account for example) ( You do not need to write this private information directly in to the ticket)
In the "Tags" section type in "Wikimedia-Site-requests" and "Trust-and-Safety"
Click "create new task".

Hope that helps. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonnycraig888

User:Jonnycraig888 is a new account, just created two days ago, that's making a surprisingly large number of edits to random AfDs. I'm assuming this is just vandalism and I've blocked them for 24 hours to prevent further damage. Looking for additional admin eyes to take a look and validate my assumption before I indef them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. I'm seeing someone who created an article, the article was passed by AFC, then in main space immediately sent to AFD. They've made several edits to that AFD. They seem to have an interest in music generally and Australian music specifically as most of the other articles and AFDs they've touched have been in that topic area. I didn't do an in-depth look at all their contributions or even all the AFD contributions, but the ones I've looked at look like good faith edits. There are no warnings on their talkpage at all. What specifically are you seeing that causes you concern? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me the contributions look like good faith attempts from a new user to participate in AfD. Given the contents of the comments I don't think this is a sockpuppet or other user with prior experience of AfD. Hut 8.5 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed request

Could a sysop consider confirming Y000mtah's account ahead of time; their anti-vandalism work is repeatedly triggering filters 1 and 249, and there's no need for that. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 427: / Line 427: @@
 == Block review for {{u|Clockback}} ==
+{{archive top|result=This discussion has gotten absurdly long for something generally as straightforward as an unblock request. Add to that a previous attempt to close that was reverted and the obvious issues with canvassing and it all adds put o big mess. However, at the end of the day it seems clear that the community at large not only endorses the original block but also the revocation of talk page access. Clockback is therefor now “community blocked” meaning that only a future community discussion can result in their complete unblocking. They may still use UTRS to appeal the revocation of talk page access unless and until UTRS admins find their appeals disruptive. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)|status=block endorsed}}
 {{mbox
 | type = style
@@ Line 878: / Line 879: @@
 :: Why these comments about "dying on this hill" or "I'm too invested"? I'm still alive, and I am not aware of having broken any policy. I am quite calm in real life, rest assured. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 09:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 {{archive bottom}}
+{{ab}}
 == AE block appeal ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards