:Some of these problems would go away if the AC/DS template had a signature field, so we would know from viewing the article talk page who placed the notice and the date when they did so. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
:Some of these problems would go away if the AC/DS template had a signature field, so we would know from viewing the article talk page who placed the notice and the date when they did so. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
::That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to force a signature on a template that is transcluded (as opposed to substituted) but I'll look into it. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
::That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to force a signature on a template that is transcluded (as opposed to substituted) but I'll look into it. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Awilley|EdJohnston}}, try substituting [[Template:ZHYXCBG]] onto any talk-page and check the result. (Input <nowiki> {{subst:ZHYXCBG}} </nowiki> ) It notes down the signature of the user, (who installs the template), within a comment (which is prepended/appended to the template-code) but the main notice is directly transcluded onto the t/p, as we do now:-)
:::
:::See [[Special:Diff/870385546|this edit]] of mine, for an example.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">∯</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 12:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
== False accusation of copyright violation and removal of material by Cwmhiraeth, without attempt at verification ==
== False accusation of copyright violation and removal of material by Cwmhiraeth, without attempt at verification ==
Revision as of 12:58, 24 November 2018
Page used for requests and notifications to non-specific administrators
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.
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
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.
@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk·contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 46 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727(T·C)20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this discussion is too stale, especially given how half of voters picked "wait." I think that if somebody wants to merge this article, they should feel free to boldly undertake it, or if they'd rather clarify things, start a fresh discussion on the talk page of one of the proposed parents. I'll leave this open in case another closer feels differently, though. —Compassionate727(T·C)14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 160 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S MarshallT/C11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727(T·C)23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727(T·C)22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Super Goku V, @Compassionate727, and I appreciate your input @S Marshall! Sorry for not getting to this earlier; I've had some unexpected personal commitments that have taken up most of my bandwidth. Given that it looks like this would be left best as an unclosed discussion, I'll mark this request as resolved for now (Not done). Frostly (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frostly and Compassionate727: Personally, I think it would be useful to try to discern some sort of conclusion from it, if only to provide editors some level of guidance as to how to respond to future notifications in that form.
I’ve marked it for not done for now, to prevent it being auto archived before this comment can be read, but if you’re confident closing it won’t be useful I won’t object to remarking it as done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 9 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 4 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. WolverineX-eye(talk to me)07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727(T·C)14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
A user came on the IRC help channel to ask about his block and I had a conversation with him; he consented to my pasting it here. I decline to do the unblock myself, but this is at least something for you to consider,
<Dragonfly6-7> what was th ename of the previous account, please.
<Dragonfly6-7> out of curiosity, can I ask why you switched from one to the other?
<FrogCast> Yes. I run a youtube channel
<FrogCast> I make derivative works from wikipedia
<FrogCast> my youtube channel is named, "FrogCast",
<FrogCast> I wanted all future contributions to be under that rudrick and not my real name.
<FrogCast> most of my contributions under akiva.avraham are all things concerning my youtube channel, which are extremely small edits correcting punctuation and syntax.
<Dragonfly6-7> also I'd like you to bear in mind the notion of 'false balance'
<FrogCast> Dragonfly6-7: Yeah. I had over an hour long discussion about that with Huon, the admin who rejected my unblock:
<FrogCast> ""I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend. Huon (talk)"
<FrogCast> Huon took the time to articulate the nuance around what constitutes a "conspiracy theory", and I happily accepted and understood the principle that was laid out to bare, and promised to apply it moving forward. At the end of that conversation however, that admin did not want to unblock me based on "a hunch", and then promptly left without explaining.
<FrogCast> The point being, is that look, I see what everyone is saying about "false balance" and I have always agreed with it, but it really honestly feels at this point, after promising and doing everything conceivable to address the issue, to admit guilt, rectify it moving forward, and still be denied, is that... That I had committed a thought crime. I really dont know what to do.
[much later]
<Dragonfly6-7> oh jeeze, i forgot i was still connected
<Dragonfly6-7> uh
<FrogCast> ttyl
<Dragonfly6-7> what you're saying *looks* sensible; would you be okay with me copying it into a message to another admin
<FrogCast> Fine with me. Use your best discretion.
The User:Akiva account was renamed to User:Akiva~enwiki. The latter has no live edits, but a few deleted edits ending in 2006. Akiva~enwiki has never been blocked. The newer account Akiva.avraham was editing up through April 2018 and is not currently blocked. User:FrogCast is another story, and I'm not yet seeing good reasons for an unblock there. In the block appeal on his talk page FrogCast seems to be stubbornly defending bad behavior. There is more good information in this user's UTRS appeal. Still, the last UTRS reviewing admin was User:Just Chilling and he declined to lift the block, recommending a later appeal instead. In the UTRS appeal FrogCast does reveal what he says are his previous accounts, and anyone who has UTRS access can compare those statements to the above IRC discussion. There doesn't seem to be any reason to ask for an SPI or a checkuser. (It's the current account that is behaving badly, not the older ones). EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked because this clearly wasn't a new user, and he posted this to a talk page I stalk, plus the nonsense on his own talk page. Given the three edits to murder of Seth Rich I'd only support an unblock with a US politics TBAN. What do people think about that? I don't feel super strongly either way here, none of the accounts has edited much, but Akiva.avraham and FrogCast were both used concurrently for some time and his choice of topics includes some with which we have long-standing issues, such as Burzynski Clinic, a ruinously expensive quack cancer centre, and Rudolf Steiner, the German faux-mystic cultist. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to support unblock and neutral on Guy's proposed restriction. Frankly, Mjolnirpants and David Tornheim sitting on the user's talkpage demanding they reveal their previous accounts is harassment and should not have been allowed, and if they responded to that poorly, well, sometimes that happens. As for the accounts listed here, the only page with any overlap between the two active accounts is History of Mexico (see [2]) and that was a series of three insignificant edits. Akiva.avraham hasn't edited in months and definitely hasn't edited while FrogCast has been blocked, so it's my view that no violation of the multiple accounts policy has occurred. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New user shows up and starts causing problems at an area thats under a variety of restrictions - and states they are not a new user? Yeah the first thing thats going to be demanded is they disclose any previous accounts. And I will note the that WP:HAND there. Using a bad hand account for disruptive editing certainly is a violation of WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the YouTube channel, which appears to be audios of Wikipedia articles: [3]. I'm wondering if the username "FrogCast" may violate username protocol in that the username could be perceived as advertising the name of his YouTube channel? Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed their Youtube channel said it was frogcast.org but it didn't work then and still doesn't work now. But I agree they need a user rename Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conditions for any unblock need to include a username change (to something completely unrelated to "FrogCast"), a complete removal of the advertising on his userpage, and an indef block of any alternate/old accounts. As to the other problems, including whether he is here to build an encyclopedia, I am uncertain. I would actually prefer that he (be permitted to) make an unblock request on his usertalk. That IRC conversation is a little too informal and hard to parse for my tastes. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG would have to re-enable the user's access to User talk:FrogCast before he could appeal there. The four previous appeals do not give any reason for optimism. Those appeals were declined by User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:AGK, User:Yamla and User:Huon respectively. FrogCast has also been at UTRS twice without receiving any encouragement there. If you carefully read the various POV statements on the user's talk page I think you might join me in recommending against this appeal. If he would give up on the past nonsense he might be unblocked, but he is standing firm behind the past nonsense. On October 5 he asserted that there was a left-wing conspiracy theory that Russian hackers were behind the DNC email leaks. In his November 6 UTRS appeal he is suggesting that admins' personal political views might be contributing to his unblock declines. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too had a lengthy conversation with FrogCast on IRC (log collapsed after this comment) and do not feel confident that unblocking would be beneficial. In short, I felt trolled throughout much of that IRC conversation and didn't get the impression that they were addressing their own conduct (beyond factual descriptions of what they wrote). At least the topic ban for US politics should be imposed; I oppose an unconditional unblock and remain skeptical about even one with a topic ban. Huon (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huon's chatlog
Nov 06 21:27:57 * FrogCast (uid330209@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sbhqfchzeacwwjdx) has joined
Nov 06 21:28:07 <FrogCast> Huon: ping
Nov 06 21:28:22 <Huon> FrogCast, yes?
Nov 06 21:29:39 <FrogCast> To the point, I wanted to address the behaviour and demonstrate that I understand the criticism, and why you were correct to make it.
Nov 06 21:30:28 <Huon> FrogCast, OK
Nov 06 21:30:44 <FrogCast> Huon: you spotted a contradiction in my reasoning, that quote:
Nov 06 21:30:50 <FrogCast> "I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend."
Nov 06 21:31:08 * tzatziki is now known as vote
Nov 06 21:31:22 <Huon> FrogCast, indeed
Nov 06 21:32:20 <FrogCast> meaning that when I said that "as long as a source was provided", this was a contradiction because in my edit, no source stipulating "left wing conspiracy theory" was provided.
Nov 06 21:34:26 <FrogCast> Huon: I am at fault for that. I had not considered that point of view, and it makes sense to me that even the phraseology and conceptualization has to be sourced.
Nov 06 21:35:09 <FrogCast> If I were in your position, I would have done the same thing. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Nov 06 21:35:26 <Huon> FrogCast, this is not a question of "phraseology"
Nov 06 21:38:16 <FrogCast> Huon: Okay. Are you referring then to the latter part of your message, "and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend." -- How would an excellent wikipedia editor parse this criticism and use it to identify their error?
Nov 06 21:39:42 <Huon> FrogCast, I'm referring to the part where "The Russians did it" is not a conspiracy theory
Nov 06 21:51:27 <FrogCast> Huon: Right: It was a conspiracy by the Russians, but that conspiracy does not constitute a "conspiracy THEORY" because it has not crossed the epistemelogical threshold that wikipedia upholds for calling something a "theory". Doing otherwise constitutes a weasel word. I 100% agree with that. Is that fair to say?
Nov 06 21:52:40 <Huon> FrogCast, what exactly do you mean by "the epistemelogical threshold that wikipedia upholds for calling something a 'theory'"?
Nov 06 21:53:13 <FrogCast> Huon: That in history, nothing is apodictic.
Nov 06 21:54:16 <FrogCast> But just because nothing is absolutely certain, does not mean you are allowed to call everything a "theory". Therefore:
Nov 06 21:55:02 <Huon> FrogCast, are you familiar with the common meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory"?
Nov 06 21:55:05 <FrogCast> Wikipedia has to choose "x" amount of evidence for classifying a "y" concept. Failing to meet "x", means you can not conceptualize something as "y".
Nov 06 21:56:15 <Huon> and no, none of this is about Wikipedia choosing anything
Nov 06 22:00:04 <FrogCast> (Sorry, my internet is being worked on at the moment by a technician. It is constantly being disconnected.)
Nov 06 22:00:07 <FrogCast> Huon: Conspiracy theory in the common meaning is used as a pejorative.
Nov 06 22:02:57 <Huon> FrogCast, no
Nov 06 22:04:13 <FrogCast> Huon: You do not think that conspiracy theory is a pejorative? That being labelled a conspiracy theorist is not accompanied by negative connotations?
Nov 06 22:05:56 <Huon> FrogCast, you could argue that it has negative connotations, but so has "fraudster", and it's not a pejorative
Nov 06 22:08:27 <FrogCast> Huon: Okay, I think I see what you are saying, if you would then say the common meaning of conspiracy theory is defined as an irrational level of paranoia towards one theory... is that fair to say, or am I still missing the mark?
Nov 06 22:09:33 <Huon> FrogCast, you may want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Nov 06 22:10:27 <FrogCast> "without credible evidence." being the keyword?
Nov 06 22:10:48 <Huon> FrogCast, indeed
Nov 06 22:11:19 <Huon> FrogCast, and no, it's not Wikipedia's place to decide whether the evidence is credible or not
Nov 06 22:13:40 <FrogCast> Huon: I think Im getting there; its not wikipedia who decides but rather, a primarily consensus basis; the entire concept behind wikipedia in the first place, correct?
Nov 06 22:14:18 <Huon> FrogCast, no
Nov 06 22:14:53 <Huon> FrogCast, we're going full circle: It's reliable sources who have to evaluate whether the evidence is good enough to call something a "conspiracy theory"
Nov 06 22:15:11 <Huon> well, whether the evidence is bad enough, that is
Nov 06 22:16:57 <FrogCast> Huon: Okay; I was conflating credible with reliable, and that was wrong?
Nov 06 22:17:58 <Huon> FrogCast, there are two issues: a) Did the Russians do it? and b) Is "The Russians did it" a conspiracy theory?
Nov 06 22:18:24 <Huon> FrogCast, to say "The Russians did it", we need reliable sources making that point
Nov 06 22:18:47 <Huon> FrogCast, to say it's a conspiracy theory, we need reliable sources making *that* point
Nov 06 22:19:30 <Huon> FrogCast, evidence isn't the same as "reliable sources"; we're not citing whatever evidence there is, but what secondary sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines have reported about the evidence
Nov 06 22:21:42 <FrogCast> Huon: And I failed to provide a reliable or reputable secondary source for stating """"The Russians did it" is a conspiracy theory""" "
Nov 06 22:22:58 <Huon> FrogCast, indeed
Nov 06 22:24:00 <Huon> FrogCast, and that would be rather difficult, given that the evidence is credible enough for four intelligence agencies to endorse that the Russians did it
Nov 06 22:24:02 <FrogCast> Huon: My error was how I conceptualized wikipedia. I thought any evidence could be inserted, when in reality, I need to base all propositions against reliable and reputable secondary sources.
Nov 06 22:25:39 <FrogCast> And that stating anything otherwise will be rather difficult, given that four US intelligence agencies have endorsed that the Russians did it.
Nov 06 22:27:14 <Huon> FrogCast, finding a reliable source that calls something endorsed by four intelligence agencies a "conspiracy theory" will be difficult
Nov 06 22:27:32 <FrogCast> Huon: Exactly.
Nov 06 22:31:56 <FrogCast> Huon: Taking all this into account, what else would an excellent editor and contributor to wikipedia keep in mind moving forward?
Nov 06 22:32:45 <Huon> FrogCast, sorry, that's beyond the scope of this channel
Nov 06 22:33:05 <Huon> FrogCast, you may want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
Nov 06 22:33:33 <FrogCast> Huon: Great. Are you satisfied that would warrant an unblock, so I can move forward?
Nov 06 22:36:43 <Huon> FrogCast, I'm sorry, but no
Nov 06 22:37:07 <FrogCast> Huon: Why? Is there anything else I can do?
Nov 06 22:41:03 <Huon> FrogCast, you can appeal via UTRS if you want to
Nov 06 22:41:44 <FrogCast> Huon: But why?
Nov 06 22:42:41 <Huon> FrogCast, call it a hunch; I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable unblocking you
Hey, I am posting this on the behalf of User:SuperSucker, since they requested a renaming and are blocked on English Wikipedia. (A little discussion about this is here). 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1997kB (talk • contribs)
I don't personally see a reason to oppose renaming since they seem in good standing on commons and they can be required to ensure to mention their previous username on any unblock request here. I mean if there's fear someone will try and push their images onto articles and people won't recognise the creator, we could always notify of the username change on relevant article talk pages. Or in other words, I don't see how them being renamed harms us in any way and they have a reason for wanting to be renamed, despite being blocked here. (It's obviously normally a waste of time to rename people if they're not editing anywhere.) After all, if they were to ever successfully unblocked, we'd surely allow a rename right after. And while people sometimes have to put up with the consequences of their ill advised choices, having a username SuperSucker must be super sucky. But I'd oppose an unblock if they've been editing with an IP less than 6 months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - if they can convince one of the other wikis to rename them then fine, but if they're blocked here and socking, I've no interest in doing them any favours. Username's inconvenient for editing other projects? Not English Wikipedia's problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ivanvector: AFAIK the user is not asking the English wikipedia to rename them. They asked at meta, but were denied because they are blocked here. It may not be the English wikipedia's problem, but I don't see a reason to deny them the right to rename on meta, which is what we are doing by opposing a rename since meta has explicitly told them that they need to convince us to allow a rename. (Not implement it, but allow it.) Refusing a user the right to rename elsewhere because they've been disruptive here, and the rename will not actually make one iota of difference to us reeks of punishment rather than preventing disruption to me. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppose unblock" is I suppose what I should have said, owing to their ongoing block evasion. If their disruptive behaviour here means that meta won't honour their request, tough shit. Don't evade blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ivanvector: But why oppose a rename? As I've said, there's no reason it has to concern us. We can oppose an unblock, but have no objection to a rename elsewhere as I've done. Tough shit is fine, but you seem to me to be intentionally punishing another editor by refusing to allow them a rename for no reason. IIRC it was you who reverted one of my comments trying to help another editor because you regarded is as grave dancing. While I can understand this was comment was poorly phrased, I find it a little surprising that you're now effectively advocating punishing another editor by refusing to allow them being elsewhere, because they are blocked here. Now if meta refuses to allow them to be renamed without being unblocked that's fine, but the original discussion is ambigious and seems to suggest that it's possible they can be renamed, if they convince us to allow it, despite being blocked here. All we have to do is say oppose unblock but don't give a damn about a rename, as I've done. What happens from there on is none of our concern. Instead we're wasting time IMO trying to punish an editor simply because they were badly disruptive here, but I've seen absolutely no reason why it harms us if they are renamed elsewhere, nor how it prevents disruption here, by allowing the editor to get on with whatever they want to do elsewhere, hopefully in accordance with their policies and guidelines so they aren't blocked there too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you're referring to this, and I don't exactly recall the circumstances there but I don't see what that has to do with this. If you think I'm opposing this because of some grudge I hold against you, you are very badly mistaken. The disruption that would result from this blocked user being renamed is all of the admin time we would then have to waste jumping through hoops (as you've helpfully itemized in your reply to Dlohcierekim below) for an editor who has repeatedly ignored our policies (via block evasion) but has suddenly learned that, oh shit! they need us to do them a favour. I'm not here for it. If you think that's punitive then so be it. Score one for the "being a jerk on the internet should have consequences" crowd. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear even if you're intending on not following the conversation any more, I respect your approach here and very highly value any editor who is willing to assume good faith and go to bat for someone asking for help. I find the user's request highly disingenuous in this case, but had you come here with any other editor in this situation who wasn't evading a block as recently as last week, I'd be right there advocating with you. I'm sorry that we disagree in this instance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
regretful oppose The reason for not renaming is the block. not visa versa. This is to prevent problems from cropping up. Any unblock can accompany a renaming at that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Dlohcierekim: Can you outline what problems you believe may crop up? As I've said above, it seems to me any possible problems can be resolved by ensuring that they mention any previous username in an unblock request and perhaps keep a message on their user page or talk page or both clearly mention the rename, at least until they've been unblocked. if it's felt that admins may still miss it, or that the editor may remove the stuff and not mention it on their unblock request, their block log can always be annotated although yes that would require someone here to take action which is unfortunate but IMO so minor that it's not worth worrying about. We can notify on relevant article talk pages if there's concerns over IPs trying to push images they've created onto articles. Heck I can do that myself if people feel it's necessary. I'm fine with opposing a rename if there is some real problem/disruptive it would cause, but I just can't see how it would do so here so IMO even though unintentionally we're actually punishing them by refusing a rename rather than preventing disruption. Again if there's some possibility I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let people know, if this rename is implemented and people want me to do anything like inform editors on relevant article talk pages, please let me know on my talk page as I won't be following this discussion further, for personal reasons. (I excluded the explanation from here since it's probably not helpful, but if you're wondering I did post it here [4] although regretfully on my talk page. I don't think it has that many watchers but I've removed it to reduce canvassing concerns as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: Do you mean besides the issues that led to the block and the loss of community trust in the first place? What Tony says below. Oh, Floquenbeam, you say the darnedest things. Besides, with what I've been through this (expletive deleted) week, Karma (expletive deleted) owes me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no local or global policy on this, and it’s handled mainly by convention. The norm is that we don’t rename blocked users unless it’s a new account and there are compelling privacy reasons. I don’t see a reason to deviate from that here. I’d also suggest closing this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not. Don't unblock but allow a rename. It's good karma to do a favor for someone who doesn't really deserve one. And God knows AN needs all the karma it can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the user's in good standing at another wiki, why get in the way of its processes? Maybe we need to revisit our renaming-while-blocked standard, if they have the effect of impeding editing at other projects. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting they have already withdrawn the rename request on meta ([5]). Also note that while it's not noted in the log, they are blocked by a checkuser for IP socking, have had their unblock declined by a different checkuser for ongoing IP socking, and have two more checkusers in this thread suggesting they not be unblocked given the circumstances. For what it's worth. If they can be renamed in a way that does not involve their being unblocked here, I am not opposed but neither do I support. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, if I understand rightly, the thing from Meta is basically "if you get permission from en:wp, you can be renamed", so this is basically a request for permission, rather than a request for us actively to do something. If I can misquote WP:BAN — what's going on here is a social decision about the right to be renamed, while a block is a technically imposed enforcement setting. [At least that's the understanding by which I supported the request; I'm not supporting a change to the local enforcement setting.] I continue to support the request, since a user's actions on one wiki should never result in sanctions on another wiki where they're behaving fine, unless the situation gets bad enough that a global block/lock/ban is warranted. Should SuperSucker decide to make another Meta request, the request shouldn't have to be put on hold because we haven't granted permission. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. So long as whatever they want to do on the other wiki does not require them being unblocked here, I don't really care. I object to the view of "giving permission": this is a matter of meta policy, and if the admins at meta (or stewards, or whatever) want to make an exception to their policies for this user, that's out of our hands. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a global renamer I see no policy-based or common-sense reason for preventing an editor who's in good standing on another project from being able to use the name they want on that project unless the proposed name violates one of our username policies here. That the account is blocked here should have no bearing on the global login they want to use on other projects where they are not blocked. However, as the request has been withdrawn, this particular thread can be closed, which I will do now. 28bytes (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not suppressible. Reminder that revdel may be used for "grossly insulting" or "grossly inappropriate" material as opposed to "ordinary incivility." ~ Amory(u • t • c)19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Via email, I reported an edit summary to Oshwah and then to Dweller (not to be confused with Doug Weller). Dweller didn't respond.
The article in question is a subarticle about a researcher's theory. In the edit summary, an editor called the subject (meaning the main researcher of the theory) an asshole. Since this is a WP:Oversight matter, I won't point to the page in question, unless anyone here feels that it's okay that I do. I'm not sure that I need to notify Oshwah and Dweller of this AN discussion on their talk pages since I pinged them both above and this matter isn't really about them, and since I just told Oshwah that I would ask about this here.
Oshwah feels that the edit summary is not grounds for "rev del, let alone suppression." He pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RD2 and the criterion, noting that rev del is not for "ordinary incivility." Oshwah feels that the edit summary falls under ordinary incivility and that it's better not to delete edit summaries such as the one in question because it makes it harder for the community to scrutinize and assess the behavior of editors who act like this. While I understand that reasoning, is this not a WP:BLP violation that should not be viewed publicly? I see deletions of such edit summaries (or edit summaries that can reveal such text lower on the page) all the time, including when Brocket754 (a blocked sockpuppet) recently went on his "bitch" rant regarding me or other editors. If the article were the subject's Wikipedia article (meaning the article specifically about the person), would "asshole" be allowed to remain? If not allowed to remain at the main article, then why should it remain at the subarticle about the theory? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone an asshole in an edit summary is not grounds for suppression. I’d be hesitant to revision delete as well. If it was about another editor in an LTA/harassment context, RD3 might be justified. Also, generally, if you disagree with an oversighter and want them to reconsider, it’s better to ask them directly and see if they’d be willing to open a discussion on the list. I’m responding here because I think it’s a pretty obvious case of not needing suppression, but if it were, we wouldn’t want to be discussing it on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the second opinion, TonyBallioni. I trust Oshwah. I just wanted other opinions, mainly because I sometimes see deletions of edit summaries that concern calling someone a bitch or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I watch a number of BLP articles and patrol, and I'm used to seeing such edit summaries deleted. If an editor at the Oprah Winfrey article, for example, came along and stated in caps "OPRAH IS A [fill the insult in here]" in an edit summary, I would not be surprised to see it deleted. In fact, I'm sure it would be deleted sooner or later (unless missed). As for the reason given when I see such deletions, it's usually the number 2 listing (WP:RD2) of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." To me, "asshole" in the edit summary of a BLP article, with the edit summary calling that living person an asshole, falls under "degrading," "slur", and "offensive material." Whether one feels that it's "grossly insulting," "grossly degrading" or "grossly offensive material" is another matter. And the content surely has no encyclopedic value. I don't see it as "ordinary incivility." To me, "ordinary incivility" would be calling the subject's views asinine or something like that. Then again, the number 2 listing also states that it disregards "personal attacks" or "ordinary personal attacks." So maybe "asshole" counts as part of that exclusion, even though I think that the personal attacks aspect is more so about editors referring to one another than to a living person who has a Wikipedia article (especially since the number 2 listing states "and/or violates our biographies of living people policy"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do revision-delete such edits on a regular basis as serious BLP violations. However, in the past I contacted oversighters and was told that this is not oversightable material.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to add, I did see the email, thought it wasn't suppressible but didn't want to reply while I couldn't check properly onwiki and promptly forgot about it. Apologies for that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rogue civility sanctions in edit notices; non-admins adding AC/DS sanction templates to talk pages; permission needed to clean up this mess
In this AN discussion last week we had unanimous consensus to vacate the "civility" sanction on all pages affected by {{American politics AE}}. I made the change to the template and relevant edit notices. I later came across {{Post-1932_American_politics_discretionary_sanctions_page_restrictions}} which is basically a sister template to "American politics AE" but without the civility sanction. Because the sanctions are now identical with only minor differences in the templates themselves, I've started replacing the "Post-1932..." templates with the "American poligics AE" template which has better documentation and a sub-template to use in edit notices. However when I started looking at the corresponding edit notices for the pages affected by the "Post-1932..." template I noticed that some of them made reference to the "civility" sanction. So there was a discrepancy between the talk page notice and the edit notice. I initially assumed the discrepancy was a result of widespread copy-pasting of the edit notice code without paying close attention to the sanctions on the page they were copied from, but the few that I spot checked showed that it was User:Coffee who added the civility restriction (presumably forgetting to update the corresponding template on the talk page). Would there be any objections to me removing these rogue civility sanctions from the edit notices as I find them? ~Awilley (talk)20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem I'm encountering is that there are a lot of talk pages with DS templates that don't have the required corresponding edit notices. Initially I thought this was because of sloppy admins forgetting to create the edit notices, but it has come to my attention that non-admins have been adding the templates to talkpages. Here are 5 examples of just one user creating talk pages with the DS templates, having copied them from other American Politics talk pages, and apparently thinking they were Wikiproject banners: [6][7][8][9][10]. I haven't counted, but I would guess that there are about 50 pages that have the template on the talk page but no edit notice. The most straightforward way of correcting the problem would be to simply remove the sanctions templates from pages that don't have an edit notice, but doing that I risk reversing DS placed by an actual admin. That leaves us with the slow method of digging through the talkpage history with the wikiblame tool to track down who placed the notice, and cross-referencing with the last couple of years of AE logs (I don't trust that admins who forgot to create an edit notice always remembered to update the log). That's more work than I'm feeling like doing at the moment. May I just remove the talkpage templates from all the pages that don't have edit notices, and then make a note of those pages in the AE log? ~Awilley (talk)00:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of the discussion, it seemed like everyone was pretty much on the same page—deprecating the 'civility restrictions' en masse was mostly viewed as an uncontentious procedural measure, due to the fact that the concept of civility restrictions is redundant, unused, unenforceable, and pointless; effectively, not even a real restriction. I don't think it would be contentious to remove the outstanding civility restrictions as you come across them. The articles with no edit notices are a bit more tricky. The edit notice requirement is fairly new, having only been added this year, so it's likely that you're seeing some older pages that have never been updated, some admin laziness, and some non-admin additions. All the older articles in the logs should probably be reviewed to make sure they have all been updated with the required editnotice, and anything not logged should have any DS notices removed, of course. However, the practical matter of actually making this happen would be so monumental that it's an unrealistic task. So, I would say that yes, your technique is likely the best we're going to get, but rather than removing them outright, leave them be but still make the list and post it in the log, and then we can check them against the log via Ctrl+F. Anything not in the log can be removed, anything in the log can be updated with an edit notice, but it would probably most efficient and easy doing it that way. Swarm talk 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIC, you may certainly remove the rogue civility sanctions, Awilley, and also remove the talkpage templates from pages that don't have edit notices. And thank you for offering to take care of this mess. Bishonen | talk12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Can someone please point me to the policy which limits the placement of DS notices on article talk pages to administrators only? It's probably somewhere, but I'm not finding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken I think this is only talking about notices that impose restrictions, not the notices that are put on the talk page that inform you that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Natureium (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Does that mean that non-admins can place DS notices on articles that clearly fall with a DS area, but that they should also create the necessary edit notice? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this really needs to be stated more clearly, but from what I've been able to figure out, I think that the edit notices are for the pages that have DS restrictions imposed. Only admins can impose DS restrictions, and only admins are able to create edit notices. I haven't been able to find anything that states that only admins can place notices stating that an article is in an area subject to DS or that there are edit notices to go with those. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was unaware that only admins could create edit notices (my only experience with them is the one on my user talk page), so if an edit notice is required, and only admins can create them, then only admins can place the DS notice on an article talk page. Still, in terms of what the policy actually says it looks like a gray area which should be tightened up with some explicit language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On putting sanction templates on talk pages (what was happening here), I don't see that as very gray. It's like a non-admin putting "you have been blocked" templates on the page of a user who is not blocked. The case of non-admins putting informational templates about general topic areas being under general discretionary sanctions, I don't think that's against policy, but I don't know for sure. ~Awilley (talk)02:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain that anyone can put an informational template on an editor's user talk page, informing then that an article is under Discretionary Sanctions. The point of such an action is simply to notify the editor, which does not presume any wrongdoing on the editor's part (I believe the template even says that). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are the talk page notices like the one on Talk:Alternative medicine that inform people that sanctions are possible and then there are talk page notices like the one on Talk:Jared Kushner that start with "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" and list restrictions for the page. The latter can only be placed by administrators and I think the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is clear about that. The former... I don't know and haven't found any where that talks about it. Because you are not imposing any restrictions but rather informing people of the ruling already made by arbcom, I don't see why being an admin should be necessary but it's not really about common sense, now is it? Natureium (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess not. DS are a very necessary evil, but they're still basically a bureaucratic tool, which means that the ins and outs of them can be complex. The personal lesson I'm drawing from this is simply to stay away from posting informational DS notices on article talk pages even when it's indisputable that the article falls withing the penumbra of an existing DS, and go get someone of a higher pay grade to deal with it. In a way, that should be a relief for non-admins such as myself, since we don't have to shoulder the responsibility of taking that action. My experience is that the vast majority of active admins are reasonable folks who are likely to respond positively to such a request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've been using the AWB list compare tool to compare the above list of articles to articles that are LINKED from the arbitration enforcement logs back to 2015. Of the 47 pages above, the articles of 44 of them are not linked in the log, and the 3 that are linked (Frank Gaffney, Jill Stein, Vladimir Putin) are links from individual editors being topic banned from the individual articles. Note that I'm only looking at links, not text, so if an admin made a log entry that said "Jill Stein placed under 1RR and Consensus Required" without linking Jill Stein I wouldn't see that. ~Awilley (talk)15:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also here's a list of edit notice templates that were created but that didn't have entries that I could find in the AE log. Since these were all created by administrators I will create an entry in the log for the items in this list.
Some of these problems would go away if the AC/DS template had a signature field, so we would know from viewing the article talk page who placed the notice and the date when they did so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to force a signature on a template that is transcluded (as opposed to substituted) but I'll look into it. ~Awilley (talk)19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley and EdJohnston:, try substituting Template:ZHYXCBG onto any talk-page and check the result. (Input {{subst:ZHYXCBG}} ) It notes down the signature of the user, (who installs the template), within a comment (which is prepended/appended to the template-code) but the main notice is directly transcluded onto the t/p, as we do now:-)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I received this notice on my talk page today. It is immediately followed by my response.
Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article The Scoots. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Cwmhiraeth}} What in the world are you talking about? What copyright infringement? Are you referring to the plot synopsis I wrote? I wrote that synopsis myself from scratch, just as I do for most of the South Park episode articles! Just where do you think it came from? According to my web browser, the url mentioned in your copyvio template http://wiki.southparkstudios.co.uk/wiki/The_Scoots, cannot be accessed in the United States, so I have no way of viewing it, but if you found that synopsis on some British wiki, did it occur to you that it was they who copied my writing, and not the other way around??? Are you so unacquainted with decent writing in Wikipedia articles on popular entertainment, that you when you found identical material on a wikia site (which tend to be far less regulated than Wikipedia), you just assumed, without verification, that someone on Wikipedia had to copy it from Wikia, and not the other way around? Did it ever occur to you to ASK ME before went and templated the article, resulting in that material's removal? Congratulations, genius! You just caused the removal of valid material from Wikipedia for no good reason! Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Needless to say, when I add plot synopses to articles, I write them myself. I have always worked very hard when I compose synopses making sure to summarize all the relevant information in a film, TV episode, etc. and this has been the case from my time I used to work on The Real World articles, to the South Park episode article synopses I usually write today. I have never cut and pasted a plot synopsis from another source, and have on more than one occasion during my 13 years editing Wikipedia admonished others not to do this. The synopsis in question, just like the synopses in most of the recent South Park article, was originated entirely my me, along with the usual tweaks by other collaborating editors.
Administrator Cwmhiraeth made no attempt to ask me about this, preferring instead to simply assume that I copied the material from a British Wikia page that I cannot access, instead of the other way around. I ask that the material in question, which Cwmhiraeth improperly removed from all relevant revisions of the article, be restored, and that Cwmhiraeth be admonished not to jump to conclusions like this in the future. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream, it's called a false positive, because they copied the content from Wikipedia. It's a bitch to get to the history of the South Park Wiki pages, but often we "shoot first" so to speak and un-delete later. This stuff happens, and please don't feel like someone's immediately accusing you of everything being copied - it just happened this once. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So is the material going to restored, or not? 16:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help with heuristics for auto-detecting paid revisions
Hi admins. I'm doing a little research on automatically detecting paid revisions. Part of my process involve coming up with weak heuristics for determining whether a particular edit is likely to be paid. But since I'm no experienced editor, I don't have a great intuition for developing these heuristics. I'd highly appreciate your help with brainstorming.
Thanks Ed. I got in contact with the ORES group. A major difference between their work and mine is that I'm interested in whether a particular way of modeling crowd-sourced heuristics can drastically improve models like those that ORES works with. But I'd need less technical help than community help. I'm pretty new to the community here; would you happen to know where I can find admins experienced with or interested in paid edits? Apiarant (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for your help! Indeed, if the method falsely flags too many good-faith editors, it's unacceptable. I'm personally unsure how difficult reducing false positives here might be until I get to the modeling myself. However, I do have faith that with enough time and work, a reasonable job can be done: it doesn't appear that any part of the problem is (under my current understanding) insurmountable. Would you mind sharing what you've seen and why you think the method will over-flag good-faith editors? You might save me a few dozen hours of time! Apiarant (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TBAN Appeal
Hi, I am here by requesting appeal against the TBAN which was enforced almost a year ago on me on the all AFDS, so now the minimum time duration of TBAN 3 months have passed
reequest and appeal to lift TBAN please. I have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines as well. JogiAsad Talk14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JogiAsad, on 30 September, Galobtter asked you to provide "an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better". You did not respond at that time, and now you are back here with another appeal that again fails to address the problem that led to the topic ban. Your topic ban was imposed on 9 April 2018 so that is nowhere near a year ago. Accuracy is important. What you must do is convince the editors participating here that your understanding of notability has improved and that you will not be disruptive at AfD in the future. Stating that you have read GNG is not enough. Until we hear from you in much greater detail, I oppose lifting the topic ban. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, appeal is obviously inadequate; the repeated appeals without being able to explain himself are further concerning regarding his competence to evaluate sources for notability. Oppose obviously, and suggest a further six month moratorium upon decline of this appeal. JogiAsad please provide that explanation to show that you have "have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines". Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the dialogue in the section below, I maintain this position. The OP does not believe he or she did anything wrong to deserve a TB, and therefore it is impossible for them to assure the community that their future behavior will be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was my comment that JogiAsad responded to in the Archived post. Their editing is so sporadic that there's no real way of determining that they really do get what they are topic banned for. Furthermore, as has been said, the appeal statement is inadequate. --Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and support moratorium per Galobtter; it's slightly worrying that these appeals keep getting made, and the same questions ignored, with no actual reflection—perhaps even understanding—at all. ——SerialNumber5412910:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unfortunately, if this sanction passes appeal is denied, and the OP comes back after 6 months and appeals without responding to questions, I think the next logical step would be a CIR-based CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Editor refuses to engage in timely discussions over his prior behavior, or demonstrate that he intends to change his behavior. Also support the 6-month moratorium on appeals noted above. --Jayron3213:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lifting the Tban, and support a 6-month moratorium on appeals. While JogiAsad might have an intermediate linguistic competence in English (that's purely a matter of which grade a certification examiner gives you), their communicative competence is clearly not sufficient for participation in XfD discussions - their statements and responses in this thread make that very clear. On top of that, there is still a refusal to listen, not just an inability to understand, and that has been part of the problem all along. --bonadeacontributionstalk11:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response by JogiAsad
Hi Everyone, I have read all the General Notability Guidelines (GNG), and you may ask me anything about the GNG I would respond. And regarding those who said above comments that I have appealed repeatedly, no I just had replied to the comments and when I was advised to appeal and then I appealed, and I have some personal reasons that I didn't be active all the times. I did replied to the archived due to there was asked me queries during which I was not active/online, and when I managed to be active or online I had no choice but to respond and I am sorry for that If I have replied in the archived discussion. The and this discussion was a misunderstanding the the nominator, which I had not done any spamming and neither I did any on-wiki canvassing or any kind of off-wiki canvassing, all those users voted as per their own. Even if some of the users who are saying that my this appeal is inadequate, sincerely I didn't have any idea how to appeal in a better way. So here I request that this TBAN be lifted as I have understood all the GNG, you may ask me anything about the GNG. Expecting a positive and a dignified role from you and I request arbitration committee to do a justice please. Thank you all...JogiAsad Talk17:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have not beeen asked to repeat by rote what you just read, you were asked to provide:
"an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better"
Beyond My Ken, could you please guide me or provide me the sample how to respond to that query's which you have written in italic. Or should I repeat each and elaborate each words in GNG i.e. what is Reliable, sources, primary or secondary etc?, Here I ensure that I have read and understood all the GNG and I ensure that I have and I will show an improved behavior at afds.JogiAsad Talk17:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the OP appears either not to understand, or not to want to understand that the question is not about his or her knowledge of the notability guidelines, but about how that knowledge will change their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have an intermediate understanding of English in written, reading and listening, The question was about the GNG not about WP:CIR, If you ask me anything about GNG I would answer.JogiAsad Talk18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And despite of assurance by me about GNG and improved behavior at afds, If any user is still Oppose or in favor of TBAn ,Then its making a sense to me that nobody wants me to remain here as a Wikipedian Editor and they wants me to leave Wikipedia forever.JogiAsad Talk18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well nobody has said that as of yet, but you're making a pretty good case for it yourself by your inability or refusal to answer the question put to you. Again, no one wants to quiz you on GNG, what everyone wants to know is this: Now that you think you understand GNG, how will you behave differently? Can you please answer that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll behave well manner, means that I'll follow the GNG guidelines when participating in discussion and I'll try to respond timely as well.JogiAsad Talk18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're off to a bad start. The first step to having your topic ban lifted is to recognize what you did wrong which deserved the TB. If you don't know what was wrong about your previous behavior, there is no way for you to change, and that's what the community is interested in knowing, that your behavior will change.I'll stop now, as there's little point in proceeding. I maintain my position as above: no lifting of the topic ban, and a moratorium on appeals for 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why was topic ban, but how can I recognize, I didn't any wrong neither I had done any canvassing, but If you look at User:Saqib canvassed onwiki-canvassing by asking an admin to participate in the discussion, I have ensured that I have not did any wrong or any type of Canvassing, If I have not did any wrong or Canvassing, why should I recognize such activity which I have not done.JogiAsad Talk19:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Idea
It seems JogiAsad is having trouble articulating what he would do differently in AFDs were the topic ban to be lifted. Does anyone think it would help if, for a period of time (let's say one month), JogiAsad keep a sandbox in user-space where he links to some current AFDs and writes (on the sandbox page - not on the AFD itself) what he would write if there were no topic ban? That way we can better judge if his understanding of GNG and his discussion rationales have improved. Then he can come back here and we can try this again with something more concrete to go on. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving19:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more interested in knowing why JogiAsad wants so badly to be able to edit at XfD. Is there some problem that they are seeing that only they can fix? Maybe it's my own relative disinterest in XfD, but it seems to me that a ban from XfD is one that would be very easy to endure. Why is JogiAsad so determined to delete articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was keeping this question for a later time, glad to see Beyond My Ken asked already. But User:JogiAsad has either not understood the question properly or decided not to answer it. If there is nothing that you want to delete or save, then please explain why it is so important for you to contribute at AfD ? Are there any problems you are facing with this BAN ? XfD contributors should have enough language competence to be able to review multiple sources and understand the policy and guidelines. --DBigXrayᗙ19:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem but If the time period of TBAN is passed and I am appealing with ensuring that I have read and understood the GNG and I ensure that I would be politely and will not vote for any save or delete article afds until that article don't meet the criteria of GNG. so why still this ban is lingering over me.JogiAsad Talk19:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as to ONUnicorn's suggestion: I doubt it would be of much use, since the majority of problems at XfD have to do with interactions with other editors and behavior related to it, so a "dry run" sandbox just wouldn't be the equivalent, in my opinion. If they were TB'd because of canvassing, why would they be tempted to canvass to a sandbox, since nothing is at stake? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Here I say that I have not canvassed in any way neither I did any on-wiki canvassing nor I did it through any type of Sandbox, try to understand my point of view that I didn't canvassed neither I determined to save or delete any article unless it meets the criteria of GNG.JogiAsad Talk19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please guide me how to appeal decently, is there any sample of previous appeals which I could read and get an idea how to appeal decently?, And please put some light on which type of understanding you intends to gauge?.Thanks..JogiAsad Talk19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So based on your answer, it seems it is not important for you to participate at AfD, then I see no pressing reason to remove the ban. This ban was an indefinite ban, and it will continue to linger because the community feels that your answers and understanding of Questions are not sufficient in convincing them to lift this ban, at this time. So just wait some more and contribute in other areas where you are not banned for now. --DBigXrayᗙ20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ban was for 3 months which have passed, and I have tried to convince and assure that I have read and understood the GNG and will participate politely as well.JogiAsad Talk20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JogiAsad, with all due respect, you have been given a great deal of guidance in how to "appeal decently", but it appears that you are unable to follow that guidance. I can't help but think that your somewhat weak command of English is part of the problem (you call it "intermediate, but I would judge it to be less than that). In my opinion, judging from this discussion, your English language abilities are not sufficient for you to be editing or creating articles on English Wikipedia, or to be participating in XfD at all. I note that you are a sysop at Sindhi Wikipedia, where you have twice as many edits as you have here, and yet en.wiki is marked as your home wiki. I think this is a problem. Writing an English-language encyclopedia requires a high level of English language competency, which you do not seem to have. There are still many things you can do to contribute here which don't require such skills, but I'm afraid that with your current ability with English, writing and editing articles and participating in XfDs is simply not one of them. I know this is a harsh appraisal, but it is the situation as I see it, and I think you're going to be caught in this loop for a long time, and perhaps eventually be site banned from en.wiki, if you don't recognize it and adjust your expectations accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that you asked I responded in well manners, you asked me "Now that you think you understand GNG, how will you behave differently?", I answered I have understood the GNG after reading it, and I have also ensured that I am not in favor of any save or delete any article until it doesn't meet the GNG Criteria. are these not sufficient answers? so satisfy your query?. And regarding my English language command I have appeared in the Competitive Examinations of Pakistan CSS and I also write in newspapers and blogs as well, English Wikipedia is my home wiki because its where I had started my journey as a Wikipedian in July 2011, and since then I have contributed in enwiki. English language is not a problem, almost all over the world people read, speak and talk in English even if its not their native language, so sorry to say your judging and appraisal is not 100 percent precise. If you people are stubborn and insist on embargo, then its very disappointing for a sincere contributor. JogiAsad Talk20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry to say, my judging is quite correct, and the paragraph above is an excellent example of the problem: you don't know English as well as you think you know English, I'm afraid. I salute you on the ability to speak another language to the extent you do, it's one that I don't share, but the harsh fact is that it's just not enough to be working on articles here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No your judging and appraisal is not correct dear, and you are neither here certificate issuer nor here is the test of English competency, So please avoid personal statements.JogiAsad Talk21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you provide us all with an example which verifies my estimation. You might wish to read First Law of Holes, because you're not doing yourself any good. And, BTW, don't call me, or anyone else that you do not know very well, "dear". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, AFAIK, home-wiki is nothing but the wiki, wherein the account was first registered. Many editors do register in en.wiki (courtesy it's prominence), then move to own-language-wikis, once aware of it.∯WBGconverse20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mine as well. I also understand that the prominence and influence of en.wiki is why many other-languaged editors wish to edit here, but sometimes that unfortunately gives rise to situations such as what this seems to me to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this lengthy exchange, I want to reiterate my opposition to lifting the topic ban. JogiAsad, congratulations on performing well on your English proficiency exams in Pakistan. You definitely speak English far better than I speak Urdu or any other language. But I am sorry to have to say that you are not fully fluent in written English. You have made quite a few English mistakes in this conversation, but that would not be a problem if you had given fully responsive answers to the questions you have been asked. If you had, minor errors in grammar and phrasing could be excused. But you have failed to convince me that you fully understand the question and your answer seems pro forma to me, and unresponsive and inadequate in the final analysis. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 Thanks for drawing my attention towards my English fluency in written, may be I am not fluent in written English and thanks for excusing my minor errors in grammar and phrasing but I have tried my best to answer the queries which were asked here, and I'll also try me best to convince you and respond to your queries in better and concise way.JogiAsad Talk09:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JogiAsad: I have had to work with a very large number of people in real life who do not speak English as a native language: as such, I'm familiar with the issues involved. I'm afraid I agree with what others have written above: your English is not quite good enough for us to remove this topic ban. Part of why I say this is that you still seem to believe that your ban was a temporary one, that would be lifted in three months if you did not misbehave. That just isn't true. Your ban was indefinite; it will remain until you can show us it is not required. To do that, you have to explain what was wrong with your behavior in the first place; and despite a number of requests above, you have not done so. It's not that you've been rude, or that you've behaved badly; it's that you haven't understood what's being asked of you. In fact your request for a "sample" is a part of the problem: if you need to copy a "sample" to be able to provide an answer that's satisfying, it's clear you haven't understood the question in the first place. This isn't an English language exam: it's a place where we need to be able to communicate clearly, and you're not able to do so. This isn't a moral failing on your part, but it seems fairly clear you are not able to understand the complexities of discussions on the English Wikipedia, and you shouldn't participate in them until you do. In fact I'm hesitant to even suggest you should stick to working on articles, but at the moment I'm okay with that. I would suggest that this appeal be declined, and that you do not appeal again for a few months, because people are going to lose patience with you if you keep doing so. Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also: while I applaud ONUnicorn for their abundance of good faith, I cannot support their proposal unless and until we have a set of editors willing to take on the role of mentoring JogiAsad through the XfD process. It's not a responsibility I'm willing to take on; I cannot inflict it on someone else unless they're explicitly stepping forward to take it on. Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all let me clarify that I have never ever been rude, neither I am rude nor I can think so and I have never misbehaved, I am always remained polite. Initially it was stated that TBAN is for 3 months after that can be appealed so I appealed here after some users advised me to do so, My behavior in the first place was not rude never I intends to be rude. I have ensured that I have read and understood GNG and I'll never be rude neither I have been rude ever nor I intends to be. And if you perceive that this appeal be declined and I shouldn't appeal for a few months, then its Okay I shall keep patience, do so what you think is right at the moment and also let me know how much time (months) I shouldn't appeal and I know there is also Wikipedia Teahouse where some senior Users teach and mentor.JogiAsad Talk18:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A question was asked of JogiAsad in the previous section, if they intended to go to Deletion Review about two deleted articles. I have a question for admins: since JogiAsad is topic banned from XfDs, and since Deletion Review is a place where XfDs are discussed, does JogiAsad's topic ban preclude them from participating at Deletion Review? My inclination is to say that it does, because topic bans are generally held to hold anywhere on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"JogiAsad is indefinitely topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD"). This editing restriction may be appealed after three months of the closure date. Clarification: the topic ban includes all deletion discussions, including deletions for review and requests for deletion."—WP:RESTRICT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these were human error. ~10,000 people got duplicates notices, everyone got a bad timestamp. See here for follow up. Thank you for reporting. — xaosfluxTalk01:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just had two identical messages on my talkpage from "MediaWiki message delivery", both with incorrect timestamps. There is no indication of who to contact about problems with the message. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw how much problems raised. This subject is not notable AfC article. Insufficient independent sources. Rejected. Please see WP:PROMO that Alex4ff(talk·contribs·count) just wanted it. Please delete now, because it has been repeatedly declined and this submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. 93.76.182.183 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today I am appealing to get that 14-month-old 1RR restriction lifted please. I have, to the best of my knowledge, never contravened that restriction - having made around 3000 edits in that time - generally turning to discussion rather than continually reverting. And to be honest, I plan to continue keeping reverts to the minimum and using the discussion route to improve articles - I have found discussion to be more productive, resulting in a more stable article than is achieved with continuous flip-flopping of content.
The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it does, I realised this and just edit-conflicted with you trying to correct myself, apologies, I do see these sets of reversions aren't related to units of measurement. In that case I have no objection to lifting the restriction, with the usual caveat about backsliding into old habits will be viewed dimly. Fish+Karate14:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User Lurking Shadow blanking entire important articles on grounds that they "were created by a copyright violator"
I am a content creator, I don't pay much attention to administrative goings-on and I was shocked this morning to find that an article I re-wrote and have maintained for years, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire had all its content removed, completely blanked and replaced by a notice that it was up for speedy deletion -edit summary 'delete|per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 and WP:copyright violations#Addressing contributors; created by copyright violator'. This is an important article that gets up to 1000 views a day and is linked to on many other pages. Blanking it is very very disruptive, I would call it vandalism.So when I look at that page Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 I see diffs from when the article was created back in 2007, apparently by an editor suspected (?) of copyvios. I left a note on the talk page of the article saying that the article has been completely re-written since then,Lurking shadow, who blanked the article, says it doesn't matter, it has to be deleted anyway. No evidence has been supplied that the article currently contains any copyvios or that it ever contained any copy vios, just that the article was created eleven years ago by someone who somebody else put on a list of "copyright violators" although that editor wasn't blocked for such activities. Lurking shadow did the same thing with Criticism of the Catholic Church , Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Heresy in Christianity,History of the Eastern Orthodox Church,History of Christian theology, Catholic Church and slavery, History of the Russian Orthodox Church , and Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States, without supplying any evidence whatsoever that the articles contain copyvios, only that they were created by supposed "copyright violator"s and has made it clear that this is only the start of a campaign to delete thousands upon thousands of articles. I restored all the articles. If there are copyvios in these articles, they should be identified and re-written or removed, not have the whole article blanked because all versions are "tainted" by being created by a "copyright violator" (also asserted with no evidence). This must stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a comment on Lurking Shadow's talk page: with 175 edits to the project, they're not in any way qualified to be deleting huge chunks of articles based on the vague possibility of copyvio contamination. I have strongly suggested that they stop, and report their concerns to admins and experienced editors who work in the copyvio area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is a campaign to delete thousands and thousands of articles(in a RFC), these articles were merely a test on how long such a process needs. I will not continue such things until conclusion of the RFC(and then there will be likely a more drastic measure taken).
But these deletions are actually not vandalism at all. They are based on policy. Addressing contributors allows everyone to assume that all contributions by repeat copyright violators are copyright violations(because there is no trust that they are not, and a pattern of violations. It allows full removal of any and all content needed to be removed to fully heal the copyright violations if the community is unable to examine these suspected cases in detail.
As there is a backlog of over 80000 contributions to be checked(these were from 2010), this is obviously the case. Unfortunately, this old backlog necessiates the deletion of thousands of pages, maybe even nearly all 80000 pages - some with thousands of versions - but the exact method is something I won't do on my own anyways.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, someone who doesn't even know how to properly indent their comments is just not the best person to be blanking articles because of copyvios. I suggest that if Lurking shadow returns to this behavior they be temporarily blocked until they agree to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of these page blankings is highly suspect imo "all versions are tainted because the article was created by a copyright violator." User:Pseudo-Richard created Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and look at that editor's block log, he was never blocked for copyvios or anything else. On what basis is he labelled a "copyright violator"? Certainly not a reason to insist that an important article be deleted.Smeat75 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work is an issue with articles that once were copyright violations. If an article gets to the present state through incremental editing of a previous copyright violating version, then it could be considered a derivative work and thus a copyright violation itself even if it's fairly different. If at some point someone decided to throw out the old article content wholesale and to write their own version (as I did on Coropunahere, notice the odd mismatch between my first edit - which was on a sandbox version - and the preceding edit - which was on the overwritten page) or if the current version is totally, completely distinct, then it may not be a problem. Does it apply in this case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the comment previous to yours, where is the evidence that User:Pseudo-Richard, the creator of these articles that were blanked today, is a "copyright violator" at all? He was never blocked, there are no warnings on his talk page about copyvios (although he might have removed them of course). Somebody decided to list his articles on WP:CCI "Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114" Open investigationsseven years ago, that's the only evidence I can see. An investigation is not proof.Smeat75 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a page has been up for 10 years it is going to be tough to prove copyvio. Wikipedia gets copied all over the place so many hits will be copied from here. Lurking shadow seems ill prepared for dealing with such a difficult area of editing so early. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's literally the point - there is already evidence that the contributions could be copyright violations(because the contributor made many copyvios) and this means that you need to prove that every of their contributions to the page is not a copyright violation.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, created by Pseudo-Richard. If someone has a substantial record of copyright violations then policy does permit us to deem their other contributions as copyvio even if we haven't got hard evidence of that (which for edits of this age is going to be difficult anyway). The editor in question here does have a significant copyvio record, even though they weren't blocked for it (they were desysopped). However Lurking shadow is taking this rather too far in blanking the entire article. Policy only allows you to blank Pseudo-Richard's contributions to the article, not the article itself. Although Pseudo-Richard did create the article originally the edit summary indicates he merely copied the text from another page. Some of his additions do smell rather strongly of copyvio, e.g. [17], and [18] also appears here (which claims to predate Wikipedia's existence). However this text appears to have been edited out of existence in the intervening decade, so it can't be used as a reason to blank the article now. I am aware of one important case in which we did pre-emptively blank all pages contributed by someone with massive copyright problems, but that was a very different situation and it isn't general practice at all. I suggest that Lurking shadow stop blanking these pages unless s/he can get consensus for it somewhere. Hut 8.521:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"However this text appears to have been edited out of existence in the intervening decade, so it can't be used as a reason to blank the article now" Thats not actually the case. See Jo-Jo's explanation above. Even if the original text has been removed, if it was a copyright violation, the incremental editing over time taints all subsequent versions unless there is a very sharp cutoff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the intervening edits are enough to effectively constitute a rewrite of the content then it's a rewrite and not a derivative work. Hut 8.522:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only if done in a short enough timespan that rev-deletion of the affected content is feasible. Given you said 'in the intervening decade' that is way beyond the span of time where that is possible. (in the event the original content was a copyvio). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there may well be some copyvio revisions in the history and it wouldn't be practical to revdel those, but that's not a big deal. Provided the current version is clean we can leave those if necessary. We certainly wouldn't delete an article just because the edit history has too many copyvio revisions to revdel. Hut 8.522:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These revisions are copyright violations - they can not just be left alone, they have to be deleted(and that's not possible without making further copyright violations. The result is the deletion of the entire article(or, in one case of these, the revert to the version before copyvio("reverted to version X by Y") and the revision deletion of every edit in between)Lurking shadow (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening to what people are saying here, you do not get to pronounce that important articles "have to be deleted". If you do not drop this I think you should be blocked.Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A useful piece of information in all this would be Lurking shadow's previous edit history under whatever other accounts they've used before. The odds that this meets WP:SOCK#LEGIT hovers around 10%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not a sock. I edited under IP for a long time(and not only here), then made this account. Shortly after, for reasons I will not disclose here, I stopped editing, mostly. Until - now.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The people commenting here are all long-term experienced editors, so you can assume that they've read this relatively short thread before commenting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus's opinion is certainly to be given weight, but so are those of the others commenting. What you should be taking away from this is that dealing with copyright violations on Wikipedia is not as cut-and-dried as you appear to believe it is, it's a complicated thing because of the way our cumulative copyright works. And please note that even Jo-Jo Eumerus has not said that your blankings were justified - they were certainly made without due consideration for the overall status of the article. The long and the short of it is, you are simply not qualified to be making those blankings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually considered that all the full deletions were subject to tens of big edits by the copyright violator. Yes, copyright is complicated, but these deletion cases are cut-and dried: A repeat violator edited them in a manner that could violate copyright, I am allowed to assume that they made copyvios, revision deleting copyvios isn't possible but necessary(versions are distinct articles and copyrighted versions need to be removed, obviously; but revision delete creates further copyvios), which means total deletion.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking shadow can take the fact that an article has been created or edited in a major way by a person suspected of serial copyright violations as a reason to investigate those edits, or, better still, to report the articles to CCI, where people competent in copyright can examine it, but Lurking shadow cannot simply blank an entire article and the contributions of all the non-violating editors who contributed to it on the mere assumption that there must be copyright violations in it. I know of nothing in policy that supports that contention. If Lurking shadow has a policy to cite to back up their statement, I think everyone here would like to see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Accepted Cases is not a policy, it is an instructional page for dealing with the CCI process. It is addressed to editors who presumably have sufficient judgment to be part of such an investigation. Sentence 4 does say:
If contributors have been proven to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and thus removed indiscriminately, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
But it is immediately followed by sentence 5:
If such indiscriminate removal would be controversial or cause considerable collateral damage, an effort must be made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions.
The fact that we are here at AN is a pretty good indication that your removals have been deemed "controversial". Your judgment in these matters is being questioned and found wanting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and then it is followed by sentence 6: If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal is allowed. The current state of WP:CCI is very good evidence that this is the case. There are not enough volunteers to manage it. Yes, the removals are controversial. But no, the volunteers are simply missing since 2010.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking shadow, I must point out again that you don't know how to indent your comments correctly: any response to a comment should have one more indent that the comment itself. (I fixed yours above.) This is a totally trivial matter, but I point it out because it's a clear indication that you're trying to fly a commercial jet liner when you've only just learned how to walk, and haven't quite tackled running. Again: dealing with copyright violations is, at this time, well above your pay grade (mine too, for that matter), and you should not be blundering around in it. WP:BOLD has limits, and you have hit one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that the standard in written English is to put a space between the end of a word and the open parentheses mark which follows it. You constantly write "word(like this)" when it should be "word (like this)". As to what you are "allowed" to do -- the bottom line is that you are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia, which is what you are doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point about "derivative work"? A derivative work generally creates a new copyright for parts of a work that were not in the original.[19] The copyright is then held by the creator of the derivative work, and if the derivative work is created on Wikipedia it is under a free licence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly not continue any mass deletion(or something like that)of copyvios unless it is being agreed upon(which I currently do not see here, there is significant opposition). I am reading what you say(did you see me continuing mass deletion?). What I'm trying to do here is to convince you that I'm right.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not responsive to the question. Again, will you voluntarily stay away from anything dealing with copyright violations? If not, then someone here is almost certainly going to craft a proposal that you be forced to stay away from it by a community topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing as someone active in copyright who still manages to get yelled at. We have too few volunteers willing to work on this largely in this area, so I have mixed emotions when I see someone interested in helping yet stumbling a bit. I'd like to make an observation which will lead to a suggestion.
Copyright review is hard. While some investigations are almost mindlessly easy, that's a trap, as some others look almost identical yet turn out to be reverse copyvios, or properly licensed (with a proper license on an obscure sub page) or other minefields. There are three main areas in which volunteers can work:
These are roughly listed and increasing orders of difficulty, for the simple fact that copy patrol deals with very recent (last day or two) edits, copyright problems deals with older edits, and CCI deals with edits that might be many years in the past. The main problem with age is the proliferation of Wikipedia mirrors, and the tendency of some lazy writers to create content by copying from Wikipedia. The Wayback machine helps, but is sketchier on older information.
I suggest that an editor with very little copyright experience should not start with the toughest of problems with the easiest of problems. It would make some more sense for @Lurking shadow: to start there for several reasons:
these are the easiest to evaluate (but I'll emphasize the scale doesn't run from easy to hard, it runs from hard to hair pulling)
the tool makes it easy for experience copyright review is to monitor the actions of others
mistakes can be easily rectified and are somewhat less significant (accidentally removing a two day old article is a little less upsetting than removing a 10-year-old article; both require fixing but if fewer ruffle feathers)
I can't speak for @Diannaa:, but I hope that she would agree, along with myself, to monitor some of the decisions and provide counsel. I do say this with some trepidation, because I take on board the comment by @Beyond My Ken: that someone who doesn't know how to indent on the talk page is raising some red flags, but my hope is that understanding wiki markup and understanding copyright are very different skills.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, if someone with a strong copyvio background would volunteer to mentor Lurking shadow in copyright matters, and if Lurking shadow would voluntarily agree not to make copyvio-related edits except as approved by that mentor (with the exception of talk page comments), until the mentor agrees that LS is ready to go it alone, then a formal topic ban may not be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why?
I blanked and tagged a few articles for deletion that happened to be made by a copyright violator. I assumed that WP:CCI and WP:Copyright would allow that, and that it was necessary(and I still think it is). Someone complained, and we talked about it.
I continued to defend what I did until the matter landed here. There are comments in this discussion that some of these articles might really have to be removed, although more people argued against. It is a mere disagreement - nothing more. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking shadow, The CCI page clearly states that blanking is permitted if there aren't enough volunteers to address it as clean up. I think reasonable people can disagree whether that situation applies, but I think it's clearly a good faith assumption, given the volume of old CCI's, that we are short of volunteers to do the cleanup. I think this is merely a matter of disagreement not a fundamental misreading of the instructions. That said, I put some time into a good-faith proposal which deserves a response.--S Philbrick(Talk)15:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lurking shadow. User:Sphilbrick pinged me to comment here. I noticed yesterday your report at WP:CP about Health in Rwanda, which you noticed had a lot of overlap with this page. Have a closer look at the page: it's a copy of the Wikipedia article on Rwanda - it's got section headers, notes, references, external links - what to me are obvious hallmarks of what we call a Wikipedia mirror. In other words, the Wikipedia article Rwanda is the source of some of the content in Health in Rwanda. This type of error is not helpful; in fact it generates work for other users. I do wish more people would help with copyright cleanup, but I don't think you have the experience or skills at present to do the work effectively, and I don't have time to assist you. My opinion is that you need to find a different way to contribute please, unless there's someone who has time to mentor you for this extremely complex and time consuming task. Blanking or deleting articles is not a good solution, because it does more harm than good. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that. I know that content from Wikipedia can also be copied somewhere else, but I erroneously skipped the part with the import and just assumed that the contribution had been made in 2018 - an error I will strive not to repeat.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful comments User:Sphilbrick and Diannaa. I hope User:Lurking shadow will heed them. On the talk page of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations[20] Lurking Shadow has declared that he is on a mission to delete every article that was ever edited by any of the "copyright violators" on the main page, some 80,0000 articles. He doesn't think that would be any big deal [21]The deletion of 80000 articles is not the end of the world. He caused a lot of disruption yesterday and must stop before causing any more.Smeat75 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any positive response from Lurking shadow:
Lurking shadow is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia in regard to copyright violations, with the exception that they may comment about copyvios on any pertinent talk page. Specifically, but not exclusively, Lurking shadow is banned from blanking any article or removing any material from articles which they believe to be copyright violations. The editor may report suspected copyright infringement to CCI,WT:CP if they can show that they have investigated those suspicions to a reasonable extent, but repeated false CCI reports may lead to an extension of this ban to cover those reports as well. Lurking shadow can appeal this topic ban after 6 months from its imposition, and may do so earlier if they engage as a mentor an admin or editor experienced in copyright matters to advise them and guide their actions.
Oppose, obviously. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the avenue for reporting copyright violations, while CCI is the avenue to report editors who repeatedly violated copyright and need their contributions checked. Banning me from the former while allowing the latter does not make any sense. I made a mistake(in labeling Healthcare in Rwanda as possible copyright violation) and I made a decision to ask for the deletion of pages that was disagreed with. You are trying to ban me from copyright violation investigations just because you strongly disagree with the deletion(understandable) and because I made a mistake(which unfortunately can happen, but should not happen repeatedly).Lurking shadow (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolute refusal to understand they are going about this wrong and the stated desire to kill 80,000 articles is the wrong attitude. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. It is very troubling that the editor continues to insist that there is no problem or that the problem is minor, despite many more experienced editors telling them that they are unprepared for this highly complex and sensitive work. Their refusal to back off is disqualifying. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lurking shadow has not accepted any of the advice given him above but continues to insist that we are all wrong - I blanked and tagged a few articles for deletion that happened to be made by a copyright violator. I assumed that WP:CCI and WP:Copyright would allow that, and that it was necessary(and I still think it is), What I'm trying to do here is to convince you that I'm right, among his comments from the above section. He has not backed off his plans for further disruption and there needs to be action taken to prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support doesn't appear to have the necessary judgement/skills to work in this area (which is tricky and not very suitable for inexperienced editors). I suggest that the exempted venue for reporting copyright violations be changed to WT:CP, as WP:CP is the usual venue for general copyright investigations. Hut 8.518:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Support Per support comments above, and also after witnessing the blanking of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without a satisfactory explanation or warning on talk. I also don't see any reflection on the part of this editor to indicate even the slightest understanding of the problems s/he is causing. This approach to editing is wp:disruptive and should stop. Dr.K.01:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question- Since there is unanimous support here for a topic ban for Lurking Shadow as defined by User:Beyond My Ken, except from Lurking Shadow of course, why doesn't an admin go ahead and impose a topic ban? I have never understood why clear cut cases like this one need to be dragged out the way they are.Smeat75 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that admins are simply waiting to see if anyone else chimes in with an oppose, or if the SNOWing will continue. In any case, as long as Lurking shadow doesn't start up their behavior again, there's no particular rush to impose the TB -- although that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be put it place, it should, if only because the editor has not acknowledged the problems discussed here. It may also have something to do with the extended Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have acknowledged the problems discussed here - I already said that missing the backwards copy was a mistake I don't intend to make again, and I have acknowledged that there is not enough support for the deletion of the articles at present(although I still disagree with that, but that should be ok). Right now I am waiting for this discussion to be closed(whenever this is).Lurking shadow (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Editors are cautioned against edit warring, even if their actions are not in violation of the general 1RR prohibition active in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Instead of reverting, editors are encouraged to discuss their proposed changes on the article's talk page, especially when the edit in question has already been challenged or is likely to be challenged.
Administrators encouraged
Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies in this topic area are encouraged to make use of appropriate discretionary sanctions to prevent or end prolonged or low-speed edit wars, even when the general 1RR prohibition has not been violated by any involved editor.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ritchie333 (talk·contribs) cast aspersions against Praxidicae (talk·contribs) without providing evidence ("although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it"). When called out, Ritchie333 declined to provide any evidence and effectively said that no, Praxidixae was in fact not close to Strickland in any meaningful way beyond having declined unrelated drafts, and Ritchie333 didn't remember anything specific that they might have done or not done, and then went on with accusations of misconduct without evidence: "if you spent more time writing the encyclopedia and less time bashing people over the head who disagree with you, people wouldn't get that impression". The thread on Ritchie333's talk page, beyond some back-and-forth bickering, contains multiple third-party requests to clarify those accusations, none of them followed up by Ritchie333. Instead, Ritchie333 tried to shut down valid concerns over his personal attacks (see WP:Casting aspersions: Yes, those are personal attacks) by complaining about the tone of the concerns.
There's apparently quite some history between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae. Ritchie333 has previously tried to bait Praxidicae (that "smile" comment is a deliberate provocation because it refers to this conversation on Ritchie333's talk page and Ritchie333 knew exactly that it would be seen as sexist and telling a woman to better conform to her role as eye candy).
If Ritchie333 has a genuine concern with Praxidicae's conduct (and I'm not saying that Praxidicae is blameless, though I haven't seen anything close to these examples), they should know where WP:AN/I is and what to do about it. Maligning another editor, refusing to provide evidence or retract the accusation, and engaging in further personal attacks is not the way to go and is unbecoming of an administrator. I would have thought that this could be resolved by a trout and an apology, except it's not a one-off and no acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour, much less an apology, seems forthcoming. So instead of joining the chorus who has expressed concerns on Ritchie333's talk page I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Praxidicae's conduct rises to the level of ANI; I just want them to be more reflective and recognise that other people have different views and opinions on notability and procedures, that AfC has caused problems in the real world by people doing things in good faith, and that they have an overly aggressive attitude. Part of the problem with diffs (such as this) is that they were made on an old account and I didn't want to fall foul of WP:OUTING, and the problem is not so much the incidents themselves (which were only a handful) but the overly aggressive and defensive attitude towards them. If that means I come across like Gordon Ramsay berating a chef in a loss-making restaurant, well that's just the sort of person I am I guess and I do apologise as I'm not here to upset people, though in my view "Your attitude is harmful and drives people away, please stop" is not a personal attack. I have tried to be conciliatory towards them in the past, but was ignored. I know they had a huge bunfight with The Rambling Man on my talk page, but I stayed out of that as it was unproductive, and they don't work on any articles I do so I find it easy to switch off and do something else. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I wonder how long it will take for people to realize that piling onto someone isn't going to make them change their ways even if they are unequivocally and irrefutably wrong. Never, of course, but that's beside the point. Ritchie333, may I calmly suggest that you strike the comment about Praxidicae on compassionate grounds (if none other) from User talk:Micha Jo#Outsider view. It's obviously upset them – valid/invalid understood/misunderstood isn't important now. Then may I suggest that this be let go. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Compassion isn't what's needed, a recognition of unbecoming behavior, in my opinion, is. This doesn't change the overall issue brought up here and that is the purposely antagonistic comments but also the flat out lie and aspersions cast, not to mention the constant deflection even after being asked directly to substantiate these claims, of which they've made several. Instead calm requests even from outside parties have been met with non-response, changing the subject or hostility by pinging unrelated users into the conversation. Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if editor retention is a concern here regarding my behavior, please look into the mirror first. Your constant attacks on people who don't participate the way that you like but are valuable editors, is what forces people out, not someone reviewing a draft and declining it when it is poorly sourced or otherwise unsuitable for mainspace. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get any introspection in this heat. An amicable resolution may be possible to arrive if approached in better temperaments. I've long since taken Ritchie's valuable advice and moved away from these dispute boards for solutions, only for punishments [and I generally don't aim to punish]: resolutions are rare, just look at this 150k+ byte abomination over at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely confused as to how this discussion even started. Looking at the message left on Micha Jo's talk page here, it appears that Ritchie333 got nearly every detail of that post wrong. The draft was declined by several reviewers. After it was accepted, I worked on it for several hours trying to find additional sources to verify what was written. The best I can tell is that Jovanovic is a very controversial figure, but there aren't enough sources written about him to qualify for GNG, and the existing article was very one-sided and promotional. Any changes that I made to the article were undone by Micha Jo, and any attempts to work with them to provide better sourcing were met with arguments and accusations. I then nominated it for AfD. Andrewa then got involved and voted to keep the article, and began trying to work with Micha Jo to improve the sourcing. At the same time, he left me an email in defense of Micha Jo, which I responded to on his talk page. Ritchie333's assertion that Andrewa has been unnecessarily aggressive and badgering towards Micha Jo is unfair, as he was on Micha Jo's side throughout the AfD, and on Micha Jo's talk page. Praxidicae voted delete on the AfD. Once additional sockpuppets voted on the same AfD, Praxidicae opened an SPI, which was then reviewed by at least two checkusers and other administrators, who blocked Micha Jo and all the socks. Outside of these two (the keep vote, and the SPI), I'm not aware of any other involvement by Praxidicae. Ritchie333's comment I am disappointed that Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles, which started this whole thread, is unfounded and unfair, as Praxidicae did no so such thing. The follow-up comment although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it is even more confusing, as I was the one who declined that draft, not Praxidicae. I would urge Ritchie333 to read through the deleted article's history, the talk page thread, the thread on Andrewa's talk page, and the history of Micha Jo's talk page (the talk page has been edited and rearranged extensively, so view the history), and then form a fresh opinion. The "Outsider view" posted on Micha Jo's talk page misses the mark on almost every point, and should be removed. Bradv15:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to write a new article on Jovanovic, but I can't make head nor tail of the sources (is "Le Quotidien" as in Quotidien, Le Quotidien (newspaper) or Le Quotidien de Paris?), not so much over the French language as that I'm not really familiar with the range of French media and what normally counts as a reliable sources or not. It's frustrating because it sounds like the sort of person we should have an article on, if only we could find the sources. I spent time talking to Andrewa on this yesterday, and I think we're both in agreement that that's what needs to happen. (As you have probably seen, I have given Andrew a barnstar for his efforts as he gave a well-reasoned, accurate and civil account of events that was persuasive and convincing). Everything else as far as I'm concerned is just noise and I think people just got carried away a bit.
I did say that I am sympathetic to your situation at the moment Bradv, as you're being gently roasted on a spit by the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation for making one simple mistake months and months ago, and that people should go easy on you for it. But it is key to my central point, which is that Wikipedia is in the real world, and even though we can do things to chapter and verse and adhering to our policies and guidelines with absolute impeccability, we can still get bad press. The Independent is factually wrong to say "Someone had created a Wikipedia page for Strickland, which was subsequently flagged for deletion and removed from the encyclopaedia. The entry was determined not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, and all three of these criteria are biased in favour of men". However, it's also one of the most respected British newspapers and one of my "go-to" news sources that I would trust enough to generally use on BLPs. So it seems reasonable to me that if we want to change this perception, we need to go easy on people who are trying to help and not bash them over the head with policies. And if I see somebody declining AfCs and being (in my view) unreasonably defensive about it even though they may be right when examined against policy, then I think it's a reasonable concern to suggest they may want to think about how the outside world views them. Otherwise we will continue to gather bad press and those of us working on the administrative side of things will probably start to feel like it's a siege.
Despite the impression you may have got, I do actually want to find out why people have different views for mine, even if I struggle to articulate that. Because once I know that, I can try and see if we've got a solution that will please all sides. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: This really doesn't address the issues I raised above. I fear you have misread the history of the article and our interactions, and somehow blame Andrewa and Praxidicae. I'm glad you have resolved things with Andrewa and struck your comments, but I believe Praxidicae also deserves an apology. I'm particularly confused by your comments about blaming Praxidicae for Strickland, and not me. That said, I believe that AfD can be treated as a soft delete (not deleted and salted as on the French Wikipedia), so if you feel there are enough sources to write an article no one will stop you. This will probably be easier to do with Micha Jo blocked, as they were quite insistent that the information be presented only one way. I share your concerns about the reputation of Wikipedia in the wake of the Strickland incident, but I do not believe that the solution is to lower our standards of inclusion to a point where we keep unverifiable and promotional material. I would be happy to discuss this further with you on a different forum if you like. Bradv15:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did say that this was my opinion and that I might not be right and everyone else was allowed to disagree (or maybe I didn't make that clear enough :-/), and my viewpoint was primarily geared towards whether we could get a decent article produced above everything else. I'm happy to apologise over misreading Praxidicae's intent in this specific circumstance, and I am sure they do everything in good faith; however I can't change my views over their attitude because I've got no evidence. Supposing that instead of running to my talk page and screaming "You're either being fed lies by someone or outright bullshitting." (as I said elsewhere, that basically has the same effect as "Fuck you!"), they wrote something like "I understand Wikipedia's problematic reputation with the press, but we can't just lower standards to assuage hurt feelings. Happy to chat more about this." (which is kind of chapter and verse in WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility, and basically the last line of what you've written above) then I am certain the discussion would have taken a more productive route. I think also part of the problem is I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it - if more people shared that view, I probably won't feel as motivated to do something about it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it that's not true. I agree, and have said as much here and elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: You still made bad faith accusations against Praxidicae though. Your admission of that error should not be dependent on how they react to the accusations. Bradv16:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I could agree with you here, and you can call what I did misguided, foolish, ill-advised, unnecessary, overblown etc etc .... but it was done from a genuine concern for the project, so I can't describe it as bad faith. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unfounded. I have formed the opinion that Praxidicae has a civility problem and their attitude (formed primarily from incivil and unsolicited messages on my talk page like this - this was for an AfD that closed unanimously as "keep", or seeing a continual lack of response to good faith questions on their talk page such as this, this, this and this) is likely, in my view, to cause an incident like Donna Strickland sooner or later if they don't appreciate there is a problem. You might not agree with my assessment, or might think it was inflammatory, or might think my reasons are spurious, or even bringing this up is likely to be productive, but you can't say it was without foundation. Anyway, it wasn't bad faith, and if you can't accept that, I don't think there's much else I can say to persuade you, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see how implying that someone is somehow responsible for something they had nothing to do with is bad faith and a personal attack, I don't think you should be in the business of evaluating anyone else's actions. zchrykng (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: The two comments left here, namely Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles and Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it are both unfounded. As I mentioned above, Praxidicae's frustration in dealing with these accusations does not justify the accusations themselves, and certainly do not warrant additional personal attacks. The comments you make now are just deflecting, and still do nothing to heal the rift between you. You are both respected editors, and the project would be a lot stronger if you two got along. Bradv17:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of this aside, are you going to substantiate your claim that I initially asked about or are we going to continue this charade of everything being my fault for your actions? Or are you just trying to prove a point? I don't know how this question can be asked of you in a more clear or direct way. Provide diffs. Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also your further accusations that I'm uncivil or otherwise disruptive are ridiculous. You're just making things up now and you're just trying to find something to justify your own behavior. This diff you provided is adequately explained at the AFD. This one I helped via the help chat. This was straight up someone spamming their own website and my warning adequately explained it. And the last one, well frankly, I've gone back and forth with that editor to the point that it got nowhere and I forgot about it. None of this is justification for you treating editors like trash and making false accusations. And more importantly, your perception that I don't respond is way off base as I help most of these people that I interact with via our help chat and if you have a problem with that, like everything else you've brought up, take it up at the appropriate venue. This is about 'your behavior and conduct. Since you've also seem to take a liking to trashing me at AFC, please go get consensus to remove me or drop it.Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two-way IBAN proposal
As much as I'd love to agree with Bradv's comment that "the project would be a lot stronger if you two got along", it's rather clear that's not going to happen - this has gone on for far too long, and is causing upset on both sides. I would like to propose a two-way interaction ban to stop this escalating further. Please - TNT💖18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport – although I was hoping this would be resolved with an apology, I agree that does not appear to be forthcoming. While I'm not sure I see the advantage in extending this both ways, I do note that most, if not all, of Praxidicae's interactions with Ritchie333 are in reaction to comments he made about her editing, so both varieties of IBAN will essentially accomplish the same thing. Bradv19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I can't find any evidence of wrongdoing or "abuse" on Praxidicae's part. The messages left on Ritchie333's talk page were a justifiable reaction to the unfounded allegations made against her, and there is no reason that she should be punished for this. I realize that a one-way IBAN is difficult to enforce, but a two-way in this case is simply unfair. Therefore I'm changing my vote in favour of the option below. Bradv20:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, yes, she was clearly quite upset when she wrote that. But it was in reaction to something that you wrote about her, which she termed a "total, unsubstantiated and outright lie". You've agreed above that the accusation was "misguided, foolish, ill-advised, etc.", but you still have not apologised to her for it. It's completely unfair to then punish her for being upset. Bradv21:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I have been naive and ignorant over that. In this case "Don't forget to smile" means "Good grief, if you can't accept my point of view, at least be nice about it", and specifically this. Yes, I shouldn't have been sarcastic and I apologise for that, but why is gender important? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two prolific editors with diametrically opposed views on content creation vs maintenance and who are continually rubbing each other up the wrong way. A formal two-way ban is the best option. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hmmm. I'm surprised to only be the second opposer here. Perhaps there is more to this than I can glean through the diffs in this thread, but I cannot see an evidence of major long-term disruption that would merit this. Beyond that, I cannot see substantial disruption in mainspace/article talk. Perhaps I am missing something, but if it's primarily on each other's talk pages, then they can request the ibans themselves. I.e. I would want to see that it's something they want, rather than something imposed on them. Otherwise I can see this iban causing more disruption than not having an iban. A couple trouts earned, but that's all, pending more diffs showing a longer-term disruption by one or both parties. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as someone who considers both of these users to be friends I think this is the best option. I respect GMG's option below, but I honestly don't think it will work. I also would like to clarify that I see this as no fault: neither party particularly seems to like one another, and they tend to be drawn to conflicts involving the other.It's easy to say "let's all get along", but like TNT above, I think this has reached the point where it is having a negative impact on both of their experiences on Wikipedia, and, now that it's at AN, its starting to impact others. This is the sort of things that 2 way IBANs are good for: taking good faith contributors who don't get along and giving both of them help not to have to worry about it going forward. If we go with a "let's all get along" option, I think there's a halfway decent shot this will be back here again, and I'm not particularly a fan of kicking the can down the road. I respect and like both users, and I think this is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we don't have to fly headlong into an IBAN every time two editors fall out. It's intended for preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. But in this case there is no disruption being caused to the encyclopedia, nobody is being particularly harassed or vilified, it's just a bucket of snark on both sides. An apology from both to one another and a willingness to move forward and do something else would be ample. Fish+Karate10:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TonyBallioni. Talk of a voluntary effort seems redundant when it's clear that has failed in the past. Formalise it, and the two can hopefully live their lives without antagonising each other. I also don't think either one is more to blame than the other. In fact, as Tony says, no need to blame anyone because they just don't get along and we're all human. — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not really happy with this proposal. In my experience, users recently have been too keen of immediately jumping on sanctions. We have seen a user with over 100K contribution site-banned after a day (or was it two days, I do not remember) of a discussion at ANI. We have recently seen that a former arbitrator who behaved weirdly for an hour but had no previous blocks have been proposed to be site-banned with piling up a couple of dozen votes in an hour or so. I have on this very forum a month or so ago advocated that an indefinite block of a user with several hundred edits, one prior warning and no blocks, per NOTHERE is not necessarily the most optimum solution, and nobody listened to me, and the block still stands. Now we have two users, both with between 50K and 100K contributions to Wikipedia, with no prior warnings related to their interaction - and we start with the interaction ban? With an option of snow close? Is this really the first measure which needs to be taken? And next we will have site ban snow closed in two hours? Seriously? Give them warnings for incivility (on the talk pages), advise to stay clear from each other, and see what happens. If they really can not avoid each other and stay civil, fine, propose a two-way interaction ban. But of we continue behaving like this, soon we are just out of editors, and then usual outcry "Wikipedia is falling apart" would resume.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This project seems far too keen on banning and blocking users. I feel sure the two users concerned can moderate their behaviours and we can all get on with building an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As suggested above, this way is 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) it goes something like this: 'we need to ban the article creator for their alleged misfeasance, we need to ban the reviewer for their alleged misfeasance, we need to ban the admin for their alleged misfeasance.' Now, I agree that the admin is most to blame, here, they should have reversed the cycle not accelerate it, but now all that's left is for us to not jump on the MAD train, and tell the admin to do better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think interaction bans are an excellent tool in situations where one editor brings out the worst in another without there being anything wrong with their behavior as such. We've plenty of examples of such seemingly allergic reactions. This is not one such. I do wish Ritchie had not said what he did, and I do wish Praxidicae had not responded with a certain aggressiveness (yes, there were mitigating circumstances, but mitigation only runs up to a point). Still, this does not rise above a level where it could be talked out: I for one trust that Ritchie has received enough feedback in this very thread to prevent any further incidents (and in saying this I trust to the fact that he is reasonable enough to take this comment and the feedback above in the spirit in which it is intended, which itself is indication that no restriction is required). Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to take a de facto interaction ban - by that I mean I will not consciously go and look for trouble or criticise them; however, if I accidentally see an article at CAT:CSD that they happen to have tagged as CSD G11 that I agree with and delete (without noticing who tagged it, as often I just evaluate things on their own merits), I don't think that should be block worthy (and that is the stuff that interaction bans trips up on). In return, I ask that they stay off my talk page. I am pretty comfortable with all of that, and hopefully you are too. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think any administrator here wouldn't "consciously go and look for trouble". I'm not comfortable with anything less than a formal IBAN, be it a one-way or two-way. We can wait for a consensus either way - TNT💖19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I need to know what happens if they tag an article for administrative assistance (most obviously CSD) and I agree with it and delete it without realising it's them? What if they tag a gross BLP violation as G10? (In fact I would say probably 90% of the time at least I agree with their CSD tags and delete the article, but these never generate controversy so nobody hears about them). These questions need to be asked up-front, because (as Black Kite suggests below) I've seen too many occasions where people have used IBANs as "aha" gotchas. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, they're definitely there for the "gotchas". You will be left in a position that you will not be able to do anything about anything they tag, rightly or wrongly. You'll need to double check who added the tag and walk away if it's someone you're one-way IBANned with. It's a horror show. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You only have to look at the original message that Praxidicae left on Ritchie's talk page to see that this should be either a 2-way ban, or nothing. (Edit: but support the below suggestion by GMG) Black Kite (talk)19:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, 1-way I-Bans are rarely useful, and only where there is only abuse being thrown in one direction. That isn't the case here - there's clearly an issue going in both directions. Black Kite (talk)19:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's gotten into Ritchie here, and I'm disappointed but not surprised (this being WP) that this couldn't have been worked out without resorting to formal banning. I know a lot of people I respect disagree, but I'm not personally persuaded that 1-way I-bans are inherently impractical; if Praxidicae abuses it, then she can always easily be sanctioned, but I see no reason to believe a priori that she will. The annoyances of having an Iban imposed are part of why people usually try harder to change their behavior so as not to be subject to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC) strike in favor of GMG's proposal below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true at all. What happens is people get slapped with a one-way IBAN, sometimes ex process, with no opportunity to "change their behavior" (sic), whether they need to or not, and then it's impossible to have that IBAN removed. No-one on Wikipedia works to avoid one-way IBANs, no-one, ever. And in any case, Ritchie's concerns are less with the ongoing talk page abuse, more with inadvertently carrying out an admin task and infringing those "terms". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that. I really am all ears for what I could have done instead, Floq (and if you find email easier, I'm willing to listen). I didn't start this thread, it happened in response to an unsolicited message on my talk page, which in turn came from a ping I got from a blocked user who specifically wanted my help. I've apologised for going over the mark - why can't other people? I'll even accept a two-way interaction ban because it at least sounds fair. Now, my challenge is: will the other party agree to a two-way IBAN and we can close this down with the minimum of fuss? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IBANS among two of our most active users who are also active in similar areas is going to be a nightmare. Propose ending with the strong suggestion that both users be growed-ups, leave each other be, and go do something else, without all the bureaucratic minutiae of an IBAN either way, and with the understanding that if that doesn't work, the bureaucratic nightmare is the next option (and with all the ensuing bickering about who edited what first, and with what intention). I like both these folks; I wish they liked each other, but they don't seem to. So put on your adult pants, and go your separate ways without needing the forms filled out in triplicate. GMGtalk23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GMG is right, of course. An I-ban sucks bad enough (with blocks for screw-ups) that I have some faith that they will observe an unofficial near-but-not-100% i-ban. With a 1 or 2-way i-ban in our quiver if this comes back here. Thanks for the reality check, and de-escalation, GMG, I think I got swept up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice thought, but "being growed-ups" hasn't worked for the past several months (or however long this conflict has been going on). An actual solution is needed. Natureium (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've interacted with both these users quite a bit, I have no doubt in my mind the both of them have nothing but the best interest of the project at heart, and I expect that a community admonishment to kindly fuck off will probably be well enough for both of them to do so. GMGtalk02:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please find some way to work out your differences. It would suck to see two people I hold in very high regard screw each other over. It really sucks and is disheartening to see you two fight like this. I don’t usually comment on ani threads but I feel as though that sanctions may §lead to valuable editors like Ritchie and P being lost. So please, find some way to work something out.💵Money💵emoji💵💸03:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. Hoping for the ideal when there is a clear solution that would make sure neither would have to interact with one another would be a forced deescalation. Kicking the can down the road does no one any good. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. Interaction ban is most certainly not a "clear solution" in this case, but only to delay us from dealing with underlying issues, being the easy way out for spectators. If there is a pattern of unfounded accusations by Ritchie333, that needs to be resolved. If there is a pattern of problematic AfC patrolling by Praxidicae, that needs to be resolved. If neither is a problem that requires sanction or continued discussion at this point, well then whoever that is pushing it needs to stop. Not tackling underlying issues but simplifying the matter as merely two people that don't get along is not productive. Move along. Alex Shih (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All these events occurred in relation with a now deleted article centered on a person who is none of the 45 people listed at the Jovanovic disambiguation page, but another one, whose given name is Pierre. Pldx1 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal Wikipedia
Disclosure: I am heavily involved in the discussions (past and probably future) over the article in question.
The best solution would be to simply warn both editors that wp:NPA is a policy and that further breaches will not be tolerated, not to punish either of them but simply to protect Wikipedia.
The problem being that this can't be an idle threat, and enforcement would be most unfair when nobody else is held to this standard, and that gives M. J more ammunition should he choose to use it. But it might be worth a try even so. See wt:Administrators' noticeboard#NPA. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no one here needs a reminder of what NPA is or that it is a policy; the sky is blue. It has always been about what construes as "personal attacks" when involving experienced editors; the line will always remain debatable as there are always many elements including context to consider. We do not need civility policing, but we also do not need people not dealing with one another without the basic respect one would expect if it was a real world interaction; and that needs to be mutual. Alex Shih (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those thoughts.
Agree that the key is respect. And discouraging all personal attacks encourages mutual respect, while allowing them encourages escalation of a disagreement to become a conflict. That's the beauty of the policy of NPA.
But that's exactly the question I was asking. Has the environment here changed to the point that this is now seen as important? I'm glad you think that no one here needs a reminder of what NPA is... etc. but not convinced!
But disagree that It has always been about what construes as "personal attacks" when involving experienced editors; the line will always remain debatable as there are always many elements including context to consider... the policy is quite explicit. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. It's about what to do about it when it happens.
Agree that We do not need civility policing. Civility issues are often raised as an excuse for ignoring NPA, but it's generally a red herring. The two policies are related but not the same thing at all. And if by policing you mean blocks, bans and other sanctions, agree again. When we as admins need to resort to those, in a sense we and the policies have both already failed. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly that turns out to be not the case. The policy is anything but explicit, and admins' failure to recognise that is the reason why fine editors like Eric Corbett eventually give up and find something more adult to occupy their time. One person's insulting behaviour is another person's vigorous banter; what one may see as disparaging, someone else will find to be justified criticism; my rudeness could be your bluntness; and so on. While we have a system which allows admins to jump to a conclusion and then become judge, jury and executioner in one, we will continue to lose hugely valued contributors who will no longer volunteer to be treated like that. The last thing we need is hold the sort of threats that are envisaged in this thread over the heads of such valued contributors. When will folks learn that the "stick" isn't the key to behaviour modification? --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This probably belongs at wt:AN#NPA where I tried to start a conversation, or even at wt:NPA. But I'm so thrilled to get any interest.
Agree that the "stick" isn't the key to behaviour modification. But that misses the point in any case. This isn't about behaviour modification. It's about protecting Wikipedia. Yes, if someone can modify their behaviour to avoid making personal attacks, that's a good outcome. But that's irrelevant unless we can at least agree that personal attacks are always a bad idea and we seem to have lost sight even of that.
One person's......Exactly. So the bar needs to be set high if we're to retain editors. And it is set very high. But that is being ignored, and you can't blame people for continuing to ignore it if personal attacks pass without negative comment. That doesn't mean ban anyone who steps over the line. It means, take the trouble to say to them, maybe you meant it well but that was offensive to the other party and we have a policy that says that's unacceptable. And yes, some editors will say, if I can't tell other editors off whenever I like I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. And that is OK. This is a collaboration, we work by consensus, and not everyone is cool about that. And they simply don't belong here. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming easier. Not sure whether that's good or bad. But it would not be good to use it only against admins. More severely, yes. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not thrilled that we're intentionally, permanently, publicly shaming the company in project space; pretending that this is in the service of helping other companies avoid the same problem is a cover story that should be beneath us. Why lower ourselves to their level? Deleting outright would be better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I had the same feeling when reading that page. Spammers are an annoyance but venting your frustration about them by hanging one of their pages on a pillory like that is childish and ineffective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors copying and pasting barnstars intended for others onto their userpages
Just curious as to whether there's any policy or guideline which addresses editors copying and pasting barnstars originally posted on other editors userpages onto their own userpages. This seems to be what DeanBWFofficial has done. While I understand that awarding yourself a barnstar might not be seen as inappropriate but not a policy/guideline violation, copying and pasting those posted by others on another editor's userpage (including signatures of other editors) onto your userpage seems like it might possibly be a problem per WP:CWW and WP:UP#NOT. DeanBWFofficial appears to be a new editor and I'm not trying to get them blocked, but maybe someone can advise them as to whether this kind of thing is allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we have any policy on this, and I do not think we might undertake any action. This is clearly a signal that the user is not yet fully ready to edit Wikipedia, and possibly that they confuse it with a social media site, and this means their contribution might need some inspection, but that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These users should be too embarrassed to do this, but I don't think heavyhanded action is called for. But it might be construed a misuse of userspace. A gentle word would probably be best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!14:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I merit the "Barnstar of Telling the Obvious" for remarking that using the name "DeanBWFofficial" together with asserting I am also work for International Badminton World Federation as a editor team is not so obvious ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I reverted some of his disruptive talk page edits which pasted the whole mainspace page verbatim, but I was reverted by Denisarona (talk·contribs) who seems to view my removals as vandalism. I did, however, repair the attribution that was lacking but necessary for the Wikipedia CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing. I do not see the need to have the mainspace pages' content replicated on the talk page. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But in the past there were several sockfarms editing articles about pageants. I think this is a reincarnation of one of the socks. (But I do not dig any deeper) The Bannertalk15:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider that this might be a case of WP:SOCK, only that it seems inappropriate for this editor to copy and paste barnstars you have received from others onto their talkpage. A "gentle word" about this seems fine as some others have suggested. If, however, there are serious concerns of socking, then maybe a SPI would help clarify whether this is the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible need for an admin would be for closing that TFD. Assumption of bad/good faith doesn't mean I can't call out flaws when I see them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problems requiring administrative action. Woodensuperman, please try to develop slightly thicker skin. SNUGGUMS, be conscious that some people don't react well to the word "lying". Now go and find something better to do. Fish+Karate15:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is wholly correct. Please therefore provide the clear and specific evidence policy-breaching conduct you have thus far failed to provide. Also this probably should be moved to ANI, I don't really care but someone will probably move it as this isn't an "issue affecting administrators generally", it's a "specific problem". Fish+Karate15:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was an informal request, which is why I didn't post at ANI. I've being trying to resolve with the user, who is still making the same accusations and who cannot see what is wrong with that. --woodensuperman15:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comments on "lying" were taken the wrong way. More than anything else, I was frustrated with how woodensuperman insisted how proposed changes were ideal when they really weren't. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Small Edit Request
In the box(i guess it's a template) that appears in the user contribution page for those users whose accounts are currently blocked, please verify whether there exist any sort of lint error. I guess it's an obsolete tag error. I was able to find that in [this] page. Since those need admins access, I am posting this request here.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Home Lander:, in my account, I have enabled the tool User CSS from [this] page which displays all the errors in the colour pink. So I thought the above mentioned one is also such an error. Sorry for the wrong problem.Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Or more accurately, Iridescent explained in detail why I don't consider revoking talk page access—a last resort only to be used to address continued abuse, something explicitly spelled out in the blocking policy—is appropriate to address a single piece of venting by someone who's just been blocked, after you randomly canvassed me for no apparent reason demanding I strip Mate Bulic Fakjea of talk page access purely on your say-so. ‑ Iridescent23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, why retain talk page access? The only significant reason blocked users retain talk page access by default is to facilitate unblock requests, and this is rather far from that. This kind of statement can get a block on sight, without the say-so of the target, and we have less reason to be lenient to someone who's already blocked than to someone who's not been previously. Meanwhile, this was rather obviously not on the say-so of the target: you were pinged to the page where it had occurred, and you had the ability to look for yourself. Furthermore, editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page means that it's generally a bad idea to shut it down, not that it's prohibited (read this, for example), and we have lenience to do that without invoking IAR. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose the revocation of TPA on just a simple bit of venting. Be bigger, ignore, move on. And, FlightTime Phone, if you don't like personal attacks against you then perhaps you might consider not making attacks on others? Just a thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to tell FlightTime to use less templates and more personal communication for years, but it doesn't seem to sink in and when I've brought it here, I found there was no community consensus that he's doing anything wrong, so these days I just manage it accordingly. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I found it rather offensive that someone would try to advertise their right wing group, I would prefer it strike deleted. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Really, promoting a right wing group on wikipedia isn't a strike offence? I am surprised admins would allow that, sickens me that you haven't striked it and are allowing it to stand in the history of the article. Very sick, Govvy (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do read the criteria which govern when material is hidden from articles' histories. While this edit was correctly reverted, it comes nowhere near the threshold for revision deletion. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done). Frostly (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. Just had to add 