Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

RFC on including DC Comics

(Initiated 154 days ago on 21 December 2023) Long past 'best before' date. - wolf 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 47 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 37 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	59	71
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	5	18	23
AfD	0	0	0	28	28

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

(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 114 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 100 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 May 2024)

Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 7740 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel 2024-05-23 22:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Safia Khairi 2024-05-23 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case Conservatism in Israel 2024-05-23 20:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Xxx 2024-05-23 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Justin Stebbing 2024-05-22 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Substantive COI editing - propose changes on the talk page Anachronist Proximus Group 2024-05-22 13:44 2024-08-22 13:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry, COI editing, or both NinjaRobotPirate International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine 2024-05-22 12:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Wokipedia 2024-05-21 23:50 2024-05-23 23:50 edit,move Shenanigan precaution. BD2412 Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn 2024-05-21 20:22 2024-11-21 20:22 create Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks Yamla June 2024 Ukraine peace summit 2024-05-21 18:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Template:English manga publisher 2024-05-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Gaza floating pier 2024-05-20 17:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Science Bee 2024-05-20 15:26 2027-05-20 15:26 create Repeatedly recreated Rosguill Screams Before Silence 2024-05-20 04:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2024-05-20 03:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Atom Eve 2024-05-20 02:53 2024-08-20 02:53 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate

Journalist wants to see article history

Hi! I was wondering - I was contacted by a journalist who is researching the Warren Chaney case from back in 2015 and wanted to see the (now deleted) articles and the edit history. Would this be something she should go through WMF for or are we able to send her this information and/or restore the articles to a userspace for her? (If restored they would certainly be restricted to where only admins could edit the page, similar to how the hoax museum's pages are locked.) ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Do they have a company email address from a reputable news source? If so I would be inclined to assume good faith, but check the history for abuse before providing. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If the journalist works for a Kentucky newspaper -- especially the Kentucky New Era -- I would be VERY cautious. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the bias against Kentucky newspapers, whether Christian County or otherwise? Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Web search shows that a bunch of the stuff in the Chaney "biography" was "sourced" to the Kentucky New Era. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Among the citations to the New Era were [1] from 1987 and [2] from 1978. Yes, as news reports they're primary sources on those events, but how are they one bit different from any other news reports, which by definition are always primary sources on the news events they're reporting? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing much abuse potential given that the info (or at least what looks like an intact revision of the Cheney biography) is out there anyway. Maybe I'm missing something though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me there are 2 sets of articles to consider here. The articles on the alleged movies are not likely to have much info that is of concern (albeit I never saw them and am not an admin). This probably applies to the articles on the book and organisation. The articles on the people would need to be treated with greater care considering the possibility for BLPvios. Whatever happens, it should IMO be made clear that we don't (I assume) know for sure who is behind these articles. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the edit history could do, however. A list of IPs and usernames with timestamps doesn't seem to present much of a BLP risk to me... --Jayron32 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

IPs are classed as personal data. But really should we be providing copies of deleted articles anyway? Unless we also provide the entire edit history doesn't it fail attribution under the license? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no requirement to provide the entire edit history. Simply providing a list of the all contributors should be sufficient. It's what we say at Wikipedia:Userfication#Cut-and-paste_userfication for example. I don't really see why IPs from edit histories should be considered personal data. If someone had asked for their IP to be deleted and that was honoured, we shouldn't reveal it. But it's accepted that if they chose to edit, their IP is shown. There's warnings about it and all that. In fact, there's a clear contradiction if our free licence requires a list of contributors, but we can't do so because of contributors privacy. Effectively it means the free licence isn't actually free since editors able to object to people reusing their work because doing so would require also including 'private info'. No, all editors can do is ask is we delete their IP from the list with the understanding that by doing so they're giving up their right to be identified as a contributor in that way, and while we would normally honour such requests we aren't required to. And yes, editors should be aware that deletion of an article doesn't mean it's gone, since articles can be undeleted for a variety of reasons and anyone can copy it in accordance with the licence terms which requires a list of contributor. Remember also we have Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and userficiation of jokes etc (maybe not hoaxes) is accepted practice. While the text for the category is a little confusing, my understanding is a number of admins are willing to provide the text by email or similar of articles provided there aren't reasons they shouldn't (like BLP or copyvio). Hopefully they also provided the list of contributors, although I suspect some do screw up. That said, while we are not required to provide edit histories, it sounds like this is something the requestor wants. This is likely to be more difficult to do unless we can agree to userfication which seems unlikely. This would probably need to be done via Help:Export and the requestor will need to have a way to be able to use it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I meant providing copies of the articles, as per the original request, could be a problem for the 2 or so biographies. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a ton of mirrors that don't have full history (including the one where I found the Chaney bio), and nobody has complained about license afaik. I do have to wonder what present-day journalistic interest there might be in a years-old lame wikipedia hoax. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The complaint about the Warren Chaney article was that it contained made-up information. See WP:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. At least one participant in the AfD used the term 'deceitful'. This wasn't just the common problem that good references are hard to find. See also User:ReaderofthePack/Warren Chaney. The creation of Wikipedia's article on Warren Chaney and the related ones happened in 2011. There was a lot of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't favor releasing either the deleted article or the edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Re the IP's comment, other people violating licences does not excuse us violation licences. Definitely people do complain here when they find someone has violated their licence, unfortunately a lot of sites don't care and it's not something that's easy for us to do anything about. I believe some contributors have contemplated DMCA complaints or similar. EdJohnston's comments re-enforce my view we shouldn't provide the biography articles but I still don't see a reason why we can provide the other ones unless they also made significant claims about living people. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, it seems that some of the film articles did claim people were involved who probably weren't. I have to admit, to me if they are being provided privately to someone, with the understanding the articles may be hoaxes and the info totally unreliable and since it seems like the people named were famous people, I wouldn't consider this to raise BLP concerns. But I understand others may disagree. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• ReaderofthePack, is the journalist only covering the Wikipedia saga around that user? Or are they pursuing some other angle (as well)? Given EdJohnston's comment above about how deceitful and inaccurate the article(s) was/were, I would be very hesitant to provide copy(s) to a journalist without being clear, because it could cause that misinformation to be further promulgated and perpetuated. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you give the deleted article to a journalist, it doesn't have much value to them unless it's understood he can use that material in whatever article he publishes. So, releasing the deleted article to anyone (who is not bound to confidentiality) is equivalent in risk to restoring the whole article for public viewing. If the purpose of the original deletion was to get false claims off our website, then reversing the deletion is giving up on that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late reply! As far as the journalist goes, the author is Ashley Feinberg (pinging her: @Ashfein:), who wrote this article about the deletion when it happened. She's now with the HuffPo and it looks like she's planning to cover the whole Wikipedia event as well as Chaney himself - I don't know that you could cover one without really covering the other at least a little. Basically, she kind of wants to unravel everything to figure out exactly what happened. I'm admittedly curious to see what she could find, as she could most likely discover some of the things that we weren't able to concretely identify, such as the work with celebrities that we weren't able to really discover as much about, like the TV special. A lot of what has been confirmed hasn't been 110% confirmed, so it'd be good to get some confirmation on that as well. To be a bit more to the point, the whole Chaney thing is pretty much one of the largest hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia due to its size and relative longevity - it existed on here for about four years. There have been hoaxes that have had farther reaches, such as the Amelia Bedelia hoax, but most of them haven't really been this grand in scope. I'm intrigued to see what Feinberg could discover, to be honest.

As far as what she would do with all of the info, I'm not entirely sure but I think that the time stamps could be useful as far as investigation goes and comparing it against the content that the lot of us put together as far as the Chaney material goes. If restoring it live would be an issue, is there a way that we could provide her with the info another way? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Again given EdJohnston's several cautions, I would suggest instead that she interview administrators who have the time and willingness to provide detailed information on the article's edit history. Even though it's a bit time-consuming, it would actually be easier and less time-consuming than for someone who has never edited Wikipedia to try to parse through the article's various iterations. As EdJohnston says or implies, we can't afford to let the article or its iterations be publicly viewable by anyone except those Wikipedia has entrusted with those advanced permissions. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hello! Yes, just to give you guys a little more information, I'm not looking to republish the articles in full. I've seen the articles on the various Wikipedia mirrors that exist, but what I really need is the various edit histories of the pages, the users that made the edits, the talk page discussions, timestamps, etc. As far as journalistic value, solving internet-based mysteries is one of my very favorite things to do (see here and here), and the entire Warren Chaney situation is one of the most fascinating I've ever come across. Nothing would be republished in full, I'd only use bits and pieces (most of which would probably either be minutiae or talk page discussions) to make my case, whatever that case ends up being. Hopefully that was helpful, but I"m happy to answer any more questions you might have! (Also, apologies if this isn't formatted correctly — I've lurked on Wikipedia forever and covered it extensively, but this is really my first time attempting to jump in.) Ashfein (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As far as I am aware, that wouldn't be possible without the article and its iterations being publicly viewable; even it was on a user subpage it would still be viewable to anyone who knew it was there. I think the feasibility or advisability of posting it on a user subpage would need to go through a serious official consensus of administrators or Stewards or WMF officials. And are we only talking about that one article, or various related articles? Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OMG the secret Comey Twitter account! I remember that well! People, this person is a f**king genius; in early 2017 she single-handedly discovered the anonymous Twitter account of James Comey (through the most obscure and tiny clues)! Comey was so impressed he offered her a job at the FBI [3]. I support allowing her to view the article(s) and its edit history and talkpage history. Her confidentiality is assured; she is top-notch, and I am one of her biggest fans (for having cracked the Comey case). Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical of the journalistic usefulness of that episode but I think there's some overreaction happening. As Ashfein says, the basic info is out there on wikimedia mirrors, so there's no horrible secrets to protect. The question I see is more about the usefulness of exhuming some zombie prank from N years ago instead of leaving it in the ground where it is now. Don't we have enough new silly drama every day without having to rake over old and long-dead silly drama?

  Regarding supplying copies (if deemed appropriate): is it possible for an admin to use special:export to extract the revision history without restoring the pages on wiki? Or is it really that big a deal if they're temporarily restored in user space, long enough for Ashfein to download them? Ashfein, is there some new present-day relevance to this hoax, or is it just curiosity about one of Wikipedia's weirder old moments? Just wondering, and hope you don't mind my asking. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Added: the juiciest reporting I could see coming out of this would be discovering that some celebrity or politician was involved, e.g. someone in the Trump White House. As intriguing as that might be though, that type of investigation is what we would call a WP:OUTING attempt. As such we normally couldn't get behind it. I wouldn't do so myself if it were just for gossip value. If there was something of major public interest I could see going the other way, but it's hard for me to imagine what might be given the known info. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you presumably aren't a journalist, and aren't interested in the story, and don't know what it would entail, those personal opinions don't really matter. What matters is the confidentiality and integrity of the journalist. This journalist is not gossip-monger; she's an internet researcher. ReaderofthePack said that 'the whole Chaney thing is pretty much one of the largest hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia due to its size and relative longevity - it existed on here for about four years. There have been hoaxes that have had farther reaches, such as the Amelia Bedelia hoax, but most of them haven't really been this grand in scope." It certainly sounds like good journalistic and historical value to me. In terms of prospective outing, the journalist said she is happy to answer any questions we have. I'm also sure she would learn the ToS and polices of Wikipedia, and abide by them, and also agree to run the final draft of her article by WMF Legal or whomever wanted to vet it. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the articles Ashfein linked and that's what raised the question of outing for me. The first article's purpose was to out an anonymous Twitter account as belonging to James Comey, and the second was about some Heavens Gate people who are still around maintaining a now-obscure website but mostly quietly minding their own business and who would rather have been left alone. She linked those articles as examples of the "internet mysteries" she likes to solve, and therefore of the type of investigation I'd expect to see. I don't see much historical interest in these sensationalizing pop-culture articles either. We have enough trouble dealing with our drama from one day to the next; we don't need to be paraded around as a freak show. (It's a bit different if someone like Dariusz Jemielniak writes something up in a deeper context of Wikipedia history and criticism).

Anyway, there really isn't anything relevant in Wikipedia's TOS or policies about people using info from Wikipedia off wiki, and running a final draft past WMF Legal or anyone else would be contrary to any journalistic practice I've ever seen. So I wouldn't expect or ask anything like that from Ashfein. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Closure needed for Requested move for Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

Can someone please close the Requested move discussion for Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Requested_move_20_October_2018. 7 days are over and the discussion has drawn opinions from all sides. We can wait but posting here since the article is currently listed on the Main page so a faster response will be appreciated. I have voted myself, so I am unwilling to close. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also please read the "Move to killing" section on the talk page for a better understanding of the consensus over there. There was some move-warring recently, which may or may not be addressed. wumbolo ^^^ 16:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done by Primefac wumbolo ^^^ 20:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban

Please refer [4], regarding my topic ban on FGM. I have voluntary accepted the ban as I didn't complied to self restricted FGM editing without discussing on respective talk pages. Although there were not even one 1R issue, my editing was felt interruptive to some editors as citation provided by me were not termed as proper RS.

My further editing since then had no further similar issues and had tried to further learn on selection of proper RS.

I request for lifting topic ban on the subject. I voluntarily further restrict myself to put my views on respective talk pages only, till it is well discussed there.Md iet (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For convenience — FGM = female genital mutilation. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin opened a complaint on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 44#User:Md iet, in April 2018, which led to me to impose this ban. The general issue (now, and in the past) is concern about 'whitewashing' of FGM which is a practice of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect centered in South Asia and East Africa. For that sect, FGM appears to have status as a religious practice. UN bodies regard Female genital mutilation as a human rights violation. Though User:Md iet's ban was set up as a voluntary ban, the topic of Female genital mutilation is now understood to fall under WP:ARBGG, per this October 2018 ban of Muffizainu. In that AE thread, the closing admin decided that FGM is a 'gender-related dispute or controversy'. I haven't yet decided whether to support the lifting of Md iet's ban; I suppose he should explain why the problem won't occur again. If his views are similar to those that Muffizainu expressed in his own AE discussion, it doesn't seem very promising. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please see my reply at [5].Md iet (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made my intentions very clear and understand Wikipedia importance with my limitations and difficulties/inconvenience of fellow editors in the matter. I have already faced restriction based on my earlier editing. There is no new clear instances(differences) pointed out to justify why the problem would occur again.

The issue is very critical involving millions of people getting affected, and with situation prevailing, there is no significant reduction/improvement visible to me being member of victimized similar lot.

Closing door of discussion completely isolating people with some different solutions seems not be very beneficial to people in large, at Wikipedia a true fair, democratic platform where people expect all the POV fairly published. Now it is up to admins team to decide on the matter. Power is always available at Wikipedia board to ban anybody further if he is not at par. Not giving fair chance seems somewhat stringent. Whatever decision taken would happily acceptable with further desire to follow Wiki guidelines specially on RS further.Md iet (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There is opposition in the name of spreading truth. If in encyclopedia of Wikipedia fame,truth and real situation is pointed out using proper citations will definitely address NPOV better. In the name of wp:soapbox,if attempt are made to restrict published known truth seems not a proper approach I feel. Use of RS is main issue here, decision to be based on the same rather then all the others.Md iet (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose appeal. Female genital mutilation is a featured article based on the best available sources. It faces periodic attempts to whitewash text. Unsourced boosterism such as diff (25 August 2018) indicates that the present restrictions should remain. (For background, see Talk:Female genital mutilation#NSW Australia case concerning Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Md iet (talk · contribs) and Muffizainu (talk · contribs) arrived at FGM last year within a month of each other, and engaged in advocacy on behalf of the Dawoodi Bohra. The article mentions the Bohra only in passing: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in ... India by the Dawoodi Bohra." There is more at Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation. Muffizainu's position, which contradicts the available evidence, is that the Bohra practise Type Ia FGM only (removal of the clitoral hood) and that we should call what they do "female circumcision", not FGM. He recently created a POV fork at Khafd, which is what led me to request a topic ban.
  Md iet seems to oppose FGM, but (if I've understood him correctly) wants to use Wikipedia to suggest other approaches beside passing laws against it, which he believes is counter-productive. The main problem is that they both use sources poorly. See Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 16, which is mostly discussions with them from September 2017 until recently. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Having read some of the talk page archives I don't think this editor should be editing these articles. The archives of the FGM article show a few editors engaging in long arguments to prevent inappropriate material from being added to an FA. We need to help those editors, not send them more people to deal with. Hut 8.5 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• oppose appeal My impression from what I've seen of this appeal is that user believes Wikipedia is some wp:soapbox for spreading the truth. To quote, "The issue is very critical involving millions of people getting affected, and with situation prevailing, there is no significant reduction/improvement visible to me being member of victimized similar lot.

Closing door of discussion completely isolating people with some different solutions seems not be very beneficial to people in large"-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by SashiRolls

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

SashiRolls has submited an unblock request after coming off of an ArbCom block. As GoldenRing is not currently active, and the block log specifies appealing to the community, I am copying it here for community discussion. The text of the appeal follows:

An Arb has suggested that I follow the template for appealing that can be found at the en.wp guide to appealing blocks as closely as possible. So here we go:

• State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration.

I do not believe I should still be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. My record of contributions at fr.wp [6], en.wikiversity [7], meta [8], and even simple.wp [9] show that I've been able to improve WMF "knowledge" products while trying to contribute or just learn from meta-reflections and how-tos in more effective places. I have even contributed to en.wp occasionally through people who thought my proposed text was a reasonable improvement and added it in their own name. I have not violated any en.wp rules during the period of my block. Concerning the rest of the accusations in the block record, I will be frank. I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". That is simply smear.

• Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block).

After over a year of being blocked I have still had no further explanation from @GoldenRing: concerning the "harassment and intimidation" claims (no reply to any email in fact, so I stopped trying long ago). If he still stands by his block, I would be happy to hear why.

• Give evidence.

Let's stick to the basics of the affair I was blocked over:

1. I commented at AN/I when Crossswords drew my attention to an incident they had filed (§).
2. I followed a bot notification to an RfC on a page in American politics called "And you are lynching Negroes" which caught my attention. As a result, I was blocked by Dennis Brown on Sagecandor's request (§) for 6 months for "wiki-hounding". Dennis Brown has since defended his block as being "community-based", although I suspect they've realized the error of that (very small) "community" by now, since they've been a regular WO reader in the two years since.
3. After being blocked I learned a fair bit about the history of the en.wp editing environment by reading the critical fora and continued to observe the political sphere. It was no secret that Sagecandor had begun writing a lot of book reports in the weeks before my return, and when I noticed them adding to the en.wp Bibliography of Donald Trump, I thought it wise to try to inform the readers what was going on. I was blocked indefinitely on Sagecandor's request (§) as a result of documenting this on the talk page.
4. It has been suggested to me that a better approach would have been to start an SPI as was done when they returned to en.wp in 2018, after at least a half-dozen people had worked to compile the evidence adduced in that SPI. (§)
5. I have remained interested in Wikipedia and its problems. I wrote an article and compiled a lot of data concerning Wikipedian sourcing § while blocked.
6. In October 2018, the Arbitration Committee removed the second layer of block they had placed on me to solve the problem of the smear about "harrassment and intimidation" being broadcast to anyone who clicked on my user-name.

Again, if Goldenring (§) would like to defend the use of the words harassment & intimidation, I would listen to whatever they had to say, but I think the facts show otherwise. I remember reading in the guidelines not to leave out the background. Essential reading is Cirt's established MO of asking for action against so-called wikihounds on trumped-up charges. (§)

I would be touched if Goldenring would unblock me personally with an edit summary retracting his caricature of straightforward observation as "harassment and intimidation".

Thank you for taking the time to read this request for administrative review of the two blocks that Cirt requested be placed on my account.

— 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for community input. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Some background reading here - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217#SashiRolls --Calton | Talk 01:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". OK, that's an immediate non-starter: Decline unblock. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'm gonna have to go with decline just because I don't see any acknowledgement of the behavior that led to the block, nor any commitment not to engage in such behavior again. I just see an editor denying that such behavior ever took place, and alleging a series of vendettas to explain why they were blocked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Decline per Calton.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Decline I saw some of the discussions at the time but forget the details. My decline is based on the flawed judgment shown in the appeal regarding the implication that GoldenRing was entirely wrong (and no one noticed), and the portrayal of Wikipediocracy as something other than a cesspool for discontents. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  I hope (and expect) that whoever reviews this will discount ad hominem attacks like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Decline per Calton. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to explain the logic to Johnuniq: Sagecandor was a sock of Cirt. Cirt's appeal of their topic ban prohibiting them from editing about politicians and political culture was declined 13-1 the last time it was appealed to ArbCom [10]. Cirt , therefore, had no right to be socking to avoid scrutiny given that there were active sanctions against their account, which they were violating. By extension, they did not have the standing to prosecute anyone for noticing their highly abnormal editing patterns which -- as it turns out, again -- violated active sanctions.

As for assurances / pact of non-aggression: I have no intention of tracking down any more socking sysops, nor do I intend to lay down evidence of any further wrong-doings by anyone in the inner cabal, not to worry. I'm just giving en.wp a chance to fix an embarrassing mistake it has had made for it by an absentee sysop/clerk.

So far, this thread includes no DIFFs showing any harassment or intimidation of Sagecandor whatsoever and plenty of DIFFs showing Sagecandor/Cirt falsely crying "wiki-hounding/harassment/intimidation" (the link provided above leads to dozens of examples of it). I look forward to this request being studied in depth by an uninvolved administrator here at the Administrator's Noticeboard, because I would really like someone to reply with evidence rather than just per Haps -- who provided no DIFFS -- or from half-forgotten memories of a case they never understood had been brought by a scrutiny-evading sock with quite a reputation... (i.e. quite a way to be welcomed to Wikipedia). By the way, Calton, MPants & Johnuniq, nice to see you again. ^^ — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied by request from SashiRolls' talk page [11]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Decline It’s always about other editors, including admins. That was true last year after coming off a six month block and is true after another year block. Had the editor finally come to grips with their own behavior, I might feel differently. But, this unblock request is just another list of grievances and failure to indicate any future improvement in behavior. O3000 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Question for the community: can someone provide a link to the "harassing/intimidating" behavior in question? 28bytes (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: generally, see the diffs offered in this AE request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you. I'll be honest, I'm a little uncomfortable that the AE thread was created and presented by a (now-indeffed) sock account to evade a BLP ban to (successfully) get someone who was questioning their edits silenced. But I'll look through the individual diffs now. 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently per the AE request that got them indeffed, I outed them via anagram or something because I've discovered both their real name and their mother's name, which is frankly a level of conspiracy driven paranoia that makes me happy I live in a place where Google Maps can't find my house, and the banjo music from the forest mostly scares everyone away. GMG^talk 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm an admin with no prior interaction with SashiRolls and who generally stays away from AP2 topics and doesn't read Wikipediocracy at all, so everyone should be able to evaluate the neutrality of my next comments. Decline this unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM (generally) and site ban per WP:NOTHERE. SashiRolls is obviously a user with a score to settle who has a history of disrespect for Wikipedia and its editors. This request is dripping in battleground rhetoric - they themselves are the sole defender of Wikipedia, they are infallibly right and everyone with a different opinion is in their way. They were blocked for socking two years ago and have repeatedly referred to that action as a "gag order" and by their own admission are still contributing in spite of being blocked. They say they were blocked at Cirt's request, which isn't how blocking works and ignores the many other editors also supporting that action in the AE thread, and the fact that Cirt was also socking and that GoldenRing is away don't matter even one tiny bit at all. They don't acknowledge at all that their past behaviour was disruptive, they even defend it as having been in some kind of constructive interest. With the attitude displayed here there is zero reason to think they won't immediately resume their crusade if they're unblocked, and so they should not be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to reassure Ivan Vector that I have no intention of going on any crusades and bear no grudges against anyone. Contrary to what you said, I do not think I have some mission to "save" Wikipedia or that it would even be possible for one person to do such a thing. I'm not a hasten-the-day agent trying to get myself embedded in plain sight into Wikipedia. I've already told ArbCom that I have learned that the high-conflict political pages are probably best avoided entirely (not only for the peace of the project, but for my own peace of mind). There are just too many people with too many divergent viewpoints to act efficiently in that area. Some people I respect would probably consider this laziness, but such is life. I've had more than enough of wiki-drama.

On the other hand, I do have an avid interest in learning, and en.wp is a place from which I've learned a lot, on many levels. It is a tool I've used regularly for over a decade -- entirely unnoticed for about 10 years (§: the first account I lost my password to) -- prior to recent events in US politics. Not really having had the time or the competence/expertise to edit well during that period (which was much more permissive of OR than en.wp is today), it was only in 2016 that I dipped into the conflictual areas and began rigorously learning the citation templates. I sometimes have been known to just lurk in the background and help people who like to move more quickly by helping them format references properly. I generally am most interested in the reference sections of articles (since that's where all the facts come from) and like to give scholars / journalists credit by including their names in the citation templates. It's important to give credit where it is due.

I can also help the project by copy-editing (in two languages) and note that there is a lot of fr -> en.wp translation work that I could dig into. In terms of writing: I have been working on improving my synthetic skills, because I have an annoying tendency of trying to pack too much into a sentence. As a general rule, I like to think of the reader. I have not created 1000s of articles, just one in fact (in both French and English), as well as an unpretentious English phonology page at wikiversity. I am here offering to help improve en.wp in a minor way. I look forward to continuing to learn in that process.

For reference here are some of my last content edits to en.wp, written in the hours before being indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE [12]. Some other long-standing contributions can be found in this section. I appreciated the research I found on that page. I find it fascinating that Choctaw, Mobilian Jargon, Yoruba, and the Bostonian press were all probably involved in the spread of the new word OK, and had no idea of that before I started looking through the assembled documents in that en.wp entry (some of which had been deleted, others not). So, OK. I'll try not to soapbox, but I did want to acknowledge that I'd heard your concerns, I.V., and to respond to them. I am neither a crusader trying to convert "infidels", nor a creep. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:SashiRolls TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to Accept their appeal, at least procedurally: the AE case that was the immediate cause of the indef should never have been (able to be) brought, although I accept than even a blind pig can occasionally find an acorn in the dark. And although WP:NOTTHEM argumnets are probably the worst arguments one can make in an appeal, I can actualy understand it in a case where, arguably, the "THEM" in question has broken as many if not more of our behavioural guidelines than the blocked editor. I suppose ultimately it may—repeat, may—have been the correct result, but its procedural deformity is writ exceeding large. ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Accept per SerialNumber. The idea of keeping someone blocked who was taking a close interest in an editor who was actively socking to edit in an area they were banned from is laughable. Especially since it was well known for a long time that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor. It comes across as the usual "we are not going to admit we were wrong but to be unbanned you must still kowtow and admit you were at fault" arrogance that is rife amongst a certain type of admin. If Sashi misbehaves block them again. But complaining their unblock request is about other editors, when it was other editors bad actions that resulted in their block, is petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Decline - I understand the positions of SN54129 and OID, it seems wrong for someone caught up in the actions of a bad actor to suffer for it, but I'm more convinced by the argument of Ivanvector, particularly concerning the tone of the request. I see nothing there to indicate that SashiRolls has changed their attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should accept the unblock request. These comments in particular give me the impression he plans to edit here for the right reasons. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I really admire the chutzpah of an editor who, using a sock puppet account created to avoid a topic ban, brings action against another editor, noting discretionary sanctions in very same subject area, filing an AE case on the grounds that editor is casting WP:ASPERSIONS at them that they know full well are perfectly true. All experienced editors know that you should never, ever file an AE request, because you're just as likely to get blocked yourself as the subject of your motion; but not only does the victim get indefinitely blocked, the perpetrator walks away Scott free. Well, not completely free, they took his sock away from him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• But how do the actions of the other editor, and the lack of sanctioning of that editor, justify the behavior of the appealing editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Accept per Messrs. 28, 54129 and OID. Sure, there's some understandable indignance in the unblock request - insufficient grovelling, one might say - but given the circumstances of the block being caused by a bad actor seeking to obscure their own misdeeds, who wouldn't feel a little aggrieved? Unblock, and let their subsequent actions speak for themselves. Anything else feels petty and punitive, and we don't do that, right? -- Begoon 21:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Accept - I do not subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility of the WP community and cannot help wondering that if all the facts were known at the time of the block it may have resulted in a wp:boomerang instead. Jschnur (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Some context: A bit of transparency here: I exchanged words with SashiRolls a little bit over at that "other" site where we might not be able to link: (Redacted). Let me provide a bit of context of my biases: 1) I actually think Cirt has historically done good work in content. 2) I think SashiRolls is very prototypically Wikipedian (and I include myself in this critique) having a short fuse, an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, and the prototypical feature of being self-involved. But, there but for the grace of WP:KETTLE go I. 3) If you people think this request is problematic, you should read the thread to see what SashiRolls had initially wanted to request. Would that we had had a few more rounds of back-and-forth for editing and counseling about what the right way to go about doing this might be. The !vote-count might be very different if we had done that. But we have the history we have, the hand we are dealth. That SashiRolls had the presence of mind not to ask for an addendum to a block log means there is someone working that account who is willing to take criticism on board.

Now for even more pontificating that y'all didn't ask for: Wikipedia is an absolutely horrible place to people like SashiRolls who lose their social capital. As soon as someone goes down, the typical response to is gang up and kick them. SashiRolls simply does not have the experience with this society to know how to say the right things to get back in right with the culture. With some time and practice, I think there is evidence that SashiRolls may get there. I have tremendous sympathy for this problem. I've been in the very same boat.

I know that people can learn and change and adapt. I only slightly hesitate to add that Wikipedia, as well, changes, and so maybe that's something to consider here with respect to some hindsight about what occurred. Wikipedia, as a community, has demonstrated a willingness to stick its neck out and let people like me back in after shitcanning. But, to the point, I think that SashiRolls exhibits the characteristics that he too might be able to adapt into that kind of editor who this website can not only accommodate but come to accept or even value.

That leaves the question as to whether to unblock this poor soul. I actually do not think it appropriate I offer an opinion on that since I coached SashiRolls over at that other evil site. I don't know whether SashiRolls has been able to, as they say here, "take enough on board" to not get back into the kind of shit that sent him packing in the first place. In fact, as we all are human, SashiRolls may fail again. But I also fail from time to time in spite of having been reaccepted into this weird and wonderful website. Each time I feel I fail better and become better at communing and navigating this place because of it. I get the impression from my brief interactions with SashiRolls that this kind of thing is a distinct possibility.

With all that in mind, I would just ask the jury here to consider whether they think this account will ultimately be a net-positive or a net-negative when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't often get people asking to be a part of it in the serious way SashiRolls is asking. I understand that some people are either so abused by the site or so congenitally unsuited to working in this environment that they should be told to go find other outlets (people have said as much about me). But I tend to believe that this is probably the minority of people who take the time to write block appeals and respond to concerns the way SashiRolls has. That's not to say that there is no risk, and while I think that eventually SashiRolls is likely one of the people that would be better to let back in, the question I cannot answer is whether it's the right time or not.

Is SashiRolls carrying a grudge? You better believe it. Is this a problem? Potentially, but there's also this principle of WP:ROPE. Still, you may all judge that the likelihood of success is too slim. Perhaps SashiRolls didn't practice enough in learning about the peculiarities of Wikipedia culture and didn't get enough help writing a decent request for unblocking to reach the appropriate tone, make the right promises, describe a future in the right way to make you all confident in a successful renaissance for the account. I get that, but the question I ask is whether such poor timing, as it were, is a good enough justification for saying, "no, you must remain an un-person".

So please ask, is it better for SashiRolls to learn the ropes of Wikipedia unblocked now, or is it better to spend some time cast in the wilderness and maybe come back with a better-formed statement that will make you feel better? I honestly don't know the answer, but I hope my stream of consciousness rambling was helpful for some of you.

TL;DR: SashiRolls shows some characteristics of being able to be a good community member here, but doesn't yet know enough Wikiculture to be able to understand what is or isn't possible in navigating a return to "good standing". It may be possible for SashiRolls to learn this by being unblocked, or you may think the risk is too great that SashiRolls will end up kicked out again.

jps (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This actually tracks some of my thoughts pretty well. I'm opposed because Sashi isn't saying the right things. If Sashi can say the right things, that would change my mind.

The need for Sash to say the right things comes from the fact that Sashi is not a pure victim here. If that were true, then it wouldn't matter whether Sashi said the right things or not, I'd support the unblock. Also, if Sashi were entirely in the wrong, it would not matter, I'd oppose the unblock. But the issues that led to this block were partially of Sashi's doing. So if Sashi recognizes that and vows to avoid that behavior, then there's literally no need to keep them blocked. Also, the suggestion that Sahsi should grovel is fucking juvenile: We are not here for justice or to assuage our own feelings. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Groveling does not contribute to building an encyclopedia, so not only is it rarely asked for, the suggestion that it's being asked for in this case is just ridiculous. The only thing being asked for is some evidence that Sashi will handle problems such as those that led to his block with more skill in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think deciding what is "groveling" and what isn't "groveling" is largely a question of semantics. Some people have found success with shamelessly groveling, but what we're ultimately talking about here is composing a written word essay that will give people the right feels. It is a bit of a "rose by any other name" sorta scenario. It's, at the very least, a hoop to jump through. jps (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I see a difference between "groveling" and what has been asked here. For example, I think it's fair to characterize a demand for an apology as groveling, or demanding that an editor requesting unblock agree to conditions that are unprecedented or which place an undue burden on them in their editing. I don't see anything like that being asked here. I see myself and several others saying "We're not sure that Sashi won't get themselves in trouble again, based on what they say".

I'd like to point out that Sashi's response to Ivan is heartening, but not quite what was asked for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely, trying to get someone who wants a certain outcome (unblocking) to produce a product that reaches a certain set of standards (evidence that you won't get in trouble again based on what you say) will ultimately cause us to wonder whether we've just coached someone into being constructive. But, as Munroe says, MISSION FUCKING ACCOMPLISHED. In any case, I don't know whether the first impulse of this website, to want to see this evidence in the unblock request itself, is the right one or not. I haven't seen the studies that show what the outcomes actually are between those who write the right things and those who do not. SashiRolls is surely reading this, so perhaps we'll get some insight from them! jps (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my outlook, too. I don't give a flying fuck how they get there, only that they get there. As far as I'm concerned, your coaching offsite is no different that on-site mentoring, and kudos to you for doing it. If it works, we're up one experienced editor. If it doesn't, we're down one disruptive editors. Win-win. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To an extent it is semantics, yes. I'm sorry my use of the term is viewed as "fucking juvenile" and "just ridiculous" - my intent was to perhaps encourage consideration of how it might feel to the blocked user who has made a good faith effort to appeal in as honest a fashion as they can. I see, as 28 does, much in Sashi's most recent statement to indicate that they want to contribute for the right reasons, and, for me, the "right things" are said there. As OID puts it, Sashi may well feel that "the usual "we are not going to admit we were wrong but to be unbanned you must still kowtow and admit you were at fault"" is in play, and I sympathise with that. Like it or not, there is a perception that getting unblocked can be less about honest self-reflection than it is about reciting the 'correct' mantra, with or without sincerity. -- Begoon 00:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "we" were entirely in the wrong to block Sashi. That being said, I'm not unsympathetic to their position. We've blocked one of the editors who was problematic on "our" end, and the other has stopped editing. So we've handled the problems on our end. So now if Sashi can handle the problems on their end, we're golden. The only real disagreement is whether they've said the right things to indicate that. I say no, you say yes. But I'd note that it certainly wouldn't hurt Sashi to use my standard, here, as they'd gain another supporter while simultaneously losing a detractor. And that alone might be enough to convince another detractor or two. It sure couldn't hurt. Meanwhile, sticking to his guns and refusing to admit any problems... Well, there's no consensus to unblock right now. We know what that means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m having a few problems with these arguments. 1.) First, the editor has had a year and a half to figure out how to gain approval for an unblock, and has failed this rather trivial test. That’s a very long time over which the editor could have examined unblock success rates. You can call that integrity or you can call that WP:CIR. 2.) I don’t care about the fact that some other editor was blocked who started part of the process that resulted in one of the blocks. I only care about the result and if it was based upon diffs and the editors responses. 3.) I get the feeling the editor feels they are somehow above the guidelines and policies when they are “right” and I have seen no new evidence that this has changed. 4.) I don’t like the characterization of “groveling” applied to simply admitting flaws in past behavior and explaining how one will avoid that in future. Which one of us is perfect? Seriously, saying “Sorry, I’ll work on that” is not groveling. 5.) As for rope, in this case it was played out to the level of a ship laying a transatlantic cable. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever had cause to request for an unblock after being indefinitely shitcanned? It is far from a "trivial" test, let me assure you. At least it was for me. I am sympathetic to your concern that you think the person may think themselves "above" Wikipedia law. That's kinda the issue we're grappling with in this treaded discussion. Whether we call this a call for "groveling" or whether we call it "introspection" runs into the problem of other minds. Let's just say that you want a certain thing and it may be hard to provide it. As for your final argument, my point about WP:ROPE is to say that any unblock will be subject to it as well. Leashes get shorter after each event. Some people get once bitten twice shy. I get it. But there are examples of people returning and so the question is whether we have enough data to know that this is a bad idea. As I intimated, I really don't know. jps (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Good responses. The problem of other minds is important as wikis are built upon collaboration. Yes, we only “know” that our own mind exists. (OK, I’m not even certain of that.) But, if one wishes to collaborate, one must find an effective manner whether one is playing with other sentient minds or a video game. What I’m worried about is twice bitten, third shy. I’m just not seeing any change in attitude whatsoever. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

10-4. My evidence comes purely from witnessing SashiRolls change approach in how to proceed with this request. Maybe SashiRolls will respond to this discussion directly to provide more evidence, but maybe not. In any case, I can understand where you are coming from. jps (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Accept I have spent a lot of time reading the evidence. I certainly recognize that SashiRolls is not blameless. For example, I would normally bristle when an editor calls another editor a "prosecutor" at AE. But in this case, Cirt/Sagecandor was, in effect, an illegitimate prosecutor. That otherwise capable editor and former administrator was topic banned from U.S. politics for dogged POV pushing among other things, and then spent a couple of years defying their topic ban with the Sagecandor sockpuppet. I was certainly fooled by this sockpuppet and gave them a barnstar shortly before they were blocked, much to my embarrassment when I found out the truth. I have never claimed to be a sockpuppet detective. Much (though not all) of the problems that SashiRolls encountered were as a result of their interaction with this lying, vindictive, driven POV pusher. It is impossible for me to re-read the evidence so meticulously presented by the Sagecandor sockpuppet without considering it to be tainted by their own deceptions and vindictiveness. On the other hand, I see no evidence that SashiRolls has engaged in any socking or disruption since their block. Accordingly, I believe that this editor deserves another chance. I encourage SashiRolls to do their best to separate the wheat from the chaff that they have received in all these conflicts, and recognize that their own behavior has been suboptimal on several occasions, as many editors other than Cirt/Sagecandor have pointed out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'll leave the unblock question to people with a clearer sense of whether Sashirolls is likely to become a worthwhile contributor if unblocked, but I'm unimpressed by the initial request which didn't acknowledge the previous misconduct amply documented by Cirt and others in those AE threads, and with some of the pro-unblock arguments. Objecting to the process based on Cirt/Sagecandor's status at the time is totally different from pretending those diffs don't exist (they are there in the revision history no matter who points them out). And the process objection is not persuasive either.

  Cirt's socking is something to possibly weigh into consideration if the overall case is iffy, but it's not dispositive. This is not a court, we don't have an exclusionary rule, talking about "standing" is obnoxious wikilawyering, and Cirt is not a prosecutor (someone entrusted with state power with a high potential for abuse). And many astute editors weighed in at those AE's and affirmed that the blocks were warranted, some of whom gave diffs of their own. A closer analogy to Cirt's AE filing might be an undocumented immigrant reporting a crime. You might call the ICE on the reporter (if that's your thing) but you should still go after the criminal. The "prosecutorial" counterpart would be something like using improperly obtained checkuser evidence, and nothing like that has been alleged here.

  BMK's "it seems wrong for someone caught up in the actions of a bad actor to suffer for it" misses the points that the "caught up" person is also a bad actor, and that the purpose of the block was to spare the rest of the community from suffering from SashiRolls' disruption. Per NOTBURO we aren't supposed to nail people on technicalities. We similarlity shouldn't let them off on technicalities. I found the initial unblock request either disingenuously ignoring or lacking awareness of the previous problems, both traditional signals for declining to unblock (plus others mentioned NOTTHEM regarding Cirt). On the other hand, maybe the diff that 28bytes linked shows some promise. So I'd decide the request primarily on that basis. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Accept per statement and Cullen328. The declines are not persuasive. Give Sashi another chance - reblocks are easy. Cirt certainly fooled a lot of us and it’s time to start making up for that. Sashi thought they were dealing with an editor with a similar experience as they had, not a former admin with 200,000+ edits to the site who was gaming our policies. Cirt was an expert at eliminating opposing viewpoints. Don’t give them one more. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Accept I would say that Cullen's comments pare this request down to their essentials. Forensic with humanity, as is usual from this colleague.I would add that I fully take O3000's points and agree that honest self-examination publicly aired but with dignity, ain't grovelling. The bottom line is that the community can revisit any further issues and use it's consensual powers accordingly to block. WP:ROPE, colleagues. So lets call rope another chance. Simon Adler (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've changed my opinion to Strong Decline based on this response to my comments to jps and Begoon, which reads to me like more denial of any wrongdoing combined with several not-so-subtle attempts to get under my skin. This diff contains a more detailed response of mine. Suffice it to say, Sashi has just convinced me that he's not going to stop over-personalizing disputes (and indeed, inventing disputes to over-personalize). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, just as I'm about to post an "Accept" !vote, and then this shit happens. Starting beef with another editor is the very definition of not saying the right things. Sigh. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's disappointing, and this why I talked about the possibility of failure and asked whether we wanted it to happen here or offsite. If the main feature of your Wikipedia career was in the context of a personality feud, the tendency is to revert to that. This is not an excuse, it's just an explanation that this is learned behavior and that getting past it is not exactly what Wikipedia is set up to accomplish. WP:MASTADONS is the cynical way to say this. jps (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Per Cullen, for instance. I think that SashiRolls can be a productive editor, despite the tone of this unblock request, if they are true to their word and refrain from sleuthing. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I think some consideration should be given to the fact that SashiRolls was actually right about the socking concerns. While being right is not justification for approaching an issue in an inappropriate way, SashiRolls was a direct victim of Cirt/Sagecandor and I think that was reprehensible behaviour by Cirt. Essentially, I see SashiRolls as an honest person with high moral standards, who just didn't approach the Cirt/Sagecandor thing very well. I have to say I'm shocked to read above that "it was well known for a long time that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor". Put me on the list of dumb admins who didn't know, and shame on any who did. I'll also add that I really don't like this "saying the right thing" requirement for unblock appeals - I prefer people who are honest about what happened and about the way forward, rather than those who are simply good at brown-nosing. Anyway, do we want back a productive editor whose ban turns out to have been tainted (at the very least), who still adhered to the ban without any sign of deception, and who clearly wants to help us build the encyclopedia? I do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, and if this unblock request is successful, I strongly recommend that SashiRolls heed the sound advice of Cullen, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Note: I've just realised I lost half a sentence in editing the above, so I've added it now - in italics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I have spent some time mulling this over. I'm not happy with the WP:NOTTHEM-like attitude, but I definitely have some empathy for the situation SashiRolls is in. Ultimately, this is mostly a "per Cullen" support. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock for abiding by the block. Those objecting the unblock per "WP:NOTTHEM" should understand that it was not possible to write a sensible unblock request without talking about "them". Capitals00 (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Accept. First off, this was going to be a vote to decline, and then I changed my mind as I was writing my rationale. My thought process follows:

I can sympathize with Sashi's circumstances, but only to an extent. Sometimes life just sucks, and this is just as true on Wikipedia as it is off. I agree with the Stoics that your ability to accept this and optimize your own behavior within your constraints, and ultimately accept whatever fate those circumstances deign to hand you, is a valuable virtue. Experience shows its importance to any interactions involving considerable amounts of stress. Unfortunately, Sashi hasn't demonstrated the levelheadedness that I would prefer to see in someone whose time on Wikipedia has been characterized by high levels of stress. Some people, by mechanics I don't pretent to grasp, always court drama. When I see tales like this, I cannot help but worry that Sashi is one of them. Certainly, Sashi's comments here would explain why he courts so much drama: his tone is always combative. He probably doesn't even realize it. But his uncouched truth-telling (as I speculate he sees it) probably is problematic to the less patient editors among us. That is not a condemnation of anyone in particular; we all have personal strengths and weaknesses that translate onto this project, and we as a community need to be able to work with that.

This applies to Sashi too. The question for then becomes whether he is likely to cause disruption. I see two possible ways this could happen. 1) He could have an axe to grind with those who he perceives to have wronged him. 2) His tone could suck him into other incidents in the future. I dismiss the first possibility offhandedly, seeing as the principal figures that have wronged him are now gone. The second is a more serious concern, but one I ultimately find to be insufficiently weighty. Do I think he'll irritate editors in the future? Yes. He has demonstrated an ability to this already today. But do I think will be a major issue? Not really. I've observed as spats broke out on talk pages I watch. They're often caused by editors who are just a little too edgy in their tones and just a little too willing to point fingers at someone else. SashiRolls is certainly both of these things. Yet in my experience, these disputes normally just dissipate, as editors reach an understanding or decide they have better things to pursue. No real animosity is left over, and no considerable time or energy has been wasted. We have countless editors like SashiRolls on this project, being productive and doing great things for this project that more than compensate for their occassional squabbles.

I hope that SashiRolls is unblocked and does great things for this project. Regardless, I would just like to encourage him to keep in mind that sometimes, it's better to say less. Speculating about facts that other people are better positioned to contribute is generally not worth your time, as is highlighting something that's not there. If either of those things seem important to others, someone else will raise them; if not, raising them yourself will only backfire. Just say what you know and are willing to do, and let it speaks volumes for you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 08:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It is off-putting, to say the least, that SashiRolls does not seem to get that something like, this to a neutral observer would reasonably appear to be 'harassment and intimidation', playing at the borders of attempted WP:OUTING. So, caution to SashiRolls should this appeal succeed, as it seems it will, don't do things like that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Boing and Cullen. I'm sorry - but anyone that knew that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor and knew he was violating a topic ban - that's just wrong and unhelpful. That said, Sashi needs to take on board that he doesn't need to be the crusading investigative reporter for Wiki. Edit more articles, worry less about the political aspects of the behind the scenes stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I dunno. If it were just a matter of SashiRolls getting blocked for tangling with Cirt's sockpuppet account, then I'd say we should unblock SashiRolls with an apology. But that doesn't seem to be the sole issue here. Leaving aside the block that stemmed from Cirt's report, a brief glance suggests that this editor has a) abused multiple accounts, b) been topic-banned from the Jill Stein article, and c) been prohibited from commenting on WP:AE threads because of low-quality/inflammatory posts. Balanced against all of that problematic behavior, I don't see much constructive work. Even if we give him a free pass on everything Cirt-related (which seems fair), this isn't an account that screams "net-positive".

  As for the unblock request, groveling isn't necessary, but people generally are on their own personal best behavior. If someone is combative or unpleasant during an unblock request, it's fair to conclude that they'll only be more so if unblocked. If the goal of the unblock request is to convince us that SashiRolls isn't going to hold grudges or pursue petty interpersonal BS, then I don't think it's gone very well so far. I also have a pretty low tolerance for people who use Wikipedia to promote these kinds of conspiracy theories, especially in light of the events of the past 10 days or so.

  That said, I understand the arguments in favor of an unblock, and the desire to make things right in terms of the interaction with Cirt's sockpuppet. I will say that, if SashiRolls is unblocked, I'd take his commitments here quite seriously. In other words, these aren't just campaign promises; I will assume that he's being honest with us, that he will avoid grudges and crusades, will avoid politically controversial topics, and will contribute positively by copyediting, improving referencing, and so on. If he's not following through on those commitments, then I think it's fair to hold him accountable. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for their encouraging feedback. I will endeavor not to sleuth around, be defensive, turn into an annoying moralist, or even get overly involved in wiki-chat-chat at all. I'll probably take some time in obscure corners to re-acclimate myself to the environment if unblocked. I'm not in any rush to promise a mountain of contributions and deliver a molehill, though. I've been in a lot of "rooms" with different rules of late and so will need to readjust, as mentioned above and on my talk page; so I'll simply try to avoid engaging in some areas. I just thought that I would try to get the block undone now & request that it be recognized in the edit summary that Cirt's use of sockpuppets was a very important part of my block history. That will help me be more at peace with what happened. I'm sure of it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism and support. The support from those I've interacted with since being blocked is particularly appreciated, because I do believe you know me a bit better than those who have not. — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied from: User talk:SashiRolls. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would hope that if you are unblocked, the unblocking admin would include a permalink to this discussion in the log entry - and I think that would document it far better than a log entry summary could. It's what I'd generally do (though it obviously won't be me who closes this one). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to take a position on the request, but I want to make note of something that concerns me. From time to time, I google "Tryptofish". Over the past year, the off-wiki results have been in large part SashiRolls (or a false flag, but I doubt it) posting at multiple websites about how bad I am, very grudge-y in tone. So, admins, make of that what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I was one of the admins who participated in the AE case and advocated for an extended block based on the evidence provided. Indeed, the behavior on display at the time was poor regardless of who else was involved. Whoever, I also believe that everyone aside from outright trolls and vandals should have a way forward. I'm convinced SashiRolls wants to contribute and improve Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Boing! and Cullen. The Cirt/Sagecandor business (I've copyedited articles for Cirt, and had no idea about the socking either) muddied the waters enough that some AGF is in order. Miniapolis 01:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock based on the promise of commitments made by SashiRolls. They will probably need (at least pretend) to be slightly more mature/diplomatic/whatever with their tone/chatter while they are on English Wikipedia and focus on editing productively, otherwise we will probably find ourselves back to square one again. I could care less about their activities elsewhere, although I would think it is probably better if they could be a little bit less enthusiastic when it comes to speculating editor's real identities offsite. As long as these are being followed through, I think everything will be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible opposition to lifting the block. Just above, I chose not to take a position, and instead said "So, admins, make of that what you will." Clearly, I was expressing a concern about the request, but I deliberately also made it clear that I was leaving it up to others. In reaction, SashiRolls has posted the following on his talk page: [13]. If anyone thinks I'm commenting "under my breath", let me make this abundantly clear: the block should remain in place, and talk page access should be revoked. It's breathtaking the amount of assumption of bad faith that comes across in that posting, directed not only at me but also at Alex Shih, who seems to me to have made a very supportive statement here. This is someone who has zero intention of coming back and being a productive editor. I appreciate the number of admins who have, quite thoughtfully, given the benefit of the doubt, and I was going to defer to you on that, setting aside my personal reservations on the assumption that my personal views might be skewed by past experience. But now, I have to say that you are being played. Indefinite block, no talk page access. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the second (and third) time he's pulled the same childish move in the course of this discussion (see my revised !vote above). But sure, he's willing to change his ways. I mean he even promised (read: implied) he would not engage in the same behavior (read: a very small and hardly relevant subset of the same behavior) that got him blocked in the first place. The editors claiming they will hold him to his word seem willfully ignorant of the fact that Sashi never gave his word, and what he's implied he would not do is not the behavior that got him blocked. Every single person supporting this unblock is being played like a violin, and by a musician hardly worthy of the name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I never supported the unblock, so I guess I'm free from your opprobrium (tee hee, that's a joke), but I'm of the opinion that the reason he never gave his word is that he doesn't know that this is something you can do in this process. And this is the kind of ego-bruising "let it go" stuff that is very hard for the typical (let alone combative) Wikipedian to do. So he's kinda at home. Look, this guy has been dealing with seedy underbellies of Wikipedia and nothing else. Yeah, maybe he won't learn. He may get blocked again. He might get indeffed. I dunno. All I know is that he really got the short end of a stick once and that wasn't fair. But life isn't fair. Sorry, I still don't know what you guys should do. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't know how you can be so certain you're right about this. jps (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I greatly respect you as an editor but I can't agree with the statement "This is someone who has zero intention of coming back and being a productive editor." My support of the unblock is predicated on my belief that he has something to offer, as an editor. What he intends to do will be immediately in evidence if he does get unblocked. I won't hesitate to reinstate it, though, if that evidence points to trouble. --Laser brain (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and I respect you very much too. It's true, I'm not a mind reader, so I take your point about that. I think you are right about the emerging consensus that (I expect) there will be an unblock with a very short WP:ROPE, and that's OK. At User talk:Tryptofish#I am still confused, and maybe you're confused about me too, there's more discussion about this, and anyone who is interested can see more of my thinking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Accept. My own experience of SashiRolls on and off site is a bit... chequered. But I find jps's arguments convincing, and am impressed that he has gone to so much trouble, and gone so deep. Cirt's role in the trouble Sashi got into really sticks in my throat. If Sashi doesn't follow through on the commitments he has made here, then, as MastCell says, it will be time to hold him accountable. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC).
• I don't care if you unblock or not, but they'll be blocked again in under a year. I'd put money on it. GMG^talk 00:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Three days ago, I recommended accepting this unblock request, but after reading that combative stuff that SashiRolls wrote on their talk page about Tryptofish and others in recent days, I am having second thoughts. It is really surprising to see their battleground mentality displayed so overtly at this stage of the process. I expect a convincing explanation from SashiRolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• The blocked editor has responded at User talk:SashiRolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The world has come to an end

Clearly this is the case, as there is nothing at WP:RFAR. I check it daily, and I can't recall the last time I saw that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Shhhh, don't jinx it for us! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr Smith, reporting that there is nothing at RFAR is grounds for receiving arbitration... ——SerialNumber54129 20:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Rats! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for Catcreekcitycouncil

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

---

As documented on this LTA page, CCCC has been vandalizing Wikipedia for over six years, has created over 500 sockpuppet accounts to achieve this, and has shown no signs of stopping his disruption despite his primary target page (Cat Creek, Montana) being indefinitely extended protected [14]. He has recently began making claims about "zombie birds" in Michigan and other nonsense (along with his usual lions in Montana hoaxes). I'm surprised that he hasn't been officially community banned already, now's the time to do so. funplussmart (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

@TonyBallioni and Funplussmart: We're *way* past WP:3X territory here, he's been active since 2012 with 54 archived SPIs and 493 tagged socks (which isn't even all of them, at this point most admins are just following WP:RBI and indefing them without tagging as soon as they pop up). The CheckUsers are sick and tired of dealing with him, and at this point most SPIs are just immediately closed and referred to AIV since he's constantly surfing proxies. I support just procedurally banning him under WP:3X now rather than dragging the CheckUsers into this again. (side note: he literally left a personal attack on my talk again as I was typing this message) --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Same for me. He just put stuff on my talk page. funplussmart (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That was my point . This is an LTA and they aren’t going to be unblocked. The paperwork is meaningless. The only reason I said maybe was that I’m unsure of the CU findings post-policy change. Regardlsss, it doesn’t matter at this point. Just RBITonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay Nathan says that a lot of the recent disruption has not been from CCCC but rather Jeffman12345, an LTA I had quite an ugly experience with a while back. I put the {{banned}} tag on his userpage for the same reason I put it on CCCC's page, WP:3X. funplussmart (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

While I'm happy that we now have a firm basis for community bans for both of them, at the end of the day there's really no reason to try and figure out who's who since the procedure is the same for both: WP:RBI. Just send any new socks that come up to WP:AIV. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Speaking of CCCC, I would like to see an admin clean out the history of Cat Creek, Montana and remove the sock edits like what was done in 2013, per WP:DENY. funplussmart (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Open Proxy noticeboard backlog

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests has requests dating back 4 weeks. I'm not good with this stuff, but any admins who know how to check for open proxies, please pitch in and help clear the backlog. Thanks! --Jayron32 15:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Colorectal cancer - Lifestyle

• Colorectal cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 24.8.207.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorectal_cancer#Lifestyle?

This all began when I fixed what I thought was a simple error, after I noticed a sentence did not agree with an existing reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865715475&oldid=864008094

Someone without explanation undid my change. But I was then able to make the change again by adding this comment: "World Cancer Research Fund International actually said it's "convincing", not even just "probable", in the cited report. The original sentence is wrong." I also noted on this person's Talk page.

But then, one user exhibited this behavior: (1) deleting existing reference(s) when the exiting reference(s) do not serve his biased view, (2) citing new reference(s) (which may be less accessible) only partially and/or misconstruing the partial cite, to serve his biased view, and (3) after the new reference(s) are more fully examined and no longer serve his biased view, he goes back to either (1) or (2).

At first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865723136&oldid=865717987

(1) He deleted both existing references (one is from the WCRF, please note this for later).

(2) He cited one from the WHO. The WHO reference is harder to access, but it's actually the first link from Google search "World Cancer Report 2014 pdf". The WHO never said the evidence is "not strong". When I corrected his edit, I commented: "Rather, the WHO said "an inverse relation was seen". The EPIC study cited by the WHO said "strengthen the evidence", so it was made stronger. Stronger is very different from "not strong"."

He then did several things: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865733039&oldid=865729356

In order of appearance:

(2) He added a citation from the Fruits section (the existing citation is from the Fiber section), but only did it partially, and misconstrued even the partial sentence. This was discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Fruits

(2) He added a new reference ("Ma and Zhou"). Here, the reference said 14% to 21% lower risk, but he only wrote 14%.

(2) He again misconstrued the citation from the Fiber section. When I corrected his edit, I commented: "The WHO did not say "unclear" nor "not ... benefit". The WHO cited the old study first, and the new study later. Please stop making up your own words with negative connotation, and switching the order of conclusion."

More specifically, the WHO's sentence referenced: "Year 2005 study [7], although year 2012 study [8]", as in: "Several large prospective cohort studies of dietary fibre and colon cancer risk have not supported an association [7], although an inverse relation was seen in the large European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and a recent meta-analysis [8]."

But he change it to: "[8]. [Ma and Zhou]. Although [7]."

Then: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865877362&oldid=865770477

(1) He deleted the WHO reference.

(2) He added a new reference ("Song and Chan"). This reference is even less accessible, but it was found on Sci-Hub. He made the "Song and Chan" reference into two sentence. When I corrected the misleading sentences, I commented: "Fixing two sentences that made it look as if the "2018 review" is based on later evidence. In fact the quote (now more fully quoted) is from the same paragraph that ended with the 2017 conclusion."

Note that the 2017 conclusion is actually from the WCRF, which he had deleted earlier (albeit the WCRF's 2011 version). In Talk, he had said "The World Cancer Report [by the WHO] is a better source. A charity [WCRF noted above] is not the best source for medical content." But this is what happened: he deleted WCRF, added WHO, deleted WHO, added WCRF.

(2) He added a reference from the NCI, and the NCI cited a study from year 2000, about cancer recurrence (not new incidence).

Another user then added statements that are entirely made up. I corrected the errors, but he then undid my corrections, and "warned" me on my Talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.8.207.91

I admit I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions, but I think people generally can tell right from wrong.

His changes are more easily seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=866160603&oldid=866137689

I also noted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Simplify_paragraph_on_dietary_factors

Including the portion that he deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AColorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=866158407&oldid=866158329

This is before his deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866158329

The WHO said the animal studies suggested prospective studies, and yes there are challenges, and despite the challenges, the conclusions are based on the prospective studies. His "This was based on animal studies and retrospective observational studies." sentence is false. His next sentence is also entirely made up.

Also, the WHO said "several" studies, not "most" studies. The WHO said the benefit was seen in larger and recent studies, but he simply omitted that part. The WHO said the variations in findings need to be better understood, but he wrote "status of the science on remained unclear".

Please investigate what's going on, and please restore at least the two paragraphs to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866137689

Please also note that I have only focused on the diets/fiber section. I do not know what other changes the two users might have made on this page or other pages.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.207.91 (talk • contribs)

Comment This is not the appropriate venue for a content dispute. I suggest you go to article talk and hash it out with them there. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I have tried to do that in Talk. One of the users mentioned above "warned" me and deleted my comment in Talk. I sincerely hope someone looks into this.

This is more about the behavior by multiple users on a topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.207.91 (talk • contribs)

Just want to note that I am aware of this thread. The IP has been battering the talk page and article for a while now, first with Doc James and now me. They are not great at actually discussing things and seem overly fixated on recommendations by one advocacy group -- the World Cancer Research Fund International -- that fiber (especially) and fruit (perhaps) can prevent colorectal cancer. This sort of research is incredibly dicey and often based on obersvational studies that find correlations.... and when papers publish the media goes all gaga, leaving the public mostly confused if not frustrated. This person also refuses to follow basic norms of using talk pages, like indenting and signing, which has made a mess of the talk page that we have had to clean up after. The discussion is at Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Lifestyle if anybody wants to join. This will probably end at some form of DR if the IP keeps at it. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems I should respond, and it seems your dishonest and abusive behavior continues here for all to see.

I admitted above that I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions. This is the "mess of the talk page that [you] have had to clean up after" looked like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866014205

Right after you talked about indenting, I followed the convention consistently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866095615

I never "refuses to follow basic norms", I followed as soon I learned about it. Your statement is yet another blatant lie.

I am not "overly fixated on recommendations by one advocacy group". As noted above, this started because I fixed what I thought was a simple error:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865715475&oldid=864008094

(That was on 10/25, then you started to "warn" (threaten?) me as soon as 10/28, and again here.)

I did not add any new references. I simply fixed what was already there. On Talk, I even said "One can choose to cite the WCRF as before or the WHO".

The WHO specifically said: "Consumption of red meat, particularly processed red meat, is related to modestly higher risks, and of fruits and vegetables to modestly lower risks of some forms of cancer." (page 433)

The WHO specifically said (which you deleted from Talk and "warned" me): "Higher intake of red meat, especially processed meat, has been associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer in many prospective studies and in a meta-analysis of these studies." (page 126)

They are consistent with the WCRF, and the WCRF is easier to access: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/colorectal-cancer

By contrast, at least these two of your sentences are entirely lies you made up: "This was based on animal studies and retrospective observational studies. However, large scale prospective studies have failed to demonstrate a significant protective effect, and due to the multiple causes of cancer and the complexity of studying correlations between diet and health, it is uncertain whether any specific dietary interventions (outside of eating a healthy diet) will have significant protective effects." I know you cited a number of pages, but the pages support the opposite of what you wrote.

I sincerely hope the administrators will look into your dishonest and abusive behavior. As noted above, I have only look at the diets/fiber section (now just two paragraphs). I do not know what other lies you have made on this page or other pages.

Haha. Calling somebody dishonest and abusive isn't going to help you. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine, his behavior is not dishonest nor abusive. But could someone please look at the section to make sure Wikipedia is presenting facts, based on cited references? Thank you.

An observation When Jytdog comes here and complains that you're not following proper talk-page decorum such as signing and indenting properly, and you then respond twice without signing either comment, it's not doing your cause any favours. Nor is it good to complain to WP:AN because you are upset about a content dispute. Nor is it good to complain to WP:AN and then not notify the subject of the complaint. Basically what I'm saying is that there is evidence of a behavioral problem here, but it's not Jytdog who is demonstrating it. I'd suggest spending some time at the teahouse learning how to edit Wikipedia before weighing in on challenging articles subject to WP:MEDRS would be a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I had thought indenting and signing are the same thing (he had discussed only about adding :, never about simply adding four tildes before here), and I thought the system automatically adds IP address anyway. I hope I am doing it correctly now.

He deleted my comment on Talk, and "warned" (threatened?) me. What else should one do? Sure, I was "upset", but I had no other recourse.

I never discussed a particular editor. This was about the behavior of multiple editors seemingly conspiring together. He came here himself to reveal himself, not me.

I never added new references. The WHO and the WCRF references, whether already there or in newly cited sections, agree with each other. The problems include one user kept changing references (and misconstruing them), and the other made up lies not in the reference.

I admit again that I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions. This all began when I fixed what I thought was a simple error. This is not my job, and I am not paid by any person or interest group. I sincerely hope the administrators will not look at my multiple failures to follow Wikipedia etiquette/conventions as lack of candor. Instead, please look at how references are actually added/deleted, and cited. Please look at facts, what the references actually said, versus lies, and who was intimidating another. Please look at the merit of the content, and not how I failed to follow the form. Thank you. 24.8.207.91 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, see here - User_talk:24.8.207.91#Using_talk_pages, which i a) posted there in the first place; b) linked at the article talk page twice, (diff ( which you posted directly under, here) and I posted a link to it at the talk page a second time (diff) to make sure you saw it; and c) and also left another note at your talk page about it (diff). And which you still have obviously not read.

You don't read what people write and just keep battering the page with your one source, flogging fiber and fruit. For pete's sake. We follow reliable sources not the one that you happen to like. The bulk of high quality sources do not support the content you are pushing and pushing and pushing for. See WP:UNDUE. See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of "controversial circumstances" at Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal

Following on from comments in a thread on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard about discrepancies between Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats regarding when 'crats should not resysop an editor on request, I am proposing changing the former to match actual practice and at the same time remove a potential unrelated ambiguity/contradiction regarding administrators who voluntarily resign their tools and subsequently have an extended period of inactivity. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Clarifying "controversial circumstances". I have also advertised this discussion at WP:BN. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:SineBot Not Working

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

---

Anyone know why User:Sinebot is not working anymore PZQ (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@PZQ: This is not an administrative matter as this bot is not blocked or filtered. Keep in mind no operators are ever required to operate their bots. To follow up more on this one, please see sinebot's operators talk page at User talk:slakr. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@PZQ: if you don't get a response at the operators talk page you can post at the WP:VPT as editors there can be of help sometimes. MarnetteD|Talk 02:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Except in this case, the only person who can make SineBot work again is slakr. Someone else is welcome to write and operate their own clone of sinebot if they want to (pending BRFA of course). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

PZQ, the bot's now working. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to know the bot is working again, Thanks PZQ (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Jaggi Vasudev RM handled unusually

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

---

One of the discussions in the RM backlog I closed today was at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev. I found consensus in favor, closed and moved accordingly. One of the opposers reverted the move unilaterally and opened a new RM discussion starting with a copy/paste clone of the discussion I had closed. I think it’s all well intentioned but this is highly unusual and I’d appreciate an admin review and decision/action about proper disposition. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev

—В²C ☎ 07:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Bankster (Result: Boomerang)

• Bankster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user may have good faith and intention, but I can't stand the user's handling of articles.

For example, Bankster removed a bulk of texts from OBS Gyeongin TV on 21 September 2018. Bankster initially did not specify a reason for removal, but after I asked, Bankster added, "Removing non-relevant. badly worded information".

I know that particular article was in need of clean up, but I felt that was an unconstructive way of cleaning an article. Bankster could have just copy-edit the article alone, or could have at least asked the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Additionally, Bankster could have also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea for help and advice. But Bankster didn't, and instead choose the unconstructive way.

At best, I wish Bankster was infinitely blocked from editing any article, but could fill edit requests at wish. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

From that edit history, I see them removing unreferenced/non-notable information (which is fine) and then you both edit warring to re-add/re-remove it (which is not). Any reason why you should both not be blocked? GiantSnowman 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't add "History" section, but the "Name" section was needed to explain why the station was named "OBS", so I added that part after finding a relevant source. Also, the "Corporate" section was added while I was polishing infoboxes. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 17:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@JSH-alive: To quote policy, "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.. Please answer GiantSnowman's question. zchrykng (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Any reason why you should both not be blocked" The answer is that removing unsourced information, per se, is not problematic, but we have warning templates for adding unsourced information. Removing unsourced information can be vandalism, or done to create a non-neutral text, or done to make a point, etc., but if you just see a bunch of unsourced content and remove it for the sake of cleaning the article, you've done nothing wrong. Even if you get to the point of blockable edit-warring, there's much more room for editing that enforces policy, and when it's one-on-one, a block for persistent addition of unsourced content (compounded by ridiculing an appropriate warning) comes ahead of a block for the other party. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Request review of AN/I close

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

---

Close to be reviewed: 19:54, 30 October 2018

To note:

(1) Swarm repeatedly expressed strong negativity towards me. 09:12, 28 October 2018 [diff at 09:10, 29 October 2018].

(2) Numerous editors disagreed with Swarm.  [15]

(3) Hijiri88 pinged Swarm with “@Swarm: I'd suggest you place your warning and request for an explanation/apology/promise-not-to-do-it-again on DT's talk page so that doesn't happen.” [diff at 10:43, 29 October 2018]

(4) SemiHypercube closed the WP:AN/I report with a neutrally-word sentence.   19:29, 30 October 2018

(5) Swarm reverted the close (substituting his own close).  19:54, 30 October 2018

This appears to be a Supervote. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

notifications hatted 08:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notifications of users after admonition below: SwarmHijiri88SemiHypercube. I did not realize that requirement having never filed at WP:A/N before. I do now see the big notice in red. Sorry for the mistake. I hope this corrects any defect in my filing. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC) I welcome any other editor to move any discussion about notification here. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that this was something like David's 310th post to AN/ANI/ANEW, and the fourth time he opened a thread, this kind of feigned ignorance is pretty telling. It should also be borne in mind that one of the editors he notified was not the subject of this discussion but an editor on his "side" who did not need to be notified; given that the point of the admonition was about canvassing, this looks pretty bad... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignorance issues aside, who are you referring to? I looked at their edit history and can only see 3 editors who were notified of this discussion. The 3 named above by David Tornheim namely you, Swarm and SemiHyperCube. I presume you aren't talking about yourself in the third person and also aren't disputing that Swarm needed to be notified since you said they needed to be notified below. Since David Tornheim specifically mentioned SemiHypercube in their opening statement, notification was mandatory. As for mentioning SemiHyperCube, since they did initially close the discussion it seems fair enough to mention them and their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: My understanding has always been that mandatory notification applies only to the editor(s) who are the topic of discussion; that is the simplest reading of the literal wording used by the notice ("When you start a discussion about an editor"), and makes sense if you interpret it as being mandatory to allow the users to defend themselves against charges (block/sanction requests) you are making. It being mandatory to notify everyone "specifically mentioned" doesn't seem very intuitive, and would seem to encourage gaming of the system by deliberately stretching to name more people who are likely to agree with you. (And if you look at the original NAC in light of the entire discussion, it's pretty obvious that SHC was sympathetic to David, or -- worse -- didn't actually read the discussion but "assumed good faith" on the part of the last commenter.)

My main problem with the above, anyway, was "I did not realize that requirement having never filed...", since AN follows the exact same rule as ANI and ANEW. There's also the fact that the actual wording of his notifications implied it was not a requirement but a request by me, which would seem to indicate the same kind IDHT David expressed when he was TBANned and then immediately blocked, when he ... EndercaseMjolnirPantsBreitbartEtc. ... and when he opened this request to review the close of the recent ANI he actively ignored. Typically we indef-block editors off the bat who engage in this kind of behaviour.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't make sense. When you mention someone and their actions, you are specifically bringing their conduct into consideration. The whole reason for the notification requirement is it's not fair that someone's behaviour is considered without them having the chance to respond. Notably Swarm specifically took issue with the closure below which was fairly understandable. And you are also doing so here. You're making such a big deal about lack of notification but then you think it's fair to talk about someone without notification? WTF? If someone tries to abuse this by bringing random irrelevant comments into the discussion then this will be dealt with as and when it happens. More commonly someone simply pings irrelevant people which is a problem and is dealt with. While pinging is not sufficient for AN//I notification it's still a problem. Sorry but I don't really give a flying flip about the rest, as I semi indicated before. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

David, you are required to notify both me and Swarm on our talk pages (not just by means of a ping) if you open an AN thread about us. This applies even if you are requesting someone intervene in a separate ANI thread I opened about you. Furthermore, your own disappearing off the face of the project for several days while the thread was open and then showing back up right after it closes is highly suspicious, per the bit immediately before the segment of my comment that you quote above. The simple fact is that of the editors who "disagreed with Swarm", none were acting in good faith: all but two were allies of yours, either in the discussion to which you definitely engaged in canvassing or in previous disputes, and the other two were there because they don't like me and they saw an excuse to undermine me. Swarm's close was not a supervote, but a reversal of a previous disruptive actual supervote (one involved editor showed up and made a bad-faith, highly uncivil comment about me and claimed the thread should be closed without action. Closers are permitted to dismiss clearly biased/bad-faith/policy-ignorant comments, which all' of the "numerous editors" were.

Yes, technically Swarm was WP:INVOLVED, but any uninvolved admin would have made the same call, and I hope if anyone decides to review the close they take this into account.

If anyone actually does review the close, I would suggest considering a block for David in light of the IDHT demonstrated above, as well as his prior history of being placed under sanctions and then immediately ignoring them, violating them, and getting blocked.[16][17]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a good close to me. There was a lot of blatant disregard for policy going on in that thread. That everyone got off with a sternly worded admonition to actually read policy is lucky for them. zchrykng (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is a good policy-based close which I would be ready to adopt if formally needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• That must have been a "supervote": similarly my ANI thread on civility was initially closed as warning because obviously being incivil is against the civility policy, but Bishonen reverted the close because it was a "supervote" by Lourdes, as there were enough people who made non-policy based arguments. If this close by Swarm wasn't a supervote, then there is no consistency to how policy-based arguments are counted and on which grounds ANI threads are closed (which wouldn't surprise me at all). --Pudeo (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that, per Pudeo's own indirect admission, they are another involved editor coming here specifically to defend David for agreeing with them, which is the same problem the ANI thread had (David's "numerous editors" above). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Exactly:   Is it acceptable for an involved admin to revert a close by an uninvolved editor?  Isn’t that a Supervote?  This is a procedural question, not a question about the quality of the close. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an uninvolved close if a non-admin shows up and unilaterally shuts down the discussion at the specific request of one other clearly involved editor who showed a serious misunderstanding of policy. Your claim above that the earlier close was a "neutrally-word sentence" is bogus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support close clearly representing the consensus of the discussion. David Tornheim is lucky he wasn't blocked, and got off with a warning. He should be grateful for that, and drop the stick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close by Swarm. The fact that some editor's think David Tornheim's posts were not canvassing is interesting but irrelevant because they are simply wrong. I saw the posts in question before the ANI and it was obvious they were designed to attract a particular response (perhaps the design was unintentional because the poster holds strong beliefs). Swarm's close is exactly correct per policy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• I didn’t express “strong negativity” on a personal level, I merely responded to the ANI report as an uninvolved administrator. I did express the view that David committed canvassing, and have justified that view in all of my commentary.
• Commenting on an ANI thread as an uninvolved administrator does not render one INVOLVED and incapable of actioning or closing said ANI thread, nor am I INVOLVED in any way whatsoever. Any implications otherwise are false and ridiculous.
• The warning/redactions/close were discretionary admin actions, which I have been accountable for on my talk page, and I was perfectly upfront about the fact that people expressed disagreement and I explained why I was doing what I was doing. “Supervote” implies that I abused my position as a closer to misrepresent the consensus. I did not do that, I made it clear that my action was an independent discretionary action. Never did I pretend that I was assessing any sort of consensus. However, if I was attempting to assess the consensus, it would be within reason to disregard the people who were arguing that it was not canvassing for not being in line with WP:CAN. However, that is an aside, because I was relying on my own judgment and not a reading of consensus in this scenario.
• I stand behind my view that the people defending David made arguments that were not in line with WP:CAN, and I have explained why on my talk page. I referenced three arguments that were brought up and specifically explained why I was not convinced by them. So, it’s not as if I’m ignoring the dissenting opinions there.
• I stand by the discretionary admin actions I took as part of my most fundamental duty to the project as an admin.
• I completely stand behind my overruling of the NAC, which was an inappropriate non-admin ruling on a controversial ANI thread. However, even if I didn’t do that, I still would have issues the discretionary warning and posted a secondary closing statement.
• As I have said on my talk page, I am happy to discuss this with any of the users who disagree. But I think I have sufficiently explained at this point.  Swarm  talk  09:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close by Swarm; and Endorse closing this thread too. David, the lesson is simple. Just don't change RfC headings. This is not supposed to be that complicated. I know you mean well and I appreciate all the support you've given (believe me; especially after I was stopped from even publicising the RfC at CENT, saying that it's a minor issue, your publicity drive actually assisted in sprucing up the views to more than 2000 on the first day). But Swarm's close is right too. Philosophically, I oppose any action against you; procedurally, this is how it is. Let it go and let's get on with our work. I would suggest that you withdraw this thread. Thanks for being a big help, Lourdes 09:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse close the simple solution to avoid canvassing concerns is to use a simple notification like Template:Please see. If you feel you must include the question, make sure you copy it exactly. Rewording runs a strong risk you will be campaigning. If others feel your re-wording is campaigning you really have no one but yourself to blame. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Winkelvi

Just a heads up to all that I have blocked Winkelvi (talk · contribs) indefinitely for a clear violation of their interaction ban with MaranoFan on Meghan Trainor. The original restriction says "This means no commenting on the other editor, no reviewing their GAN's, no pointing out their failings. Leave each other alone and go about your regular editing business .... As both editors are well aware of what an Iban is, failing to observe it will be very quickly considered disruptive.". In my view, editing an article that the other party has queued for GAN, calling their edits "fan cruft, peacock terminology" and reverting something that appears to have consensus certainly seems to qualify as violating the interaction ban, and as this is far from Winkelvi's first trip to this noticeboard about the interaction ban or some other sanction, I really can't see any possible way of claiming innocence. I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I was convinced by Winkelvi's reaction on their talk page that the violation was an honest mistake (not noticing who had nominated the article for GA review). ~Awilley (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The previous version of the lead section was written by me. Rewording the whole thing and removing all of the chart information I added, as well as referring to my edits as fancruft sounds like interaction (and thus a violation of the IBAN) to me. Just wanted this information known since I forgot to mention it at Ritchie's talk page.--NØ 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) You know, does it make a difference that MaranoFan had a number of edits to the article until about three hours before Winkelvi's edits? This is (approximately, given some intermediary edits) all of MaranoFan's changes and this is (approximately, given some intermediary edits) all of Winkelvi's changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Winkelvi does not claim they were aware of the GA. They explicitly denied it. Their explanation for why they made such a large number of edits, sufficient to EC with Snuggums (I assume, they discussed something with Snuggums on their talk page I assume from a EC), after it was nominated for GA and a few hours after MaranoFan had last edited is on Winkelvi's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• As I pointed out at W's talk, for context, Winkelvi has 88 edits to the article since August 2014, so it's hardly surprising to find them there. And, after all, when one arrives at an article from—say—recent changes, one does not get to see the page history,and, unless one has a script to alert one to the fact that articles have been nominated for review, etc., there's no reason that they would be aware.Incidentally, before someone accuses me of cheerleading for Winkelvi, it was only relatively recently that I described them as a net negative or such like  :) I just can't find the diff... ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The most recent changes to an article at the time were by MaranoFan, so I would actually be quite concerned if that was how they arrived there. But it isn't the reason they gave. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I agree; r/c was the only example I could think of off the top o my head. ——SerialNumber54129 14:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi says he "saw something about her on the news yesterday" as the reason for editing the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Oh—right. Well, that's curiously vague. In other news, are they still under a 1RR restriction? ——SerialNumber54129 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm trying to extend as much AGF as I can but I just cannot believe the explanation offered. Winkelvi's last edit to the article was 3 years ago in 2015. Winkelvi says he didn't see either Maranofan's previous edits to the article or the GA nomination, meaning he just coincidentally edited the article a mere three hours after MaranoFan's edits/ GA nomination? The odds of that coincidence are pretty low, I'd say, considering the infrequency of editing by Winkelvi on the article. Notice also, that edit reverted a significant portion of this edit Maranofan made to the lead (and that's essentially all it did). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I find the timing very suspicious. Especially since the last time Winklevi and MaranoFan got into a dispute it was over a Meghan Trainor song. But OTOH, I can't figure out why Winkelvi would be so dumb. Likewise I find their 'take it to their talk page' comment suspicious, as if they knew this was an active area of dispute. And a quick look at Winkelvi's edit history shows most similar comments seem directed at someone or a group in particular. OTOH, I can't figure out how Winkelvi expected that edit to stand if they actually had seen the previous edit which introduced it not just because of the iban, but because that edit specifically mentioned a previous consensus and that was also mentioned on the talk page. So it was actually already incumbent on Winkelvi to join this discussion so I don't get what the point of their comment was if they already knew about the discussion/previous consensus. So ultimately, I feel this is one of the cases were the timing is very suspicious but we can't be confident it wasn't simply a coincidence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi participated in the discussion that led to the consensus, so he obviously knows that there was a consensus and that it was an area of dispute; that he edited against consensus and then told people to take it to talk than reverting is disruptive in of itself. Winkelvi does have a history of suspicious supposedly coincidental following around of editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: In 2014, Lips Are Movin nominates the Trainor article for GA, ten minutes later someone starts a discussion alleging Trainor isn't a singer-songwriter and the GA is failed. In April 2015, I add a GA nomination after issue seems to be resolved. Ten minutes later the discussion suspiciously pops up again after months of silence. Fast forward to 2018 and three hours after I nominate it for GA the "issue" is brought up again despite old consensus for singer-songwriter, and this is supposed to be a coincidence?--NØ 14:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have anything against Winkelvi personally but I noticed this yesterday after seeing MaranoFan had edited Trainor's article and thought it was too much of a coincidence given the two's history, so chimed in (probably unnecessarily) at Ritchie333's talk page. Not that it's up to me, but I'm not convinced by the explanation that I've just read at their talk page. I've seen every user try ignorance or "I didn't look at the history" as an excuse. I have a hard time believing out of all the articles Winkelvi could have edited, they chose Meghan Trainor as a topic to edit merely coincidentally several hours after MaranoFan had been extensively editing it, and after not having edited it themselves since 2015. Not only that, but targeting much of what she had added, including the use of the term "singer-songwriter", which was changed back by MaranoFan in September of this year (and noted on the talk page) per a 2015 consensus to use the hyphenated term. Winkelvi also undid several of MaranoFan's edits to Trainor's song articles after she was unblocked in September (before both editors were reminded of the IBAN), so this just looks like a follow-up to that after a bit of a time has passed and things have died down a little. I don't think that it was intentional on Winkelvi's part to make the article "unstable" before its GAN (per what MaranoFan said), but maybe given the two's history, including Winkelvi actually reviewing an article MaranoFan nominated for GA status back in the day... I'm not 100% sure. I have removed the two sources Winkelvi added to Trainor's article that seems like an attempt to contradict the assertion in the following line that sources have called her a "singer-songwriter", because the two sources are entirely irrelevant and it makes it look like it's trying to resist what reliable sources say. It reads like a user introducing a biased tone because they feel strongly about the matter and don't agree she's a singer-hyphen-songwriter—despite what a majority of users and a consensus stated in 2015. Ss112 14:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• This is a clear IBAN violation, and Ritchie was correct to block for it. Despite the curious timing, I'm willing to AGF that it was an accidental violation on Winkelvi's part. But what that leaves us with is that Winkelvi is not being sufficiently careful to avoid such violations. When you're under an interaction ban, you are unfortunately required to do a little more due diligence (look at the recent edit history, check the talk page) before diving into an article with edits or reverts. I would support dropping the block down to a month or a few weeks with a reminder that such due diligence is needed in the future. 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Mostly agreed with 28bytes here, clear violation, clear failure to do some research before editing. I'd like to see a month block with a topic-ban from all Meghan Trainor related articles for simplicity, given that's one or MarianoFan's biggest editing areas on WP, it should be clear Winkelvi has no business poking around in that topic. Courcelles (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Full disclosure: I have a history with Winkelvi (Winkelvi was temporarily blocked for stalking and harassing me). Winkelvi's explanation that this is all accidental sounds eerily familiar, as that's the same excuse he repeatedly trotted out when he stalked me to dozens of pages that he never edited before (doing so minutes/hours after I edited them) and when he systematically went through old and obscure articles I created (articles that Winkelvi should under no reasonable circumstance have just stumbled upon), only to drive-by tag them[18]. The administrator Bishonen described it as "harassment" and "obviously calculated to incommode and harass Snooganssnoogans". Despite the clear-cut evidence of harassment and stalking (evidence that was so blatant that the admins temporarily blocked him), Winkelvi brazenly claimed approximately two weeks ago, "I haven't stalked you in the past or even now."[19] Winkelvi's history of claiming to accidentally stumble onto articles, despite overwhelming evidence of an intentional effort to stalk and harass specific editors, is pertinent info as you try to evaluate whether to AGF in this instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with 28bytes. It's a music article, an article that Winkelvi knows MaranoFan edits in, so they better do the homework to make sure about the IBAN. I would be more assuming of good faith if this happened on a topic that MaranoFan normally does not edit, but no question that Trainor is a music-related piece. --Masem (t) 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I personally agree with the block - Whilst you could argue it was an honest mistake that statement somewhat falls flat on its face when you know the person you're interaction-banned with edits that article.... Common sense would (or should) tell you to check the history before you edit it incase MaranoFan has edited it....., The fact WV edited the article hours after MaranoFan edited it makes me believe this is more than just a coincidence. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reduced block It is a violation of the IBAN as I read it, though AGF it was a mistaken. Indefinite seems like a long time for a first time violation of an IBAN that was instituted over a year ago with a fair chance of it being a mistake. I am inclined to believe it is an oversight just because it would be glaringly obvious otherwise. They make a good point on their talk page to this effect if I ever decide to die on a hill in Wikipedia it sure as hell isn't going to be over Meghan Trainor which is reasonable imo. I would just ask the block be reduced. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reduced Penalty appropriate Yeah, I'd suggest letting them off with a reduced block this time. Let 'em back in after a few days for the dust to settle. AGF it appears to be a mistake. Suggest they stay away from Meghan Trainor and be aware that future breaches of the iBan are likely to get an indef in light of the conversation here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt that it was an innocent mistake - this was less then three hours after MaranoFan's edits. That's too much of a coincidence. Still, though, indefinite seems excessive and I would suggest commuting to something shorter. (It should probably be a fortnight or so since the last block was for a week.) --B (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse block per everyone but reduce duration per 28bytes. I think it's reasonable to believe (AGF) that Winkelvi made a mistake here, but as I recall the issue which led to the iban being imposed in the first place was quite serious, it's reasonable to expect them to be more careful. I suggest 2 weeks as a duration, it's long enough to drive the point home that no, really, this ban is serious. And before anyone gets on me about WP:NOTPUNITIVE, there is a wide gap between punishment and deterrence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block Ridiculous block. MaranoFan has long history of disruption, indef block, socking and many of these articles Winkelvi edited prior to MaranoFan including Meghan Trainor discography, Meghan Trainor and others so why should they have to not edit there?--MONGO (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I told Winkelvi I would unblock as "time served" after 24 hours if there was no discussion here (there were no replies at the time I wrote that) - however I obviously can't do that now since multiple admins have endorsed the block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, Perhaps you're not the most unbiased person to be commenting here. [20] [21] At least read about the incident this thread is about before you bring up offtopic arguments to defend your friends.--NØ 16:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll remind MaranoFan that the interaction ban is two-way, and advise them to forget about this thread and go and edit something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan was blocked for nearly 2 years and within a week of being unblocked, resumed the same behavior that got them blocked previously. Winkelvi edited that article well before Maranofan ever started editing this website. When I see someone adding fancruft and garbage to articles I edited in the past, expect me to show up and remove it, especially if I edited the article many times long before they did.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(In the original version of this comment, I suggest the iban meant Winkelvi was at least partly at fault. I reviewed the iban note and history and found it was explicitly no fault on either party. I've modified my comment accordingly and apologise to both MaranoFan and Winkelvi for my mischaracterisation of the iban.) I'm sure you mean well, but I don't think you're helping Winkelvi in any way shape or form. Winkelvi is under a two way interaction ban with MaranoFan. Whatever the relative faults of each side and fairly or not, the community has decided, that they both need to stay away from one another. Winkelvi should know of it, since when MaranoFan was unblocked Winkelvi quickly violated their iban with MaranoFan then following suit. (From what I understand Winkelvi doesn't deny knowing of it this time anyway.) This means Winkelvi has two choices if they see allegedly problematic editing from MaranoFan. Either they can successfully appeal their iban or they can sit on their hands and hope someone else notices it and deals with it. If the the later and no one else does, that's tough cookies. This is a moot point anyway, since Winkelvi has explicitly denied noticing MaranoFan's editing. They have instead said they edited this article after visiting it due to the subject being in the news. If this isn't the case and Winkelvi did actually "see someone adding fancruft and garbage to articles I edited in the past" and then "show up and remove it", that's a doubly whammy for Winkelvi. Not only was that someone a person they were ibanned with, but they've now blatantly lied to us. As for yourself, well as long as you are not ibanned with someone it's also a moot point. But if you are ever ibanned, you should expect yourself to be blocked in short order if you can't resist editing an article which you know was just edited by someone you are ibanned with to remove those edits, whatever faults there are with the edits. (The only examples I can see where you might have a chance of getting off are blantant copyvios or severe BLP-vios.) Actually I would expect the community may siteban straight off, if when an iban is proposed you tell us you will ignore it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm calling utter bullshit on Winkelvi's part here. AGF does not extend to people deliberately flouting their bans. You do not suddenly show up at an article you have not edited in a significant time and decide to selectively cull material that has been contributed by someone you have been banned from interacting with. You do not fail to notice the last 10-15 edits to the article were theirs unless you are completely incompetent, and you certainly do not leave snarky edit summaries deliberately worded to wind up the editor you are interacting banned with. If this was a new editor you could overlook a few things, maybe they are not aware of everything etc. Winkelvi is an experienced editor with a long history of edit warring, personal attacks and harrassment of other editors (and thats leaving aside various editing restrictions that have had to be placed Orr/1rr etc). So not only are they well aware of what you do and do not need to do to avoid interacting with someone, their frankly unbelieveable excuses on their talkpage lack any credibility whatsoever. This is winkelvi playing you for fools as usual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I simply can't extend AGF this far. This editor has taken up way too much community time, and the fact that I have to page through numerous entries at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is telling in and of itself. Even if malice wasn't intended, someone with this many restrictions on their editing needs to be paying attention and doing due diligence to ensure they aren't in violation. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question from the initial IBAN, it mentions a few things not to do, but it doesn't specifically mention editing the same articles. It is not a stretch of AGF to say that WV did not see the GAN on the talk page and was just editing the page itself. I don't think we should indef block WV in this case, perhaps time served or a shorter block as was originally discussed is more appropriate with a stern warning for the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If you mean that WV was aware that MaranoFan edited the article but didn't think it was an iban violation, I don't think it's a useful avenue to explore since WV has explicitly said that isn't what happened and has denied knowing MF recently edited the article. If WV is telling porkies about what happened, this is just going to increase the length of any block. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us a half dozen times, shame on us. Anyone opining on the block based on the assumption that this was an honest mistake is being played; you are being lied to. Support full site ban. (for context, I opposed MF's recent unblock as well). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as another victim of WV's stalking and harrassment, this pattern of behavior is very clear - it was a mistake but not an innocent one. Making a long series of edits immediately after someone who made a long series of edits with the obvious goal of reversing and mocking their work is a clear IBAN violation. Plus we have the GA issue and the IBAN specifically calls out GAs. WV remaains a net negative here. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban (which any decline to unblock would be per WP:CBAN) per Floq. The community has a long history of patience with users, but there comes a point where continued patience simply allows for more disruption that is unlikely to stop. I think we've reached that point here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support with regret. I've noticed him lately popping up on pages I edit and have generally felt that his contributions have been positive. I was hoping something like this wouldn't happen again, but sadly this is clear-cut. I would not break out in hives if the penalty was reduced, but I do agree with those above who point that there's just been too much of this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block Winkelvi's explanation strains credulity, especially given their long history of stalking, harassment and disruptive editing. I endorse Tony Ballioni's overall assessment. MaranoFan really should not be participating in this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support increased sanction per envelope-pushing in extremis. Rope runs out somewhere. ——SerialNumber54129 19:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block for the actions taken and for thinking the community is stupid enough to believe this was an honest mistake. A lengthy block log demonstrates that nothing short of an indefinite block will have an impact. Nihlus 19:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block - An intelligent and experienced editor acting in good faith will figure out how to avoid accidental violations without our help. We are not dealing with a child here. We know Winkelvi to be intelligent and experienced, so my conclusion is that he was not acting in good faith. I know I have less-than-average patience with chronic misbehavers, but from where I sit this is two or three straws past the last straw for Winkelvi. I'm aware of the new "commitment" on his UTP and I think we're past that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block. Having see Winkelvi in action before I genuinely do believe he's acting in good faith, but this kind of thing is happening far too often. (FWIW, I actually do believe WV's "I edited the article because seeing her in the news reminded me" explanation—she's just announced that she's getting married this winter, and made some high-profile TV appearances—but that doesn't discount from the fact that WV was well aware this was a topic on which he needed to be careful.) Whether someone's disregarding our rules through malice or incompetence isn't relevant; someone who's continually disregarding rules on a collaborative project is no longer welcome here regardless of the reason. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. It seems apparent that they are either lying or are completely reckless in editing (and honestly I would bet on the lying), neither of which is acceptable. Enough rope has been given, the noose just gets made longer and stronger. zchrykng (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you having deja vu, Zchrykng or do you subscribe to the !vote early and !vote often philosophy? 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Was commenting here to try to make it easier for someone looking at the !votes, definitely see the problem. Have removed my previous post. zchrykng (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban per Floquenbeam. We've been through this many times with WV and they show no sign of "getting it". Although they are a productive editor, the same work can be done by any number of editors who don't waste our time with this crap. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 3-6 month block. WV has made regular appearances at ANI over the years that have tried the community's patience but I don't know if this mistake is so severe to get an indefinite block or site ban. I would endorse a substantial block to drive home the message that these slip-ups need to stop happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I know in principle a site ban is more 'severe', but in effect, it is basically a de facto six month block.  Swarm  talk  21:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • With the added benefit that a conversation must be had before the block is lifted, rather than an automatic lifting and going back to the same behavior without anyone noticing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indef/site ban - I agree with the interpretations that we're likely being played for fools, and given the history, there's really not that much reason to AGF here. It's not like this is a one time thing, and Floq puts it perfectly. Even if this wasn't directly intentional, it still evidences a willful disregard for the IBAN and for the recent admonishments WV received from the community in respect to this very issue in the recent AN/I thread. To be clear, this goes back years. But then MF was blocked and was away for around two years. Within 24 hours of her unblock (only in late September), WV was immediately back to harassing her on Meghan Trainor articles, and then when she stood up for herself, tried to blame her for violating an IBAN with him, in spite of the fact that it came across strongly as baiting (whether it was intended or not). He was boneheaded and obstinate when called out on his blatantly bad behavior, and relied extensively on bludgeoning the discussion with baseless misrepresentations in order to defend himself and attack MF, and proved completely incapable of being reasoned with, going so far as make bizarre claims that I was targeting him with fabricated smears due to some unspecified grudge (because I had assessed his edits relative to objective policy guidance). When it was uncovered that a two-way IBAN existed between the two all along, WV relied on this same "oops" defense, saying that he had simply forgotten about it, which in itself seemed somewhat dubious given what appeared to be an immediate resumption of quite blatant feuding after a substantial amount of time had gone by. WV was lucky to avoid sanctions at that time, but we let it slide, on the assumption that if he did forget, he has been reminded, and if given a clean slate, there would not be further issues. It has barely been a month since then, and here we are again. WV is not the only editor here with an IBAN, but he is the only one who seems to struggle with compliance. Either he's violating the IBAN intentionally and lying, he's being willfully negligent so that he can claim violations are an accident, or he lacks the competence to comply with a simple IBAN (and I don't think WV is a CIR case). Either way, the prescription is the same at this point. WV is out of rope.  Swarm  talk  21:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a six month block at the least. I'm generally not in favor of indefinite blocks, but I'm leaning that way here. Pretty much my reasoning follows Floq. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Floq, Snooganssnoogans, Legacypac, Cullen328, Mandruss, and others. This has been a years-long saga of harassment of numerous editors like Snooganssnoogans, Gage Skidmore, and even myself. I was subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment earlier this year (documented here: [22]). Winkelvi has had way too many last chances. It's time for him to accept that this project is not well-suited to his unique qualities and for him to find another hobby.- MrX 🖋 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block after reading the above. I had no idea of Winkelvi's history of harassing other editors but after reading all of this it's clear it's a pattern—they've used the same excuses, engaged in the same behaviour, been blocked several times for it and they're still trying to pull the same, this time by using the old "Do you think I'd be that stupid?" attempt at convincing users. As has been pointed out by multiple editors above, their edit summary to me indicates a clear knowledge of who had done what to the article and anticipating their reaction. Ss112 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block. Winkelvi has a very long history of longterm harassment or persecution of other editors, especially new or less experienced ones. There's no telling how many good editors he has driven off of Wikipedia or driven away from articles he monopolizes and bludgeons. He was a ringleader of the meatpuppeting team that ganged up against MaranoFan for so long that he caused her to act out until she was longterm blocked. He knows what he's doing. He knew good and well MaranoFan, once unblocked, was focused solely on Meghan Trainor and her discography. This is beyond insupportable, and by now Winkelvi is a net negative to the project. Winkelvi's stock in trade has been his charm and his how could you possibly accuse me of lying, or assume bad faith of me, but by now people are beginning to catch on that his claims of being the world's most honest/innocent/good-faith person are ludicrous. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a reasonably long block to get this editor's attention, but not indefinite at this time if reforms are agreed to. Jonathunder (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support The problem here is that even if we accept Winkelvi's view of the events as they occurred, all that mean is that the world he sees and edits in is 90 degrees off of everyone else's. That's a problem. That's a competency issue. --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock / Short block He claims that the overlap was accidental, and per AGF I'm going to have to accept that (even if I disbelieved it). However that does also burn this as an excuse in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: Obviously opinions differ, but I would think WP:NOTSUICIDE would apply to this situation. zchrykng (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Lift IBAN. I'm an uninvolved non-admin, and I've read everything, from Commons IBAN violations, to all the IBAN definitions. Judging from WV's talk page comments, we can definitely AGF that there won't be any more disruption towards MF. For example, I believe that WV will never ever file a SPI report against MF. On the other hand, MF seems to again accuse multiple editors of lying and meatpuppeting. I don't blame her, because she is not allowed to revert WV's edits. The IBAN complicated it. If WV is indeffed, MF might find someone else to accuse of meatpuppeting etc. If the IBAN is lifted and WV unblocked, we will see the 2016-era collaboration between WV and MF, in the best scenario. In the worst scenario, WV and MF will mostly go their own ways, crossing paths every few months, and not edit warring when they do. WV and MF are competent editors, and WV has the 1RR already in place (but I doubt that WV will be reverting MF much). I'm only saying that WV should be indeffed because of his tone on his user talk page. It's not the WV everyone seems to recall above. Of course, WV should be indeffed if he harasses people in the future, as that has been my opinion for a long time. I would support indeffing WV, right until very recently. MF is a very valuable editor who has never caused any trouble other than the blocks and socks and stuff, so I would support giving her some air. If MF starts casting lots of aspersions, unprovoked, I support escalating blocks or bans, starting from 24 hours. If MF wishes to file another AN/I report (against anyone), I suggest collecting as much evidence as possible. I think I've covered every possible future scenario. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

• Motion proposed at Winkelvi's talk page to abide by 1RR and IBan and to select 5 articles or specific areas to work on over next six months in effort to bring them to GA or FA level, an ability I believe Winkelvi has.--MONGO (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I could ONLY potentially, POTENTIALLY, support this if there was also a ban from posting on the drama boards. He has to focus, and going there will not help. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My fourth point at his talkpage was that he would ONLY edit the 5 articles. I already have 5 I think he would excel at.--MONGO (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort Mongo, but we both know that unless the rules are 100% ironclad, he's going to find a way around it. If you want to ban him from everything except 5 articles and their respective talk pages, it needs to be a ban from EVERYTHING else. And he need to know that if he edits on ANYTHING except those 5 articles, their talk pages, his page, and his talk page, that he instantly gets indef'ed. --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is just nonsense. We don't make concessions for DE/CIR editors to only play in their own tiny walled garden. Any blocked/banned person desiring to continue "editing" should find or create a Wikia/Wiki/MediaWiki outside of Wikipedia to do so in. We've already bent over backwards for Winkelvi for many years, and only now are people catching on that that was a mistake. He has been given multiple lengths of rope numerous times, and has always showed his true colors in the end. There is no more rope. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Good grief, its not nonsense. No one is asking for a walled garden either. He would have to interact at GAN and FAC and show he can interact positively. We all know many would watch his every move like a hawk.--MONGO (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, kudos to MONGO for attempting to help Winkelvi, but Tarage is right, they are fresh out of rope, in my opinion. zchrykng (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I could support an inverse topic ban like this with some conditions. First, WV would have to agree to it. Second the topics would need to be sufficiently far from all previous areas of conflict. Third I would want to see some provision to prevent any regular content disputes from boiling over into user talk and WP space. ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• The proposal may be a way forward if Winkelvi agrees to it and the other restrictions are kept in place. This would be the last chance, however. Jonathunder (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Softlavender puts it well. Winkelvi has run out of last chances. I haven't interacted with him that I recall but have watched from a distance and have long been puzzled as to why the community has repeatedly bent over backward to accommodate behavior inappropriate to a collaborative project. It would be best for all concerned if we simply make a clean break. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Luis Bracamontes

As a precaution, I've semi-proected the redirect Luis Bracamontes and the page 2014 shooting of Sacramento police officers for 10 days, due to it being in the news. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46055215 Please feel free to reverse if this seems over-cautious. (And please watchlist) Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit inappropriate? Something being in the news is precisely when we don't want an article protected if it's at all possible, since that's when potential new editors are most likely to want to update the article, and hopefully decide to stay around. The guy's currently been sentenced to death, so any BLP issues are presumably fairly minimal given that nothing we can throw at him is worse than he's already facing. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that articles should not be protected preemptively in most circumstances. There needs to be evidence of a problem to warrant protection. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed per the above. Anyone should feel free to restore protection in the future if disruption increases to the point where it is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Appeal to lift topic ban

So back in January, I was topic-banned from XFD as a whole. In August, it was agreed to loosen that and allow me to comment on XFDs but not initiate any, as a means of gauging my behavior in this setting.

I think that one of the biggest issues that drove me over the edge last time was an attempt to plow through the {{cleanup}} backlog, which drove me to some deep dark obscure corners where I was finding poorly-maintained articles. Far too often I was using AFD as cleanup, and getting overly argumentative and aggressive.

In the time of my topic ban, I have focused more on article creation. I have seen both Lansing Mall and Meridian Mall, articles that I created many years ago, get promoted to GA. So far I have not had any noticeable issues in XFD interactions. I have also been putting articles on my watch list if I feel that they do not meet notability guidelines, in hopes of getting them nominated in good faith. One such article, Waycross (band), was nominated by someone else (without my input).

It takes a long stream of serious fuckups to get to a topic-ban, which I think I deserved, but I feel that I am not beyond at least making an appeal. I would like to have my XFD initiation ban lifted on a trial basis to see if I am fit to get back into making nominations again. I have a couple AFD nominations drafted up fo possible consideration. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)