Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 69 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

(Initiated 12 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 130 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 128 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 128 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If by "the bot", you mean ClueBot III, which carries out the archiving, you will only "mess up the bot" if you use a level 2 heading, or edit below a line that says "above this line". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 99 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 79 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 56 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 55 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 52 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

(Initiated 47 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

(Initiated 44 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

• (Initiated 35 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 28 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 24 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	15	28	43
TfD	0	1	1	3	5
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	46	18	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

(Initiated 60 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

(Initiated 59 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Template:Empty-warn

(Initiated 51 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

(Initiated 40 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor bibliomaniac15. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15

(Initiated 26 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

All discussions have been either  Closed or relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 22 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Category:Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement

(Initiated 21 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

(Initiated 325 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

(Initiated 278 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:PAG#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 170 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 127 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 105 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 93 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 71 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 29 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

(Initiated 19 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 15 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8373 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Talk:Болдбаатарын Дамдиндорж 2024-09-10 05:13 2024-09-17 05:13 create Liz 2024 Masyaf strikes 2024-09-10 01:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Niyogi Brahmin 2024-09-10 01:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Amira Hass 2024-09-09 20:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Sodhi 2024-09-09 18:59 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE Favonian Template:WPLA10k 2024-09-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Ironland 2024-09-09 10:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Lectonar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIBES FM Hamburg 2024-09-09 10:44 indefinite edit,move No longer necessary: requested at WP:RPPD Johnuniq Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross 2024-09-08 18:46 indefinite edit,move LTA Elli Template:Sandbox heading/Navigation 2024-09-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4943 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:Oscarwads 2024-09-08 17:36 2024-09-10 17:36 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Rape in Pakistan 2024-09-08 17:16 2024-12-08 17:16 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case 2024 Allenby Bridge shooting 2024-09-08 17:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi 2024-09-08 05:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Killing of Aysenur Eygi 2024-09-08 05:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vrishni 2024-09-08 04:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Abhira people 2024-09-08 04:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Talk:DJ Kelblizz 2024-09-07 22:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Hind Khoudary 2024-09-07 22:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Casliber Ben Grimm 2024-09-07 20:34 indefinite move reviewed. ec rights is sufficient for purpose Robertsky Thing (comics) 2024-09-07 20:32 indefinite move upon review of logs, the page move vandalism was done by newish socks back in 2009. dropping to ec move protection so that pagemovers can move the page as well if needed (pagemovers group was established in 2016) Robertsky Template:MLB standings/styles.css 2024-09-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3813 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II DJ Kelblizz (Nigerian Disc Jockey) 2024-09-07 06:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz DJ Kelblizz (DJ) 2024-09-07 06:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz DJ Kelblizz (Disc jockey) 2024-09-07 05:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Rakesh Varre 2024-09-07 01:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid 2024-09-06 20:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Prithu 2024-09-06 18:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan All India Sevens Football 2024-09-06 18:17 2024-10-06 18:17 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 3D Organon 2024-09-06 18:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Railway stations in countryname opened in YYYY category header 2024-09-06 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Punjabi language 2024-09-06 17:07 2026-09-06 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生

Review of an improper RfC closure

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [1], [2], [3]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the misunderstanding. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is now the oldest discussion on this page. The RfC closure really needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Doing...—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with this quite a lot. Firstly, the close was procedurally flawed because it was made by an editor who had participated in the discussion. Secondly, I don't agree that "No consensus" accurately reflects the discussion. I feel that the consensus was to reject the proposal on the basis that the copyright status of the content could change in future. Thirdly, ironically, I don't actually agree with the consensus on this point. It would be simple (and it would be standard Wikipedian practice) to create a template that says "PD-because-no-copyright-agreement-with-USA", tag the affected files with this template, and use the template to populate a category which tracks such files and enable their removal if the copyright status changes in the future. But with my RfC closer hat on I would have to say that illogical though it seems to me, there was a consensus and it was to reject the proposal.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Your third point is irrelevant and semantically speaking, "there is no consensus to host such content" and "there is consensus to reject the proposal" which was to host said content, is the same thing. As for the closer, Wikipedia really needs to get over the whole "involved" nonsense. As indicative of the ever growing list of requested closures, if the result is obvious there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone just doing it. That is what being bold is. In any case, the original closure's decision was in direct opposition to what they wanted anyways. I could see a problem if they ruled in favor of what they wanted but, come on. This nonsense has been going on for well over a month now. It is time to drop the stick and move on with our lives. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nope, neither of those points is correct. "No consensus to host" and "consensus not to host" are not equivalent, and the fact that the consensus doesn't make sense is not irrelevant.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant in the vein that you did not participate so your opinion on the matter is moot. And in terms of English, those two ideas are equivalent. Whether or not Wikipedia views them as equivalent is different (and another layer of pointlessness that doesn't need to be there). --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall: As mentioned in the OP, consensus is not merely tallying votes as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Here, there were many quality arguments given for allowing the images with specific copyright tags with no response by those opposing (so there wasnt't really any attempt at reasoned discussion or consensus building). There was also basically no discussion about the status quo that allowed such images on a case-by-case basis. The semantic issue about consensus is better explained this way: there was no agreement through reasoned discussion about how to proceed forward (keeping in mind the principles mentioned in the first sentnce of this comment). This is a problem because of the way the RfC was phrased (in the positive, even though such images were already allowed).

It may be easier to understand this argument in a different context. Let's say someone starts an RfC about repeated wikilinks in articles that says "Should articles be allowed to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes?" Since this is phrased in the positive, any result other than a clear yes would be a change to the current policy (WP:DUPLINK: Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.). If there is a lot of disagreement about the appropriate circumstances for when multiple links are appropriate, then using the result of the closure of the copuright RfC, the result of the RfC would be "there is no consensus to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes" and the status quo would be changed. AHeneen (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN/CXT

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Another closer please!—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail headsup

The Daily Mail has finally responded to the recent RFC that editors determined that the paper was generally not to be used for sourcing on WP.

I would link it, however, it outs the real-life identity of the RFC initiator, User:Hillbillyholiday (who since has retired), and mentions both User:Slatersteven and User:Guy Macon. However for sake of those looking for it, it was posted online on March 3 and written by Guy Adams.

It is very much an attack piece on Wikipedia, plus gets a number of facts wrong (claimed that we have 30 million "administrators" so that the 57 support !votes in the RFC represent a tiny tiny fraction of administrators). I don't know if this will cause any problems here (it doesn't quite invite people to maliciously edit WP in revenge, but there's an undertone of disrupting the establishment here). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’ There we go ladies and gentlemen. If we needed any more evidence of The Daily Mail's unreliability, we now need only refer to their own unreliable story on their own unreliability. But to be fair, they're only off by a factor of 23,000. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

[4] states:

Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’ .

The article on TSTMNBN does not say that Wikipedia has 30 million administrators, nor that Wikipedia had 5 administrators. I fear that misuse of a cite for a quote which is inaccurately depicted shows not show that the site is "unreliable" in its commentary. Further, I am uncertain that where any outside site has committed "outing", that such is a violation of Wikipedia policies which only apply to editors on Wikipedia. And, as I often note, "headlines" are written by "headline writers" and often do not agree with the content of articles. I find "headlines" from any newspaper or magazine anywhere to be "unreliable" ab initio. Collect (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The 30 million refers to the number of people who have registered accounts over the years. The "five administrators" refers to the number of administrators participating in the RfC. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If most of those 30 million actually edited, we'd have well more than 5 million articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ban was supported by just 0.00018 per cent of site’s ‘administrators’ From the headline. Which equals approximately 23% of an administrator. I can only assume that this means one of our admins is a head in a glass jar. TimothyJosephWood 14:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I mixed up the byline and the prose on that (but that's still sloppy reporting to have bylines exaggerate as such), and as noted, if we really had 30 M active editors.... And I wasn't 100% sure on the outing aspect, I'd rather be cautious. Regardless, my concern presently is less about the DM's reliability and more that the article is highly condemning of WP and has opinions and elements that we as administrators should be aware might lead to some malicious activity. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the question is the number of "named accounts" (registered users). Wikipedia:Authors_of_Wikipedia gives a value thereof as " The number of registered users with login names is 30,369,908 (roughly 30 million people), and there are a similar number of unregistered users" and "So the total number of individual people who edit Wikipedia is at most 56,000,000, but probably far smaller." The use of 30 million is therefore a pretty reasonable figure for TSTMNBN to use. Collect (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are pretty clearly trying to whitewash the fact that one of our admins is a dismembered head. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be true, but again, "activity" is important here. It's like trying to justify minimial voter turnout in an election by using a list of all registered voters over time, including those that have long-been dead (even if Chicago elections seem to go that way :) . I know we track around 3000-4000 very active editors (>100 edits/month) so reasonably activity editors will be much larger but it isn't going to be a jump by many orders of magnitude. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, the article makes it clear that 30 million is decidedly not the number of active editors. Please re-read it; it says "Thirty million people have now registered as ‘editors’, of whom around 130,000 have been active in the past six months." -- Softlavender (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they state that, but it's a little bit like stating the number of people who have ever voted in an election in the history of the US, and reporting Trump's popular vote as a percentage of that number, as if the statistic was somehow meaningful. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The following wikimarkup...

<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>

...Gives you the following result:

As of Tuesday, 10 September 2024, 12:33 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 47,945,698 registered users, 115,892 active editors, and 851 administrators. Together we have made 1,240,248,756 edits, created 61,414,328 pages of all kinds and created 6,880,941 articles.

...With the latest figures for today's date. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that applies. They can only use the statistics available; I don't think there is a way to know how many editors out of the 30 million are actually non-retired. In any case, they definitely have a point in that the RfC was in a hidden part of Wikipedia, not centrally publicized, and (in my opinion) in a locus inhabited by editors predisposed to nix items as RS without knowing the full scope of the DM's reportage or importance. They (the DM) made their point by using numbers ... the fact that only 53 editors out of several million made the decision is accurate and valid. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the RS notice board "hidden"?, no more then the content of the DM which you can only read if you go to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, something on Wikipedia (a public website) called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not at all "hidden". That is just a falsehood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is what US "LEFTY PRESS HATES" would call a Daily Mail fact?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My point was that it was in a very little-traveled part of Wikipedia, with few current watchers, and populated by and (in my opinion) editors predisposed to nix items as RS without knowing the full scope of the DM's reportage or importance. The RfC was not publicized in Centralized Discussion or on talkpages of the Wikiprojects it most affected. Softlavender (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No. That is why is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." That noticeboard is linked prominently from Wikipedia's central policies on reliable sources. And the discussion was in fact noticed on other pages of Wikipedia (including this very page). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was mentioned (extremely non-neutrally) at AN but not added to WP:Centralized discussion or any project-talk where the editors most affected would see it. WP:RSN is not generally watched by many editors beyond the stable of regulars and the very temporary watching of editors who have a question posted there. Softlavender (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, no. It's the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." The central notice board for discussing reliable sources. Moreover, there are no projects that are not interested in reliable sources, and that are not effected by reliable sources, or at least if they claim to be, they should be shut down. At any time, in a months time, anyone, including you could have put more notice, if more notice was needed at all (but it was not or you would have done so), anywhere on Wikipedia or off Wikipedia. And other people did do so, and not just on the Administrators' Notice Board. So, it's a plain lie that anyone hid it or that it was hidden. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I said the RfC was not added to WP:Centralized discussion or mentioned on any project-talk where the editors most affected would see it. WP:RSN is not generally watched by many editors beyond the stable of regulars and the very temporary watching of editors who have a question posted there. I'm not sure why you are harping on the word "hidden" (which was obviously a metaphor), much less calling me a liar. Please remember WP:NPA. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You could have added it at anytime to centralized discussions and noticed anywhere you wanted as others did. Your "metaphore" is obviously inapt, so it inapt it looks like a plain lie, as far as NPA is concerned that's commenting on the lie not you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fame at last, worship and weep mere mortals. But jokes aside, so they get that I am either "Left-wing political leanings or wider anti-Press agendas" motivated based on the fact I am an SF fab form Essex (whilst ignoring the rest)? Whilst I would hate that we banned on newspaper because of a deliberate act of vandalism, I think their own article shows the kind of bias and laziness (to give them the benefit of the doubt) that caused me to want it banned. It also ignores the fact I have called for other news outlets to be banned (lets be generous and assume gross laziness). It also ignores the fact that I (and others) did link to it;'s many egregious violations, so lets do it again [5], this was not a mistake it was a deliberate lie. It is this kind of crap that made me vote keep it out. So DM, get your facts right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to the Daily Mail's false name calling, that Slatersteven notes: Five closed, but no they were not all administrators, and it's probable that more than five administrators participated in the discussion. Another falsehood in the Daily Mail article is the suggestion that the month-long discussion was secret, and that only those who "haunt" the Reliable Source Noticeboard (that's decidedly not secret) participated -- all false. I don't even watch the page, and I found out about it in public, while it was on-going. Now, of course, its not an absolute "ban" anyway, The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia. Further, it looks like the Daily Mail is only one who is anti-free speech and anti-free thought - sorry, in a free world, people are more than allowed to determine the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", but perhaps the Daily Mail does not like free speech. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• But... but.. If I my name is mentioned in The daily Mail, does that mean I am now a celebrity? :( BTW, there is now a redirect to the RfC at WP:DAILYMAILRFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

YEP WELCOME TO THE CLUB OF THE Daily Myth TARGET OF THE HOUR. I wonder if we will see a spate of disruptive additions of the DM as a source. Some of the comments make me think we willSlatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Michael Cockram is a ginger-haired 35-year-old from Bournemouth..." Not too sure what the colour of my hair has to do with the price of eggs. Wrong, anyhow... Natch. --Twisted oddball —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did I get this right: The Daily Mail condemns a community decision by consensus that determined that they are not to be considered reliable because of their proven track record of making false or misleading claims by posting a lengthy op-ed full of factual errors that could easily have been discovered by actually reading the discussion and our policies? Regards SoWhy 15:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, we now have a post on the articles page that suggests people start an RFC for using the DM as a source for sports news.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The response should be added to Daily Mail as clearly notable for that article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone at the Daily Mail is outraged? Well I'll be. I'll stick to The Daily Mash instead. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as another point, based on forums talking about this DM article, there's a inset in the printed version that asks "Have you been wronged by Wikipedia? If so, please tell us your story by sending an email to" a DM email address. We should be wary of similar bickering pieces in the future, depending... --MASEM (t) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have a section on the Daily mail article about the fact they now appear top be trying to have a war with Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think doing that would contravene WP:INSULT, and minorly WP:DENY. It would also exacerbate any so-called "war" by acknowledging that we've seen (and care about) the DM any further than just "it's not a particularly useful source." Primefac (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note Of 16 !votes cast by administrators, 13 were "support" and 3 were "oppose" Of votes cast by clear SPA accounts, at least 3 were "support". This count is the best I can come up with. Collect (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances should this whinging, bullying, alternatingly disingenuous and hyperbolic screed be causing anyone who has any idea what they're talking about to cast doubt on Wikipedia community processes. The RfC was a little atypical, but it took place in an RfC at a noticeboard. Those are two separate mechanisms to ensure participation. Despite the Mail's histrionics, this wasn't actually a big deal that needed to go through centralized discussion. The Mail was unreliable for almost all purposes before, and it's now explicitly unreliable for almost all purposes. That's it. It could've been added to centralized discussion, sure, but that's certainly not a requirement for something like this, that may attract some press but doesn't have much of an impact on Wikipedia itself. There's no free speech issue and there's no "anti-press" agenda. There's just our content policies and guidelines and the extent to which publications like the Mail serve our purposes (or don't). I say "publications like the Mail" because despite being the only one named in a blanket RS-related RfC like this, there are plenty of others likewise functionally disallowed as unreliable, not to mention an extensive, published blacklist. This only feels like a big deal for Wikipedia because it's receiving exaggerated and often incorrect coverage press coverage. As I said, this RfC didn't actually change much, but I'll be really disappointed if we allow ourselves to be bullied into calling the close into question... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• It's a nasty attack piece, so really has no place here. If readers want to check it out, surely best practice is to link to an archive of it, which at least feels a bit cleaner. It's riddled with bonkers arguments, including "help! help! we're being censored!!" However, the DM clearly feels it's important to gain a reputation as a reliable source: they write "the Mail wrote to all its writers and reporters three years ago instructing them never to rely on Wikipedia as a single source, such were the concerns about its accuracy." Makes one wonder that they were doing before that, as Wikipedia policy that WP is not a reliable source must go back a dozen years or more.
  Still, never too late to try to be more reliable. A shame that they introduce a claim that "Blacklisting is a term which in its modern context was popularised by the Nazis, who drew up a ‘Black Book’ of 2,820 Britons". The Nazis didn't use the term or even publicise their list: it was only after the war that the list "became known in tabloid-speak as the ’Black Book’.”[6] Can we expect the Daily Mail to salvage its reputation by publishing a correction to their claim? . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I notice in passing the Daily Mail itself routinely uses the word "blacklist" in its articles. Recent examples here and here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The Nazi connection is also (you'll be shocked to hear) something the Daily Mail has just made up; "blacklist" in this sense has been standard English usage for centuries. (His memory was stored with a blacklist of enemies and rivals, Gibbon, Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, 1788, if you want a high-profile concrete example.) ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
      • About time for blacklisting – addition of Gibbon will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question: The title of this section is "Daily Mail headsup". Is "headsup" more like catsup or head cheese? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The "hesdsup" point is to link to a webarchive of dubious sources, rather than encouraging readers to contribute page views. While it may be an aside, article improvement is always a good idea. . dave souza, talk 21:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM

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

---

I'm of the opinion that The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s current block should be reduced to maybe a week or a relatively short number of days, as opposed to the full month that he's currently serving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

...and I apologize for failing to notify TRM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - "Appeals of blocks or bans directly related to Arbitration Committee decisions or arbitration enforcement:  Discussed and decided by the full committee" DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had raised this question on Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s page and it was recommended I bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, who do you think will win in a fight, ArbCom or Bish? DuncanHill (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It was actually a user named Rexxxs or something like that who said to take it to AN. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The ArbCom page says/implies the appeal should go to their email address: WP:Arbitration Committee#What happens to incoming ArbCom email.3F. The editor who is blocked or banned should probably be making the appeal, I imagine. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The advice to bring it here, per WP:AEBLOCK, is correct, except for "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction"—the appeal would have to be initiated by the user. I have long supported TRM (here, for example, is my comment from 1 January 2014), but quickly reviewing cases like this is a bad idea. I have not examined the evidence presented but I have seen a couple of recent cases where TRM was clearly continuing snark. That has to stop. Being right is an excuse for a small number of snarky comments, but it is not acceptable to be a PITA for years. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • PITA? Oh, OK, I get it. Well, a month seems harsh to me, especially when someone told him "F.U." recently, and also that he was accused of being anti-Jewish, and as far as I know no action was taken against those users. But if TRM has to appeal it himself, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The F.U. was a more direct way of saying what I said above—the snark has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)As I recall, BB, the unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism against TRM were about a year ago. I recall defending him, and a certain editor criticising me for it. I think one might find relevant comments here. DuncanHill (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought the Holocaust denial thing referred to this, which is just a few weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well you hadn't mentioned that before. Good to see your defence of him in that thread. DuncanHill (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had forgotten that other item from a year ago. Whichever user sort-of accused him of anti-Semitism, just because of his views on circumcision, was over the line. And I consider Holocaust denial to be a subset of anti-Semitism, which is why I was thinking of the January 2017 item. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree the block should be significantly reduced, if not lifted altogether. Looking at his block log, this is not even close to a reasonable escalation. He hasn't had a block for over 72 hours before and every single block has either been undone as incorrect or reduced to only a few hours. How Sandstein then decided on a month is beyond me. As noted by Iridescent at AE (and apparently ignored by Sandstein) the most recent diff was in response to being told to "fuck off". The decision to fully protect his talk page was also a bizarre one, but I see that has been undone by Bishonen. Jenks24 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I did indeed advise Baseball Bugs to take it here, because there's an aspect that deserves community review. The problem in this case is the misuse of AE. The AE request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by a sole admin Sandstein at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decision taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occurred (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end of what was available ("initially up to a month"), and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". I contend that AE was never meant to be misused in the manner that is exemplified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #The Rambling Man (permalink). It is within the community's purview to examine and comment on actions such as these, and, if necessary, to restrict the actions of any user when that would be in the interests of Wikipedia. I content this is only the latest example of a pattern of Sandstein taking unilateral action at AE either without, or in defiance of, the discussion that should take place there. --RexxS (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No administrator is required to seek consensus to enforce an arbitration remedy. AE is just a convenient place to make requests. Any administrator could take unilateral action where they see a breach. Saying that, this case is a clear example of how flawed the Arbitration case is in relation to TRM. TRM works in areas to enforce quality standards that are severely lacking. DYK, ITN, ERRORS etc. Processes that affect what appears on the front page. By its nature almost everything he does is criticism there, because that is the very purpose of enforcing quality standards. And so editor's feelings get hurt because rather than get a pat on the back, they get 'this is badly sourced, this is wrong, this has been reviewed incorrectly' etc. TRM's arb restrictions are so easily gamed, any affronted editor just has to poke him a few times and BAM, TRM gets blocked for retaliating.

Lets just go with the Errors thread with Floquenbeam. TRM reports an obvious problem with the quality of an article on the main page, Floq says it is not, TRM says yes it is and here is why, Floq (an Admin) replies with 'oh well'. At this point most people would be getting frustrated with the clearly uninterested response here. 'If you are not interested why are you here?' is the least of the responses at that point. Leaving aside Floq's 'Fuck you' response which would have gained a lesser editor a block, its symptomatic of some of the admins these days. There have been more than a few recently who have made comments along the lines of 'an admin isnt required to take action'. Well no, but if you are responding to a query on a noticeboard specifically set up to notify admins of errors only they can fix, and the best response you give is 'oh well', then the *priviledge* of having advanced tools in the expectation you use them to improve the encyclopedia is being wasted.

At this point the community either needs to ban TRM completely from the areas where he is making sure the communities quality standards are being met (which would be a loss for everyone and make the front page a shit-show unless someone else picked up the slack) or it needs to seriously look at setting aside the restrictions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, not any administrator "could take unilateral action where they see a breach", because of WP:INVOLVED. I am concerned that AE is being used to do an end-run around the INVOLVED policy, where an admin who is barred from taking action themselves simply needs bring a complaint to AE. Some other admin can then be counted on to impose an irreversible sanction, possibly despite other admins' contrary views, because it only needs one admin to impose a sanction, even if a hundred refrain from it. This area is ripe for reform: requiring a reasonable time for discussion, in conjunction with a reasonable consensus to act, seems to me to be the very minimum of what should be expected, given the otherwise inevitable erosion of the INVOLVED policy. --RexxS (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I thought it was a given it was any 'uninvolved' administrator. I didnt think that basic level of admin-action needed spelling out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No comment on anything except WP:INVOLVED — when you're involved, asking someone else to do the action is precisely what you're supposed to do. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I warned Floquenbeam for personal attacks, and I apply the same warnings to non-admins, without prejudice. El_C 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the convention on AE, usually, that more than one admin comments—not to mention others getting to comment—before closing? I view the haste of closing an AE case so rapidly as somewhat problematic, which I already commented about. I also suggested the talk page not be protected for the full month—thankfully, that was overturned. El_C 09:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specifics of this particular block, am interested in views on a minimum 24-hour period for any AE request to remain open, with an exception for obvious vandalism or serious disruption. Most AE requests don't require an urgent minute-by-minute response, and this is not the first acrimonious debate on how long requests should remain open. A fixed waiting period before action doesn't presuppose multiple admins will actually comment within that time, but it might, perhaps, give people a greater chance to weigh in on controversial issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an AE case should absolutely without question be open for at least 24 at the very least. This is an absolute no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I agree that the block, if needed at all, seems excessive- as did the total protection of the talk page(perhaps that aspect was an error?) I also am of the opinion that 42 minutes was far too short a time for others to weigh in(even if technically not required)- even if only to allow all involved to calm down for even a few hours. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I feel that the vast majority of the comments cited in the complaint did not warrant action- and the few that arguably might have(emphasis on might) didn't warrant a month(such as the one in reply to being told to 'fuck off'). 331dot (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• RexxS, thanks for the belated notification of myself as the blocking admin. I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a WP:UNBLOCKABLE situation. Nonetheless, I decline to comment further about my admin actions here, as the place to do so would be in the course of an appeal by the editor at issue. If there is no appeal, there is no point in further discussion, in my view.  Sandstein  11:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it, Sandstein. Your 1 month block is on the harsh side, you know it perfectly. Your subsequent addition of a talk page block on top of it because TRM dared question your decision is petty, mean and vindictive. Your further attempt to grandfather it as a sanction a day later, though, is completely over the top. Perhaps it is time you took another couple of months off AE completely, to regain some measure of perspective. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein:. What do you mean "belated"? I notified you within one minute of my mention of you here (09:21 vs 09:22). That's not belated, that's extra-quick and I'd like to see you acknowledge that. There's nothing UNBLOCKABLE about the situation. TRM is blocked. And there's nothing "inadvertent" about your stumbling. You mistakenly, but deliberately, chose to use your discretion to fully protect the talk page in the hope that AE would make your mistake irreversible. That was the wrong sanction if it was in response to TRM's comment "Cheers Wikipedia and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won!" as you claimed. If you want to prevent TRM from breaching his warning, then you remove talk page access, which was allowed by the ArbCom decision: "Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way." If you haven't figured it out yet, the full protection clause was inserted to protect TRM from trolls because most of his problems were acknowledged as stemming from his responses to being provoked by others. It was not placed there to give you the ability to further punish TRM without the possibility of review. Now, I'll make this clear: you are not above Wikipedia policy; WP:ADMINACCOUNT requires you to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." So you don't just get to fob off the community with "I decline to comment further about my admin actions here" as there are queries about: (1) the haste in which you closed the AE; (2) your decision on the block length; and (3) your choice of fully-protecting the talk page as opposed to removing talk page access. Please be kind enough to respond promptly – let's say within an hour of your next edit as you demand of others – to these reasonable requests to explain and justify your actions. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. Sandstein, these are legitimate queries about your actions here, to which you should respond - and in the timely manner you apparently expect of others. WJBscribe (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
      • RexxS and WJBscribe, I have already commented about these issues at WP:AE, my talk page, the blocked editor's talk page and Bishonen's talk page. I will certainly also explain my actions in all appropriate detail if the sanction is challenged by way of an appeal at WP:AE by the blocked editor. If they do not choose to appeal, they accept the sanction and further discussion of it is moot. The Arbitration Committee has determined that only sanctioned editors have standing to appeal their sanctions. This discussion cannot therefore serve as a venue for overturning or modifying the sanction, and I am not accountable to you or to any other editors, except to the sanctioned editor or the Arbitration Committee itself, for my actions in enforcement of the Committee's decisions.  Sandstein  13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
        • @Sandstein:. Quoting from WP:AE: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without ... 2.prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below)" (my emphasis). The important notes state that "reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee" and that if there is a "substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN" (again, my emphasis), then a WP:AE action can be modified. On what basis do you suggest: (i) that this discussion cannot (if a sufficient consensus is reached) modify your action; and (ii) that you are not answerable to the community per WP:ADMINACCOUNT in the usual way for your actions at WP:AE? WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
          • The remedy at issue, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, states: "The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." (my emphasis). This indicates that this discussion is is out of order because it purports to review the block in the wrong venue. As to accountability, in my capacity as an agent of arbitration enforcement I am answerable to the Committee, per various precedents, even if under certain circumstances others can review my AE actions.  Sandstein  13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
            • As an admin, you are accountable to the community. If you do not retain its confidence, I fear you will struggle to remain an admin - whether to take AE or any other actions. I find your attitude here, which is almost entirely focused on process rather than considering the merits of the feedback you have received from the community about your actions, highly concerning. WJBscribe (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• This was bad block that should be lifted or reduced to time served. The WP:AE discussion includes one comment advocating leniency, followed by the contrary unilateral decision of one admin, with no prior discussion among uninvolved admins. The evidence presented to at WP:AE shows someone being forthright, but I fail to see a violation of policy. Blocking someone for responding to an admin saying, "Fuck you" with "Yet another magnificent admin contribution from someone who pretends to be interested. I'll add it to the list!" is ridiculous.
  As I understand it, an appeal to ArbCom is not needed, an WP:AE block can be modified per "the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at". There is a developing consensus here that the block should (at the very least) be significantly reduced in duration. WJBscribe (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Without comments on the merits of the block itself, the argument (above and elsewhere) that TRM was blocked for a single action does not bear out. The specific AE request lays out a pattern of diffs dating back over 2 months regarding a multitude of statements made by TRM. To claim the block is invalid because it was for a single action is disingenuous and a red herring. The request did not ask TRM to be blocked for the specific single event noted above, but for a pattern of events dating over a long period of time, so arguments against the block based on the notion that he was blocked for a single event holds no water. Now, having said that, valid arguments would be 1) the block was out of proportion for the offenses 2) the community is of consensus that the actions, while they actually happened, did not merit the block 3) that even though dozens of violations were noted, they weren't really violations so the case falls apart of that reason. Those are all proper reasons for noting the block was invalid. Inventing a fake reason (that he was blocked for a single event) and then denying the validity of the fake event you just created, is not really a rationale. I'm agnostic on the block here, and agnostic on whether or not he should be unblocked, but don't destroy your own case by using disingenuous and spurious reasons when there potentially exists lots of valid reasons instead. --Jayron32 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• The 1-month block is too harsh and should be reduced to time served, and while TRM appears to be going through a frustrated patch that's not an excuse to treat him like *this*. Also, "If there is no appeal, there is no point in further discussion" is arrogant nonsense - if the community decides an admin action needs discussion then it needs discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Also, a report that was obviously going to be controversial should not have been unilaterally decided and closed so quickly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will be so bold as to support the block. Seeing as only a few weeks earlier I had asked for this sanction for TRM's abuse, was denied and even threatened by a non-admin with a boomerang, I now feel vindicated, especially after TRM's subsequent snarky grave dancing at my Talk page banning me from his Talk page, though I was required to issue him a notification. At the point in time of TRM's post, I decided any further statement in my own defense was futile and possibly dangerous. Now TRM is was blocked from the very page he banned me from, which I find ironic. The main point I want to make is this: it seems clear to me that emboldened by the lack of sanctions a few weeks ago, TRM decided he could go back to his openly abusive mannerisms. I'd like to suggest a topic ban from the WP:ITN area, since he has repeatedly shown he is unable to edit constructively there without conduct the community sooner or later has to sanction. Thanks again. (Copied and pasted from Sandstein'sTalk page to here. As to proper procedure, I make no comment.) Jusdafax 12:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Pathetic block - The AE request should never have been closed so early and to block and talkpage-protect all within an hour is pathetic and unbecoming of any admin, There was a heated discussion on both sides which is why the AE request should've been left open, I would suggest the block either gets reduced to a week or lifted as time served, (If the latter than I'd have no issue with another AE request being filed however blocking without any community-discussion isn't the wisest of things to do IMHO.). –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't accept TRM's behavior as appropriate and I endorse this block. In fact I was typing a recommendation for a similar result when Sandstein closed it. I'm a member of his (not-insignificant) block log where, gee, I was handling his "snark" at the Ref Desk more than two years ago. He was still an admin when I blocked him and I received a good amount of abuse at the time for it but I'm not sure why he should be given a hall pass that others don't get. It's still going on, he's been the subject of an ArbCom remedy for it, and AE is meant for quick sanctions against editors who have serial behavior problems. Some of us have the common sense to step away from the keyboard. If we can't we shouldn't be allowed to continue spraying toxins all over the site. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• TRM recently had cross words with the Women in Red project, "Take a closer look and read what was written. ... Stop making problems ... poor communication skills. ... I repeat what I have said many times before, if you want good results, be good people." He seems to have had a negative effect upon their activity: "many have been dissuaded from participating in DYK nominations as a result of the negative and sometimes insulting reactions they have received". As International Women's Day is imminent and there are editing activities planned around it this month, it might help if TRM took a break at this time. Sandstein's action seems reasonably measured and appropriate as lesser warnings and blocks don't seem to have had any effect in restraining TRM's behaviour. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with his block and is a preposterous reason to keep him blocked. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Totally uninvolved, non-admin opinion: I just spent an hour looking into what happened here and reviewing relevant policy pages, and the month-long block strikes me as wildly excessive. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'd like to say I'm OK with this block. It's just desserts for TRM being a thorn in the side of almost everyone he's worked with. Maybe TRM will learn to be more cooperative as a result of this block. Or at least stop being so angry at anybody who doesn't toe his line 110%. pbp 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comments as an non-involved cum non-admin editor--I spent some time on the merits and demerits of the case and I support the block.The behaviour of TRM had been little change even after the ArbCom warned him to dis-engage from personal attacks.This person has serial-behaviour problems.But I think his revoking TPA of TRM was overboard.Although the phrase at their discretion support Sandstein's actions.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• The block itself wasn't bad, but it was excessively long - given previous blocks - and closed too quickly. A week would have been reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am neutral about all three editors involved (TRM, Sandstein, Floq). That said, I agree that the block was too long and should be reduced to a week. I also agree the AE was closed too quickly and too unilaterally. I also feel that immediately locking the talk page was inappropriate and appears to be a move to preempt criticism. Softlavender (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Edited to add: I now see that the locking of the talkpage was not immediate; my mistake (I hadn't checked but rather based that comment on a bit of hearsay). Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think that was a fair block. The AE request pointed to lots of clear violations of an ArbCom sanction, all since the editor was given a final "do that again and you'll be blocked" warning in December. That's definitely blockable. There is some discretion over the exact block length but I don't think a month is unreasonable. The objections to it are mostly based on process and not very good ones at that - AE isn't a debating forum and there isn't any requirement to have any sort of dicsussion there before action is taken (indeed you can block for sanction breaches without going to AE at all). Restricting talk page access is what we do when someone uses their talk page to continue being disruptive, and that applies whether you're an experienced editor or a vandal. Hut 8.5 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hut 8.5, the talk page was locked; it's not simply a case of TP access removed: [7]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I can see why that was done - if other people were allowed to edit it then people might have left degrading messages for TRM which TRM wouldn't have been able to respond to. Hut 8.5 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Are all the admins involved in this checking that there are no errors on the mainpage in TRM's absence? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

TRM appeal

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

---

For what it's worth, TRM has filed is appeal here. El_C 13:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this meant as an appeal? I'm not sure. There are instructions on how to properly appeal an AE sanction on the user's talk page. Any actual appeal would have to be copied by an administrator to WP:AE, which is the proper venue for review according to the Committee's remedy. (Of course, any administrator is free to do so with this statement, if they believe that it does constitute an appeal.)  Sandstein  13:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you enjoying this bureaucratic nonsense? TRM and a large number of admins above think your action was wrong and should be overturned. And you're fussing about whether the correct form has been filled out on the right coloured paper and filed in triplicate? WJBscribe (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Enjoying? No. But I am a believer in correct procedure, or otherwise we can just dispense with the arbitration enforcement process altogether and leave it to the mob rule of chaotic boards like this one, where the outcome depends entirely on how many friends a problematic editor has made.  Sandstein  14:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you always equate criticism of your actions to reflecting "how many friends" the user you have blocked has made? Did it occur to you that you might just be wrong? What you see as "mob rule", I see as reflecting the fact that all of us are required to abide by community consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Certainly I can be wrong, just as much as anybody else. And I might well be wrong in this case. (I don't think I am, but I might.) But community consensus has its limits. One of them is the arbitration process. It is intended to deal with situations where the normal consensus-based discussion process has stopped working, and substitutes it with an authoritative decision by an elected authority, the Arbitration Committee. Its decisions are beyond review. The enforcement of them is not, but their review is severely constrained by process. AE administrators must be able to rely on that process being respected, because otherwise the entirely thankless task of applying sanctions in an often highly partisan and emotional environment cannot be carried out. Therefore I insist that any review of the sanction take place in the proper venue and in the proper form.  Sandstein  14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognise that your decisions are not beyond review by the community, which I thought was the position you were taking earlier. That said, I don't understand why you think having the discussion at WP:AE would benefit you. Are you really saying you'd prefer it if we cut and pasted the above discussion over to WP:AE? Do you think people's comments will be different if on a different noticeboard, or that a different consensus will emerge? WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether the outcome would be any different. But discussions at AE are vastly more structured, per the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. There is no threaded discussion, but rather individual and word-limited statements by editors, and the decision is taken by consensus of uninvolved administrators, not editors at large. This makes it much easier to discern whether consensus exists to grant an appeal, and prevents overlong, interminable discussions that no uninvolved editor would even want to read. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to determine whether this mess of a thread results in a clear consensus of uninvolved editors.  Sandstein  15:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein, the grievance is that the community of editors and admins didn't get a chance to participate in the AE of TRM. And that he would not have been blocked as harshly if there were to be more input. El_C 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand the grievance, but it is mistaken. AE, like all arbitration processes, is not a community process, but an unilateral action by a single administrator. It does not run on consensus, and the input of the community is therefore not needed (except, under certain circumstances, in the context of an appeal).  Sandstein  14:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the instructions at AE: "For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA, is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails." since point (ii) is not in play, it clearly means that consensus is required. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This describes the appeals process, which does need consensus (and therefore discussion). But the enforcement action needs no consensus and therefore no discussion.  Sandstein  15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my bad (though the "for a request" part is unclear if it applies to appeal requests or any Enforcement request) --MASEM (t) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If I understand him correctly, it serves as one. TRM writes: "As for appeal, I've written a response to the block above." El_C 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"AE, like all arbitration processes, is not a community process, but an unilateral action by a single administrator" However, consider the last time we had a similar sort of AE block to this, we got Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2, the latter of which has a remedy of "The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.". Now The Rambling Man isn't Eric Corbett, I'll grant you that, but wouldn't it have been beneficial to consider past precedent in Arbitration cases particularly one so fraught as that one, and the one preceding it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you you are free to copy that "appeal" to the AE board, and I will comment on the merits there.  Sandstein  14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Deny here. Per WP:CONEXCEPT it's total nonsense that some admins or others above don't want to follow the appeal process laid out in the Arbcom remedy [8]. Don't blame anyone else, it's Arbcom's problem, and only they have the appeal remedy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, deny appeal here. It does seem that it really all depends on who you know in order to determine how your block will end up. I just want to comment that I was once blocked as an AE action, I put an appeal on my talk page, asked for it to be copied over to AE and nothing happened. The admin denied my unblock (and he was the same admin who blocked me) and no appeal was ever copied over to AE. In this case, the action necessary for an appeal is spelled out, and should be followed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict),non admin opinion--Strongly deny appeal here. I cannot but refrain from saying that one's contacts seem to determine how his/her block ends up.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited clearly states -The first four blocks under this provision....may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.When the situation on hand precisely fits the situation ,I see no reason for some admins to deviate and review the block-on their own-apparently because they feel TRM had been greatly wronged.Anyway if the consensus is against Sandstein boards will hardly make a difference.This is not my opinion as to the correctness of the block.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't so much want to comment on the appeal, but I'm posting down here anyway, to have some chance of being read. I want to record my disagreement with the people who complain about Sandstein blocking TRM so quickly, without waiting for further comments on WP:AE. There's no problem with a single admin immediately sanctioning a user who has been reported at AE, on their own discretion. I've done that too,[9] and I stand by it; the AE system is intended to simplify arbitration enforcement, not to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. But what I myself have not done is close an AE report immediately after I've done a quick sanction (compare my posts about that very thing in the AE discussion I just linked to), as Sandstein did. That's very problematic. The report ought to be left open to function as a place for others to comment on the sanction, and perhaps even to undo it per admin consensus, and it ought to be left for someone else to close. (Closing immediately after sanctioning per consensus is different, of course. That's just convenient.) In this case, several people did indeed want to comment on Sandstein's block, only to have their comments removed.[10][11] This, together with the protection of TRM's talkpage, is my criticism of Sandstein's actions — not so much the block itself. The block was overlong but otherwise appropriate IMO. But Sandstein shouldn't have closed the AE thread immediately, shutting everybody up. Coincidentally, his page protection, which I undid, had the very same effect: shutting everybody up.

Sandstein has made certain demands and criticisms of me on my page, to which I'll respond there, in just a minute. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, thank you for your comment. I did not anticipate that there would be such a disagreement between you and I as to the protocol regarding discussion and closures at AE. My view of the matter is that there is no distinction between an admin taking an enforcement action and closing the respective AE thread. What matters is the action; the closure is merely a janitorial process that signals that the matter has been addressed and any subsequent comments should be made elsewhere (such as on the talk page or in an appeal). This mirrors the practice at XfD where the admin who decides closes the discussion. The practice that a (previously uninvolved) admin closes the discussion by establishing what the consensus is exists in contexts where there needs to be a consensus, such as RfC. But that is not the case at AE, where there may be discussion, and there may even be consensus, but such consensus is not a requirement for action. I therefore do not see it as problematic to act and immediately close an AE thread. Indeed, I even think it is helpful, for what use would any comments after the sanction be? They can't influence a decision that has already been made.  Sandstein  15:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A reason to keep some discussion open (if potentially to convince you, Sandstein, about changing the block action which) especially without as little discussion as there was, was to determine if other factors should be considered here. I have only reviewed a few of the diffs in the action, and in many cases, TRM's choice of language was predicated on someone else throwing snark and bitterness into the conversation. Yes, TRM is walking on eggshelves and should be careful to avoid hostile language regardless of the situation but there does appear to be some cases of added circumstances that we should not be taking singular comments made by TRM out of context. If there are editors purposely goading TRM into hostile language, that's a bad faith action that should be evaluated too. I don't know if this really is the case here, but it is a good reason to have kept discussion opened even with the block completed since other actions may have been merited. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• TRM has made some fantastic contributions to wikipedia and he is to be greatly thanked for all of those. Thank you User:The Rambling Man. There is an essay that I can't remember right now but basically it advises, it's time to go, let go, retire, that is the best for User:TRMright now. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So, Govindaharihari, just to be clear, you are advising The Rambling Man to retire? Please confirm or deny. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, I'm not entirely sure and I'm just taking a guess, but I think Govindaharihari might be speaking English as a second language (a guess based on his Indian username). I believe he is telling Rambling Man to take a wikibreak, if you consider the rest of the context. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• TRM is in that most problematic category of users: long term positive contributors who seem incapable of polite disagreement. They seem to believe that being right about something excuses being nasty and condescending about it. They are right that this happening was inevitable, but wrong about why. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's a collaborative endeavour. We need people who're good at encyclopaedia writing, and everyone deserves a chance to argue their point. And anyone can occasionally lapse into a bit of grump. But there comes a point where an editor is so uncollegial that we've got to decide whether they're a net positive, and how can we deal with problem behaviour if there's always another last chance?—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. This really is the most problematic kind of user issue. How do we retain the positive contribs while ridding ourselves of the nastiness and ensuing drama? We tried the one single tool we have, a behavioral restriction, and as usual it doesn't seem to have worked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• You don't. You accept that sometimes, you're going to lose some editors for the good of the community. You don't keep on throwing soft balls to people who play hard and fast. I think the best way to retain the positive contributions here is to thank Sandstein for wading in and making the difficult call for us, slap a large barnstar on his userpage and to back him up. Sysops with the character to make the disciplinary decisions are even rarer and more precious than good encyclopaedia writers. And sanctions will be even less effective if popular editors can just get them overturned on AN. At some point there's got to be a final last chance. TRM has had enough warning shots across his bow, and now it's time for him to take his medicine, wait out his month, and then either change or leave.—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC close review please?

Hi, Wikipedians. Three days ago I closed an RfC about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Since then an IP editor has raised some additional points on my talk page, which are clearly meant as a challenge to my close, and so I'd be grateful if some independent editors could check and confirm whether I got it right. If I was mistaken then I'm very happy to be overturned, and any sysop should feel free to replace my close with their own.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• It was an excellent close and should be respected. The IP should be advised to seek consensus for improvements by making the case on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the main points I raised was that the GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report has the following disclaimer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My view is a non-admin closure is not appropriate as the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) with no consensus reached and is controversial and the closure is better left to an administrator. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a reasonable initial position, but User:S Marshall/RfC close log contains links to many excellent closes demonstrating extraordinary experience in quality contentious closes. The solution is the bluelinking of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the closure was fine with the exception of how much to put in the lead. There wasn't much consensus on the amount of details to put in the lead. As correctly mentioned in the summary, the relevant part of WP:LEAD is: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Several support votes simply mention/imply support for mentioning Russian interference in the lead (not explicit support for the paragraph), there was some discussion about the weight given to the subject by including an entire paragraph in the lead, and there was some discussion about the neutrality of the wording of the paragraph.

I think that the better close is that support for inclusion was well-supported by the WP:LEAD policy I quote here, but that there was no consensus about the exact wording and how much to mention in the lead. Since the wording in the lead is bound to be contentious (beyond what the closer should do), the best thing to do is just leave the issue out of the lead for now and open a second RfC on how to word the mention of Russian interference in the lead. While not a comment about the close but rather about the outcome, in my opinion, an entire paragraph gives far too much weight to the issue and it should be just a single sentence. AHeneen (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A two sentence version is currently suggested at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Suggested_wording. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Following a brief readthrough, the close looked excellent. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• The close looks sound to me. I reject utterly the notion that we admins are somehow better placed to make closes of difficult discussions like this. User:S Marshall consistently shows excellent judgement in his closes and is really a poster child for why non-admins should be encouraged to take up these sorts of leadership roles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Our Policy for Blocking Anons? Long term blocks for a single edit?

Hi Everyone. First let me provide some background. Over the past few years I've been largely inactive from the project but have become more active recently. In my recent patrols of AIV I've noticed a trend that I believe merits discussion. There have been a number of Anons who have prior long term blocks (Schools, Shared connections) that are being reported to AIV and blocked by a number of administrators for exceptionally long periods of time (a good chunk are reported by Anon editors themselves). Here is the most recent diff for large-scale reports. Looking at most of the IPs on that list many are being blocked for long periods of time ranging from one month to three years. Most of them have not edited immediately recently and are reported a few days or weeks after their most recent edit. Most if not all have not received a full spectrum of warnings, if any at all. The trend is that they make a single edit or very few edits and then the IP is given a long term block due to a history of edits from years ago. Here are some examples. 1, 2, 3, 4, and the list goes on for with numerous IPs (I've seen this trend over the past month or so and if anyone would like more examples from other circumstances I would be happy to provide them). Our blocking policy is clear that blocks are not punitive but rather preventative. As these are schools, shared IPs, etc. hitting them with very long term blocks over single edits when they have received only a level 1 warning, if any at all, seems to me to run counter to our goal of Assuming Good Faith and "being the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Further, as the Anons are generally reported a few days/weeks after their last edit their is no urgent disruption taking place.

I am not naive enough to believe that everyone from these IPs is a constructive editor, however considering the large number of positive contributions that Anons make to the project I am concerned by this trend. I know we generally follow a progressive approach for blocking, however putting an IP on a hairtrigger for a long term block after they have not made any edits for years seems to me to run counter to what we are all about as especially for a school or other shared IPs the individual who made an edit two or three years ago is almost certainly not the one making an edit now. I have seen a number of Admins issuing these blocks and this is not meant to be a condemnation or discussion of any specific admin or editor. I have notified both the Anon and the Admin who issued the blocks I've used for my examples however I am more interested with clarifying what our position is or should be concerning this and then updating our blocking and other relevant polices to reflect what is decided. If we are in effect going to issue de-facto indefinite blocks to IPs with a certain behavior pattern subject to immediate reblocking after expiration we should simply state as much in our policy, notify admins active in the area, and issue an Indef or very long multiyear block and save everyone the trouble. If anyone believes an RfC is a better forum I would be happy to initiate one. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

After further thought, would it perhaps be worth exploring a technical solution to this issue as well as a policy one? For example a system where after the release of a block, a problematic IP with a history of disruption automatically has any edit made subject to Pending Changes for a certain timeframe to both balance our need with preventing vandalism while still allowing for constructive edits. Mifter (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a new trend that has picked up in the last year or so. I've largely stopped patrolling AIV when I'm active because it seems what I look for before blocking (at least one vandal edit after an appropriate third or fourth level warning) is out of step with the regular patrollers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

While not an IP edit, here is another example that bothered me a bit (yes, I checked the filter log too). This user was banned blocked indef, even after apologizing for making one set of vandal edits, which seems a bit draconian. I'm not trying to highlight any admins here, just that policy has shifted over time to longer blocks, as noted by Mifter above. Garchy (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to note - AFAIK pending changes is applied to articles not to editors - IP or named. Garchy this thread about IPs. Your post is about a specific named editor. You might want to start a separate thread here or elsewhere so it doesn't get lost in what Mifter is talk about. MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Garchy, that editor was indef blocked (not banned) after two edits, not one. And their second edit was not an actual apology, it was more trolling. If they want to be unblocked, all they have to do is fill out the template on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Marnette, that is how PC currently works, I was more postulating that we might see about extending its technical capability to be used as a form of "probation" for certain IPs after coming off a block instead of immediately re-blocking for a longer duration. @Garchy, while that does fit into the larger trend of us issuing harsher blocks, long term blocks for IPs after minimal disruption is in my estimation more specifically problematic. Accounts that appear to be WP:NOTHERE generally get (and have for as long as I can remember) a shoot first, ask questions later type approach. However, that also might be worth reviewing in a separate discussion as part of our larger goal of retaining new editors (which is a documented problem currently facing the project.) though I agree with Softlavender that that specific example may be more trolling than an apology (it could also be an example of a young user who simply doesn't yet get how Wikipedia works however.) @Neil, I agree wholeheartedly with both your criteria for blocking and pulling back at AIV due to feeling out of step with what some of the regulars are doing. Mifter (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm noticing that all the IPs provided as examples are schools. From what I understand, contacting the school usually proves to be useless. No other comment as to whether it is right or wrong. @Garchy: That user had quite a few attempts at vandalism in their edit filter log: if the edit filter wasn't present, it'd be more obvious that they were a vandalism only account. It really wasn't "one set of vandal edits," it was multiple attempts to vandalize despite the site asking them to not do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I believe enforcement has gotten stricter because we've realized this crap is never going to stop. Schools in particular are getting harsher blocks because they are the source of a large portion of vandal edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I definitely support block length escalation, eventually up to repeating 2 year blocks, and have placed some myself. However, when it comes to routine vandalism, I prefer to see a fully warning cycle between each escalation. Obviously if it is more serious than just petty vandalism, we don't need to go through the full cycle. Also, if it is obviously the same real person coming back (same article getting vandalized), block away. The foggy one, is how much to weigh new vandalism shortly after block expiration, but really that will get through the warning cycle fast enough anyway. We don't want to remove admin discretion, or start second guessing over minutia, but it may be worthwhile to hold an RFC just to get advisory input on how the community views different situations. Monty₈₄₅ 00:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What I want to know is are these instructions still valid?

• The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.
• The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.

Because I'm seeing a tremendous number of blocks based on edit filter logs. Are we now counting edit filter stops as warnings? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that if the IP has committed a deliberate act of vandalism - i.e., one that the editor could not possibly have thought was helpful to the encyclopedia - and been warned for it, and then does it again, additional warnings are unnecessary. The IP knows what they are doing, and continues to do it deliberately, so additional warnings before blocking would simply be bureaucracy for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we should treat them when it comes to IPs. When it comes to an account, I think it is reasonable to consider the edit filter stops when considering whether it is a Vandalism only Account, as long as the content is blatant vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 00:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• If it's any comfort, anons who do this sort of thing are always from the same IP range and location. So that's all actually just one person. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed the dynamic IP who frequents AIV. They will often make reports similar to this. Other users and I have warned them numerous times to cut it out but this person just doesn't seem to care. Sro23 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Judging by [12], the IPs reported in the big batch all (or mostly all) got blocked, as did 58.26.127.137, the subject of the "this" diff. What's the problem? If a lot of people are being disruptive, it's good that someone's reporting them. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• The IP user is probably User:Taokaka, who's always had issues at AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Been there, done that, got the unblock request. I don't mind blocking IPs at AIV for blatant and obvious vandalism. Heck, I agree with BMK that you don't need to give them any warnings per WP:RBI, if you purposefully write "poo" in a high-traffic BLP you get an instant block if I spot it quickly enough, but only for the rest of the school day. I have seen Widr "block first and ask questions later", including slapping a two year block on an IP I happen to know is used by adults on a regular basis, which is akin to cracking a sledgehammer with a nut. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Some, most notably schools, are never going to be the source of useful editing, however, and it is reasonable to reblock these as soon as the vandalism starts up again after the block runs out. Look at this one for example

• Blocked 15 January 2009 for a year
• Blocked 27 January 2010 for a year
• Blocked 4 February 2011 for a year
• Blocked 13 February 2012 for 2 years
• Blocked 25 February 2014 for 3 years
• Blocked 1 March 2017 for 5 years

• In each case the vandalism starts up immediately the block expires. A complete waste of time - in these cases we might as well just block them indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that IP addresses change, and the indefinitely blocked IP address could get reassigned to an innocent person that cannot figure out why they're blocked. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 15:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• My 2 cents FWIW my view is that shared IP addresses, especially schools and libraries, that become a source for endless vandalism should be blocked long term and the blocks should be renewed as soon as the previous one expires and the vandalism starts up again. There are also certain "zero tolerance" forms of behavior or vandalism that will get an instant no warning block from me. Examples include serious threats, the use of slurs (racial/ethnic, sexual, religious etc.), and other forms of extreme over the top vandalism such as throwing out references to eating fecal matter and so on. When dealing with ordinary run of the mill vandalism I almost always require reasonable warnings before going for the block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question, but if you are at a location where an IP is blocked, you can still log-in? If so, my not create a yuge advertisement page that encourages people to make an account so they can edit and just have any edit attempts redirect to that page?Casprings (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean like this...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Andrewa (talk · contribs)

---

Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

Goes on the talk page? Not bad, but also a bit tricky if you are new and don't know what a talk page is. Wonder if there is a way to make it more "in your face".Casprings (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}, {{anonblock}} and similar are usually used in the block log. It's completely in your face as it's prominently displayed whenever the blocked user tries to edit a page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see more use of the block templates - I've seen many IP blocks and school blocks go ahead with no template - I usually end up adding it in after a block has been done. Garchy (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As Casprings said, most users won't even know what a user talk page is. The user who 'gets' the notice is quite likely to not even have any intention of editing. It is more important that they go in the block log. Most admins are generally quite good about doing that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't IPs get that big orange box when there's something on their talk page? That's pretty hard to misunderstand, and even harder to ignore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mobile version of Wikipedia doesn't have talk page unless logged in otherwise. — RainFall 06:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It only takes one user to look at the notice, and then the orange box is gone forever. On a shared a IP that notice could be picked up by one of hundreds of readers before any editor has had a chance to see it. No one will ever see it again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that in the links at the top right hand of the page the "talk" link appears in blue (as does the "contributions" link, even when the IP has never edited). If there is no talk page clicking on the link brings up a notice reading "no messages have been posted for this user yet". Why not arrange things so that if there is no talk page the "talk" link is red, and add at the left of the display the line 'If the "talk" link is blue you have a talk page and it contains messages'? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what someone else in an earlier post, as far as the "edit filter", and that those who trip it are more than likely doing so with the conscious knowledge that their edits are probably not constructive. Being an editor who regularly reports vandals whom trip the the filter, maybe I can shed some light on that specific issue. For the most part, I wait until an IP/new editor trips the filter more than three times before reporting them to AIV (excluding when they trip the filter regarding blanking, which I check manually). If I'm unsure, I'll defer the edit that tripped the filter to a more experienced editor who can make a proper decision as to whether the edit was constructive or not. As for the IP editor leaving mass AIV reports, you're not alone in the fact that you feel that it is inappropriate to do so. I tried to explain to Widr that this was inconsiderate of the IP editor to do, but I neglected to think of the valid point that it could lead to undeserved blocks, as the blocking admin rushes to clear the AIV report list. If a previously blocked school IP made an edit with good intentions, but not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines they could be unfairly blocked. I understand that this is a stretch of a hypothetical, considering the fact that most school/library IPs are a large source of vandalism. To this, I say (so long as it's clearly not the same person) blocks are meant to be punitive, not punishment. Especially considering the fact that it would not be appropriate to remind others of past deeds. Regardless of how much of a source of vandalism their IP is perceived to be. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I took an RFC that was originally on United States presidential election, 2016[13], placed it at Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused, so that I could display it both on the original page, [14] and on the talk of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [15]. This seems logical to me because there is a discussion on both pages concerning the wording. I just wanted to post here to ensure it is okay.Casprings (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to this thread, User:Politrukki[16] undid the RFC on the Russian influence page, which I reverted. [17] Its the same discussion on the same text and the RFC is older then the other proposed text. I think we should just get consensus on this and going. That said, I will notify the user and take the guidance from others.Casprings (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't parse what "Its the same discussion on the same text and the RFC is older then the other proposed text." means. I agree that two articles can share the same content – but they don't necessarily have to when context is not the same: it's supposed to be the first sentence in election interference article only, whereas in another article it's just one sentence among others.

Casprings opened the RFC without clearly saying that this RFC directly affects two articles. Well, there's a note that says Note: Added RFC to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article as it also relates to discussion ongonging there. – but I assumed that it means that Casprings has added appropriate notice to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I'm sorry but this edit today is the only edit I can find that is related to the note. And why does the note say "there" if that means here or there, depending on the context?

Look, it's possible to open one RFC for two articles if it's done properly. Few months ago Casprings properly opened an RFC, which was meant to have wider impact, in NPOV noticeboard and added appropriate notices to multiple talk pages. Why did they not do the same this time?

I'm pretty sure that all current RFC participants are not aware of Casprings' intention that this RFC is supposed to directly affect two articles. For example DrFleischman recently added their not-vote with a note "(I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)" – which page would "this page" be?

Currently there is no consensus for lead sentence for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and there is edit war going on, but only one of the options (option B) included in the RFC has been weaponized in the battle, while United States presidential election, 2016 remains locked. Politrukki (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The context is different in both articles; we cannot assume that consensus in one of them would automatically be the same consensus in the other one. In particular, the text under discussion is the subject-defining lead paragraph of the Russian interference article, whereas it should be a shorter mention in the presidential election article (as determined by a prior RfC). Finally, one article talk page has already spawned further discussion about proposed versions of the text, whereas those versions wouldn't apply in the other article. — JFG ^talk 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would point that user:coffee commented on this when asked by user:JFG.[18]Casprings (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Right here in River City

An RfC that needs re-closing by an admin: Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian.3F was re-opened merely because it wasn't closed by an admin, on the demand of a minority-opinion participant. Could an admin re-close it, or at least look at it? Consensus hasn't changed and it's gone very stale. Softlavender (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, what do you mean? "Ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble..."? Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgive the thread title; when I started typing the thread there were two very troubled RfCs that needed admin closing, but then I realized that one of them was dealt with recently. But I liked my thread title enough to keep it. Anyway, that one troubled RfC needs an admin look-see and hopefully a close. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the RFC, the RFC was not worded in a neutral manner and also claimed one source is the only source allowed, which obviously clouds future responses. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock very backlogged

Category:Requests for unblock is very backlogged as it currently has 104 unblock requests. Just wanted to let you know about the big backlog. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page for a non-profit organization - Make a Difference Now

Hi, can someone help me to create the following page as I will like to add this non-profit group to wikipedia so the public can learn more about the organization and what they are offering to children and education in Africa? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_A_Difference_Now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyhsu (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anyhsu: Please see the welcome message I added to your talk page as well as our notability guidelines for organizations that need to be met before an article can be written. If the group does meet the guidelines, going through WP:AFC will get you started. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

An editor deleted an edition that I added in this article: 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands- Argentine invasion of the Falklands

I want to inform the administration that in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands, I contributed with a particular detail providing the reference in a proper form: Graham Bound, Invasion 1982: The Falkland Islanders Story page 52. ISBN: 9781844155187 1844155188 (Where the author reports in first person visualized 90 Argentine soldiers who fought that day) and I noticed that somebody called: Wee Curry Monster arbitrarily deleted it and sent me intimidatory messagges (messagge) I see this as a censorship attempt, I am informing the administration and waiting for your reply since I'm new to Wikipedia and I actually don't really know how things work here. From this source I added "(90 in combat)": https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=-z-ucTYJLLMC&pg=PA52&dq=Graham+Bound,+Invasion+1982:+Falkland+Islanders+Story+page+52&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC3fqRt8jSAhWFlZAKHetZBeIQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Graham%20Bound%2C%20Invasion%201982%3A%20Falkland%20Islanders%20Story%20page%2052&f=false

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hachiman January (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice you didn't bother asking Wee Curry Monster why he reverted your change, which is supposed to be the first step in any content dispute. What you've done here is the equivalent of running to mommy to tattle tale. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

? He/she said "I am informing the administration and waiting for your reply since I'm new to Wikipedia and I actually don't really know how things work here." If unaware of how things work, seeing and consulting an authority figure is a very sensible thing to do, even if it's not how things work here. @Hachiman January: As noted above, the first step is always to reach out to the user who made the change. Reinstating the same material is usually a bad idea, and the thing that most often leads to people having their account blocked (when it's done repeatedly, it's called an edit war). Talk to Wee Curry Monster. It's rare that incidents rise to the level that they need to come here (which is more like a public court for big problems). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Click the "Talk" link on the article and start a new section to discuss what you were trying to add and the fact that it was deleted. You can also start a new section on the talk page of the user who reverted you, and ask him to join the discussion on the article talk page. That way others can join in to help decide. A content dispute is a matter for editors, not for admins. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Nick-D I rather doubt this is a new editor, demonstrating a remarkable grasp of wiki syntax and use of templates, and the immediate squealing of "censorship", making a personal attack against myself and going straight to ANI (I'm surprised he didn't try arbcom again). I've pinged Nick-D as this reminds me of a prolific sock puppeteer Alex79818. What we have here is an example of WP:OR, where the editor has calculated for himself the number of Argentine soldiers he claims actually engaged in combat with British forces; the cite he used does not make any such conclusion (I possess a copy). He's then proceeded to edit war this material back. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I've tagged the article for WP:OR, warned this editor about 3RR and started the talk page discussion. I'd be grateful if anyone reading this might consider reverting it back to the last stable consensus version i.e. [19]. If he wants to go down the route of accusing me of POV editing, see the talk page and this source [20] I've already discouraged another British editor from changing the number of Argentine casualties from 1 to >130 based on that WP:SPS. Methinks perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG might be headed his way. WCM_email 08:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin stupid?

Hello everyone, I've got a bit of a problem; as you can see when you look at my userpage (scroll down a bit), my adminstats have been disabled, and I am gone from "category:administrators". All the admin functions are still there, though. I am too stupid to find the cause for that. Cheers and thanks in advance. Lectonar (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You still have admin status; for some reason the bot thinks you don't. User:cyberpower678 maintains that particular bot, you'll need to ask them what's happened as Adminstats is a particular script, not a WMF or Mediawiki function. ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Will to that, Thanks and Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like the bot has shut down for everyone, not just you. I wouldn't worry about it; I doubt anyone in the history of Wikipedia has ever actually cared about adminstats. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just thought my userpage looked different :). And I am grinning, actually. Perhaps we'll all be desysopped shortly. Just the first step now. Lectonar (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If that were true, then this bot wouldn't exist. There are people that care about their stats.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I care. Just noticed this a few minutes ago myself, and wasn't sure where to report it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't know this existed. El_C 11:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I added it to my vanity, but it didn't work. Neither does my gallery for some reason. El_C 11:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• gallery uses file: not image: and also you didn't close the gallery with a /gallery tag. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not in those days it didn't! (Those were the days?) Thanks for the fix! El_C 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Breach of the 3 revert rule

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

---

Hello, I don't know the appropriate venue to report this, but I believe a user in violation of the three edit rule, whilst engaging in an edit war. He is acting like he owns the Michael Heseltine page and reverting constructive edits without discussion.

The three reverts in question are:

• 23:12, 8 March 2017
• 13:15, 9 March 2017
• 17:45, 9 March 2017

Thanks in advance for any help you may offer. I can't see a way for me to get a positive resolution to these edits. Stroller (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

1. You have to notify others of discussions here involving them. This has been done.
2. The appropriate venue is WP:ANEW.
3. It doesn't seem like either of you have technically broken 3RR, unless the IP is definitely the same user.
4. It doesn't look like either of you have discussed these edits at all on the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression

I believe I've identified a situation where page move redirect suppression (or sometimes G6 deletion) is being used improperly. For background, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation).

User Widefox converted the disambiguation page to a set index article and moved it to an appropriate title (List of Västra Frölunda IF sections). A redirect was left behind at Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) which he flagged for speedy deletion under criteria G6 & G8, with the reason "dab converted to SIA and moved - so no dab to redirect to". I objected because we almost always keep redirects from page moves when the former title is very old (this one since 2005) because of the potential for breaking incoming links to Wikipedia from external sites. Widefox disagrees, and said in the discussion that in the future he will simply suppress the redirect, as he holds the pagemover userright. As far as I can tell he has not done so, although he previously requested G6 speedy deletion in this situation at £5 (disambiguation) which was then deleted by Graeme Bartlett.

Wikipedia:Page mover spells out an explicit list of uses where redirect suppression is allowed; none cover this situation. One comes close, WP:PM/C#7, "Moving pages from a title that is an implausible typo or misnomer, only when the page is a recent creation (WP:CSD#R3)" (emphasis in original). Several suppression criteria also reference WP:G6, such as WP:PM/C#3: "Moving pages from a title unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". Since a very old page title is neither a recent creation nor unambiguously created in error, redirect suppression should not be used when moving such a page to a new title, and administrators patrolling CSD ought to be careful to check the history of the moved page when deletion is requested on a page tagged with {{R from move}}.

On the other hand, Widefox's move created a redirect that might otherwise be deleted, because redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title are expected to point to disambiguation pages, and set indices are not disambiguation pages. However, that point is very debatable; the function of a set index is certainly similar to that of a disambiguation page, so there could be merit in having a "(disambiguation)" title pointing to a set index. I suggest that G6 should never be used on these, but instead they should be discussed individually at WP:RFD.

Does any of the wording at Wikipedia:Page mover need to be modified because of this situation? Personally I think it's pretty clear. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, to contextualise this...I don't consider this an appropriate measure: Taking this to a drama board without discussing with me first, when User:Ivanvector is WP:INVOLVED in discussions instigated by me at two locations already about exactly this issue to clarify this underlying issue of disambiguation redirects to achieve possible guideline change/clarity at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#V.C3.A4stra_Fr.C3.B6lunda_IF_.28disambiguation.29 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29 seems wholly inappropriate, and a fishing exercise, and WP:FORUMSHOPPING before letting the issue be discussed in the current appropriate venues. I will deal with the substance next. Widefox; talk 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) User:Ivanvector I'm uncertain what your aim is here? What's the urgency for an ANI listing, what needs protecting?, and why should this be brought to another location when I've been explicit that I'm trying to clarify best practice already? Surely you'd appreciate this isn't appropriate as it may give the impression of attempting to get an upperhand in discussions started by me?! Widefox; talk 13:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector I see no diff above for an improper edit. Until you say what it is, I cannot defend against "Possible improper use" / "used improperly" / "As far as I can tell he has not done so". Even if you do list one, being as I've instigated discussion on this, I am tempted to just ignore this ANI. Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason such redirects from "(disambiguation)" exist is to mark intentional links to disambiguation pages. Were it not for that, such redirects would never have been created. There already is a lot of confusion regarding set indices and disambiguation pages. IMO, keeping such redirects only compounds this confusion. If there is in fact a distinction between set indices and disambiguation pages, keeping these sorts of redirects only blurs that distinction. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ivanvector: The first thing WP:PM/C says is "Page movers can suppress a redirect during a page move if the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion." The seven criteria outlined there are the most common uses, not the only ones. Therefore, I think this is a CSD issue, not one regarding the page mover user right; either G6 "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes '(disambiguation)'" applies or it does not, it would need to be clarified at WP:CSD#G6. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Its a terminology issue. Normally a disambiguation page that has been moved is because it is no longer disambiguating (hence the CSD criteria). This has been renamed to an index article that is essentially a still a disambiguation page by another name (a wikipedia page designed to link to other articles). So the redirect is a plausible redirect/alternative name for that page given the length of time it was named (disambiguation). It should probably still be kept as a redirect by IAR if necessary. I dont think this specific set of circumstances crops up that often. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well I guess you hit the nail on the head there. When a disambiguation page gets moved to another title, we ought to have a discussion about whether or not the new title and/or content of the page now being redirected to serve the function of disambiguation. Especially if the disambiguation page is old, G6 should not apply. I guess this is really a thread about whether or not G6 is appropriate, as Godsy is correct that redirect suppression is valid in any case that a CSD would be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This conflation that list articles are dab pages is unhelpful. An SIA is explicitly not a disambiguation page, but is explicitly a list article. We have it in bold in many places that a list is not a dab page. In this scenario, it is never that a disambiguation page is just a move. It stops being a dab. Period. As the " (disambiguation)" is only valid to target a dab (implicit, not explicit anywhere I know), this is logically invalid. The merits of breaking clarity and edit consensus / normal dab work needs consensus, but the fundamentals always come back to lists aren't dabs. A longstanding title with " (disambiguation)" invalid redirect is still an invalid one. Arguably G6 and/or G8 should apply. Widefox; talk 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just find it unconstructively pedantic to insist that a set index is not a disambiguation page (to which I don't disagree) while the set index perfectly serves the function of disambiguation. We can serve the various ways that readers browse our information, or we can needlessly sever links for silly reasons of our own invention. It should be obvious which one I prefer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Luckily we go by consensus: WP:SETNOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page" (original emphasis, this is in bold in several places). That's not pedantic, it's just the definition! It doesn't matter what I personally think about those that wish it different, until they conflate such clarity at RfD, and not follow the spirit of that editing guideline (disagreement on particulars always acceptable). Normal, uncontroversial dab cleanup work should not be held up by those who disagree with a long-established editor guideline. At RfD an admin is still insisting SIAs are only 3 years old! This has gone too far. Widefox; talk 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment before opening more discussion of the redirect deletion topic, be aware that this is a duplicate debate of the Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29, and I consider it WP:FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED admin. In overview WP:G8 redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles - the merits of which are better discussed at the RfD, rather than this second forum. Widefox; talk 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) was just fixing copy/paste duplication below. OK, AN. My mistake. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits Wikipedia:Page mover to emphasize that redirect suppression is appropriate only where the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion. This was already stated in the policy and I think the added emphasis is uncontroversial. WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I contest that User:WJBscribe. User:Godsy has already softened the edit [21]. As someone has pointed out, G6 doesn't (and can't) detail exact exclusive criteria, so given the intrinsic subjectiveness about eligibility, wording around revoking pagemover must match that subjectiveness somehow, else it acts as a chilling effect. I say chilling effect, as there's logs of several editors here to show G6 / G8 is routinely used, there is no consensus that G6 / G8 does not apply. If the purpose is to stop suppress for this case, it would be better to just do so explicitly rather than chill suppress for all CSD. My 2nd RfD is exactly an attempt to clarify this point. There's no evidence that suppress has ever been used (despite the section title describing it), and there's a misconception that G6 {{Db-disambig}} is an issue. It seems the wrong direction when requests to get clarification for current G6 / G8 by several editors for this situation, that a chill is put on it. Given that, it's currently inappropriate for me to edit Wikipedia:Page mover myself as COI, so I lodge strong disagreement here. Widefox; talk 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with Godsy's amendment, as it wasn't my intention to suggest that the rights would be revoked for a single incident which is now made clear. The debate over the applicability of G6 is to some extent a side issue - if you are right that G6 applies, the suppression would be appropriate and there would be no issue. If in doubt, don't suppress the redirect and take to WP:RFD instead. Although this thread prompted me to look at the policy, my edits are not solely a response to it. I think the policy failed to make it clear enough that page movers suppressing redirects (effectively allowing non-admins to delete pages) is a serious responsibility and misuse will have consequences. I think "chill" is a bit strong, but I do think we should advise page movers strongly to take care when using this feature. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle about this issue recently. My suggestion would be to take them to RFD at the moment, but if a clear consensus develops there that these types of redirects are always deleted (and I can see that argument, considering they don't redirects to disambiguation pages) then using G6 on them will be uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In my interpretation/experience of admins, G6 {{Db-disambig}} doesn't apply to the redirect. G8 "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets" does apply as target is not a dab page (the issue at RfD - lists are explicitly not dab pages, and conflation is ASTONISHing. I've leaned more towards tagging G6 and G8 which IFAIR Twinkle "multiple" doesn't allow selection of db-disambig, just the generic G6 which fits better, although less specifically. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a list that contains two blue links and one red, which (from admittedly brief googling) is unlikely to get any larger and is substantially the same as the previous disambiguation page. Not every lists serve the purpose of directing readers to other articles, this one does. Frankly it doesnt need to exist, a hat at the primary sport page being more than sufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death, would appreciate if you took that particular disambiguation layout to the 1st RfD, I've reverted [22] as it breaks the best setup I could arrange - WP:INCOMPDAB which has (at least one other) supporter at the RfD, and has survived the considerable scrutiny so far. Widefox; talk 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Per this I would rather you just dont intentionally link from an article to a REDIRECT to a disambiguation page. Apart from being intentionally obtuse it serves no benefit or navigation aide to the reader. I am starting to think this is a competence issue on your part. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Use of such a redirect is standard practice per WP:INTDAB. That in fact is the ONLY reason such redirects exist. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: firstly, your edit goes against the rough consensus to do exactly that at the RfD. I've reopened so you may contribute there. Did you read WP:INCDAB where a redirect is used (as requested)? WP:INTDAB is standard practice per Bkonrad. See {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (uncivil ignored). Widefox; talk 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is no guideline that says that these redirects [with " (disambiguation)" in their title that no longer have a dab page to point to] must be deleted. Consequently, there is no CSD criteria that cover this specific situation.

I have been slowly working my way through hundreds and hundreds of these, retargeting them if possible and nominating them for CSD WP:G6 if not. I use the "housekeeping" rationale, and very few of the CSDs have been denied. I have been thinking that we need to codify something in the guidelines that says that such redirects should be deleted. I believe we need an RfC on this issue.

Ivanvector, I know this seems pretty off-topic from your original question, but I bring it up because if the guidance were clear about deleting these redirects, then page movers would be justified in suppressing the redirects. — Gorthian (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree, quite strongly, with those advocating deletion of these redirects. Functionally, most SIA are basically DABs that happen to list entries of the same kind, and which don't follow the strict MOS:DAB formatting requirements (i.e. no wikilinks, no references, no images, etc.). This nuance is so minor, that we shouldn't expect anyone but those who have experience with DABs and SIAs to know this. Concurrently, at this point in time Wikipedia's use of "X (disambiguation)" to title pages where examples of articles named or referred to as X are listed is so widespread, that most editors and some readers should be aware of this naming practice. There are also cases where people will explicitly want to land on a SIA or DAB page, and would use a search term with (disambiguation) if they know or are unsure whether the base title would get them a term they don't want (e.g. searching Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) because they know that the primary topic is the 1916 battle and they want to immediately find other battles without navigating to that long article).

It seems profoundly unhelpful that people performing this search should get a page of search results, which may or may not be helpful, when there's a perfectly good page they would have wanted to end up on, but didn't because of a nuance in Wikipedia guidelines that they did not know about. For example, if the obscure film The Battle of the Somme (film) didn't exist, Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) would be a set index of battles of the Somme, so proponents of deletion would argue that the page should be moved and the former name no longer redirect there, penalizing those who don't' simultaneously know about the obscure film and about Wikipedia guidelines. Our goal here is to make an encyclopedia, not to try and train all of our readers into expert Wikipedians.

The existence of a (disambiguation) redirect to an SIA is also only one extra link, the target SIAs are generally unlikely to be moved or deleted, and many bots [23] [24] perform the required maintenance tasks if they are, so an argument that these are WP:CHEAP would also apply. Given these recent debates, a well-crafted RFC on what types of pages (disambiguation) redirects should target would be welcome. I would also recommend a moratorium on move redirect suppression or G6 tags on these types of redirects, since CSD criteria are only meant for clear, unequivocal cases, and the existence of the RFD threads linked above, and this AN thread show that this is not the case until that is done. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this really illustrates the confusion. Set indices are not disambiguation pages. Now, it may be that some editors are unnecessarily (and IMO inappropriately) tagging pages as set indices that should be disambiguation pages, but that is another matter. The principal reasons for a set index are to include content that normally would not be appropriate on a disambiguation page, such as references, redlinks, and explanatory context. The main issue is that there are no maintenance protocols in place to routinely identify and fix mistaken links to set indices as there are for disambiguation pages. One of the original arguments for set indices was that unlike disambiguation pages, links to a set index are not presumed to be incorrect. That is why intentional links to disambiguation pages are marked by use of redirects with "(disambiguation)". older ≠ wiser 14:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is trying to make MOS:DAB apply to SIAs or remerge the concept of SIAs and DABs. The fact of the matter is that most SIAs are basically DABs where all the disambiguated entries are of the same type and don't follow the strict formatting and content requirements of DABs. We shouldn't punish people trying reach pages they want because they didn't know that Wikipedia's topics on topic X are all of the same type, and so technically not a DAB. These redirects make searching and reaching specific pages easier for our readers.

I'm not sure the presumption that links to SIAs are correct is a good one. Links to USS Alcor or Rheumatism root, both set indices, should almost always directly point to one of those entries instead, and it would be pretty unlikely for a wikilink to deliberately refer to all entries there as a group. If they are referred to as a group (e.g. "After the bad luck of ships named USS Alcor, Foo Man, who was Secretary of the Navy at the time, decided to abandon the use of the name, Foo Botanist proposed a more detailed naming scheme after discovering several plants were called Rheumatism root), having the (disambiguation) redirect to the SIA could be used with WP:DABSOLVER to indicate that the link is correct by replacing the bare base title with one with the (disambiguation) parenthetical, like what's done with intentional links to DABs. Presumably, the criteria for choosing what entries are shown to users of DABsolver are category based, then throwing in redirects to pages in set index categories could do the trick.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Would the above workaround for SIAs be possible? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You can force Dab solver to disambiguation with &link=: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Alan_A._Brown&link=Schwab — Dispenser 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Sorry I should've been more specific, would it be possible to get links to SIAs to show up as entries to be solved in DABsolver if the SIAs are properly categorized as such? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with some code changes. Dab solver has three implementations for finding disambiguation links:

1. Templated used on disambiguation pages (slowest, see MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage)
2. Category based, would use the hidden Category: All set index articles for SIA disambiguation (How the example was found)
3. HTTPS API using __DISAMBIG__ magic word from mw:Extension:Disambiguator. (Current and most reliable).

Of course, with SIAs there's the problem of duplicating work. That might be solved by tracking only new links—work beyond my willingness. — Dispenser 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Both USS Alcor or Rheumatism root are IMO prime examples of pages that should be disambiguation pages rather than set indices. There is absolutely no value added by classifying them as set indices and significant detriment in that these pages will not show up on WP:Disambiguation pages with links. Some pages that better illustrate where a set index adds value are List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise or List of peaks named Signal or Little Lake (Nova Scotia). In the case of the Enterprise list, there are additional details than what is needed for disambiguation and the other two are intended to be comprehensive lists, regardless of notability or whether there is an existing article. In particular with Little Lake (Nova Scotia), no further navigation is even possible. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That comment perfectly illustrates why users should be able to find both disambiguations and set index articles by searching for "Title (disambiguation)" as which one a page is can easily change based on the the opinions of editors and are just different presentations with the same goal - providing a list of articles that someone searching for "title" could be looking for. Anyone looking for that list should be able to find it without knowing in advance what type of page it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they do not want. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, although all dab pages at the basename should have redirects with (disambiguation) in the title targeting them, they don't. That search would miss those dabs too. Bad lists and bad dabs can be improved. If I wanted to search both lists and dabs, I'd just use "Title". A more advanced search would also do it, maybe a phabricator? Widefox; talk 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Further, as this has now been extensively discussed, it seems clear to me that the main thrust of argument is not about relevance of deletion of redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title, but the utility of actively having them to target lists, which is in effect about creation, maintenance, and being able to rely on them to target all dabs and SIAs. That is far from current practice, so a new proposal, in effect to go back to little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs more than 10 years ago. A use case given to support this being users may want to search lists (specifically SIAs) and dabs together by using a search term with "XXX (disambiguation)". That use case would only consistently work if all dabs and SIAs had such redirects, which dabs should have and don't, and SIAs shouldn't have, and do only as vestigial as they generally are deleted G6 or G8. Just searching for "Title" solves this use case now, without dependence on one or extending to two sets of imperfect redirects. Widefox; talk 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, claiming that the distinction between set index articles and dismabiguation pages will be removed is a straw man argument. This is entirely about readers being able to find the page they are looking for without needing to know which it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they don't want - something nobody has actually presented a good reason to prevent. Bots can and do create the (disambiguation) redirects to disambiguation pages, and could very easily do the same for set index articles. Whether these redirects should be created and not deleted or deleted and not created is the exact same discussion with the exact same reasons on both sides in most cases (the only exception is following page moves, and policy is already clear that redirects following page moves should not be routinely deleted unless both article and redirect are recently created or the page was obviously created in the wrong namespace). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by "little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs" (more specifically, in this respect no distinction, but not in all ways). That is correctly what you're advocating, right? It's not a straw man). I think there's an inversion here, nobody is forcing anything, disambiguation is to assist navigation not force it, SIAs may also assist agreed, but they're not solely there to aid navigation, and deleted when not assisting navigation. In the same way, vestigial "(disambiguation)" redirects to non-dab targets is WP:COSTLY not WP:CHEAP due to any use case expecting dabs but WP:ASTONISHingly not getting one, rather than this specific use case/navigation pattern being a specific workaround for how we consider users will navigate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -> dab. If by saying "bots can a do create" you're asserting they are all there, then that's just incorrect. I add them all the time, the latest one I fixed Put a ring on it created as redirect 2009, converted to dab 2013 [25], I created [26] the redirect Put a ring on it (disambiguation) 4 days ago. It had gone 4 years without it. As I said, better to search "Title" than assuming dab is perfect, it isn't, sorry about that. The problem with saying policy is clear, is that there is no exact policy on exactly this, and they are routinely deleted G6 / G8 as logs of several editors have given. G6 is already explicit to not create such redirects, so this is all about WP:SIANOTDAB. Widefox; talk 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang forumshop by involved

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

---

User:Ivanvector is already involved in discussing this topic at my request at another forum RfD (two other places, links above). This seems FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED party going fishing. The admin exemption of "purely in an administrative role" does not apply as this is normal editor discussion at RfD. There's no diff here for supposed improper use, and so I can't defend an unidentified edit here at ANI when in reality I'm already attempting to clarify this at RfD for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? It's not leaving a good impression per WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (ec) Widefox; talk 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ivan is involved in a dispute with you over interpretation of Wikipedia:Page mover. This seems to be the first thread on an administrative noticeboard (no FORUMSHOPPING). Asking for broader review and discussion when INVOLVED, via a thread on AN, VPP or a talk page, is not only acceptably, but recommended. Ivanvector did the best thing by opening this thread to allow admins to discuss the differing interpretations of what WP:Page mover allows or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)It's not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: this is AN, not ANI, and it's not a thread about misconduct. There's room for a possible misinterpretation of a guideline, of which I'm raising notice for wider discussion and resolution. Yes, I used your request as an example of what I think the misinterpretation is, but if I thought you were misusing your userright I would have just removed it. I do apologize for the misconception. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Independent of, but related to, this discussion I have proposed a tightening of the CSD criteria to exclude those cases which are controversial. See WT:CSD#G6 and redirects ending in "(disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Current policy in general

There are lots of issues above. I would just like to claify one of them.

It seems to me that, in general, when an article is moved, redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so, and that these reasons are listed at Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria and linked to from MediaWiki:Movepagetext. And WP:Page mover refers to WP:G6.

There is a particular reason for suppressing talk page redirects in multiple move and round-robin situations, see phab:T12814. This should be explicitly mentioned (probably at both WP:Page mover and wp:G6) and isn't. But the resulting redlink is only temporary. The talk page redir in question needs to be suppressed or deleted to make way for another talk page move.

(Are there any other vital or even relevant policy or guideline clauses I've missed?)

It seems to me that WP:G6 is being taken far too broadly with respect to deleting (and/or suppressing) talk page redirects. I've seen two in the last day or so where there seems no reason to suppress or delete the talk page redir, other than that the admins didn't think the redir achieved anything, and that they thought this was the standard practice. I'm taking their word for it that it is common, and that the resulting long term redlinks are seen by them as a good thing.

This needs to be cleared up. If the policy is wrong and we need to change it, that's a matter for another talk page. What we need to decide here is, what is the current policy? Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if phab:T12814 was fixed, round-robin moves would still have to done suppressing the redirect by page movers. And for admins, it would probably make sense to do it that way too, just to avoid cluttering the logs with unnecessary deletions. As an aside, I look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts most days I'm active on Wikipedia to see which RMs have been closed and there are a lot of times that talk page redirects aren't left simply because of round-robin moves where the target page did not have an existing talk page. I'd support anything to make it clearer to page movers they need to create a talk page redirect in that situation.

For anyone else reading this, the main thrust of this section seems to have derived from User talk:Jenks24#Kremlin and I am one of the two admins mentioned without name by Andrew. I actually agree with the premise that "redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so", but I think listing every single instance there may be a good reason not to have a redirect is unworkable. G6 will never cover every single example of times it can be used, there are simply too many ways something on Wikipedia can be done incorrectly or made obsolete and no longer be necessary. I think any admins who regularly monitor G6 deletions would agree with that. However, if you want to add a line somewhere that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points, then that would be fine by me. See the discussion at my talk page for why I think redlinks are more useful for readers than confusing redirects in this specific case. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that suppressing the redirect is appropriate for round-robin moves and many multi-moves, rather than allowing its creation only to then delete it. That was what I meant to say and thought I had.

Disagree that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points. If that is what current policy indicates, IMO it should be changed, and I'll take it up in the appropriate forum. But I don't see any justification for it as the rules stand, and that's the question here.

Jenks24 stated on their talk page A redlink with a log entry is actually easier to make sense of than having a talk page redirect point in a different direction to where its companion article-space redirect points, especially for less experienced users who often don't even know they've been redirected somewhere. It also has the added advantage, as you've noted, of not needing to be deleted for a future move.... Agree, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that anyone create a redirect that will need to be deleted to complete the move sequence, or leave a redir pointing to the wrong place. What I'm suggesting is that we should avoid long-term redlinks. In some cases soft redirects giving a choice of several talk pages are necessary, if the move history is particularly messy. But I can't imagine any case where the best solution is a long term redlink. Can anyone? Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You said it was because of the technical issue detailed at the phab ticket, and I'm saying that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed.

Agree that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed. These are not long term redlinks. There are several valid reasons for creating short term redlinks, including the technical issue, round robin moves, and many (but not all) multi moves. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the rest, are we talking at complete cross-purposes here? I have just made my argument here and at the talk page for deleting the talk page redirect, i.e. leaving it as a "long-term redlink" in some specific instances. To boil it down to one sentence: A redlink with a log is easier to make sense of in these cases, especially for newer or less experienced users/readers or anyone coming from an old link (internal or external). Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And this is where I disagree, and think that current guidelines support me. The crossed purpose was about short term redlinks, and I agree that they are valid (and always have). Long term redlinks are the issue. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of a redirect should either point to the talk page of the target, or (my preference) be used for wikiproject banners (these support the article alerts system should the redirect be nominated at RfD, be involved in a page move proposal, etc), discussion of the redirect, etc. including a pointer to the talk page of the redirect target if anyone thinks it beneficial. If you find a talk page that is out of sync with the main page without good reason* then either fix the redirect target or replace the redirect with project bannners, etc. There is no reason to delete it.
*The only reason I can think of for this is where the main redirect is to a page whose talk page is redirected to a central talk page, which is very uncommon in article space. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is it worth adding a reminder (for both page movers and administrators) to the interface itself, next to the checkbox for "Leave a redirect behind" along the lines of: "(only uncheck if the redirect would eligible for speedy deletion)"? WJBscribe (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Only if that giant box on the filemove page is shrunk considerably, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Just so long as we are clear on what should be said, we can then discuss how it should be said. To me the guidelines are already clear, but not to everyone it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus, WJBscribe, you both seem to agree that long term redlinks are generally to be avoided, is that a fair statement?

  The problem with referring it back to CSD (as at present) is that the admins concerned think that G6 authorises the long term redlinks to which I am objecting. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Replying to Thryduulf 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC): Exactly. And thank you, that's a very good reply to my challenge to come up with a scenario in which a long term redlink is appropriate, well done! But as you say, it's an extremely rare scenario. None of the recent examples fit it, and I doubt we even need to mention it in our policies and guidelines etc.. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a new issue, rather it's one I've meant to clarify for years. I've regularly run across examples in which a long term talk page redlink was deliberately left, and the admins concerned have generally agreed to fix it or to let me do so. What has brought it to a head is two recent cases in which the admins have defended the long term redlink.

And it was possible that they were right. But the discussion above indicates to me that they are not. And either way, it needs to be cleared up. Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of my interaction ban with Catflap08

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

---

I was planning on waiting to appeal this, since an interaction ban with a site-banned user does not (or at least should not) restrict my editing privileges in any way. But some other stuff (a user, whom I will not name, occasionally brings up the IBAN out of nowhere for some reason, and it is extremely difficult for me to respond while still subject to the ban) has convinced me that there is nothing to gain by waiting, and everything to gain by appealing immediately.

In April 2015, Catflap08 and I were indefinitely IBANned.[27] In December 2015, ArbCom recognized that we had both violated the ban on several occasions.[28][29] However, they quite specifically did not convert the ban to an ArbCom sanction[30] (which is why I am appealing it where it was original set).

In February 2016, Catflap08 violated one of the supplementary TBANs ArbCom imposed (not going to go into detail because I am subject to the same TBAN; I was actually planning on appealing that one first) and was blocked.[31] He subsequently disappeared for about a year, before coming back, violating the TBAN again, and getting site-banned.[32][33] With his last edit to his talk page, he violated the IBAN by mentioning me by name ("H88").[34]

At this point, the original IBAN serves no preventative function, since Catflap08 not only voluntarily left the project more than a year ago, but was site-banned two months ago and so is extremely unlikely to ever return.

I actually predicted this scenario during the original IBAN discussion, and so originally planned to appeal once Catflap08 was blocked. So here I am.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Formalities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I will understand if some admins think that this will need to be appealed to ArbCom under the circumstances, so I'm asking for clarification on that point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Clarification requested. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC) It hasn't come up yet, and so probably is not going to, but for whatever it might be worth: apparently I would not even have been allowed appeal this community ban to ArbCom, as that is only done in certain rare circumstances, and then only when the ban is fresh. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Rescind ban as moot at this point. This doesn't seem to actually be doing anything anymore, so we don't need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban Since Catflap08 is indefinitely banned by the community, there doesn't seem to be any need for the IBan. If for some reason Catflap08 is unbanned, I would suggest that the IBan not be automaically restored, but doing so at the first instance of any conflict between Hijiri88 and Catflap08. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban as not needed. Presumably bans will be avoided in the future by posting less frequently and taking a couple of days away from a particular problem before returning. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban - the underlying issues have been resolved so this sanction is now moot. Twitbookspacetube 07:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind per BMK, with the proviso for speedy restoration in the event of community-unban-followed-by-conflict. Barring exceptional situations, there's no reason to topic- or interaction- ban someone who's sitebanned, and no reason to retain another user's interaction ban with that user. This doesn't appear to be at all an exceptional situation. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban, subject to the hypothetical advanced by BMK. No use keeping moot sanctions about the place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
• Rescind ban on the understanding that on the outside chance that Catflap08 ever returns, we can reinstate it if necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban per multiple good reason listed above. Can be reinstated if needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Assistance needed with repeat violations of ANI warning

I'm requesting assistance and intervention regarding repeat violations by User:Tenebrae of warning to maintain distance by avoiding contact with me.

Background: On 19 January 2017, User:Tenebrae filed an ANI against me: Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue. The ANI was closed with a Warning by User:Snow Rise:

Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone. Snow 03:34, 2 February 2017

It's easy for any editor to find out what articles another editor is involved in, and if said editor truly intends to avoid the other editor, staying away from those articles is one step towards maintaining distance. However,

1. @ 03:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae violated the warning to "avoid each other" by reverting my edit on the Carol film article: here.

2. @ 03:24, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left me a message on the article's Talk page: here. (I did not respond)

After these two incidents, I vented my frustration on Snow Rise's talk page (03:35, 22 February 2017): (SR archived the talk page and it's the reason for including the following quotes instead of linking to its revision history.)

(03:35, 22 February 2017)

After the recent ANI was resolved, you recommended that User:Tenebrae and I keep a distance: Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about each other, and to be scrupulously civil. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance. I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus. Now he's leaving messages on the Talk page addressed to me: Italics. This behavior is not acceptable to me -- and should not be tolerated by any Admin who witnessed the ANI. He was recently blocked for edit warring on another article and by continuing the "my way or the highway" with editors he is provoking confrontations: see 03:17, February 22, 2017 - reversal of edit to Carol. For the sake of other editors, and those who care about the spirit of Wikipedia and its articles, something needs to be done to put a stop to this behavior. Pyxis Solitary

3. @ 04:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae undid my edit in WP:MOSFILM: here -- which he then self-reverted.

4. @ 3:33, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae accused me in another editor's talk page of making a personal attack against him.

5. @ 21:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae posted the following comment on Snow Rise's talk page:

U:T @ 21:17, 22 February 2017
Wikipedia doesn't italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com, so I'm uncertain how de-italicizing them is "arbitrary." If Pyxis Solitary believes that "what's right for the article" is italicizing terms that are never italicized, well, that's as wrong as slagging me off behind my back. --Tenebrae

After finding out about his personal attack accusation against me (see "4" above), I left the following comment on Snow Rise's talk page (10:37, 23 February 2017):

(10:37, 23 February 2017)
By the way, User:Tenebrae accused me of making a personal attack against him because of the changes I made to my PROFILE page, and sought the help of another editor to (fill-in-the-blank). I mean, what the hell! Take a look: personal attack accusation. What are y'all going to do with an editor that was told to "keep a distance" -- but instead keeps pushing the envelope? Pyxis Solitary

Which was soon followed by an additional comment (11:25, 23 February 2017) after I found out that he had also filed an ANI against me about it @ 02:17, 23 February 2017:

(11:25, 23 February 2017)

After my 10:37 ^ response I saw this waiting for me in my Talk page: Requesting help re: a personal attack. I'm not going to file an ANI or whatever over this. I am, however, formally now requesting that — after (1) the reversal of my edit in the Carol article, (2) message directed at me in Carol talk page, (3) undoing my edit in MOS:FILM {which he then self-reverted after actually l-o-o-k-i-n-g at the edit}, (4) accusation of personal attack in talk page of editor CapnZapp, and (5) the ANI accusing me of a personal attack — the sanction warned in the canvassing ANI be enforced to stop User:Tenebrae from continuing to provoke and create conflict between us. Enough is enough. Pyxis Solitary

This second ANI against me was not only found to be baseless, but he was also warned about violating the "avoid each other" warning:

"...the fact that you are monitoring the user's userpage is a violation of the advice to avoid each other...."Softlavender 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

6. @ 01:23, 24 February 2017 and @ 01:26, 24 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left these comments directed to me on Snow Rise's talk page, challenging me to respond: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 01:23, 24 February 2017 and @ 01:26, 24 February 2017

Excuse me, but what do you call this, posted two days after CapnZapp and others asked us not to engage? I don't care if no one knows the total edit counts I've made to Wikipedia, nor what rank I am as an active editor. I don't contribute to this webopedia because I seek and expect recognition for my work in it. I'm not interested in medals and awards. My ego isn't so fragile that I need to plaster my user page with "Look at me! Look how great I am!" attention getters. (I applaud those Wikipedians who collapse their kudos and virtually hide them. So you tell me why you posted this. You tell me what other editor you personally have come across with "total edit count", "rank" and "medals and awards"? Yours is the worst kind of insult, because it's all insinuation. Shameful. Should I list all the insults and name-calling you're hurled at me and other editors, with links to them? --Tenebrae And incidentally, please explain how someone contributing anonymously is "seek[ing] and expect[ing] recognition." My goodness.--Tenebrae

I asked Snow Rise (10:12, 24 February 2017) to not include me in User:Tenebrae's behavior:

(10:12, 24 February 2017)

He's the one who now, in your talk page, has repeated the accusation of an insinuated personal attack. He has now, more than once, violated your warning in the canvassing ANI: "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." I do not involve myself in articles he's editing because I know the definition of "keep your distance". But he is going to continue to monitor my actions in Wikipedia, he's going to continue trying to rule over my edits, and he will again accuse me of wrongdoing. He's the one who continues to provoke and create conflict with me and about me. Do not paint me with the same brush. Pyxis Solitary

7. @ 01:31, 25 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left the following comment directed to me: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 01:31, 25 February 2017

I didn't say anything to anyone about you until you did so here, with a deliberately Trump-like obfuscation — "However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance" — followed by a lie: "I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I hadn't touched the article since January 16. You were the one who made several edits after that — not me, you. Here's the article hsitory, so anyone can see for themselves. I didn't make an edit until Feb. 21, for grammatical reasons after you broke MOS and the basic rules of English-language punctuation. See these articles for themselves: Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. Period. Neither is Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or other sites that WP:FILM used. So: Liar, liar, liar that correct grammar for these sites is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." Liar. See their own Wikipedia articles. And yet: I didn't say anything here about your obfuscation and lies. So unprovoked, you attacked me here, again, saying he invites and enjoys controversy and conflict. And he values his judgement above those of other editors. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for him to pop into the Carol article periodically to make arbitrary edits. Insisting, as he did in his recent edit, that the applicable template parameter for Box Office Mojo and Deadline is "publisher" instead of "website" (which the latter is what they are) is just screwing around with the article. He invents guidelines. Why is he being allowed to get away with this? Get away with what? Using proper grammar? Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office, which clearly does not italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com. Read it. Go to the good article Captain America: Civil War — Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. And you lie and say my grammatical corrections of your incorrect grammar is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I have just shown you both guidelines (WP:FILMMOS) and consensus. And heaven knows, no, I don't enjoy this controversy and conflict one bit whatsoever. Not. One. Bit. So you're wrong again there. It was only after you disparaged me twice on this page that I finally commented on your slagging me off behind my back. I hope you're proud of yourself, talking about someone behind their back. I have made sure you're notified every time I've commented about you. And now you bring another editor into it, who has a good heart and is trying to be helpful — and rather than accepting their help and being constructive, you spend your time trash-talking another editor. You think Snow Rise wants to hear that? You think a helpful, goodhearted editor wants to have you bring venom onto their page? And for what? The battle you want to fight is for wrongly italicizing two websites. Really? Good gracious. --Tenebrae

I asked Snow Rise (05:52, 25 February 2017) to enforce her warning about keeping a distance:

(05:52, 25 February 2017)

@Snow Rise: if your warning "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." does not apply when, in just one week, one of the two parties continues to incite conflict by (1) reversing the other party's edits in two articles, (2) accusing the other party of creating a personal attack on their userpage, (3) filing an ANI against the other party, (4) post messages directed at the other party in an article's talk page and in this talk page, and (5) challenging the other party to respond to accusations ... then it was a meaningless warning. I am the Admin of a wiki. I know when a user has defied warnings. I know how to stop that user. I know you're not a WP Admin. But you issued the warning. If you can't, then someone on your behalf has to walk the talk. Please hold off on the RfC until this situation is resolved. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary

8. @ 21:15, 26 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left the following comment directed to me in Snow Rise's talk page: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 21:15, 26 February 2017

I reiterate: You started this contretemps here when, unbidden, you disparaged me behind my back. Slagging off another editor is not "avoiding" the other editor. You could have made your same points without mentioning me at all. And, once more, I said nothing the first time you disparaged me here, and only responded when you did it a second time! I don't know why you believe you're allowed to insult, disparage and lie about other editors behind their backs, and then claim innocence. Remarkable.--Tenebrae

9. @ 15:35, 11 March 2017 — User:Tenebrae responded to my comment in a discussion I created in the talk page of the Carol article: here. (I did not respond)

10. @ 15:36, 11 March 2017 — User:Tenebrae edited content that I had reversed after an IP-address-only editor had, again, changed the content (see discussion in my talk page).

♦ I think this fact about the Carol article, in particular, needs to be pointed out for obvious reasons: I became involved as an editor of the article on 07:44, 15 December 2015‎. A review of its revision history will show how much I have edited it. The first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017‎. After its GA nomination failed because it had been nominated by an editor that had "not exponentially contributed on the page base on the edit history", I renominated the article on 12:07, 6 March 2017.

Other than WP:MOSFILM, I have stayed away from Wikipedia articles User:Tenebrae is also involved in so as to keep a distance. I have not replied to any messages addressed to me, or comments directed to me by User:Tenebrae. I have maintained my distance. He has not. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia, but by undoing or changing my edits in those I am involved in -- regardless of the reason given for doing so -- is a direct violation of the warning to keep a distance by "avoid[ing] each other". He pushes the envelope and will continue to do so if action is not taken to stop it. Is it too much to ask for those with authority to enforce the warning made by Snow Rise in the ANI? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing edit protections from files

I've made a proposal here, posting this here to solicit more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Point of a block

What's the point of blocking someone when they can use their talk page to get their helpers to carry out their desired edits for them? DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would think that people would do a little background before jumping into anything. It isn't hard to see if someone is blocked. Just look at their contribs. Talk page access is necessary for appeals and can't really be taken away immediately (unless there is a known history of abuse and socking). If you come across someone requesting edits be done on their behalf while blocked say you can't and deactivate the request. If they persist that is talk page access abuse and ask that TPA be revoked then. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Those carrying out the requests are well aware of the block. The editor in question is using his talk page to edit the front page queues, get his images added to articles, all the while claiming to be "waiting out the block". DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say take it to ANI then. That is very clearly not "waiting out the block". --Majora (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: Our current blocking policy doesn't disallow edits by proxy so long as "they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Arbitrators and some admins have interpreted this liberally to mean any positive edit can be done on behalf of a blocked editor by proxy. We need to think hard about whether this is desirable, and if not, change our blocking policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrators and some admins have interpreted this liberally to mean any positive edit can be done on behalf of a blocked editor by proxy. I don't think this is quite the whole story. My observation is that proxy editing is allowed as long as the editor who actually makes the edit takes complete and full responsibility for its factuality and appropriatenesss. If the edit turns out to be a bad one, the fault lies with the editor who made the edit, not with the blocked editor who made the suggestion (although their talk page access can be revoked). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy is contradictory as no edit on behalf of a blocked user would be independent from the blocked user. So the "independent reasons" clause makes the entire section moot as I read it. As for the letter of it, proxy editing is directly in spite of the spirit of the blocking policy. --Majora (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as main page errors go, myself, User:Stephen and User:Howcheng are admins who regularly clerk WP:ERRORS. We did it before TRM was blocked and we will do it after he is unblocked. The fact that errors are being pointed out on TRM's talkpage rather than WP:ERRORS is completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that no-one is suggesting that we should let errors creep onto the main page purely because it is TRM who has pointed them out, rather than anyone else. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can WP:ERRORS not function without him? DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are unfortunately a very small number of editors who spend the time to check everything that is heading towards the mainpage - it's a lot of work - and TRM is one of the main contributors in that respect. I do try to check when I get the chance but I don't always have the time, especially as WP:DYK cycles twice a day. I wish that the quality control, especially at DYK, was better, but until that does happen we simply have to depend on people pointing issues out. It's not an ideal situation, I agree, but I hope it will resolve itself when TRM's block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If he were indeffed would you still edit for him? DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question. I am happy to at the moment whilst the discussion about his block is continuing, but that's not a situation I've considered. I suspect that if he were to be indeffed, though, his talkpage access would be removed if he continued to post, which makes the question moot. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So as long as an existing block is being discussed you're happy to edit on behalf of the blocked editor. You should advertise this service more widely, I'm sure it will be very popular, and of course you wouldn't be one to treat TRM better than you'd treat anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you know that's not what I mean. I'm not going to be making everyday edits for people if they're not the type of edits I would make anyway. But if I saw a note written by any blocked (or even banned) editor that pointed out a real problem, whether it be an error on the mainpage or a BLP with serious libel issues, then of course I'd act on it, and I think most other editors would too (even if it were just to report it to a noticeboard for someone else to action). Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Following that vein, the block is pointless if we allow editing by proxy. Might as well just unblock him, do away with the civility requirements, and let them go. Blocking is supposed to stop the damage. It is supposed to be a reminder that certain activity is not tolerated. Allowing proxy editing throws that purpose out the window. --Majora (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. If he was simply requesting edits that I would not normally make, I would not make them. However, while he is pointing out errors on the mainpage that would normally be made at WP:ERRORS, then I will do them, for the simple reason that I would do normally. I am quite happy to own edits that remove errors from Wikipedia, especially on the main page. As far as I am concerned, that meets "... can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TRM was not blocked for bad main-space contributions, but for his civility issues. As long as the editors-by-proxy for him are sticking to the main-space contributions (eg ERRORS-type issues), not repeating any incivil language, and take responsibility themselves for proxying TRM's edits, there's no issue here. I would agree concern should be had if a user has a topic ban and editors were proxying at those topics for them, but TRM's ban was not related to his main-space edits. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is some twisted logic Masem. So by that example we should allow someone who was blocked for repeatedly uploading copyvio images to edit by proxy because their block was not mainspace related? --Majora (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, that's not what I said. If a user was blocked for copyvio aspects, and used his talk page to ask editors to upload files, then the editors that edit by proxy now take full responsibility if they upload the suggested images and they still are copyvio problems. In such a case, I would more likely expect editors to not even bother with such requests. Here, I will assume that Black Kite will take responsibility for any "bad" requests that TRM makes that Black Kite implements. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Black Kite - Hmm, well I suppose that meets the letter of the law. I still think it makes blocks pointless, and I don't think it's ethical. And as for the lack of participation at WP:ERRORS, I am sure you are aware that some consider TRM's contributions there may be somewhat off-putting to many. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, TRM's block WAS related to his WP:ERRORS contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It was his interactions at ERRORS, but related to how he treated other editors, not the actual content of the ERRORS that affected text on the main page. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A subtile distinction, and one I do not recall being made in favour of other blockees. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like this exception is being twisted to fit the circumstances (and the person being blocked) due to their past contributions to the project doesn't it? --Majora (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of cutting off my nose to spite my face. If a blocked (or indeed banned) user raises a valid concern about errors in Wikipedia content, especially main page content, I think we should fix it. Sometimes ideological purity must give way to pragmatism... WJBscribe (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You essentially just did away with WP:DENY. Especially when it comes to banned users who were all banned for a very good reason, WJB. Not exactly something I would want any admin (or 'crat for that matter) to do without widespread community consensus. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that essay has its limits if allowed to govern our actions inflexibly. That's probably why it's never had the consensus to be a guideline or policy. This isn't the first time this issue has come up. I don't think you'll find there's much consensus for ignoring a problem with Wikipedia content just because it was first identified by a blocked/banned user. WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are looking for a policy that has consensus on banned users perhaps WP:BMB would be better? In any case, we have moved from blocked users to banned users which is not the point of this thread. The point here is that long term editors are immune from most things and even if not totally immune the "rules" are twisted so that in most cases the consequences are as soft as possible. Everyone knows that. It is one of the many unwritten rules of this place. But to see it so readily is jarring. Not unexpected, just jarring. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not the user concerned is a long term editor. Try it. Create an account, make vandal edits & get blocked. In your unblock request identify an error in our main page content. I think the chances are pretty high that - even if the unblock request is declined - one of the reviewing admins will fix the issue with the main page... WJBscribe (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself a bit of a DENY Hawk, but I'm not seeing a problem here and I certainly don't see it as eviscerating DENY.

The usual situation go something like the following: an editor is contributing to the encyclopedia but making errors. Not just minor errors, that can be easily pointed out and corrected but multiple errors, either editorial or civility-based that are not cured with multiple warnings. Even though the editor may make some positive contributions, we decide as a community that on balance the negative contributions outweigh the positive and we blocked the editor so that they can think through their options and decide whether they want to reform. In some cases, such an editor will create a new account, i.e. a sock puppet, and continue contributing either with full articles or with edits to existing articles. It is not uncommon for someone to observe that some of these edits are positive and argue that they should be accepted. The problem is, we've made a decision that the editors problems outweigh the contributions, and while some of these edits may be helpful, given the problems, it would not be rational to simply accept them without close scrutiny. While some would counsel this, if we thought that was a good long-term solution, we would not block the person but let them continue and just ask people to provide the close scrutiny. By definition, we don't accept this option, as we made the decision to block the editor. Therefore, per DENY, it makes sense to revert these edits and wipe out any full articles created without looking closely. Any editor who wishes to take on the responsibility can look closely at the edits and make them themselves and thereby take on responsibility, but we don't generally let them stand and simply asked people to look at them closely.

That is fundamentally different than the situation. It isn't the case that the blocked editor has created a sock puppet and we just realized that there are some potentially problematic edits. The editor has been upfront and posted items on the talk page which may be main page errors. It would be absurd to insist on allowing an error to remain simply because it was pointed out by a blocked editor. The request did not create a burden on other editors in the same way that a sock puppets edits create a burden with a requirement that someone come along and check them closely. Only willing editors who think that the suggestions may be worthwhile will check these edits and they voluntarily take on the time to determine whether they are worthwhile implementing.

Again, I am a strong supporter of DENY but do not see it as suggesting we should revoke talk page access or that everyone should shut their eyes to useful information on their talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Demanding that we stop fixing flaws in our content because we dislike the person who identified them is such a Wikipedian thing to do. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No-one is saying that. Some of us are saying that perhaps we shouldn't allow blocked editors to perform the exact activities they usually perform via proxy, though, with editors acting on their requests without independent thought. That's plainly not the intention of talk page access for a blocked editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Who said we dislike the person? I certainly didn't. I demand that admins do the job that they were elected to do. That happens to include enforcing blocks that were handed out. Regardless of who that person is. Obviously the block is a pointless exercise in futility and multiple admins are perfectly content with proxying edits for them on demand. So just unblock him and cut out the literal middleman. Seems silly to be going about this in this fashion. --Majora (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, I strongly support lifting the block in question. It seemed to me the sentiment of this thread and several others in various places was that until said block expires, we shouldn't be carrying out the blocked editor's good-faith edit requests. On that, I disagree. @BU Rob13: I'm not personally aware of any policy that prevents a blocked editor from using their talk page to contribute to the encyclopedia, either by collaborating with other users in good-standing or themselves writing and editing content. I seem to recall several instances where blocked users were in fact encouraged to craft article drafts on their talk page as a step toward provisional unblocking. I believe that if the "intention of talk page access for a blocked editor" is to deny all constructive contributions, those intentions are wrong. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • ...in any event, the user at the heart of this discussion has just been unblocked, so this matter may be considered resolved unless folks would like to continue this as a general policy discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Juliancolton; You must have missed the point of the non-consensus of the community, it was to break his spirt. They only broke most of it, and thats not good enough. People trying need to be stopped, otherwise wikipedia will be filled with trying. TVGarfield (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The above account was created today; it is their fifth edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • True. I guess I couldn't take reading it any longer. TVGarfield (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The pooint of a block is to prevent a user from continuing to abuse the site or disrupt it. If a user in good standing is willing to take full responsibility for the blocked user's request, and potentially sacrifice his/her good standing, then the edit has passed an extra level of scrutiny other than the blocked user's own judgement. I would certainly be extremely careful about such edits, but errors on the main page, as judged by a responsible admin, certainly should be done. As Maimonides said, in his opening to his commentary on Pirkei Avot, "Accept the truth from whoever said it"My translation from a Hebrew source; I have no doubt that Black Kite verified that it is the truth. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The purpose is that the edits are now owned by the person who makes them. If that person is disruptive, that person can be blocked. If the edits are fine when made by the second person (that is, if we didn't know they were requested by a blocked user, then we wouldn't object to them) then what is the problem? --Jayron32 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notably, however TRM is currently unblocked. Is there any reason to keep this discussion open any longer. --Jayron32 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps enshrining this in some type of essay/guideline about contributions of blocked editors? DENY doesn't cover the situation that seems to be described by consensus here (that as long as the proxy editor takes full responsibility and consequences for such suggested made by blocked editors, that's acceptable). --MASEM (t) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • DENY has absolutely nothing to do with this situation - DENY applies to users who are here in order to be disruptive, not users who come to help and occasionally "cross the line". As long as TRM remains the latter type of user, DENY is completely irrelevent with him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I know it shouldn't but see the arguments above where it was brought up. Maybe DENY's the wrong place for establishing this, but I think we do need something to cover a case like TRM. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)