Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	18	18
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 13 sockpuppet investigations
• 24 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 17 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 7 requests for RD1 redaction
• 39 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 8 requested closures
• 100 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (34 out of 8759 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811 Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush Khushali Kumar 2024-10-29 21:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring some protection after creating redirect Liz Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 20:05 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP Ingenuity Orakzai 2024-10-29 19:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bangash 2024-10-29 19:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bengalis 2024-10-29 19:24 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Zaher Jabarin 2024-10-29 19:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Killing of Shaban al-Dalou 2024-10-29 18:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:MusicBrainz release group 2024-10-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, My Life for Iran 2024-10-29 17:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Palestine and the United Nations 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Israel won't exist in 25 years 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Down with Israel 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 17:20 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Tim Sheehy (businessman) 2024-10-29 17:03 2024-11-12 17:03 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: restrict BLP violations from non-XC until after the election OwenX Mykolas Majauskas 2024-10-29 16:25 2025-04-29 13:09 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/BLP -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Tony Hinchcliffe 2024-10-29 01:19 2025-01-29 01:14 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP ToBeFree Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-28 20:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Kurdish–Turkish conflict 2024-10-28 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Macrobiotic diet 2024-10-28 16:00 2024-11-28 16:00 edit,move Persistent spamming: Per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 34 2024-10-28 13:58 indefinite edit,move Fish and karate Fusion power 2024-10-28 03:46 2024-11-04 03:46 move Liz Mercuria 2024-10-28 02:52 2024-11-27 01:45 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Spider-Man: Octo-Girl 2024-10-28 02:32 2025-01-28 02:32 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Hamas temporary committee 2024-10-28 02:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Whigfield 2024-10-27 22:44 2024-11-27 22:44 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Rajpurohit 2024-10-27 22:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Political marriages in India 2024-10-27 17:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA RegentsPark

Unblock request by RussianDewey

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

RussianDewey is asking to be unblocked:

I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked.

I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet.

I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've already run a check and found nothing. After this request sat in the unblock queue for around three weeks, taking it to the community was suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning support per clean Check, WP:ROPE, etc. It appears that he edits for the most part in good faith, and I don't see anything too terribly damning to oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Before I get all teary-eyed (which I nearly did) and endorse unblock, the original block was for a "a battleground mentality and inability to collaborate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#RussianDewey. Even though it's been four years, and RussianDewey has professed his undying love for Wikipedia, I'd like to see this addressed. In struggling through his talk pages, I found that it's been said that his very first edit was combative. What has changed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  endorse unblock-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jack Sebastian: The most recent sock blocked was User talk:Alexis Ivanov for harrassment and personal attacks

• His first edit was this. I'm not sure to what extent it's normal for one to first edit on another user's talk page, but while I do see some zeal in the diff I don't see anything too combative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• John M Wolfson,Thanks. That takes care of that.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  That was in March. By June 9, things had changed.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  So intimidation is how you work. I will not be intimated by a rat, try being civil next time. Hmm, that does throw a wrench into the works. I still lean support per ROPE, but I would not oppose a reblock if he does in fact "hang himself", as it were. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. It was the 21st Dennis Brown called it the "very first" in the ANI thread so long ago.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have asked him (by which I meant RussianDewey, not DB} to respond on his talk page.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  You're kidding!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  The edit was summary "bye". QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I have seen years ago no wiki tags added to articles and other pages. There was a software glitch years ago. It looks like RussianDewey believed that admins were badging them and that escalated the drama. Things might of been different if admins were more understanding. The edits are overwhelming done in good faith. I can't say that about a few others who have not even received a single warning from a Wikipedia administrator for adding clear-cut WP:BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Still trying to fight your unrelated personal content dispute by all means. I feel somehow disgusted by that.--TMCk (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck off-topic borderline personal attack. Take it out side or get a room. Or ANI  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - People can reform, the user has had time to think about things. Second chance deserved. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question - Has the user been indef blocked before and come back to demonstrate the same behavior that got them blocked? I'm a huge believer in redemption, but how many bites at the apple should RussianDewey get? I also wonder if the user has been editing here anyway, under the radar as a sock, and wants unfettered access again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently NRP already [ran] a check and found nothing. Just below where he posted the request.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  See block log. The last block was 2ya for socking. (December, 2016) As you say, it's the stuff that lead to the original indef that has me awaiting apellant's response.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock request for an account with 41 mainspace edits that has been blocked for four years? Seems like an attempt at some tasty trolling given the earlier interaction history and the literary merits of the appeal. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• weak support per 2nd chance and the length of time that has passed. Appeal seemed sincerely contrite and reflective of a change.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I’m not generally a fan of third chances. They tend to create unblockables. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: Just curious, where does the idea of the third chance creating unblockables come from? Crazynas ^t 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Administrators are as a group cautious, which means that usually a new block after any unblock requires double the disruption for it to stick. My standard for unblocks is similar to what BrownHairedGirl below is saying: does the potential for benefits to the encyclopedia outweigh the known risk for disruption. Once someone gets to their second justified indef, the answer will almost always be No.
  Unblocking at that point means they'll just keep being disruptive and we'll ignore them for 6 months to a year before trying a bunch of sanctions that don't work until they eventually lose interest in the project or get blocked after years of frustration. I'm not going to name any names, but it's something I've noticed over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support given the length of the time they've been blocked for and some indication they may have changed attitude. If unblocked they'd better understand that any more battleground behaviour will be the end of their involvement with WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support, with the strict understanding that there shall be zero tolerance for battlegrounding, incivility or harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. 41 mainspace edits, and a block log which isn't a whole lot shorter. Sockpuppetry, which wastes a lot of community time in cleanup. Note too that the sock was busy at ANI, from this dose of timewasting nitpicking on an admin's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=prev&oldid=748686645#An_Inquiry

So I'm seeing a pile of negatives here on the conduct front.

But what positive things does this person bring to the project of building an encyclopedia? I see a poor command of the English language, which doesn't bode well for work on articles. Even if the new claims of good intent are sincere, they come without one of the pre-requisite skills.

Sorry, but I think this person has already wasted enough of the community's time. I don't see any point in trying again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the editor is young. Now that they are a bit older they want to come back and contribute. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock. I'd rather give them a try with a known account than throw away the key and have them sneak back with an undisclosed account. Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock somewhat strongly, per [1] (Alexis Ivanov being RussianDewey's confirmed sock). After pulling a one-month block for personal attacks, they spent the next month and a bit harassing the blocking administrator, and after being told to knock it off ([2], especially [3]), didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with prominently listing that administrator's name as a vague "future project" on their user page. That earned them a six-month block before being discovered to be a sockpuppet. They have not addressed that incident at all in their unblock request, and I see no reason to believe they've learned anything from it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral: This may be a case that requires RussianDewey to work on a different project for a time without incident prior to returning to English Wikipedia. This could be another language variant of Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia), but could also be Commons or Wikisource. In particular, there would need to be evidence not merely of content creation without incident, but interaction with others without incident (i.e., work entirely within walled gardens that's gone under the radar, as is common on some low-traffic projects, would probably not suffice). As BHG notes, there are only 41 mainspace edits on this account, and all of those are in a two-month period in 2015. If we saw some more work elsewhere demonstrating a change, then perhaps those reticent to support an unblock would be more convinced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support 4 years since anything substantial other than talk page contributions? Wants another chance? Says he's learned his lesson? Let's give him a chance to prove us wrong. Should he prove us wrong, instant permaban. Edits would be easy to undo, so I don't see that being a significant problem. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral but the comments from Ivanvector give me pause. I give weight to the vote of administrators who have access to tools that I do not. I also appreciate that Swarm supports another chance with a zero tolerance expectation. I believe the editor has showed contrition. However BrownHairedGirl's assessment of the edit history is alarming. Tough decision for the closer. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• boldly moving comment to right sectionI would give him/her another chance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasoning of BrownHairedGirl.Krow750 (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - last chance, I'm a believer. Also, @Mendaliv, Pudeo, and Buffs:, you refer to 41 edits / 4 years, but this editor's later sock account racked up over 3,500 edits until November 2016. [4] starship.paint (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Don't you think that it's a bit odd to cite an editor's contributions while socking as an argument in support of their being unblocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: - I merely want to present that: to imply that this person has only 41 edits is misleading. We should be considering this from the standpoint that this person has 3,500+ edits. Yes, this editor socked, an offense, and both accounts were blocked. I believe in another chance at redemption. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Starship.paint - Imho those 3,500 edits should not count as they were made from a sock account (Would you count the edits of a sockmaster who's ran 5 accounts as a justification for allowing them to stay? ofcourse you wouldn't - same should apply here - Sock accounts should count for nothing.) –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock per the user's own reasoning: "I know I did Sockpuppet activity...I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION...and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet."[5] I am concerned about this attitude. It's a time sink to gather diffs and write up SPI reports because "passionate" sockmasters flout policy, and lack concern for the time, energy, and well-being of their fellow Wikipedians. From what I see, his reasoning about why he won't sock again is primarily that he'll probably get caught; not that he's firmly opposed to violating policy. Users who think their passion for posting on the 'pedia is more important than WP policy, and more valuable than working admins' time, are causing burnout among the small number of admins who are actually doing the work in these areas. I'm not convinced unblocking would be a net positive to the community or the project. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - Socking is not "counter productive", socking is a danger to the project and an affront to the community, a giant middle finger. Also "socks will always be caught" is palpably untrue. There are socks posting on this very page, and getting away with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Only 41 edits to articlespace and the block list as long as my arm really wants me to oppose .... however all for we know the editor might have indeed changed their ways and might well becoming a good editor, The socking comment is a concern although I would put that down to the fact their not fluent in English (see below), Last chance - If they fuck it up indef with no more chances. –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Replies from RussianDewey--

g/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RussianDewey&type=revision&diff=905724588&oldid=905717472&diffmode=source

I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

]  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Russian Dewey replied thusly (to @BrownHairedGirl:)--

I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Reality check, please. What you call your "main contribution" was actually only 41 edits to articles. In those 41 edits, I see you asserting several points of fact, but I don't see even one case of you adding a source for anything you write.

As to your claim to be expanding/creating templates, I see only three edits in template space[6], all to the same template. They consist of you edit-warring, and misusing edit summaries to insult a long-standing productive editor.

And despite making only small changes to text, you still seem envisage that you will need other editors to clean up after your unsourced edits.

So I see nothing positive in any of what you did, and plenty of problem even in those article/template edits. It is clear that you were a significant net negative even before you began the battleground conduct and the socking, and even before you abused the sock to waste so much of other people's time.

With nothing at all on the positive side of the balance sheet, and a long list of problems on the negative side, I can only say a firm "np". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• response to BHG belatedly carried over from talk page.

  :: I think there has been a little confusion with the Brown Haired Girl, majority of my work was not under this name rather the other one. Contributions and also unfinished researches Subpages. I also made contributions to non-English Wikipedia by the way. RussianDewey (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC

---

Replies from RussianDewey to @Beyond My Ken: and @CorbieVreccan: belatedly carried over by -- Dlohcierekim

In reply to "Beyond My Ken", I disagree, Socks will always get caught especially the amount of detailed articles I work with, I want to start in a legal manner and work my way up to gain the community to trust. I agree that socking is "is a danger to the project and an affront to the community" that's the whole point of this. RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

In response to "CorbieV", you say ""passionate" sockmasters" I think you paint me in a negative light, I'm not passionate about being a sockpuppet, I'm passionate about contributing to Wikipedia that's very different. Also I think you got my reasoning wrong, I recommend you read it again, I have two reasoning, one moral and one legality/punishment, the moral one is I want to do things the right way and the legality one is that sockpuppets at the end will always get caught and punished. I also never said my passion for Wikipedia comes before my respect for the WP Policy. I clearly stated "I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians" that includes following the Five pillars,Policies and guidelines and the Ethical Codes RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing

I am about to close this thread as no consensus to unblock (currently 9-7 not counting neutrals, some unblock supports are weak, arguments are roughly same weight), but will wait for a day or to in case somebody wanted to comment but was postponing, or someone read other comments and changed their mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article

I'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, believed that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more" and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable," had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.

The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not specific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [7], [8] and [9] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Response by closer,

• It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
• The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
• The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
  • MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
  • MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
  • Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP: [The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.[10]
• The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
  • It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure: ... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states ... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs. However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.

This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should "make readers want to learn more". That MEK was once designated as a terrorist group by UN, UK and US and that it's a Cult (as many experts believe), is something at least three users said were interesting and vital. So, why should such a vital info be sent down the lead?

As a user closing the discussion you had to assess the consensus by addressing all the guideline-based arguments, which I think you failed to do. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Further comments

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Revert closure and topic ban Cinderella157 - This is the second poorly executed RfC closure by User:Cinderella157 that I've come across in the last few days (the first was this one, which also prompted a closure review directly above this thread). I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it seems like a pattern to me. Either way, it's becoming clear to me that Cinderella157 doesn't understand a few key things about closing controversial consensus discussions:

1. These discussions often take place over a long period of time, and involve a large number of editors. A lot of time and effort goes into these discussions; participants feel invested in the discussion. To close such a discussion with a very brief and unclear closing statement can be very disappointing to the dozens of participants, and it represents a lack of respect for the time and effort that was put into thoroughly discussing the topic at hand. In short, these kinds of contentious discussions deserve a thoughtful and clear closure.
2. Even when a discussion ends in no consensus, the closing statement can still provide an important summation of the salient points of the discussion. It can point out aspects of the discussion where agreement was found, and other aspects where it was not. In many cases, this closing statement serves as a historical record of the overall results of the discussion, and future discussions will often point to this historical record as a way to review the path that consensus has taken on this topic over time. To close such a discussion with a brief and unclear closing statement obscures this historical record, making it more likely that future discussions will rehash the same points rather than moving the discussion along and getting it closer to a compromise consensus.

I don't have the time or interest to study Cinderella157's contribution history to see if he has been closing many other discussions in the same manner. If he has, I would support a topic ban on Cinderella157, preventing him from closing any discussions. Even if these two closures are outliers, I would still encourage Cinderella157 to avoid closing discussions and find other tasks instead.

I'm also not sure I agree with the result of the closure either. I briefly scanned the discussion and my hunch is that I'd lean towards finding consensus for the "Second" argument (opposite of Cinderella's closure) at best, or closing it as "no consensus" at worst. If anything, at least the voters supporting the "Second" result actually provide relevant guidelines and policies that support their decision. Not a single voter on the "Last" side provided any relevant guidelines or policies in support of their position; they simply expressed their personal preference for the order of the lead. Cinderella157 writes that he finds the argument for a chronologically-ordered lead to be "compelling", but provides no explanation for why he finds it more compelling than the policy-based rationales on the other side. He even admits in this very discussion above that there are no policies or guidelines that require the lead of an article to describe the subject in chronological order. If I were the closing admin, I would have likely closed this discussion much differently. I'd recommend that the closure is reverted, and an uninvolved administrator is asked to provide a real closure. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan

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

---

Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 24 hours and banned from Order of the Arrow as an arbitration enforcement action. This was overturned on appeal. However, there does seem to be a problem here between Buffs, Indigenous girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The problem seems to have started over the use of a blog source in Order of the Arrow (see this discussion and following). This escalated to this RSN discussion, in which Buffs first labelled these sources "a WP:FRINGE opinion of 2-3 people" (diff). This was repeated in this discussion, in which Buffs used the Black Panthers, white supremacists and flat-earthers as examples. Indigenous girl took fairly strong exception to that, seeing it as equating indigenous Americans with flat-earthers and white supremacists.

There has been extensive bickering since then. Indigenous girl appears to have taken to following Buffs around. The articles that they have both edited this year are:

• Order of the Arrow (IG's first edit 6 minutes after B's edit)
• War bonnet (IG's first edit 20 minutes after B's edit)
• Nathan Phillips (activist) (IG's first edit 2 hours after B's edit)
• Cultural appropriation (IG's first edit 24 hours after B's edit)
• Indigenous intellectual property (IG's first edit six days after B's edit)
• Boy Scouts of America (IG's first edit 39 minutes after B's edit)
• Scouting in Vermont (B's first edit ten hours after IG's edit)
• Scouting in Massachusetts (B's first edit 17 minutes after IG's edit)

For these last two, it should be noted that they are part of a very long string of similar edits by Buffs to state-level scouting articles (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) and Indigenous girl has stated that she was "following his lead" editing Scouting in Massachusetts (diff diff Corrected diff GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)).

On this basis, Indigenous girl came to El_C to report "The guy is still following me". Buffs was blocked for 24 hours over the Scouting in Massachusetts edit. Buffs then hatted a section of OR on Talk:Order of the Arrow (diff) and, as far as I understand it, it was on this basis that El_C banned him from the page (the ban that was later overturned).

All along the way here, CorbieVreccan has been dipping his oar in and pouring petrol on troubled waters. If you read around everything presented above, you'll find plenty, but most recently followed Buffs to my TP (diff).

I am therefore proposing a community-imposed IBAN between Buffs on the one hand and Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan on the other. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I first thank GoldenRing for his synopsis; it is concise, yet comprehensive. Given that scope, it's clear he took a fair amount of time compiling everything. Thank you so much for the effort.

Second, I didn't realize IG was following me so much, but it explains a lot.

Third, my comparison to such absurd groups (Flat Earthers, et al) was to point out that even a large group doesn't necessarily make an opinion notable enough for inclusion per WP:NPOV. I stand by my assessment that there has been no evidence presented to the contrary. The opinion of Corbie is that the existence of any Native American objections warrant inclusion and WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to them because of past oppression.

Lastly, I am not interested in suppression of differing opinions. I've encouraged them, but ONLY if they meet the criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:OR/WP:SYN criteria. Right now, we aren't there. We HAVE made progress (especially recently) on several issues at hand. Other topics are stalled despite multiple attempts at WP:DR; I believe we will eventually resolve those as well, but it will take time. I do not believe an IBAN is in the best interests of WP or progress. Accordingly, I oppose solely on those grounds at this time as restricting the ability to talk through problems/issues will not help matters. I think that walking through a structured discussion with an agreed-upon, neutral third party mediating discussion would be significantly more effective at resolving these issues.

If my facts are in error, I welcome corrections and I will happily strike accordingly. Likewise, I've given my 2 cents. Unless specifically requested by uninvolved editors, I'm going to refrain from further replies. _{I expected people to read the evidence above and comment on it, not present new material. I'm not going to sit idly by while lies and half-truths are spouted about me.} Buffs (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC) _{(remarks updated 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC))}

• Query - Thank you @GoldenRing: for some extremely good detective work and 3rd party assistance. I'm afraid @Buffs: I'm going to immediately ask you for an additional reply - could you highlight a specific area or two (page etc) where you've made progress with the named users. Normally I'm reticent to support an IBAN where the users in question are against them, but there are circumstances where that doesn't hold up. That said, I'd like to see more before judging. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely: [11] [12] [13] (diffs #1 & 3 verbatim as proposed by me on the talk page: [14] [15] after discussion). These are three of the four major points discussed on the article's (admittedly messy) talk page. While the third one isn't perfect, the only primary objection I have is the addition of quotes. It's certainly VERY close. To date, I have no reply after asking for clarification, but I can wait. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Those changes made by Indigenous girl were both opposed by Buffs on talk.[16],[17] She was only able to make them because he was banned or blocked at the time. I do not wish to interact with Buffs anymore, and have not wanted to since his first incivility issues back in March. However, I don't feel it is correct or fair to characterize Indigenous girl's edits to shared topics of interest such as Warbonnet or Scouting articles that incorporate Indigenous materials as "following" simply because Buffs, having been on Wikipedia longer, edited some of those articles first. The articles may have come up on her watch list due to being edited; that doesn't mean she was following him. His recent behavior for which he was blocked clearly shows he was following her after a series of conflicts. He was warned to leave her alone by multiple admins and he would not stop. Now he's asking that he not be given a ban from interacting with her, which is also telling. I think he should, once again, leave her alone. But she should not be the one banned from articles on which he has been disruptive. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I do take exception of equating indigenous people to fringe, white supremacists and flat earthers. He can deny he did this intentionally but it is very apparent he did as he did it more than once. It was not necessary to use those examples to illustrate a point. Buffs was spoken to about this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABuffs&diff=890164118&oldid=889923361#March_2019

I am not sure how I could have possibly followed Buffs to the first diff because I had never interacted with him previously.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=886182392

With regard to the above and following four edits, I do in fact have Corbie on my watchlist. I contributed because I had something to contribute after Corbie edited. Corbie is on my watchlist because I'm fairly certain they have nearly all indigenous articles on their watchlist and this is my topic of knowledge. I am not attempting to further any sort of agenda as Buffs has repeatedly proposed aside from having fair, balanced and well sourced articles.

With regard to the BSA article I admittedly looked at Buffs contribs. I do not recall what precipitated it. I saw that I could add content. I in no way conflicted with Buffs with my edit.

Buffs followed me the Scouting in Vermont article and his initial edits had nothing to do with his claim that I intentionally violated BLP in order to push an agenda. He did replace two words, that I fully admit changed the context but this was a an accident on my part. With regard to Buffs extensive topic edits, they began after I edited the Scouting in Vermont page. I also edited additional Scouting articles prior to him editing the long string of articles. I edited the Massachusetts article specifically to correct a language issue. I also had Scouting in Minnesota on my list as there were issues with links (these were later corrected by another editor). Buffs neglects to mention that he said, "I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffs&diff=904522939&oldid=904517899 I am aware of this statement because I was paying attention to an admin's content regarding Buffs due to the entire situation. Buffs did not bring it up anywhere.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting_in_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=904244165
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koshare_Indian_Museum_and_Dancers&diff=prev&oldid=904415718
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say&diff=prev&oldid=904429449
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid-Iowa_Council&diff=prev&oldid=904486755

There is no mention that I was previously hounded by SolarStorm1859(lostpwd). SS participated in edit warring on Buffs behalf and Buffs thanked him.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffs&diff=900441691&oldid=900210561

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SolarStorm1859_(lostpwd)&diff=next&oldid=900437074

While being hounded by SS Corbie and I were also followed to the point of ridiculousness by Citation Bot which led to the Bot being blocked for repair. It was assumed that Citation Bot was being driven by SS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901736143 however the first follow utilizing Citation Bot was made by Buffs. This is incredibly important and should be taken seriously.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaggy_2_Dope&diff=prev&oldid=900931111.

There is also the issue of Buffs refactoring the talk page of OA to hide my comments and closing the conversation while being an involved editor. Buffs was previously warned about refactoring. I added the content because he has asked for proof regarding a language issue. I was simply trying to comply with his request. I stated clearly that I was aware it was OR and that I had no intention to post it in the article and that it should probably be added to the individual's article.

Buffs asking for more information:

"Corbie (or anyone else), feel free to prove me wrong and just put the source here. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find it by Monday. I'll wait." :*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=903913927

An admin warned Buffs not to refactor contribs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=903942393

I add content Buffs asked for, he refactors my contribs and closed the conversation as an involved editor after having been warned about doing exactly this previously. This was also done shortly after coming off of the 24 hour block for following me.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=904806038&oldid=904708467
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=905370981

What I posted was on the talk page according to Wikipedia policy, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

There is far more to this issue that meets the eye. While I find it unfair that a IBAN would prevent me from working on articles I have put a considerable amount of time into, if that's what is necessary to prevent further conflict in the future I'm begrudgingly okay with it.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting I just stated I was begrudgingly in support of the IBAN and Buffs just posted to my talk page. Is it possible to self-impose an IBAN? Because I am really quite done with any interaction. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you ask Buffs not to post on your talk page again, most admins agree that a failure to follow that request is grounds for a block, or at the very least a stern warning, leading to a block if it happens again. Of course, if you do that, you should not post to their talk page either. But a full-blown IBAN? - no, community consensus is needed for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if he would not post to my talk page while on-going issues are being dealt with. I asked him back in March to please leave me alone https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=889908093&oldid=889893187 his response was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=889908093 My request back in March was not due to edit conflicts but by the way he interacted with me which is addressed by point by an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABuffs&diff=890164118&oldid=889923361#March_2019 Also I went to another admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Ironie&diff=prev&oldid=889936995#Buffs_and_incivility In order to work on certain articles I had no choice but to continue to interact. I don't want or expect to have a congenial working relationship with Buffs but I do expect to not have to deal with unnecessary condescension (noted in the warning from the admin above) I choose not to deal with the insults. I shouldn't be expected to. I should have simply walked away from the handful of articles we were both invested in improving months ago. He did thank me for two recent edits and I do feel that it is important to note that on his behalf. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think "Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you" (19:11, 28 March 2019), followed by a refusal to abide by that request, is pretty clear. She may have been forced to interact to a limited degree on article talk if she didn't want to abandon the articles they both edit, but the other following and now posting on her talk is a violation. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to fill in a bit more on the Citation bot and SolarStorm issue here.

I'm adding the permalink on the closed ANI case on the harassment by SolarStorm:[18]. We really should have done a full sock investigation at the time. SolarStorm1859 admitted making the edits WP:FOLLOWING Indigenous girl and myself,[19] and was indef-blocked for it. but...

I don't know how I missed it at the time, probably because of all the dense bot contribs. But now we have the diff that shows Buffs started the following of my edits with the bot:[20][21]. Two edits fiddling with parameters, then the bot driver's name is removed from the bot (as was possible then, which is why it was blocked for retooling:[22]).

The hounding bot edits then continued to follow the same list of of my recent edits, but now, after those two edits adjusting different parameter settings, the name of the bot operator is missing, but the follow pattern is consistent:[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]

Then the (now nameless) bot driver starts following Indigenous girl:

• 15:55, June 8, Talk: Indigenous intellectual property (where SolarStorm first appeared to support Buffs)[28]
• 17:54, June 8: Order of the Arrow (The main article Buffs is focused on) [29]
• 22:19, June 8: An edit to Indigenous girl's sandbox: [30]

This was rightfully considered a violation of WP:FOLLOWING. But we didn't look far enough back to see who first drove the bot. We all assumed it was just SolarStorm. There is also a strong possibility that SolarStorm and Buffs are the same user. I should have asked for a more thorough SPI at the time. SolarStorm1859 and his various accounts are indeffed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Buffs and SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) are  Unrelated technically, having gone through this data during a joe-job in UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Whenever I asked if any checkusers could check the IPs on the bot, I was told it was not possible. Is this correct? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it runs on its own IP, so it wouldn't be helpful. I know for a fact that it didn't show up on any of Buffs IPs, but that isn't saying much since it probably uses its own. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) was pretending to be Buffs in UTRS, fwiw, I'm highly confident of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support That this immediately devolved into a wall of garbage is exactly the problem. GMG^talk 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  That is an unhelpful reply, GreenMeansGo. If you don't want to follow through the details of this argument, you can refrain from weighing in with an ill-informed opinion. This is a meaningful dispute to the participants who are trying to resolve it. It's certainly not "garbage" to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Liz: While the reply's tone was a bit flippant, I'm not sure that's quite fair. GMG has been fairly involved throughout the situation (his name turned up a lot in the material I reviewed to put this together) as far as I can tell in a capacity as helpful as it was possible to be. The above wall of text is indeed one of the symptoms of the problems here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I've been involved round about this dispute I believe since March. I have repeatedly asked the participants to refrain from walls of text and bad faith accusations. In response to a request for an IBAN for a problem caused by walls of text and bad faith accusations, we have more walls of text and bad faith accusations. These users are terminally incapable of working together and appear to have managed to drive off anyone who has attempted to intervene. Intervening here means committing 100% of your on-wiki time just trying to make sense of things, and the participants then only assume you are on "a side", and accuse you of making threats and hounding. If ArbCom is interested (though I doubt they are) I have told Buffs via email in no uncertain terms that he is part of the problem here as well. GMG^talk 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, the problem here is that Corbie and IG follow one another around reliably agreeing with each other. Corbie is want to enforce a two person consensus based on their reliably following one another and reliably agreeing. Corbie is also want to call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, and call anyone who is persistent a harasser. Buffs can't seem to make a point in less than a page's worth of text, and Corbie and IG can't make a rebuttal in less than that either. IG wants to say "leave me alone" but yet wants to continue the content dispute, which means "buzz off and leave us to our two person consensus". Buffs is frustrated that no matter how much of a detailed argument he makes, he runs up against the two person consensus, and IG and Corbie are frustrated because he won't buzz off and leave them alone with the consensus they've formed. Neither Buffs nor Corbie really want a neutral third party to intervene. What they really want is for someone to enter the ring in their corner and tell the other side to shut the hell up so they can "win". GMG^talk 01:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  I concur with Liz that your original comment wasn't helpful. I endeavored to keep my remarks short When GoldenRing brought 3 months worth of edits and 100+ diffs, it's a lot to cover and nuances are missed. That said, your further explanation was immeasureably helpful. I concur that the party-of-two consensus allows for a lot of material that wouldn't stand the light of day on higher-trafficked articles. I disagree that I don't really want a neutral third party. A random person is likely to side with me or CV; I'd prefer a mediator who can handle things even-handedly. Overall, thanks for the input! Buffs (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I apologize, GreenMeansGo for what I mistook as a glib and unhelpful response. I didn't know that you were so aware of the ins and outs of this complex dispute. I'm grateful for anyone who wants to wade through these deep waters and I'm sorry if my response to you was seen as a put-down. I know I have little patience for it myself, so I probably shouldn't have been the one to judge others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In the course of this months-long interaction between the three editors, I've observed a timeline pertinent to this discussion. I'll try to keep this presentation neutral but it does focus on Buffs' actions.

1. As far back as 28 March 2019, Indigenous girl (IG) asked Buffs to stop interacting with IG. IG came specifically to my talk page to ask for help. In the course of looking into it, I placed a civility warning on Buffs talk page. It was deleted along with the conversation 19 hours later with an edit summary "I've read it".

2. On 30 March 2019, Bishonen left a detailed and itemized warning on Buffs' talk page. After a significant amount of back and forth between two over it, the day after the conversation was over, Buffs deleted it from his talk page.

3. El C engaged with Buffs starting on 28 June 2019. El C attempted mediating between all three editors for several days. (I'm not diffing that; it's too extensive.) On 2 July 2019, El C blocked Buffs for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Much more convo on Buffs' talk page during the block while Buffs requested unblock and review. After the block expired, a procedural decline was added by User:TonyBallioni

Four admins, including myself, attempted to intervene during these months with warnings and a block. All them found fault with Buffs' behaviour. I know Wikipedians sometimes have a short memory on editor behaviour beyond a few months. If it isn't causing an immediate problem, then past actions are not pertinent. AGF, y'all. Buffs is a longtime editor but his past contribs are riff with exactly this behavior and attitude. While deleting warnings and unflattering discussion from his user page is perfectly within his rights, I know my instinct is to wonder why, particularly if it happens multiple times over the same issue. That's obfuscating editor and/or admin interactions to anyone looking at it. Mostly I've seen this from problem editors, not editors in good standing.

I would have blocked Buffs for continuing harassment of IG near the beginning of all this but I had commented in an RfC on the reliability of a source and at the Reliable sources Noticeboard on the matter. I was thus involved near the beginning although I've mostly kept my distance since then.

Note that the July 2 block is different than the later article ban that was overturned. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What Mark Ironie also leaves out is that he, CV, and IG are also active contributors together at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Indigenous_intellectual_property: [31] with nearly unanimous agreement on every issue, so there is significant COI concerns, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: please refactor your comments to reflect what I was actually blocked for; I was not blocked for personal attacks of any kind. Likewise, it should be noted that this was the same block that IG set me up on and that GoldenRing so eloquently illustrated. It was an edit done solely to trap me and was the wiki equivalent of jumping in front of a truck and complaining that the truck hit them. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I hesitate to nay say you but, technically, those are the reasons on the block itself. Has El C said otherwise? I *really* don't think we want to go down the path of revising facts of events on-wiki; the block and the listed reason remain indisputable facts. I disagree with other editor's versions of the timeline. Mine starts earlier and takes into account other parts of the editing pattern of this particular sequence. My opinion, my analysis. I do not want to argue this now. This off topic but I'm really not sure about this truck metaphor you're using. Jumping in front of a truck might not leave anyone to complain. They might be dead. Are you the truck and IG the jumper? I'm sorry, but this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me? So, no, I will not refactor my comments. I admit to being irked by your suggestion editors refactor to remove references to harassment. Yes, off-wiki it is a legal term and crime. On-wiki, it is a policy. I apologize if you find these comments confrontational; it is definitely not my intent. I remain confused by some of your remarks but I'm satisfied with the presentation and analysis by all the editors, even if I disagree. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You (apparently) don't hate to do anything that denigrates me, even if it's twisting the facts. The block states: "(Personal attacks OR violations of the harassment policy)" not AND (emphasis mine). It's a boilerplate comment. Not once have I been accused of WP:NPA violations. Now that I've demonstrated you're incorrect, I'm asking that you strike your remarks per WP:CIVIL (specifically #5).

I do not want to argue this now. Apparently you do.

this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me OMG. This is EXACTLY the problem. You're so intent on reading hostility and violence into my motives that you're missing the point. It's a scam. Where I'm from, it's a COMMON scam it's been around for years. It is not real. It is fake victimhood for the sake of eliciting pity...and it's working. I'm not advocating for violence of any kind.

These are the sort of remarks I've had to deal with for about 3 months. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You have repeatedly read nefarious motives into actions that are explicitly endorsed under policy.

• I ask to have people strike portions of their remarks that are demonstrably untrue and your response is "Um, I'm sorry but no, I will not refactor or change my analysis. This is incredibly inappropriate to ask me to do this, Buffs. Actually I think this looks a lot like bullying."
• I update my talk page per WP:TALK and your response is basically "only guilty people do that".
• I explain it's a scam. You insinuate that I'm advocating violence.

It seems to me that you are VERY willing to read into this whatever you want if it fits your prejudices/preconceptions/anything else that denigrates me. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Support the IBAN as proposed. It seems apparent that this is a straightforward two-way issue. I have a hard time buying the harassment narrative when there are so many examples of IG apparently following Buffs over the course of months. Obviously there are issues with Buffs' behavior, but IG's claim that she's being harassed seems dubious. It's concerning that Buffs' claim that he was being followed was dismissed, when it was apparently true. This seems like a good cautionary lesson to be objective and fair when a claim of harassment is made, and not jump straight into crucifying the alleged perpetrator. I recently reviewed this case at AE, and I was under the impression that it was not being well-handled by El C and needed to be additionally investigated by the community. I applaud GoldenRing taking the initiative here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support IBAN on Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Amended 25 July 2019, after reviewing all the diffs, and all parties' actions since this thread was opened (such as Buffs' misrepresentation of the diffs he posted here, and Mark Ironie's diffs here). For details: Indigenous girl never violated policy in action or spirit, and my earlier comments on the matter: If we're going to look at timelines.... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

as I indicated in my first comment above,[32]. Since I buried the lede in a longer comment, reiterating it here and bolding in that comment, as well. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Amending Slightly: I don't normally put comments up-thread like this, but I might as well keep it all in one place:

I apologize to the tl;dr crowd for how long this is, but it's been going on since March. If people can't be bothered to read and actually look at the diffs, how can they be relied on to make any sort of ruling?

I want to note, as a long-term Wikipedian, admin, and as one of the most active participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America that Indigenous girl's edits have never appeared to me to be in any way an attempt to harass or intimidate Buffs, and therefore are not a violation of the spirit of the WP:FOLLOWING policy. To my assessment, her priority was the 'pedia. Buffs is the one using violent language against her: "she jumped in front of the truck and claimed I hit her."[33]. He really likes this image of hitting her with his truck:[34]. There are also other issues here that are not public, but are before Arbcom privately. You all had no way of knowing that.

Indigenous girl has been editing in one of her fields of expertise - Indigenous cultures - to correct mistakes in articles, add sources and sourced content, and markedly improve these articles. Some of these articles had been listed at the Indigenous Wikiproject for attention. This work is one of the most valuable services she performs for the Wikipedia community, and a look at her talk page, her contribs, and the wikiproject will show how often editors ask for her help, as we have so few Wikipedians with her level of expertise and access to sources. To my eye, her edits were never about Buffs. But Buffs responded emotionally and with incivility and WP:OWNy reactions to her edits. And mine. And yes, he continued and continues to try to force interactions with her after she asked him to leave her alone, in ways that were far beyond just editing articles in the same fields of interest. If she continued to try to reach consensus on talk, rather than abandon the articles, I don't think that should be held against her or seen as some sign that she wanted to interact with him.

I think both their lives will be better if they don't interact so I support the mutual iBan on Buffs and Indigenous girl support the IBAN on Buffs [see amended statement above. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)]. I also think Buffs should stop focusing so narrowly on this tiny cluster of articles, as it's practically all he's done for the past five months.

I also want to note for the record that I did not follow Buffs, either to edit in a benign way or to harass. I was the first one to edit the articles Golden Ring lists above. I had never heard of Buffs until he became argumentative on Order of the Arrow:[35], then Warbonnet:[36], Cultural Appropriation:[37], and Indigenous intellectual property:[38].

• Editor Interaction Tool Corbie, Buffs

While I respect that Golden Ring is trying to bring peace to this situation, and that is admirable, I do not agree with his asessment of several major and central aspects of this conflict. This is understandable as it is longstanding and complex. This is why I commented on Golden Ring's talk page to note additional info that was buried in five months of talk page chaos, as one admin to another. (Albeit an involved admin.) One comment to another admin is not "following" Buffs.

While I would be quite happy to never interact with Buffs again, and I agree to avoid him, I would like Buffs to be one-way iBanned from dragging me into this anymore. I don't think my warnings to him about his incivility and POV-pushing have been out of line. Nor do I think I deserve to have a formal iBan on my record. I was doing the usual cleanup, sourcing and content creation on articles that I usually do, and Buffs started following me around in a disruptive, draining manner, quickly escalating to incivility and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. That's how this started.[39],[40],[41],[42],EIT

Perhaps some of you think I was over-protective of Indigenous girl. I think that's fair. She's newer to the 'pedia and has at times been overwhelmed here. But please understand that few of those commenting here have seen everything that went on over the past five months, including those who are claiming they have. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

One comment to another admin is not "following" Buffs. The hell it isn't! You've followed me all around WP. Any time I bring up something to another admin, there you are to jump right it to tell that admin, "NO! HE'S WRONG!!! Here's every single thing I can intentionally distort to earn some pity points" No one asked you for your opinion! You were never asked! I don't need you perpetually correcting me no matter where I go, so butt the hell out!!! Now you're accusing ME of following YOU?! That's rich. [43] [44].

In a perfect world (or even one where a site took their own policies seriously), someone would ask CV to retract his response or provide evidence per WP:IUC. Instead, the silence is deafening. No warnings. No blocks. He's an admin. He's in the club. That means he doesn't have to follow the rules.

Unbelievable... Buffs (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose I stopped virtually all edits on the articles in question (see submission) to seek consensus on the relevant talk pages. As such, virtually all the pages have problems that need to be addressed. On the Order of the Arrow article, there are disparaging remarks in the notes based on WP:OR/WP:SYN/assumptions in contradiction to what WP:RS say about its founder. Indigenous Intellectual Property is a collection of claims and neglects to mention it's Cultural Appropriation's basic definition doesn't even match the dictionary. I could go on, but that leaves the underlying issues at status-quo. If an IBAN is enacted, it leaves the articles in the condition they are in...the way CV and IG want them. Of course they support IBAN. They are just going get exactly what they want and I will be unable to change anything because they will immediately claim "IBAN VIOLATION! He edited something I did 3 weeks/months/years ago!"

Now, if CV and IG are going to leave these articles alone and want nothing to do with me/discussion, then there's no need for a community-imposed IBAN. I'll agree here and now not to intentionally talk to them on any talk page (including their user talk pages). I'll make the necessary changes to the aforementioned pages [45] [46] and we'll go on our merry way. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Request I ask that those who have made remarks about SolarStorm and I being the same person/Citation Bot acting at my behest please strike them. I'm not either of them and there is no evidence to back such baseless aspersions. Likewise, "harassment" is a crime. I request that those who have used this phrasing please change it. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. WP:IUC (specifically 2d & 2e) have been violated. I request they be struck per Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility step #5. This doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. I've offered to do the same. Buffs (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Much of what has been said by IG, CV, and MI (Mark Ironie) has been half-truths, wrong, or in some other way misleading. I think you can see the pattern pretty easily based up on what was brought up by GoldenRing, Mr rnddude, et al. I started to put together a comprehensive list, but quickly realized it would be too long (some of the bigger highlights below). Likewise, I think that most of you can look at these and see it.

Highlights a few of the bigger points of contention from this page. If you want more, it can be easily provided. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Those changes made by Indigenous girl were opposed by Buffs on talk. [46],[47] No they weren't. Please feel free to check: My edit vs her edit However, I don't feel it is correct or fair to characterize Indigenous girl's edits...as "following" simply because Buffs, having been on Wikipedia longer, edited some of those articles first. If you look at the timeline set up by GoldenRing, you’ll note the edit is in relatively quick succession after mine. It has nothing to do we being on WP longer. Yes, I do take exception of equating indigenous people to fringe, white supremacists and flat earthers. Please read my remarks. I did not indigenous people to white supremacists, etc. I’ve attempted to clarify multiple times, but IG and Corbie are highly insistent that their initial gut reaction is more accurate the words I chose and any clarification later made is to be ignored. If you say “You using a spatula for a plate is as effective as Germany attacking Russia in WWII!”, you're comparing two bad decisions, not equating someone to Hitler. I am not attempting to further any sort of agenda as Buffs has repeatedly proposed aside from having fair, balanced and well sourced articles. No, you’ve repeatedly stated that First Nation people have an exclusive right to control their culture and language as justification for inclusion/exclusion of material. "The Lenape are the ones who control their language.)" and other reliable sources should be discounted. This opinion runs contrary to WP's policy on reliable sources. With regard to the BSA article I admittedly looked at Buffs contribs. Well, there you go. In addition to the GoldenRing's layout, an additional admission of WP:FOLLOWING (On the edit she set me up to get blocked, she admitted the same.) SS participated in edit warring on Buffs behalf and Buffs thanked him [47] Now we're introducing WP:SYN into the talk page. I only thanked him for removing a troll’s comments and advised him not to generally engage the trolls. I did not thank him for edit warring. Please read the diffs. You won't find evidence to back up her claim. I stated clearly that I was aware it was OR and that I had no intention to post it in the article... Thereby making it pointless to add it in the first place. Your point’s been made. You don’t think it’s a “real” word in the Lenape language. Published sources say otherwise. All you have to back your opinion is WP:OR which is inconclusive at best and WP:syn by assuming connections and malfeasance that are not in reliable sources. I mentioned earlier that there is one unresolved issue on the page: this is it. ...and that it should probably be added to the individual's article. No, you didn’t. I did. An admin warned Buffs not to refactor contribs He warned me not to do "that". When I hatted the discussion, I did so partially because the same admin had advised me to do exactly that...then he blocked me for it and initiated a 6-month ban. When an admin advises you to do something and then blocks you for doing what they recommended, their advice doesn't appear to be in good faith. I'll try to keep this presentation neutral but it does focus on Buffs' actions. There's absolutely nothing neutral about this assessment. It implies malfeasance without evidence/by pointing to what policy states is acceptable. There is zero note made about the OR, POV pushing, baseless accusations, entrapment, etc. I placed a civility warning on Buffs talk page. It was deleted along with the conversation 19 hours later with an edit summary "I've read it”...After a significant amount of back and forth between two over it, the day after the conversation was over. Buffs deleted it from his talk page... Yep...that’s explicitly allowed per WP:USERTALK. I’m under no obligation to keep POV-inspired threats from highly biased editors on my talk page. On 2 July 2019, <an admin> blocked Buffs for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I've never been blocked for personal attacks. I was blocked for WP:FOLLOWING based on the actions of someone who set me up. Harassment is a crime; please strike/retract immediately unless you’re accusing me of a crime (I’ve literally been accused of murder on WP), so it wouldn't be the first time. Four admins, including myself, attempted to intervene during these months with warnings and a block. Well, this is a little redundant. Of these 4, 2 were involved editors, one was exceptionally vague and later blocked me for something he advised I do. I took Bishonen's advice and tried to be more concise, collegial. All them found fault with Buffs' behaviour. And of them, two are distorting the facts/presenting a one-sided case. Buffs is a longtime editor but his past contribs are riff with exactly this behavior and attitude. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. This is guilt by accusation. There’s no evidence to support such a conclusion. While deleting warnings and unflattering discussion from his user page is perfectly within his rights, I know my instinct is to wonder why, particularly if it happens multiple times over the same issue. That's obfuscating editor and/or admin interactions to anyone looking at it. Let me paraphrase how I'm reading these remarks: “He’s within his rights to delete it and we explicitly say there’s nothing wrong it, but it’s definitely something he’s doing wrong and he shouldn’t delete it. You should look at this actions with a LOT of suspicion!” This is just more guilt by accusation. This isn’t evidence of any malfeasance, just standard talk page maintenance. CV has done the exact same thing, but you aren’t chastising him. {{tq|I would have blocked Buffs for continuing harassment of IG...” You have stated that “If the clear opportunity had presented itself, I would have personally taken him to an appropriate noticeboard...Buffs is astonishingly good at skirting the brink of clear violations of policy…” I haven’t actually broken any rules...but now you’re saying you’d block me anyway? Mostly I've seen this from problem editors, not editors in good standing. “Innocent people don’t do this” is a terrible argument…it’s a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy

• Support the IBAN on Buffs per Buffs. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Could you clarify? Buffs (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment While the others have refrained from any substantial editing of the the contested articles in order to respect this process at AN, Buffs went to two of the articles last night. Buffs also posted here several times, with extreme vitriol. He called the IBAN "a joke", which is an insult to everyone here who has tried to bring some peace to this situation, notably Golden Ring. Even though I do not agree with Golden Ring's assessment of Indigenous girl's edits, Golden Ring does not deserve to have his efforts on Buffs' behalf called "a joke." Buffs then went to revert to his preferred versions of the contested articles. along with insulting, aggressive edit summaries. On Order of the Arrow, it was with a short essay/argument in the edit summary. On Cultural Appropriation, he removed sourced content about collective intellectual property, claiming the sources don't support it, when there are three sources (still there) that cite the content, including two with the name "collective intellectual property" in their titles. The collective intellectual property phrasing was resolved on the talk page in April. Buffs later tried to start the same discussion on intellectual property again, despite the content now being sourced. People in the previous discussion said they were sick of going in circles with him. So last night, he said he was taking their refusal to engage as "no objection" and therefore, consent.[48] This is an example of the tendentious editing that has been ongoing with him. If the IBAN is enacted, I think it is clear that he has already started trying to game the system in an effort to make sure the articles are the way he wants them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you? A self-appointed personal watchdog that hounds me at every turn? I don't need a critique of every edit of mine. Stop WP:FOLLOWING me! As for the rest of the comments you happily took out of context in order to malign me...please read what was actually written and not this atrocious "summary" from someone who has stated they want to block me even though they admit I've done nothing wrong.

• I did not call IBAN "a joke". I said the evenhandedness in this interaction is "a joke". Again, please read what was actually written, not this summary
• As for the two articles. There is no insult in either edit summary, just a detailed explanation. Again, please read what was actually written, not this summary
• As for each edit/summary, OA: there is no disagreement on the talk page that the comment and assessment are WP:OR; just an assertion without a WP:RS to back it up. The other was a quote where one word was changed (thereby altering the meaning) and attribution was not given; it was presented as a summary in violation of MOS:QUOTE (by definition, that's plagiarism...I don't even know who put it in there, nor am I attributing that action to any person). I altered that to include the full language of the quote of the source that even CV added; implying I'm being disruptive for adding something CV added...I'm at a loss for words. For CA, I explained the problem and asked for input over a month ago. It is literally impossible to reach a consensus when one "side" exhibits ownership of articles and refuses to discuss. I removed the weasel word "many" as the sources given do not state how many actually object. Likewise, he is correct that two articles include "collective intellectual property" in their headlines, but neglects to mention that ALL the given sources state that "collective intellectual property rights" are not recognized by anyone. They are advocating that such rights be granted. You cannot advocate for something to be changed and claim that's evidence that rights (that no one recognizes) doesn't justify a summary that CA is "a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures": no such recognized rights exist! As such it was removed per WP:RS and WP:V. Again, please read the actual sources + what was actually written, not MI's misleading summary.
• While the others have refrained from any substantial editing of the the contested articles in order to respect this process at AN...: well, that's just plain false: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

Buffs (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the diffs Buffs offers us, shall we? (Note that Golden Ring started this discussion on 16 July 2019.)

• "77" I reverted a user who put in POV language like "according to extreme positions" and deleted sources. I reverted to the stable version of the article - This is the only diff since the AN discussion has started.
• "78" an IP reverts Indigenous girl on July 15. Before this AN was posted.
• "79" IG reverts IP on July 15, before this AN proposal
• "80" I revert a source removal on July 13, the editor then apologizes on talk and the edit stands. This is two days before this AN thread.
• "81" July 10, six days before this thread, IG edits in line with consensus on talk page. This is all old news
• "82" ditto July 10
• "83" m I remove a dangling bracket- July 10
• "84" I hotlink a title, per talk page discussion, July 11. Five days before this AN discussion starts.

That's the "evidence" Buffs has. A wall of diffs that say nothing. None of this is substantial editing on the contested articles since this discussion began. This is typical of what we've dealt with from him since March - misrepresentations and bad-faith attempts at wikilawyering. Please also see what Mark Ironie posted about Buffs edits the other night, which are Buffs reverting to Buffs' preferred versions on the contested articles, complete with buckets of incivility at everyone here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Request this IBAN be extended to Mark Ironie as well

An IBAN seems all but assured now. If enacted, I'll abide by it, but I ask that Mark Ironie be added to the list as well. Like CV, he continues to inject himself into discussions, demonstrated more WP:FOLLOWING behavior, and intentionally misconstrue/introduce falsehoods in discussions of what I've said. See above. Buffs (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is patently false. Ironie has not recently edited any of the 8 articles listed by GoldenRing. He made only a short comment at this AN about you accusing IG, CV, and Ironie of misleading or false statements, a vote in the RfC at Talk:Order of the Arrow (well in line with the eventual consensus), and nothing else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Will a subhead help focus attention?

This was put into this thread above but let me see how simple I can make it. Indigenous girl (talk · contribs · count) has repeatedly asked Buffs (talk · contribs · count) since March to leave her alone, to not interact with her and stay off her talk page. She said clearly for Buffs to stop and consented to an IBAN here. Buffs said he did not support an IBAN then twice edited IG's talk page, here and here. This clearly falls under harassment policy and is a blocking offense. What more can IG do if Buffs will not accept boundaries on interaction with her? This is an example of Buffs behaviour right here, right now. This has been ongoing for months. No Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What you conveniently ignore to mention is that the second edit is Buffs removing their comment from IG's talk page and vowing to never post on your talk page again. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't tell you to leave me alone, and then use that as a basis to win a content dispute, or then continue to follow your edits and say that anything you do is harassment. If someone is harassing you then that should be brought before the community and adjudicated as such, or it should be brought privately to ArbCom, or it should go to T&S. GMG^talk 01:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

EIA often leaves stuff out, but it finds that IG is following Buffs edits to articles significantly more than Buffs is to IG.[57] Even in the rare case that IG has edited an article first, it is apparent that IG follows Buffs' edits. Look at, for example, Talk:Cultural appropriation. Within an hour of Buffs starting a thread about the article, IG shows up to engage. Oh, and that's in April, supposedly a month after she asked Buffs to leave her alone. I don't buy this "harassment" narrative. ... or it should go to T&S - Oh god no, please not again. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thought occurred to me to look at the overlap between CorbieVreccan and IG, since GMG mentions that they witnessed tag-teaming behaviour. 580[58]/853[59] (~68% of total) of IG's 853 edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Focusing on just mainspace, 205/382[60] (~54%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Talk space as well 171/184[61] (~93%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. In all three cases, most of those overlaps are recorded on articles where the "min time between edits" is less than 24 hours. Now this doesn't prove tag-teaming/meat puppetry in itself, but it is telling that the first random edit I pick to look at, I find this. IG's first ever edit to the DAP page is to support CV's proposal 12 minutes after they posted it. Coincidentally, also her first edit made in five months.[62] Mr rnddude (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

... or it should go to T&S - I second the motion that we should dismiss THAT idea (unless there's something going on I don't know about). Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, T&S has a broader job description than blocking a particular popular/unpopular enwiki admin. The last interaction I had with them involved a pedophile on Commons, and the one before that had to deal with a user several of us suspected was being paid to manipulate Wikimedia projects on behalf of a national government. GMG^talk 00:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: While it may be true that IG has repeatedly asked Buffs since March to leave her alone it is also true, as documented above, that IG has repeatedly followed Buffs to articles he is editing since March. What do you expect, that asking someone to stay away from you means you can drive onto their front lawn and force them to leave home? It's clear that IG has tried to frame this as Buffs hounding her; the reality is that IG follows Buffs around, gets into arguments where neither of them behave well, then complains about it. When IG said to El_C, "The guy is still following me" that was in fact the first time Buffs had ever followed her anywhere; in every other case, IG had followed Buffs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Save your time/effort. MI isn't interested. He's only interesting in stopping people with whom he disagrees politically. He has yet to provide constructive criticism. Buffs (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What is IBAN

I've read what I've seen. @GoldenRing: can you further explain what that entails? We might not need any more input if I've been misreading what you're advocating. I think I agree with at least 90% of it. Given that IG and CV already voiced support, we might be in agreement and we can stop this. Additionally, thank you for pointing out the hounding problems from IG. Buffs (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I believe the IBAN policy explains things clearly. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I agree. WP:IBAN sets out the terms of an interaction ban quite clearly. GoldenRing (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I tried to WP:AGF and announce edits in advance only to have IG jump in front of me in order to get me blocked (the effects of which are IG, CV, and MI bringing it up ad nauseum and mischaracterizing it despite evidence to the contrary), so with IG's persistent bugging, please bear with me if I'm not about to just AGF so readily

"undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" is exceptionally vague. Am I expected to analyze every edit on every page just to see if 2 other editors have ever edited it and, if so, if my edit will change something they wrote some time in the past 12 years? If that's the case, what we're looking at here is a de facto topic ban from ANYTHING related to Native Americans (even remotely) and a plethora of other articles/random articles. I've already been blocked for the "dastardly" act of reverting a WP:BLP violation, making innocuous edits, or doing what an admin suggested only to get blocked/banned. I'm a little wary of such an ill-defined application.

Likewise, I'd like at least a warning of some kind for CV and IG; hell, I'd support a 1 minute block just so it's on their record. I'm not looking to get them blocked for anything other than an insignificant amount of time. I generally don't do warnings; they are no more than an opinion. In hindsight, that was a mistake and I should have been giving warnings and asking others to warn them as well (since, apparently, that's allowed as evidence of wrongdoing). I won't make that mistake again. Buffs (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:A clearer definition would be "Don't touch any new edits since the IBAN went in place". If that's the case, we're fine and we're in agreement. An IBAN is not even necessary. I'll agree to all the terms listed under IBAN effective immediately right now and we can end this.

If I start working on something, it wouldn't be impossible for IG to jump in to make ANOTHER edit. Obviously there are inattentive admins who are only looking at the evidence presented to them rather than the whole picture. Then we start this whole drama again. WP:AGF is out the window on this one. I want terms to be crystal clear if I'm going to be facing people who are out to smear me using underhanded tactics. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: Changing things the other editor subject to an IBAN wrote a long time ago is something of a grey area; the rule is, if in doubt, don't do it. It's necessarily subjective and rather ill-defined, as it's perfectly possible to do a simple revert on someone else's edits from years ago if a page is not much edited, while it's also possible to cross another editor's path only a few days apart yet not be considered to be "interacting" if there have been many intervening edits. Generally speaking, yes, you need to be careful once you're subject to an IBAN to check if you're reverting something the other subject of the ban wrote, and if you're not sure, don't make the edit. Wikipedia doesn't depend on you alone. There are exceptions to most bans, but you'd better be very sure they obviously apply before you use them; in general, it's better to leave it to another editor (contact me or another admin by email if you think it's urgent). Regarding your statement that an IBAN is not even necessary: I disagree. An IBAN has two differences from what you suggest: Firstly, it is unquestionably enforceable and that seems important in this situation right now. Secondly, it affects all the parties in a way that is not up to them to interpret; you are not the only one who would be affected by this ban, and I think this is a situation where we (or at least I) want the restriction to be not subject to your (or the other parties') agreement. People who attempt to game IBANs are generally given short shrift and it's important to remember that this ban would cut both ways. It's good to know that you agree to the terms of the ban, though. GoldenRing (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Then, it's that simple. It's too grey for me to agree to. IG has proven she's willing to follow me and use underhanded tactics in order to get me blocked. IG, CV, and MI are also willing to twist the truth and distort facts. WP:AGF is just plain absent here and WP:IUC is the norm with two admins not only endorsing it, but leading the charge. MI even wants to enact a block even though he admits I've done nothing wrong. A third is apparently willing to simply enforce claims without considering all of the evidence. This is a kangaroo court.

...and I'm the one that ends up with blocks and bans. There's not a SINGLE warning for IG and CV, much less a block. I have zero faith that we won't end up back here because of that grey area. IG's complaints of persecution here are completely self-inflicted and it took this long for ANY admin to say, "Hang on sec...Buffs has a point here. He's been unmercilessly hounded." At this point, in an effort of balance, I think a block (or at least a warning!!!) is in order here for IG, MI, and CV's talk page from another admin.

Furthermore, why is there no call for a retraction of the inaccurate information above? I suppose anyone can just say anything they want. No one is bothering to check for accuracy. No one cares if wild accusations are thrown around. My name's being dragged through the mud with baseless accusations and no one is enforcing a retraction of these remarks. What the hell? Or are we just going to cluck our tongues? Tsk tsk.

This does NOTHING to fix the blatant problems that are present on these articles. One RFC on the OA page WAS resolved and, lo and behold/despite claims to the contrary, I stood by it. Another was resolved, but no one will close it (two people agreed with me, one took another side). Other posts have been sitting for over a month with no input. WP policies might have had merit when there were more editors, but without community involvement or Admins willing to hear people out, WP is shooting itself in the foot. It leaves ONLY people who are willing to put up with atrocious ownership of articles or forging alliances in order to push a political agenda.

Note that in EVERY instance where I was followed, CV and I were in a discussion already...WOW! IG shows up! I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you. Then CV claims consensus to silence dissent. GMG is correct. This isn't consensus. It's meatpuppetry.

Ultimately, an IBAN solves none of the problems with these articles and enables IG/CV/IM a way to further game the system to push an agenda. In the Order of the Arrow article, the "evidence" presented against the OA is a single protestor, an anonymous writer, and a professor who thinks that anyone dressing up as another is tantamount to attempting to silence an entire culture; it's pathetic. Additionally, remarks of doubt are added and OR introduced by an admin...and we have more silence. No one is addressing the actual problems. No one appears to be interested. Everyone is solely interested in everyone getting along with no conflict. Peace is NOT the absence of conflict. It's the presence of order. Right now, that's missing. People are just interested in completely neutral, tweet-sized discussions. If anyone has anything to say that changes the status quo, it's labeled "disruption" and the authors are smeared. WP:AGF? WP:CIVIL. What a joke. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'll abide by whatever the community lays down. but I oppose it solely because (mark my words) it'll be gamed by IG/CV/MI in order to block me. Buffs (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) Has anyone actually looked at that massive list of diffs Golden Ring posted in the original post here? All they prove is that Buffs continued to edit "Scouting in X State" articles after Indigenous girl. That's it. And the last diff: and Indigenous girl has stated that she was "following his lead" editing Scouting in Massachusetts (diff) is not even an edit by Indigenous girl, but is a comment by El C in an unrelated discussion. Mark Ironie (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: Thanks for the proofreading - I've fixed the "following his lead" diff (I got the oldid instead of the diffid). As for the "massive list of diffs", they demonstrate exactly what I said they do - that the only instances of Buffs "following" IG were made as part of a very long list of similar edits. Now, have you actually looked at the evidence that IG, despite asking Buffs to leave her along, nonetheless followed him around for months? GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Golden Ring, as to the many Scouting in the States diffs, which I really doubt people are looking at, the timeline clearly shows Indigenous girl was the first one to edit a Scouting in a state article: on 22:36, June 30, 2019, with a substantial edit to Scouting in Vermont. Buffs didn't start editing the Scouting in the states articles until after she did, at 22:45, July 1, 2019. I think it was clear he was trying to stake some kind of claim on them, with his rapid series of minor edits. After being called on this, when he kept posting his altered version of the timeline on his talk page, he kept leaving out her first edits. All the diffs for his edits to "states" articles show is that he went on that spree after her June 30 edits. This is what I've been trying to clarify all along. The other articles they've both edited are due to overlapping fields of interest - ie, that some of the Boy Scouts groups incorporate Native American symbology and activities, and some groups have been protested by Native American groups, or consulted with Native American groups. The BSA articles often have content about Native American cultures that needs better sourcing or correction of misinformation, and its from this that much of the conflicts have arisen. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me just fill some details of Buff's edits on 1 July 2019. After IG's edits to Scouting in Vermont on 30 June, Buff did 8 edits to state scouting articles in this exact order: Scouting in Arkansas, Scouting in Texas, Scouting in Oklahoma, Scouting in Vermont, Scouting in Hawaii (twice), Scouting in Vermont again, and finally Scouting in Utah.

Note Buffs didn't edit these in alphabetic order. Buffs' purpose was, indeed, to follow IG. While Buffs did find IG had left out an important two words in a quote, this was not the point. Immediately after, Buffs said "I'll be continuing auditing language that no longer applies tomorrow in other scouting articles if I have time (there's a lot of "Boy Scout" vs the more-appropriate "Scouts" lingering from the change to co-ed in February)." Then we get to the edit IG did to Scouting in Massachusetts which Buffs characterized as a set-up and she-jumped-in-front-of-my-truck description. Thus we come to "Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender." Thus we come to where fault has somehow, astonishingly, been pointed at IG rather than Buffs. There is something truly wrong going on here and it is not IG's actions. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:@Buffs: The very basis of GoldenRing's original post here, setting out to show it was Indigenous girl who was following Buffs or some equivalence, is inaccurate and unsupported by the diffs used. I think GoldenRing jumped too quickly into a complicated situation, made assumptions based on a very superficial understanding. GR really did not understand the issue was Buffs hounding and following Indigenous girl, that the crux was serious policy violations on Buffs' part. Buffs has attempted to silence Indigenous girl and continues to engage in efforts to drive her off WP. It has never been some simple "who followed who" to articles that could be resolved by assigning blame through editor interaction tools. That completely sidesteps the core issues involved over months.

|[User:Buffs|Buffs]] is one of the most tendentious editors I've ever seen. Here is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion from March, 2019. (Disclosure: I made one comment in it.) GreenMeansGo very significantly contributed to the discussion. It's long but a taste of how conflict is handled with Buffs. Please carefully check the diffs, links, policy citations, etc. in Buffs' comments/arguments and whether Buffs represents them accurately in his text. Of course, check Indigenous girl, CorbieVreccan, and other's links as well for comparison. Draw your own conclusions. This is one instance of many.

Note the progress of the discussion in this current AN thread. It started with GoldenRing reversing Buffs harassing and following Indigenous girl on-wiki. According to GR, now IG is following Buffs but without invoking the WP:HOUND policy, and GR asks for an IBAN on both Buffs and IG. As it has gone on, Buffs has become increasingly agitated about the IBAN and opposes it for himself, explicitly stating one or all of the others under IBAN will game the system to get him blocked. Now, CorbieV is to be included. Buffs wants to include me as well, not for the minor two comments I made back in March or for editing these articles (I have not) or for providing statements here on my observations but for violating hounding policy. Apparently, gathering diffs and evidence to post here is now considered "hounding". Buffs is very clear on these points: Everyone else is at serious fault here and Buffs is the victim. Buffs alone is upholding standards/policies of WP to high standards and wholly blameless in events.

Buffs has asserted that the reason CorbieVreccan has not been sanctioned for incivility is a special administrator favouritism and crony-ism at work; in short, The Cabal. Buffs thinks me posting about what I consider bad faith edits at this time to be hounding/stalking him rather than additional evidence for consideration here.

My reason for showing diffs from within this discussion is because they provide some of the clearest, easy to understand, and immediate examples of Buffs' deficits in policy interpretation and their application in other situations and discussion. I think Buffs believes he has an excellent grasp of WP policies and guidelines.

The WP:FOLLOWING policy is about harassment, about intimidation and silencing, not about people editing articles in shared fields of interest. Even a cursory glance at Indigenous girl's contribs show most of her work involves Native American and First Nation articles. This is one of her areas of expertise. CorbieVreccan also does substantial work in the same areas. Both were established in these fields before they encountered Buffs.

Also, as I noted above, with diffs, as this thread has been open, IG and CV have refrained from any substantial editing on the contested articles, and respected this process, while Buffs has decided to edit aggressively and scream at people here on AN.

It's my opinion that only Buffs deserves an IBAN, although possibly much more. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• The users involved here need to quit WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion and let the community review this for themselves. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose i-ban. I'm not really sure where to put this because this thread is a mess, but I guess this is the best place. I've primarily sided with Buffs in my comments here due to my belief that Buffs has not received a fair deal. This should not be mistaken as an indication that I hold Buffs completely blameless. I do believe that Buffs needs to adjust their tone and to avoid discussing the political motivations of other editors in the future. However, what alarms me is the fact that Buffs was blocked twice and received both a page-ban and an i-ban, both have which were later removed as inappropriate (but only after the page ban resulted in a block). Meanwhile, no sanctions at all have been applied to Corbie, IG, Mark, or Saxifrage. Perhaps those who have followed this affair across its various locations might think that I have been overly critical of those four editors, but please consider the following as a sampling of my concerns: in the 'Will a subhead...' section, Mark Ironie pointed out that Buffs had posted twice on IG's talk age after being asked not to do so. Yeah, two such posts seems worse than one, until you consider the second edit was a polite self-revert. It's possible that Mark did not intend to frame a good faith edit as a bad faith edit, but it's not very likely in light of his failure to even respond when called out directly by Mr rnddude. As for IG, Golden Ring has pointed to the problematic nature of following someone else around and then trying to get them in trouble for allegedly doing the same thing. As for Corbie (and IG again), please note the above summary from GMG, an editor whose judgment I have no reason to doubt. I think that GMG's words speak very loudly and should be given full attention. My objections to Saxifrage's conduct are stated in detail at the relevant thread below. In light of all this, it seems to me that some or all of these editors should consider themselves lucky to escape without sanctions. I'm not opposing this i-ban because I want to give them a break. I'm opposing because they have a numerical advantage over Buffs and I'm afraid the evidence suggests that they are not inclined to treat him fairly. Lepricavark (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• You can add smug, passive-aggressive insults to the case against admin CorbieVreccan. Maybe this whole mess needs to go to ArbCom. It's clear that none of the involved admins are taking concerns about their conduct seriously, and that's a problem. Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps a follow-up, feature-length documentary again made by The Cabal is in order. I suggest There Is No Cabal II - Duplication. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to close

This has just been archived without action. Could someone uninvolved please close it? If it's "no consensus" then so be it but I'd appreciate a close. GoldenRing (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And Buffs is back at it, reverting me, misrepresenting sources, misrepresenting talk page discussion, etc, etc, etc.. I am so sick of this. Again, requesting IBAN on Buffs, at the very least. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with GoldenRing: I really think this thread should be closed by an uninvolved admin. It needs a definitive close rather than just archiving. Otherwise this behaviour will continue and is already beginning per CorbieV above. I'm suspecting that the shadow of the Fram affair is casting a reluctant pall over this particular close because of the issues. Will some admin please close this, whatever the decision? Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Request review of close

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

---

Saxifrage appears to have supervoted a sanction into effect against a reasonable reading of consensus. In the above discussion, two admins, Swarm and GoldenRing (as proposer), and one uninvolved editor, GreenMeansGo, supported two-way IBANs between Buffs and CorbieVreccan and Buffs and Indigenousgirl. These were intended to handle three editors who have each individually demonstrated an inability to behave collegialy with the other, and in addition the issue of IG following Buffs while simultaneously demanding that he leave her alone. One involed admin, CorbieVreccan, !voted for one-way. There is also one illegible !vote, that of Mark Ironie, that they have indicated was meant to be taken as sarcasm and in favour of a one-way IBAN. Saxifrage closed the discussion in favour of a one-way IBAN on Buffs from CorbieVreccan and IndigenousGirl. This does not fit with consensus, if there is any to be found, wthat indicates that the problems are two-sided – Saxifrage even acknowledges that there is a consensus that two-sided following is happening, but then summarily ignores this as a non-issue. Really? Harassment is a non-issue? One-way IBANs are particularly problematic where issues are two-way because they open up a user to being hounded and harassed, and given that Saxifrage acknowledges a pattern of following, this close outcome becomes nonsensical. There is an additional matter, but it's not central to the review: Saxifrage, you have failed to do either of the mandatory tasks when implementing a sanction against an editor. You have not notified the sanctioned editor on their talk page of the imposed sanction, nor have you logged the sanction at ER – done by an uninvolved editor. As such, I am requesting that other editors and admins review both the close. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There is additional detail at User talk:Saxifrage#Can you please explain your rationale? and User talk:GoldenRing#Saxifrage's close. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst close I have ever seen. There was absolutely no consensus for a one-way iban. While Buffs has not behaved perfectly in this dispute, there is ample reason to believe that he has been railroaded on numerous occasions. It is disappointing that this was handled so unevenly (against Buffs) before it came to ANI, but to apply such an unfair close, plainly unsupported by consensus, adds insult to injury. This needs to be overturned and re-archived with no consensus. I suspect Corbie V. and Mark Ironie won't like that, but maybe it will help them to avoid derailing future threads with one wall of text after another (and Buffs is not innocent in this regard either). Also, in light of Mark Ironie's condescending treatment of Buffs at Saxifrage's talk page, it's time to start taking a closer look at Mark's behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I already contested the close. All things being equal, I agree with the two editors above and restate my original edit summary. ——SerialNumber54129 11:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC) To clarify, I also support Overturning the close, in case it needs putting in black and white. ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Too bad you got reverted. This type of rogue action (yes, this supervote is a rogue action) does nothing to improve the already poor perception of legacy admins, and I hope that when Saxifrage responds here he will be a little more humble and a little less dismissive than he was in his replies to Buffs. Lepricavark (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is painful, as I'm sure Saxifrage closed the discussion in good faith, and put a lot of work into it. And his omission of the technicalities (logging and placing a notice on Buff's page) isn't something that I would make a big deal of. It's not a crime to be unaware of these requirements, and they can easily be performed by someone else. But the close is unfortunately a classic supervote and does not correspond to the consensus of the discussion. That is a big deal, and means the close needs to be undone. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC).

  I did omit the technicalities — I was interrupted after finishing the close, and then was further interrupted by being called away from a real computer for a few days. I do regret that. I was just about to take care of that now that I'm back at a real keyboard, but I see the EDR change has been made, and in light of the review and Buffs being surely aware of the IBAN, I'll elide the notice at this time.

  Thanks for the assumption of good faith, it's deeply appreciated. The briefest summary of the summary was that I saw consensus for 1) applying a remedy (IBAN) to deal with the situation; consensus that 2) the status quo should not continue; but not a consensus for what for, except for the consensus that 3) Buffs regularly engages in overt and harmful hostility in content disputes, making them unresolvable except by the other party's exhaustion. Combining consensus for (1), (2), and (3) seemed reasonable. I welcome a review of the close, since more eyes make problems shallower, including resolving disputes like this. Given some of the contributions to the discussion, I wasn't surprised that it would need to escalate to another meta level of discussion. I somewhat expect that this will eventually reach ArbCom. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  When Buffs first approached you to request an explanation of your closure, he specifically asked for examples of instances in which he was uncivil. You provided no examples aside from the perceived hostility in his post on your page, which could hardly be cited as justification for a sanction that predated it. In the ensuing conversation, you advised Buffs that you didn't take "personalised guff" (none of which had been offered) and that you expected not to interact with him on the subject anymore. When GoldenRing registered his own surprise at your decision, you stated that you found that the argument for Buffs behaviour being egregiously hostile was overwhelming solid, and the facts were not contested by uninvolved commentors. If that's true, it really shouldn't be hard to provide examples that predate your soon-to-be-reversed sanction, should it? Yet you haven't done so. Buffs keeps asking 'when was I uncivil?' and you keep replying 'you were really uncivil!' Maybe this type of behavior was acceptable in your administrative heyday. It's not acceptable now. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am taken aback that the incivility is even in dispute, or that the failure to redocument what's already extensively documented when Buffs says "jump" is somehow more important to discuss than the incivility itself. What's "not hard" is not the same as what's reasonable. What's "not hard" can also be an effective strategy to waste the time of admins and the project as a whole, when it's deployed to avoid acknowledging the already well-documented behaviour. The only winning move for admins is to not play the game offered by offenders.

  If you want a simple example, if re-reading Buffs contributions to the discussion above and the diffs provided there is somehow insufficient as evidence, then I can give one example where not only was Buffs being given a last warning for incivility, his response was to launch into further incivility with accusations of partisanship and choosing sides. Not just one example though: Buffs regularly does this. Not just sometimes, but over and over again.

  If responding to sanctions for incivility with incivility were fine at Wikipedia, the community would be doomed. That cannot be how we handle egregiously incivil editors. The bar cannot be set so high that WP:CIVIL gets only lip service, and constant incivility-laden protests, constant demands to re-prove and re-quote what is already proved and quoted, become an effective way to be free to break a fundamental rule of the project. An editor cannot just constantly generate new threads of argument and then demand new responses, when they've already been responded to. That's especially damaging to entertain when they appear to treat every new uninvolved editor as a clean slate, offering a fresh opportunity to relitigate already demonstrated violations of WP:CIVIL.

  Regardless, providing proof to Buffs on demand is not the point here. The point is whether the contents of the so-far closed discussion contain the proof already, as that is what is referred to in the summary. Any failure to entertain Buffs requests for proof don't change the contents of the discussion nor my summary, both of which pre-date my refusal to entertain his unreasonable requests for fresh copy-pastes of existing documentation. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  It would appear that you do not understand what constitutes incivility, nor do you understand your responsibility to be accountable for your administrative actions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I second that. Furthermore, I don't see a violation of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility in that posting nor of WP:NPA that was accused.

  A warning or accusation of impropriety is not evidence of impropriety. What was labeled a "personal attack" by MI, was an assessment of behavior. Just like anyone else's assessment, it's no more uncivil than any other. For example, your assessment of my actions I find condescending and demeaning.

  Disagreement/dissent is not inherently uncivil. Buffs (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have to concur with the opinions above (especially @Lepricavark:'s remarks. I don't agree with the conclusions of those involved in the discussion, but I will abide by consensus...but I think it's clear that the closure was NOT consensus. Thanks to all who replied already. Buffs (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• For the record, I oppose an interaction ban at this time as I believe such an outcome would give an unfair advantage to a small group of editors seeking to impose their wishes, masqueraded as consensus, upon another user whom they have fought hard to silence. It seems clear that the discussion will eventually be reopened, and I'm somewhat surprised that it is still closed. @Buffs: When it is reopened, please keep your comments succinct and avoid the temptation for long walls of text. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you/noted. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Per Bishonen, this is a clear supervote. It bears no resemblance to the consensus of the discussion and is merely what the closer thought ought to happen. The closer has said in about as many words that they found no consensus and then implemented what they thought was a good solution. In as much as this represents a closure review, there is a clear need to overturn. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn - This is an egregious supervote, that has little connection to the actual discussion and consensus therein. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn Whether or not the close was good, enough editors have disagreed with it that the closer should self-revert and let someone uninvolved reclose. Such a self-revert should not be construed as an admission of error -- the closer should self-revert even if convinced that he was 100% right, simply to put this to bed and let everybody move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• As Saxifrage has not yet vacated their supervote, we need an uninvolved admin to act on the above consensus and overturn the close so that the community can decide what, if anything, to do about Buffs, IG, Corbie, and Mark... preferably without the involved editors derailing the discussion this time. Lepricavark (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• It seems Saxifrage has conveniently slipped back into semi-retirement. Could an uninvolved admin please action this? GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure

An RfC[63] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [64] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [65], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [66], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [67] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [68] [69] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [70]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [71] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[72]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [73] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your altering of the header[74] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[75], Guardian[76], NY Mag[77], Vox[78], and Intercept[79]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[80] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[81]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[82]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project

Hello all,

I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.

Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.

The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, they're really talking about retiring editing by IP addresses. Never thought I'd see that happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not really what it's about. You'll get a different bunch of random strings for a username instead of an IP address. Think "IP addresses without the ability to effectively block them". Talk page is over there... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • That's not really what it's about. Seems to me it's exactly what it's about. Using privacy as a fig leaf, we're all but being told that we'll no longer see IP addresses for people editing anonymously. Instead there'll probably be the equivalent of an automatic checkuser every single time someone edits anonymously (e.g., it'll look for a cookie as well) and then the edits will get assigned to some random string of characters. I can see no reasonable justification for this absolute waste of money. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The talk page is on meta. Please give your input there. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

      Mendaliv, Retiring editing by IP addresses presumably means that unregistered editors are no longer allowed to edit. As that is not what is contemplated, I'd say it is not "exactly what it's about". Only in a hyper-technical can can we say that if non registered editors can still edit but their IP address will not be shown - then we won't have editing by IP addresses. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I went to comment, but after seeing that negative assessments were castigated as "not welcome here", I deleted my comment. The whole idea is stupid, and that you can't actually say that it is stupid on the talk page is even more stupid. I thought that my opinion of the WMF couldn't get any lower, but I was wrong -- what a group of bozos who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to edit. We need a wholesale makeover of the WMF to people who understand what it's like in the trenches. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I had that problem on meta some years ago and I don't think I've been back. It is a backslapper's echo chamber - (P.A removed ). - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's why I don't plan on going over there to comment on this "idea". I think we might need to adjourn to VP to get an RfC declaring the community's opposition to this latest usurpation of our local governance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• If the anti-vandalism (and anti-COI, etc…) tools are improved and automated enough, such that administrators are no longer needed, then this could be a good idea. Step 2 would be improving and automating the editing tools, such that editors are no longer needed. Κσυπ Cyp   05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• If you liked WP:FRAM, you'll love this. This has all the hallmarks of a WMF sham consultation - where the outcome has already been predetermined, dissent or being told "that's worse than useless" (which is what the proposal is) is not tolerated and the choice of a venue such that the out of touch WMF snowflakes get the feedback that they want to hear, not the feedback that they need to hear. If this garbage hits this project, the instigators should all be community banned - we regularly ban volunteer editors who do a lot less damage to the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• I encourage Beyond My Ken to go back to that page. I also encourage Mendaliv and Sitush to go to that page as well, as I did. Calmly, and using persuasive arguments based on logic and reason, explain why this is a bad idea, and propose alternative solutions. That would be a great service. Calling it "stupid" there and venting here is of very little value. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen, I would -- and I believe I am capable of mounting a cogent argument -- if I had any reason at all to believe that the proposers of the project are open not to suggestions for tweaking it, but listening to the reasons to completely abandon it. I do not think that is the case, it is much too connected to the (mistaken) ideological heart of the WMF, that it must allow anonymous editing. The whole idea flows from that preconception, and if they're not willing to abandon IP editing in the face of the evidence that it has done almost immeasurable harm to their projects, then I see no hope that they would listen to any argument to dump this god-forsaken idea. No, I'm afraid it will have to be someone less cynical then myself who makes that argument, I see the whole thing as a fait accompli, and their interest in criticism as purely superficial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, this. You can see it by reading the "impact report". The need for this is presumed from the outset and all the counterarguments are presumed to be the equivalent of "old men whining about the good old days". I'm not going to demean myself by wasting my time on people like that, and I encourage you all to do something more productive with your time than more failed attempts to "work within the system". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK apparently doesn't apply there. That is a real shame. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I truly believe that the two of you are failing for some reason to take a very simple step to make our opposition crystal clear. But I respect your personal autonomy and so instead, I encourage anyone else reading this thread to go to that page and speak out on behalf of the English Wikipedia editors who fight 24/7/365 against vandalism, trolling, defamation and disinformation. This is really important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, it would be good to hide IP addresses given the amount of personal information they disclose, which is then kept forever in article histories which can be viewed by anybody (this often includes fairly precise information about where the editor lives, as well as information about who their employer is if they edited from work, etc). The way in which this is done needs to be optimised to support admins though. I'd suggest that people engage with the WMF's consultation process to point this out: the project is at a very early stage, and it looks like all options are on the table. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• None of which would be a problem if they were simply required to make an account. A supremely easy solution - and one that's not "on the table" because the WMF rejects it unilaterally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. I've said so in the discussion at Meta and will do so when I'm contacted for follow-up consultations in response to signing up for them. Requiring registered accounts seems to be the best, as well as the simplest, solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• That solution is currently disallowed by the meta:Founding principles which are just as important, and would require a very broad consensus to overturn. And the practical consequences are uncertain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, they'd have to change their principles... so? The practical consequences are obvious, and the benefit to the encyclopedia would be immediate. Instead, they choose to bend over backwards with their heads between their legs to keep something that the real world has outgrown many years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Instead of trying to go to all this effort to try and hide IPs .... wouldn't it not be more sensible and more quicker just to do away with IP editing altogether ? ....Yup it goes against their Founding_principles but still IMHO IP editing is long outdated and no longer serves a purpose it once used to serve. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• The WMF may see your lips moving, but they're not going to hear what you say. They've been deaf to the obvious for a long, long time now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• You can already see it on the meta talk page. Aside from trying to answer straightforward questions, the WMF staffers are only engaging with with people offering ideas on how to implement this project - they are ignoring people saying not to do it. WMF is giving us the illusion of choice. They'll accept our input on how to mask IPs and how to design new vandalism-fighting tools, but they've already decided that we are getting these features whether we want them or not. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• My hope is that they are committed to either getting this right or dumping it, though I suppose the WMF's history doesn't back me up on this. From my impression, they are going to work on this up to a point - that point being a model for increasing anonymous user privacy and improving anti-abuse tools - and if at that point the solution appears non-viable then they won't do it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Has the WMF backed away from a WMF originated idea following substantial negative feedback without committing development resources before? But yes, it is becoming increasingly clear that this project is infeasible. MER-C 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• There have been a few times when the WMF has backed away from one of their ideas because it turned out to be infeasible, such as user merging. But I'm not sure if they ever have primarily due to negative feedback. That said, I also do see some value in what they are trying to do -- Tim Starling's comment identifies some limitations to the status quo that might be fix-able as part of this project. I'm curious to see what they end up proposing as a more operationalized solution. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well we may need a policy on EN:Wikipedia on what to do if it gets implemented. I would suggest that editing from a masked IP address be prohibited by policy here. But that IP editors who disclose their IP address be permitted. Otherwise it will be similar to editing though open proxies. It should be blockable via an edit filter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Do you really think that the WMF would allow us to override them like that? I doubt it, and we'd have another FRAMGATE on our hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• There have been similar situations where brinksmanship on the part of the community has forced them to back down a little (i.e., forced a compromise). Though in practice the Foundation has just slowly gotten its way. I don’t think it’s a valueless exercise insofar as the continued disrespect of the community by the Foundation just adds to the public record of their misdeeds and hopefully can be harnessed to impact their donation streams. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Switching to logged-in only editing would be good for privacy and for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

VPN editing

It gets worse. This is only one aspect of the latest We Make Failures "strategy" "plan":

m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Community Health/Recommendations/Safety
> Supporting anonymizing technologies like TOR, VPNs for the users that would require the support.
(The next line is the proposal above.) Are the WMF seriously considering force-repealing WP:No open proxies? Who the hell is responsible for this stupidity? MER-C 14:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's probably along the lines of "provide support for editors in countries like China and Turkey". --Izno (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

They have not argued why IP block exempt isn't sufficient. And how does whoever administrating this tell between genuine editors in Turkey and socially engineering LTAs? MER-C 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

MER-C, I think machine learning tools could be used for that. Nevertheless, open proxies ban should stay in place, and checkusers should still be able to see IPs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on that aspect. ML/AI is not a silver bullet, especially in adversarial environments (e.g. algorithmic trading, cybersecurity). Like I said earlier, We Make Failures engineering needs to demonstrate competency in ordinary anti-abuse tools before they move on to one of the hardest aspects of data science. MER-C 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if WMF has technical expertise but it's not that hard (relatively) to create a learning program that can analyse patterns. Should be far better than the old CU tool. Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: General sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics

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

---

The administrator noticeboards have seen a seemingly endless stream of discussions related to conflicts in post-revolutionary Iran, and more specifically, on conflicts between the current government and entities challenging it. Examples include the following; AN, July 2019, ANEW, June 2019, ANI, May 2019, ANI, March 2019, ANI, February 2019, ANEW, November 2018, ANI, September 2018, ANI, August 2018, ANEW, January 2018, ANEW, January 2018, and ANI, November 2017. As a point of interest, the conflicts in this topic are not new; see this discussion from September 2015, for instance. There have also been a series of caustic arguments on various talk pages; see, for instance, the archives at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. These discussions have tended to become bogged down as a result of mudslinging between involved parties: attempts by uninvolved users to intervene are few and far between.

As a result, very few sanctions have been issued, and disruptive behavior continues unabated. The one exception is that participants at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran were persuaded by El_C to accept the terms of WP:GS; in my opinion, that is too small a set of editors, and too restricted a locus. To curtail further disruption, I believe it is now necessary for admins to be able to issue sanctions, including topic-bans, without extended noticeboard discussions. I am asking for community authorized general sanctions, rather that ARBCOM-authorized discretionary sanctions, because I think the evidence for disruption is clear enough that the community can act on this immediately, and because ARBCOM is a little busy at the moment, and so filing a full case request would be doing the community a disservice.

I have discussed this previously with El_C, who is one of few admins to have issues sanctions or warnings in this area outside of ANEW, and El_C agrees with me about the necessity for such sanctions. @Dlohcierekim, EdJohnston, Drmies, Black Kite, Nyttend, and Oshwah:, you have also participated in some of these discussions as admins; your thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) @Drmies, Oshwah, EdJohnston, and JzG: Apologies for the bother; I've amended the proposal to post-1978 politics, following a discussion with Nyttend and El_C below; I doubt it makes a difference to you, but procedurally, I think I ought to let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• I support--I think it's worth a try. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that this is an action that's necessary in order to assure that an acceptable and collaborative editing environment is maintained consistently throughout this topic area. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support – This sanction, if approved, could work like WP:GS/SCW which I think are reasonably successful in keeping the topic of the Syrian Civil War under control. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support — To reiterate, I think agreement to apply the specific GS to People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which suffered from chronic edit warring, has proven to be quite successful. Slowly but surely progress is being made, whereas edit warring is now approaching zero (note that I did try to suggest applying the same thing to Fascism in Europe and did not even get a response from participants — so, you win some, you lose some). At any event, Vanamonde93's proposal to extend GS to other post-1979 Iranian politics articles, I am confident, would aid editors, article quality, and reducing conflict on the project overall. El_C 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question Why post-1979? Is the revolution itself free from these disputes? If this area needs general sanctions, I would guess that it should be post-1978, unless you believe that items specifically from 1979 aren't being disrupted. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: I don't think there's a political topic free of disruption on Wikipedia. I was trying to draw a line between a topic that has egregious localized disruption, and other related articles that merely have pedestrian levels of bad behavior. So far as I can tell, the conflicts on Wikipedia that prompted me to propose this stem from real-life conflicts between the current theocratic government of Iran and its opponents. As such, I haven't seen the same conflicts spill over into the revolution itself, yet. I'm not necessarily opposed to a broader regime of general sanctions; but I think that if a line must be drawn, it must be drawn at 1979 or 1953 (or 1905, when the constitutional revolution occurred); and it has been my impression that the community favors narrower areas of broad admin discretion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, if we're drawing a line at the Islamic Revolution, that's perfectly fine, but the revolution happened in 1979, and your proposal is post-1979, i.e. beginning in 1980. For example, the proposal doesn't cover the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis or any of the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. That's the reason I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Nyttend. The revolution should be encompassed as well, since a lot of the disputes are rooted in it. El_C 00:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend and El C: Okay, fair enough. I'll amend it to "1978", as that is more concise that trying to spell out post-revolution, and ping the others. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for amending, Vanamonde93. Looks good. El_C 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support for sure. In fact I'd cover anything where the troll of all trolls is involved - North Korea, China, US trade deficit, and so many more, but this one is obvious and long-standing. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support – per nom – Levivich 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If further evidence were required that this is getting out of hand, there's these two conversations in the last week. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue

This is a request for advice, not necessarily a request for administrator intervention. I think that a couple of editors have identified a real problem on the pages about current US presidential candidates, but I don't have a clue as to how to address the problem they describe. Thus I am asking for advice on what to do, if anything.

At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again I saw this comment from Masem:

"We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting."[83]

Then Levivich added this:

" I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area."[84]

I happened to notice the problem at the Tulsi Gabbard page (Giving undue WP:WEIGHT to certain negative opinions published in obscure sources) and I am dealing with that issue in the usual way, but what of the larger problem that Masem and Levivich describe? Where would I even start if I wanted to make things better? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a sea change needed across all of Wikipedia. I am not going to reiterate my long-winded stance on the lack of NOT#NEWS enforcement particularly in the AP2 topic area (and not limited to that), but needless to say, we need editors to think about what material is being report "right this second" and how much of that material is going to be valuable in 5-10 years, and how much of that is just the fact news stations have 24/7 hours of broadcast time they have to fill. Understanding the difference between something like the reactions to the latest shootings in the US, versus a Tweet sent out by a presidential candidate. Because we have let NOT#NEWS weaken, we get these articles that are tons of proseline, filling in every possible news story that the topic is in, which is not what we should be doing. But its hard to force a policy on this, we need a sea change in how editors see the news and write about it, and to exactly that point, I don't know how to push that even more beyond stressing the need for "encyclopedic" writing, not "newspaper" writing. --Masem (t) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think one fairly simple stopgap measure (for the bigger elections) would be to spin off "political positions" and "20xx campaign" from the person's BLP. Most of the motivation for the BLP-stuffing I've seen is the desire to affect the opinions of those who google the person once and idly read their BLP once. In 2016 I suggested that all 4 candidates should have their political positions page separated from their BLP to lessen the attraction of posting the week's smear to each candidate's BLP (this courtesy was afforded to 3 of the 4 main candidates). The logic is this: since the political positions page and 20xx campaign page aren't the top google responses... most who want to spin google will lose interest. BLPs could be full protected / flagged revisions / etc. As for the wider question about news, I'm not so sure. It was interesting to follow various social movements / events (DAPL, overthrow of le pouvoir in Algeria, Sudan, YVM, Western Libya Offensive etc.) and I'm not sure these pages have done so much damage to the encyclopedia as what is being done on BLP in AmPol. The difference may be -- in part -- the media being cited, I suppose, and the goal of informing rather than persuading. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't fix the problem. Those spinouts would remain BLP pages and will still suffer the same problem. It's sweeping the issue under the rug. Yes, I do think that Google's draw to Wikipedia may change if those are spun out, but that's not really feeding the issue as most of the problems seem to come from semi to readily experienced editors. --Masem (t) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. I have noticed that those who hurry to oppose spinning off BLP pages are those who help curate negative information on those BLP... some evidence: (Gabbard, Stein). Theoretically at least, they would be less tempted to do so if their voices weren't so easily multiplied by google. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem goes well beyond just presidential candidates. WP:NOTNEWS is very frequently ignored when it comes to WP:BLP issues in general. I think a revision to WP:GNG to identify that coverage in reliable sources does not automatically confer notability for information regarding BLPs might help. That and perhaps giving WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT a bit more assertive language concerning notability and routine news coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ETA - I agree with Masem entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is about WP:Summary style. Writing in summary style requires writing in Wikivoice and that requires consensus, which requires collaboration. By contrast, writing in WP:QUOTEFARMs allows an editor to take a quote from a particular WP:RS (especially a recognized RS, like a green one from WP:RSP) and then "defend" it to the death, arguing that it must be included because it's a verbatim quote from a recognized RS. So we end up with alternating quotes from RSes instead of summary prose in WikiVoice... and battleground behavior on the talk page instead of collaborative editing. Some thoughts on solutions:

1. Further deprecate quote farms, perhaps just in BLPs or BLPs in DS areas (BLPs are a DS area, but I mean like AP2 BLPs, PIA BLPs, etc.), perhaps just for mainstream news sources. Or maybe for recent events articles? Something like, "quotes from mainstream news sources are strongly discouraged" maybe added to WP:MOS? This will force editors towards collaborating to come up with consensus language in Wikivoice rather than sparring with RS quotes.
2. Write a WP:Summary style specifically for BLPs or political BLPs. WP:BLPSUMMARY? Or maybe MOS:POLBLP?
3. Do we have a "model article" for politician BLPs? Not every politician BLP can be based on FA political BLPs like US presidents. But what does an "ideal" article for, say, a first-term national legislator, look like? How much detail? How much about their personal life? Their political positions? Their controversies?
4. One of the aspects of this problem is our poor existing mechanisms for content dispute resolution. For example, say Guy and I want to include Quote A, and Masem and Sashi are opposed to it or want to include a countervailing Quote B. The four of us can go around forever and never reach a consensus (that an uninvolved editor will close), and too often it comes down to one side dragging the other to a noticeboard over a conduct complaint (alleging WP:DE, WP:TE, etc.). If the four of us write walls of text, other editors won't help at DRN or by closing our RfC (or worse, we get a bad close, or an admin protects the wrong version, etc.). If an editor sees a poorly-written article that violates NOTNEWS, but there are a group of editors WP:OWNing the article, we don't really have a way to address that. Someone was recently writing about binding content dispute resolution–I think it was Isaacl? (Apologies if I'm mistaken.) Maybe pilot that (or a return of mediation?) in the area of political BLPs? – Levivich 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have written recently on binding content dispute resolution, and plan to release a proposal for discussion. Although I'm not optimistic that consensus can be achieved at this time to mandate such a process, perhaps there may be cases where the interested parties would voluntarily agree to it. (The "binding" part, though, would be hard to enforce without a larger consensus in place.) isaacl (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made a very good observation about quote-farming Levivich. I'll admit I have no idea if there's an AmPol2 project page where such modifications to the MOS and examples of model BLPs could be discussed. I did notice there were some comments made on the H R Clinton FA (BLP) recently by the principal author. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A few more points:

First, in general, adding material to a PROSELINE approach is often easiest for newer editors. Find where the event happened in a list of dates, throw that event and source in there. End of store. So we get articles that reflect dates of announcements of planned events, or focusing too much on social media announcements, or the like. Filling out timelines is alluring. Same if you have another type of structure that is easy to organize and add too. (evidenced by "Reactions" sections of every world gov't to a mass death event; and the fact that if you leave an empty line in an infobox template, editors will want to fill that in with something). So part of the problem is natural tendencies of the editors to fill in as much as they can. But that's only part of the reason, and not something easy to fix.

Second, I would argue an additional consideration that I have seen, going back to the Gamergate situation, though I think the behavior I described was starting before then.

As the Gamergate situation outside en.wiki started to ramp up, we get media that was clearly critical of those calling themselves part of Gamergate. Because of "verifyability, not truth", our article reflected that. We got wave after wave of brigading IPs and new editors trying to force the minor/fringe viewpoints of Gamergate, which ultimately led to the 300/50 page protection because of that disruption.

However, I think emboldened by fighting those editors, existing editors on WP started thinking that to fight fire with fire, more emphasis on whatever the reliable sources published was necessary. Technically all within policy, but this, to a degree, meant than anytime a report dropped about GG, it needed to go up onto the article to assure that non-RS could be used to counter it. This in turn would often lead to any criticism of notable individuals tied to GG to be included appropriately - again, technically within BLP policy.

So now we're in a situation where we have one of the most hated Presidents in power, the media on edge in trying to report as much negative material about him, his ideas, and people that tend to share these ideas. Add in elements like the alt/far right, white nationality/supremancy, etc., and there is a LOT of media effort going to characters these people and groups as "bad" as far as they can do within ethical journalism. This leaves any material supportive of those groups in the minority (but which also tend to be FRINGE views). We end up documenting still under "verifyability, not truth", reflecting the media's take on the situation which frequently omits the views from the other side of the aisle. So just like at GG, we have new IPs and editors trying to insert the counter-views, which experience editors review, and bolster the media coverage by insert every mention of the topic in the news. This then extends to those that are seen favorably in the media's eyes as well. It has become this war of attrition as to document every ounce of media coverage that indirectly helps extend the media's general dislike for certain people and groups.

Now, I do not think any experienced editor is doing this on purpose or maliciously. I think its a pattern that developed that seemed natural and the right way to fight back against disinformation, all within policy. And because this has become popular in political circles, it has spread to other areas as well. I can fully understand editing this way feels right, as well as doing as much as WP can do without actively engaging in righting great wrongs. But, in the end, it has created this pattern that does ultimately run aground against NOT#NEWS - editors are writing for the now, not for 5-10-20 years down the road. There are other ways to fight disinformation attempts that still stick to policy and without weakening our articles on controversial figures, and still staying current on factual information. But we need editors to recognize this pattern, how it came about, and how to get out of it. There is no easy immediate solution, and one that I don't think can be implemented by establishing a new policy or guideline, but just reworking how some policies and guidelines are meant to interact. --Masem (t) 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment, soibangla, please read and take this discussion to heart. A number of your edits including these [[85]], [[86]] are the sort of thing that is under discussion here. This [[87]] isn't something to be proud of. Springee (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, pinging me here is inappropriate. You got a gripe with me, take to my Talk page. Then again, don't bother. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me offer a contrarian view. Let's start with policy. WP:NOTNEWS begins by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Point 1 on "Original reporting" says that editors cannot engage in original reporting. I am unaware that any active editor engages in original reporting, so that is not an issue in my opinion. For example, I attended a local political event on Sunday where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke frankly about the political implications of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I added no text about those speeches to Wikipedia because I am not a reporter, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I do not believe that any reporters were present. I did, however, upload a portrait photo I took of Newsom to Wikimedia Commons. I see no ongoing problem of Wikipedia editors trying to add their own original reporting, and if it does occur, it can be dealt with promptly and decisively. Point 1 closes by saying "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."

Point 2 on "News reporting" wisely chides us not to include "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" because that "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Accurately and neutrally summarizing how reliable sources characterize the political positions of notable politicians cannot possibly fall under this language. The policy language in this section explicitly does not exclude "including information on recent developments".

Point 3 on "Who's who" basically applies to WP:BLP1E which is not relevant to biographies of clearly notable politicians.

Point 4 on "Diary days" says we should not list all the ongoing events of a celebrity's day. I do not see a lot of content saying, "On February 30, candidate A flew to metropolitan area B where they spoke to farmers in rural community C, soccer moms in suburban town D and ethnic communities in big city E." Is that a problem? I do not think so. Any editor should revert that type of content on policy grounds if they see it.

None of the things derided here as violations of NOTNEWS are genuine violations of that actual policy language. Instead, they are things that a few editors here do not like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia's Main page has a prominent section called "In the news" that always features half a dozen or so current news articles of worldwide importance. Another fact is that 99% percent of Wikipedia articles about historic events of the last 18 years started out as summaries of newspaper coverage, and evolved over time into excllellent articles through the normal editing process. Another fact is that post 1932 American politics is covered under robust discretionary sanctions that give administrators heightened unilateral powers to deal with disruption and aggressive POV pushing in this broad topic area. The great weakness of the NOTNEWS policy language is that it recommends Wikinews as an alternative. Wikinews is a moribund project rated #59,184 in website popularity. Take a look at their article about the El Paso shootings, which is amateurish crap compared to the excellent and rapidly evolving Wikipedia article. Currently #3 in their news feed is "Wikinews attends Texas Haunters Convention", an article so bad that it defies description. So, sending editors interested in recent historic developments off to Wikinews is fit only for Alice in Wonderland. It's cray-cray.

WP:QUOTEFARM is a link to an essay that begins by saying "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Of course, quotes can be overused but editors cannot rely on the QUOTEFARM essay for advocating radical reduction of quotes because it is not a policy or a guideline, and says no such thing.

All that stuff about Gamergate is really just an argument that we should abandon our core content policies that call for neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say, and instead let fringe, extremist figures spout their vile advocacy on Wikipedia in some misguided sense of "fairness". The day that happens is the day I resign from Wikipedia.

Instead of radically counterproductive measures, what we really ought to do is rely on the normal editing process, and our core content policies and widely accepted guidelines. That is what has made Wikipedia (despite its flaws) the #5 website in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I actual disagree: coverage of a running candidate's political positions is "routine coverage" from the news, presuming it doesn't cause any further controversy. Or at least the manner of how we get one aspect of the position from one source, another aspect from another source, etc. While it is not wrong to build up a politician's positions this way, it's not writing from the encyclopedia long-term view. We want editors to look more at summary works that better encapsulate all elements of the positions than trying to piecepart from disparate sources. NOT#NEWS discourages the latter by nature of what today is routine reporting, given how many news channels there are running 24/7 coverage, compared to when NOT#NEWS was developed. --Masem (t) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To further add, this is nothing about trying to push fringe views, but instead getting editors to wait for better summarizing reliable sources to cover more subjective elements than trying to stay that current; this further removes the likelihood that FRINGE sourcing would be used if we are basing coverage on more retrospective articles than "written this moment" ones. This is not about the factors at work behind GG but only using the editing patterns from experienced editors in the GG case as an early example of this type of problem. This is happening, regardless if GG happened or not. --Masem (t) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A possible solution is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My views:

1. (1) It is very rare that recent reporting gets added to articles and the reporting is shown to be wrong. When it does happen, it's usually sources of marginal reliability such as Fox News (the RS status of which some editors above defend even though it has a record of fabricated stories and even though peer-reviewed publications say it is unreliable on certain issues) and Newsweek (which maybe once was a RS but should not be one anymore). So the argument that RS get things wrong and we should therefore adopt a policy of an arbitrary waiting period is weak.
2. (2) Most of the content that gets challenged on NotNews grounds is content that does in fact have long-term encyclopedic value. Opinions that something does not have long-term encyclopedic value are arbitrary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases that I've witnessed just seem to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. A recent example of this was a prominent senior White House official appearing on a national talk show and telling lies about the health care policies of the Trump administration - it was removed on NotNews grounds (despite extensive RS coverage) but then on a RfC there is unanimous support for its inclusion. Masem may think it's irrelevant that gubernatorial candidate X intends to kick Y thousand people off of Medicaid when he gets into office, but I personally disagree. Simply relying on RS coverage and talk page dispute resolution ensures that agreement is found on what is due weight and what violates NotNews.
3. (3) It is far easier to comprehensively cover an issue in an encyclopedic way when the topic is fresh and where all the sources are easily accessible. As someone who edits both on issues that happen now and which happened 10+ years ago, it is incredibly hard to add encyclopedic text to events that occurred years ago. The way to cover an event in a comprehensive and neutral manner is to write it up with contemporaneous sources, and then tweak in the years that follow if comprehensive works appear (usually these works do not rebut contemporaneous reporting).
4. (4) There's a bizarre distrust in the media in the comments above. I don't know to what extent these editors are familiar with the work of historians and social scientists (or non-cable news media for that matter), but publications in these fields are replete with contemporaneous reporting by the very same news outlets that the editors above treat as lesser sources of dubious quality. They also reflect an unwarranted disdain for journalism, a field comprised of people working under horrid job security and little pay, yet who do priceless work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 I would address as the fact that when you have 24/7 news coverage, it looks like we can stuff a lot of material into current event articles, but in actually that doesn't help in the long run for these stories, and it is better to write these from a summary standpoint, after the dust has settled and we can separate better fact from opinion and speculation. For example, Watergate scandal is one of the US's biggest political gaffes, and it was heavily covered by the media, but at that time, the media was not 24/7 - you had your morning paper, your morning and evening news, radio news updates, and maybe a special run. Because of this, the coverage is much more focused on actual events rather than speculation and opinion. The focus today on what any talking head says in an article or television news is far too displaced because we don't know the context if that commentary is going to be relevant or not when the event is over. I do appreciate the argument that older events, even with Google and archive.org, can be more difficult to write for because those sources become harder to find, but we should be trying to focus on how those events were covered years after they happened, rather than at the time. And if you are really wanting to document the news in real time, that is what Wikinews is for. We can then incorporate material in a more encyclopedic fashion from the Wikinews articles once we know how best to present the situation.

4 is not about distrust of the news, but simply its bias. Doesn't mean they are any less reliable, but they are going to be overly focused on some things and less focused on others, where if we were talking a truely neutral format there would be more "equal time" to a degree. That lobsided focus does influence our articles because of UNDUE and "verifyability, not truth" if we are using the immediate news reports as our basis. If we wait for the dust to settle and use more summarizing sources, that lobsided-ness tends to go away or shows why it was justified. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think your rebuttal to 1,2,3 reflects a misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being added to political articles. No one is citing cable news segments, and I certainly do not add speculation and opinion (unless the opinions are written text authored by recognized experts) to articles. If such content is added, it usually gets removed immediately and uncontroversially. And the suggestion that we wait years for the birdseyeview historical assessment is impractical, because there are not going to be multiple high-quality peer-reviewed books on every subject, and not every peer-reviewed history book is written in a way that makes it easy to add relevant text to Wikipedia. Also, while I do add lots of peer-reviewed content and I would also prioritize a study over a contemporary news report, there are not many Wikipedia editors with easy access to gated journals and books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You may take care, but 90% of most arguments I see pop up at AN/ANI/AE related to AP2 is due to how current commentary from any old person is being included into an article, so there is a significant segment of editors that do not. No, we don't have to wait years, but we should wait for a few months to try to figure out what are the appropriate high points that 5-10 years down the road will be most important. I would actually argue that trying to figure out what is most important around a controversial situation as it is happened is approaching the "original journalism" aspect as it is assigning perceived importance to information before secondary sources have a chance to filter it. Now, there's a very grey line here because we also do the same on breaking disasters, and, myself in video games, writing about on the spot updates to works and the like. But I think in comparison, with these type of events, we know what is generally going to end up in these articles (For a disaster, when and where, what happened, how many died, for example) so we can recognize what is worthwhile information from past experience. But in political events, for one, that's generally impossible to know. Maybe a comment from a regular expect on the matter would be fine, but again, its generally the commentary from any random talking head that gets added. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I also completely reject that the media is biased against Trump or conservatives, if that's what's being suggested (something you mentioned earlier). If anything, I think the media unduly tiptoes around bigotry, falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and is afraid to call things as they are. As a result, by following RS, we are actually being overly careful. That's for example why I was forced to advocate that we refer to Steve King's racist rhetoric as "racially charged rhetoric", because that's how RS portrayed it one point in time (the RS changed its description of him as become more explicitly racist) rather than calling it "racist rhetoric". Also, of the peer-reviewed publications that have been published about political events in the last 5 years, they typically describe things far more bluntly than the purportedly anti-Trump media does, which suggests that media RS are being overly careful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Not that the media are being gov't watchdogs, they are doing that job appropriately, but they are doing it in a manner that I would say with ridicule and contempt to a point of trying to convince the public of their viewpoints. The media's job is not to try to sway the public but to inform them - unfortunately, this is the new status quo with "opinionated journalism" as adopted by sites like the AP. Now, we're not talking as bad as FOX here in terms of their advocacy, but they are advocating in addition to reporting, and we have to be wary of using the on-the-spot advocacy in en.wiki. The less we focus on trying to write from the breaking news and more from the long-term picture, the better off we are to avoid injecting media's opinions on the matters. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I am bewildered that you continue to recommend Wikinews, which is an abysmal failure. My time is too valuable to me to spend more than five minutes every six months looking at that trash heap, if only to verify for myself again how bad it truly is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been here for years and wasn't even aware it was a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it was established by the WMF to be for more "news reporting" than "encyclopedia". WMF hasn't turned it off so it remains a viable project. The problem is chicken-or-egg - we need more editors to use it so that it gets more attention so that more editors use it, etc. The failure of Wikinews does not mean its functions should be done by en.wiki. --Masem (t) 17:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I submit that "viable" is not defined as " WMF hasn't turned it off". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A simple change (which will never be implemented because reasons) would at the same time invigorate Wikinews and get rid of 90%+ of the conflict on Wikipedia. A simple announcement on every page saying "Wikipedia is purposely out of date by at least 48 hours. For late-breaking news on this topic see Wikinews". Sounds radical? Are we an encyclopedia or are we a newspaper? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to pilot this on one article and see how it goes. – Levivich 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The entire Wikinews concept is strange. Who would read a news aggregation service by Wikipedia editors as opposed to reading a normal news outlet? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Same answer as to why readers would turn to an encyclopedia to read about current news instead of a normal news outlet. Unfortantely, I have seen it argued that too many reader put their trust in WP to be so up-to-date to surprass news outlets in terms of current-ness as a reason to not follow NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 23:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

News stories are rarely written in an encyclopedic and comprehensive way. I don't know about you but I find myself reading a news story or a study, and then checking Wikipedia for the additional context that the study or news story lacks. For example, today, I appreciated that some great editors had written the Bruce Ohr page with contemporary reporting from 2018 to clarify the reports that emerged today. A few weeks ago, I was out of luck because I wanted to learn more about William Barr's role on criminal justice reform in the 90s after reading one 2019 story on his "key" role in tough-on-crime reforms, but unfortunately no editors had added contemporary high-quality reporting from that time, so the Wikipedia article had horrible coverage of his role in criminal justice reform. I had to add such content myself, but I could only find it in peer-reviewed criminology publications (databases for academic journals are better than databases for news reporting), which resulted in some improvements but the page's coverage of his role in tough-on-crime reforms still remains incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not have to be up to date to provide that context that helps a reader coming from a news story to find out more. The problem usually starts when people start to double guess of what will be important in the future from a few days of current news coverage, and rush to insert the speculations, commentary, and opinion stuff. Coming back a few weeks or months after the events have died down, where there should be a better sense of what is actually important, would be key factors - or even if it is worth including to start. Today, a few weeks or months arent going to change news availability. And the lack of Barr's stuff in 90s is a factor of WP being a volunteer work. I bet that there's better coverage of newspapers and magazines of the time, but that's not going to be readily online, as you found. (I have found that the NYtimes actually has most of their back issues online, so adding "Site:nytimes.com" to a search on William Barr brings up a lot of possible sources like [88]). I do understand the argument that it would be nice to make sure we document sources "now" while they are available before they fall off the digital landscape, but realistically, that's on the order of years or decades, not weeks or months, and we can easily wait those weeks or months to have a better understanding of events to know what to use instead of trying to distill a massive amount of news in a short bit. --Masem (t) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this just speaks to me cognitive abilities, but I struggle to remember the details and nuance of political events older than one month (I am sure this is not just me). In my experience, writing about something six months down the line with six-month old reporting, as opposed to writing it with contemporary reporting as the stories are released, results in sloppier and incomplete editing that is more likely to lose nuance and violate neutrality. And in my experience, the reliable sources very rarely highlight the wrong things and overemphasize silly things of non-encyclopedic value - things that a hindsight view should expose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To that regard, there's two things. First, I'm often in the same boat in other topics that I can't write with an sureness if its been several months since I last read up on it. But the exercise of searching and reviewing the detail via a Google News searchs often helps to fine tune how to think about the topic in a more summary manner, since I'm not likely to read through every source that exists, and because GNews typically goes in reverse chrono order, I'll get the aftermath first and have a better idea of what's more important as I move backwards in time. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong to drop links to articles that are believed to be relevant in the future but shouldn't be added immediately, on the article's talk page. {{refideas}} exists for this, but you may have more than that. Or a user page, or the like. So there's a way to keep "clippings" so that when you are sure things can be written with a more hindsight view, you have a body of work to remove.

And I strongly disagree with reliable sources placing importance/highlighting the wrong things. The press went crazy on Covfefe to the point we had an article on that. Fortunately, saner heads on WP prevailed, and recognized this as part of a broader, more enduring topic of Trump's use of social media. This is all tied to the bias on the media, particularly with Trump and those associated with him, trying to find any and all weaknesses to write about. This is what happens in 24/7 news coverage, any tiny issue can be seen as big major front page story if there's no other interesting news going on. --Masem (t) 00:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The real problem in this thread, Masem, is that you are pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: I believe I'm restating the intent of points #1 and #2 under NOT#NEWS. Points that have gotten lost over the last several years. I mean, we had an RFC a couple years back that still affirmed NOT#NEWS is still a valid policy, not to be weakened nor strengthened in language, but given that we're seeing more and more conflict over trying to keep certain classes of articles (like politician) "recent" under claims that this is within the context of NOT#NEWS, tells me we may need to review that further (hence the discussion started here). --Masem (t) 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Masem's analysis is spot on. Rather than "pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language" he is pushing back against us slowly and without a lot of thought falling into a habit of violating NOT#NEWS on the pages of US political candidates. Alas, certain individuals who have spent years rooting for Team Blue, rooting for Team Red, or rooting for individual players on Team Blue have taken advantage of our mistake and are inserting whatever NOT#NEWS advance their political agenda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

As recently as today, I've encountered editors who chafed at excluding material that was WP:TOOSOON on the basis that it might take months to get the sort of secondary source coverage necessary to be due inclusion on Wikipedia. Frankly, WP:NOTNEWS is as notable in how infrequently it is observed compared to other elements of WP:NOT. When someone puts up a blog post, or an indiscriminate list of cruft, or uses a userpage as personal web space, the community shuts it down quickly. But when people try to treat Wikipedia as a newspaper, well, even AfD doesn't work at that point. So I'd strongly support anything we can do to prop up adherence to NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

We could have a WP:CENT RFC on a proposed guideline for inclusion of material in political articles, so that all new content should meet one of the following:

1. Covered in depth (more than repeating a press release) by three or more reliable broadcast or print, not web-only, sources.
2. Still subject to ongoing independent print or broadcast coverage after 3 months.
3. A policy that has become a focus of broadcast debates supported or opposed by multiple candidates.

I call out print and broadcast media because online publishing costs nothing. If a news organisation devotes costly resource to something, that implies a level of significance.

The blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now. Very few things get pruned when the news tornado moves on. And I would include serving politicians in this as well. Not every tweetstrom is notable. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There probably needs a bit more thought as it is not just limited - in this case political candidates, but generally any topic that has political implications. (Though politics is likely where 90% of the problems lie). Also to keep in mind, a few recent RFCs that we have to recognize exist and how conditions have changed to challenge them again or that what is being proposed is different: [89], and [90]. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please redirect Https://en.wikipedia.org to Wikipedia please?

99721829Max (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure how to parse this.--Jorm (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We have en.wikipedia.org as a redirect to English Wikipedia already; I think he's asking for the same thing from a page with the full URL as the title. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like anything even remotely plausible as a search term. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's the only way I can understand this request. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done redirects are cheap. I've sent it to Main Page, as that is the normal landing spot for someone entering that URL. I'd take an argument to send it to English Wikipedia as a possible alternative landing spot, since it explicitly includes en. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would really like it if Wiki's search could automatically parse external links to itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean the English Wikipedia article. 99721829Max (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Who'd be putting the URL for the English Wikipedia into Wikipedia's search engine? It'd be like putting Google's URL into Google. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: hope you were joking? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: It should probably go to English Wikipedia as http://en.wikipedia.org already targets there. It's a {{R from domain name}}. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done per the clarification of the requester above and to conform with the other page which was the subject of a previous RfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On the question of "Who'd be putting the URL for the English Wikipedia into Wikipedia's search engine?": It's very common these days to be looking at a browser with a URL box, a browser Search box, and a site-specific Search box immediately below. It's very easy to paste a URL into one of the search boxes by mistake, or a search term into the URL box or the wrong search box... I do it all the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Oh, NOW I get why this is at this noticeboard. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 17#Http://en.wikipedia.org. Only an admin was able to create this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  MJL, A lot has changed after that 2017 discussion. So more people, apart from admins, can do that now. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  [Thank you for the ping] Oh, I see. Thank you! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have, on occasion, copied what I thought was a wikilink but instead was the entire URL, meaning that I did put in Https://en.wikipedia.org... at the end of the normal URL. Weird stuff happens. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm joining this thread a bit late with a question that is highly related. Similar to Https://en.wikipedia.org, it is quite clear that the full URLs of popular websites (possibly the world's top 10 or 20 as found in the alexa ranks here) should also have a redirect to their articles (it is already the case for many www. pages, without the https://). However, only several pages have this redirect, such as Http://www.cnn.com, while others do not, including Https://www.facebook.com -> Facebook or https://www.wikipedia.com -> Wikipedia. And while attempting to create this page/redirect, an error message appears saying that the action is "restricted to administrators". Has there been any discussion about this subject? Shalom11111 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrative service awards

Greetings, all. Wikipedia:Administrative service awards (an admin complement to Wikipedia:Service awards) is well on its way to being open for business. Mop-themed emblems are under construction. Any suggestions for alteration or improvement are welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't like being the killjoy, but is that really a good idea? More administrator actions is not always merrier, and it kind of looks like an invitation towards doing a lot of possibly unnecessary or even harmful actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I wondered the same, Jo-Jo, however I'd be surprised if we still had any admins fresh-faced enough to actively chase down targets rather than just meet them over time. Alternatively, it could just be used as a honeypot vetting method - anyone using it is immediately subject to checking ;) Nosebagbear (talk)

What the hell? This isn't a videogame; the mark of a good administrator is someone who resolves situations without needing to break out the banhammer, not someone who racks up the apparently arbitrary figure of 42,000 admin actions. I would take anyone being stupid enough to actually display one of these awards as prima facie evidence of their unsuitability. Please just {{db-g7}} this and pretend it didn't happen. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see; the apparently arbitrary figure of 42,000 actions is not in fact arbitrary at all, it's by happy coincidence the number of administrative actions you've made. ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What, Iridescent, am I not a good enough benchmark for you? bd2412 T 22:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought that couldn't be right, but I checked, and it really is - that is beyond parody. My suggestion is to delete this. I'm not sure "embarrassing" is a speedy criteria in and of itself, but with just over 42,000 admin actions I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out. Fish+Karate 10:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly we need to make ProcseeBot grand overlord of all admins based on its total action count. I think it needs a (virtual) chest covered in medals, like the old South American military dictator look. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a waste of time. I don't see much community involvement either. ——SerialNumber54129 09:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To mix metaphors, the whole thing is crumbling around our ears...and meanwhile the Titanic's deckchairs are in urgent need of rearrangement! ——SerialNumber54129 10:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't think giving ourselves shiny awards should be high on the list of priorities for admins. Of course, for those who really like shiny awards, no community consensus is needed for awarding oneself as much as one likes. But in my country, there's an often-quoted bon mot attributed to Frederick the Great: leaders should aim at servir et disparaître – serve and then quietly disappear. This also applies to admins, even though they aren't leaders. Sandstein 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Why did he say it in French, d'you know? ——SerialNumber54129 11:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He was something of a Francophile, I gather. According to his article, "Frederick disliked the German language and literature, explaining that German authors 'pile parenthesis upon parenthesis, and often you find only at the end of an entire page the verb on which depends the meaning of the whole sentence'". He wasn't wrong in that respect. Sandstein 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • He established a medal for valour that lasted until the end of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1918-1919. Its name? Pour le Mérite. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Xe was educated in German and French, but spoke and wrote the latter almost indistinguishably from a native, whereas xyr spoken German was, in xyr own words ″comme un cocher″. Now that quotation is one of xyr more famous remarks. ISBN 9780191613692 p. xx; ISBN 9781134820795 p. 105. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Besides, French was the de facto diplomatic lingua franca (literally) of the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment the highest award is for 42,000 actions after 16 years, providing 2,625 actions per year, or slightly more than 7 per day. Is that a reasonable figure for the bitholders to consistently maintain over the course of 16 years? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  If one were only interested in one's action count, one could probably rack up 2,625 actions in a day just by constantly refreshing CAT:CSD, or over a slightly longer term by heading over to WP:RFD and clearing it out regularly. Remember, a lot of deletions count twice as the talkpage is being deleted as well. Part of the reason this is such a peculiarly meat-headed idea is that that's the exact opposite of how we want admins to behave; we want the admins thinking "can this be saved from deletion?", "can this dispute be resolved without protection?" and "is it really necessary to block this person rather than try to talk to them?", not looking at situations as an excuse to increase their action count. ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable, although per everyone above it seems like a particularly pathological form of editcountitis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Just find a single /16 IPv4 range that needs to be blocked, and block them all individually! </sarcasm> Someguy1221 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  As someone who has 42,000 admin actions from clearing out WP:RFD on a regular basis, I can confirm that I am only interested in action count. As such, I will be patiently waiting my service award. (You may ship it to this address.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  As it happens, I've made on average around 7 blocks per day since becoming an admin. Just blocks. The idea that an admin would perform any actions, never mind lots of them unnecessarily, just to receive a self-awarded award is fairly laughable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Any admin who is regularly engaged in closing RM and XfD discussions will hit the mark. bd2412 T 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to thank BD2412 for taking the initiative to set this up. It seems like a little bit of lighthearted fun. I'm personally not into collecting badges, but if it makes somebody happy to put them on their user page, more power to them. That being said, I have to agree with the sentiments of others above. Most of the administrative actions I take (delete, block, protect, etc) represent somebody else's failure of one sort or another. I'm not sure that's what we want to be celebrating. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Pretty harmless imo; if users want to display these, then we shouldn't stop them. Take it easy folks, and remember Wikipedia can be fun sometimes :) -FASTILY 00:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't doubt that these were made in good faith, and I trust most admins not to let these become a game. Even so, I think these are a bad idea, because they send the worst sort of message to non-admin editors. Tracking edit-count can be questionable, but at least every edit is supposed to be adding value directly to Wikipedia. Bread-and-butter admin actions, on the other hand, typically remove or prevent things. New editors feeling hurt by a block and trying to do better aren't going to be encouraged by admins displaying badges for blocking them. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Xtools and WP:ADMINSTATS gamify admin actions too much already IMO. —Cryptic 03:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I'm sure it was done in good faith but it's a horrible idea. As Vanamonde93 says, it sends a terrible message to non-Admins. And an excuse for problem editors to claim a block was made only to get a new badge. Doug Weller talk 06:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I notice lots of people are sore about this but none have taken the initiative to send it to MFD yet... I'm going to be ambivalent, beyond voicing my opinion here that editcountitis is fundamentally a bad thing, while also having become a fact of Wikipedian life we have all had to begrudgingly accept; I do not think blockcountitis and deletioncountitis are things we should encourage. However if people want to show off how many "admin actions" they've performed on their user page who am I to stop them. We already have Template:Adminstats for long enough. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't want to send anything to MfD unless and until those involved with creating it have had a chance to reflect on what's been said here, and to G7 it themselves. We don't need to be precipitate about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh come now, those pearls are going to break if you clutch them any harder. bd2412 T 04:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is a terrible idea for all of the reasons stated above, CSD it. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weeeell seeing as how I am pretty close to being a f***ing "Grandmaster Administrator First-Class", I wanna say this is a great idea. Then again, there's Materialscientist at an outrageous 228265; we should put them on payroll. But yeah, MS is a great admin, and I am pretty great myself, but the stats are really not that meaningful. Blocking and deleting is easy; unblocking not so much, so zzuuzz with 1471 should get a ton of extra credit. I mean, it's cute and all, but my admin cabal does serious bizniz. So no let's please not do this. (BTW, User:Jürgen Klinsmann1990 was an admin? Wow--I wonder if they were blocked by a Dutch admin who wanted to free him up.) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• No! So, Adminship isn't a big deal - it's gamification! But if this does gain traction, is there going to be one to show off how many death threats one has received? Or one saying "this user has made so many admin actions they're expecting to be 'disappeared' any day now"? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• I see this page as no big deal. The only problem is that this "game" is gatekeeped by RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a non-admin I think this page is a disgrace, and goes against the foundation of Wikipedia. Imagine if a police department had a public page awarding police officers with the number of arrests or tickets issued. While it is a function of society, it is not one to be awarded. Administrator functions should not counted and should most certainly not be awarded on a quota system. This page gives the impression that it is. It should be deleted pronto. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Is this really wise? Especially the references to The Cabal (TINC)? It seems to risk the encouragement of rouge admins. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've missed an opportunity to work in a reference to "Rouge Admins". I'll have to think about that. bd2412 T 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• If there are going to be a "service award", I don't think they should be based on admin actions. I think admins should be nominated by editors, say, five editors who've been active for at least two years. The best admins, that I can tell, have the respect of the non-admin crew for 1) diffusing endless, ridiculous conflicts in a peaceable manner in a way that the participants can live with and 2) taking decisive action when the problem is intractable and unresolvable.

Of course, there are great admins who have taken action against long-standing editors who might not win any popularity contests. But, in my experience, regular editors can distinguish an effective admin from a, well, ineffective one. And it might be a nice move to put editors in charge of deciding which admin deserves a service award for their work. And I think it would also make an award more meaningful to admins than one based on how many blocks or deletions one has done which is a measure of productivity, not effectiveness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Identifying admins

Shouldn't it be possible to identify admins at a glance, by either looking at their User page or Global account information? soibangla (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I believe you can access the "View User Groups" link on the left toolbar. It isn't necessarily the easiest to read, but it gives you the information with one click. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Also, you can use this script to automatically highlight user names that have sysop rights. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  That script changed my life, hyperbolically speaking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I use WP:POP which tells me people's userrights on mouseover. —Kusma (t·c) 18:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)33333

  That's a wonderful script, thank you for telling me about it! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Nice, thanks! soibangla (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there should be a clearer way to distinguish admins from non-admins. I've on multiple occasions been confused as to who has admin-status and who doesn't, in particular so when I was a new editor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is visible in Global account information (example). You have to look at their contributions and the link is at the bottom of the page. I also mostly use popups, which shows all the user groups as well as some other info. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  We should all stylishly add "admin" to our signatures.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  With a big red blinking light clown nose. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. Adminship is no big deal. You should treat everyone with the same respect you would treat an admin (or an arb, or a 'crat etc.). You should treat arguments on their merits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC).
  

That's not what I'm suggesting. Rather, I am aware that there are some long-time editors who attempt to intimidate others, especially newcomers, otten by invoking certain esoteric WP arcana. Their ability to do this would be diminished if others could readily see they are not admins. soibangla (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Does this mean we could have 'Crats gilded in gold, Arbs with peacemaker tags and Stewards with Fasces? Only Oversighters (with their creepy ass logo) would go unmarked, hiding in plain sight, the watchers in the dark. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Rich Farmbrough. If administrator status was visible instantly, it would change the perceptions of less experienced editors when interacting with admins on routine content matters. Unless someone is acting in an administrative role, they should be perceived as just another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• It would also be a big neon (I guess there might be a way to make it flash as well) "please come troll me" sign. Admins get enough of that without advertising it to those who revel in that sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Rich Farmbrough (and others here) that clear, obvious identification of admins would not be helpful to editors. I know I identify more as a common editor and an admin secondly. I put my admin hat on when needed but mostly I work in the poppy fields of articles. That said, I expect admins to be familiar with WP policies/guidelines and invoke them knowledgeably in discussions on boards like this one when necessary. When admins aren't familiar, I want to know that info. Many non-admin editors who participate here are fluent in policy nuance as well; some are not. It's a mixed bag. Trolling of admins, as MarnetteD said, is always a problem. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• My experience is just the opposite, the highlighting of admins name in light blue has been extremely helpful, and stopped the necessity of looking at an editor's user rights to find out if they're an admin or not. It's all automatic, and it's great. I was greatly exaggerating when I said above that it changed my life, but it has been very, very helpful to me. I recommend it highly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, I wasn't aware of the highlighter until this discussion so I added it a few hours ago. It is useful in adding a level of info to reading discussions here. It is another tool to parse back-and-forth exchanges and points. I like that part. I do worry that it might, as someone said above, lead to bias. I know I want to be fair in my evaluation of arguments (and I think I am) because we're editors trying to make the 'pedia work. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just FYI I use this script and it works well for me for this exact purpose. N.J.A. | talk 02:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• What Mark (and others) said. I am not always acting as an admin here: sometimes because I am INVOLVED at a particular page, and often because I am just being a content contributor like anybody else. If I had an "admin" tag on my signature it would appear that I am trying to intimidate others, or imply that my opinion matters more than other people's. The various scripts that have been mentioned here are wonderful for knowing who you are dealing with (established editor, newbie, admin or whatever). But we should not flout our status in everyone's face. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: I echo your sentiments. When editing articles and their talk pages, I leave my admin hat off. I'm an editor trying to improve articles and when in conflict, we try to work it out on the talk page. I never mention being an admin and work like any other editor, on structure, wording, and citations. Sometimes, though, another editor notices I'm an admin and reacts with some variant of ODD. Hilarious hijinks ensue. On these boards, the scripts are very useful. Now I realize how many admins are participating here I didn't know were admins. I like knowing who wields the mop and bucket. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I use the adminhighlighter but you may want to add this to your common.css:

  a.userhighlighter_sysop.userhighlighter_sysop { background-color: rgba(100, 149, 237, 0.25) !important; border-top: .05em dashed rgba(100, 149, 237, 0.5); border-bottom: .05em dashed rgba(100, 149, 237, 0.5); }

  a.userhighlighter_sysop.mw-changeslist-title { background-color: transparent !important; border-color: transparent !important; }

  That said, I do not believe that the default for users should be "show admins" specifically for the reasons cited by Rich and Cullen.--Jorm (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  If anyone is interested, I created a fork of adminhighlighter, User:Galobtter/adminhighlighter.js that uses that nicer css and also caches the list of admins, so the highlighting happens much faster upon page load. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• As to the original question, most administrators (9 of 10 I just randomly checked from ActiveUsers) do put Category:Wikipedia_administrators on their userpage (the 10'th had plain text that said something like "I am an administrator"), 6 of 10 used an administrator topicon as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• (two edit conflicts later ...) There is a template, {{Administrator topicon}} that puts an icon at the top right of the page to which it is affixed; see User:Ceyockey as an example. I'm of the opinion that every Admin should have this template on their User page. As for adminship being 'no big deal' - it's not, up to a point. Reality is that having admin privileges gives one the ability to do things which are completely not possible for standard editors to do from a technical point of view. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion for their userpages. However it would be unwise to highlight admin signatures by default, as it would create a them-and-us feeling, especially amongst new editors. That said, I don't think any admin should be permitted to hide their status from those who choose to use scripts like adminhighlighter specifically to identify admin contributions. For example, I dislike the way Lourdes's signature doesn't display their admin status using that script (and have told them so). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You know I am an administrator but dislike that your script doesn't out my status?! Or is it that you feel other editors would be misled into thinking that I am just a normal editor (and that too because they use a script)??! And obeisance to this script should be, as per you, made mandatory? Laughable... (...On an unrelated note, I think your contributions across the project are pretty fine and I would hope you would stand for an RfA sooner than later). Warmly, Lourdes 18:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Answering for myself, I like to know who I'm talking to, and, unfortunately, cannot keep the names of all active admins in my head, so I too would prefer that your name was highlighted by the script. I do not quite understand why you would object to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the pop-up method mentioned above would work well for editors like you who may want to know the admin status of other editors (rather than asking editors to change their signatures so that someone's script would work). Alternatively, you could contact the script maker to include forced highlighting, which would override backgrounds in signatures. But I would not prefer that, as the reality is that I don't want to be highlighted as an admin on a page where I'm interacting with fellow editors. Look at it from the other side – if I tell you that you should ensure that you include all your bits (autopatroller etc) in your signature because "I would want to know the bit status of other editors)", that won't probably cut ice with you. I don't know if you can get the emotion of the statement, but that it. Lourdes 09:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry, you are incorrect - I would have absolutely no problem if my user rights were required to be listed in my sig. (I don't collect hats, but I've no trouble shwoing them if I'm required to.) I like the highlighting, and don't particularly like pop-ups. The ability to see -- at a glance -- who is and isn't an admin is what's useful to me. Extremely coincidentally, I was reminded only recently that you were an admin when I was browsing through the chronological successful RfA lists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've asked the coder of the script if forced highlighting is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Lourdes 02:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: You are quite correct: it would indeed be laughable to suggest that an admin should change their signature in order for one particular user-created script to work. But that wasn't quite what I meant, sorry. (that's the danger of one-thumb-editing on a mobile whilst under the sheets, trying not to wake one's partner at 2am!). To answer you questions: Yes, I don't like that the script I happen to use fails to reveal your admin status, but that is absolutely not your fault! I am not suggesting you are trying to mislead anyone about having/not having admin rights. But I don't happen to like how yours fails to display that you are an admin using the one script I have deployed. Maybe you can suggest a better tool to use? Is there any reason you feel justifies why you haven't changed your signature now that I have twice highlighted the issue to you, or do you feel it's better to not reveal your user rights? Mild humour: I do hope you are actually a 'normal editor', even if you also have admin rights but, more seriously, one way or another I would definitely welcome the option to choose to easily show which posts and warnings are from an admin/non-admin without having to resort to going off tangentially to checking the user rights log. So, I would very strongly support this being an option available for all users to select within 'Preferences', if they so wished. But I care not one jot about other user rights being visible in a signature or via a script. My apologies for picking on you as an example; it just happened to be the one that I knew and that irked me. Regarding the unrelated note - thank you - and please see this. (I genuinely welcome any constructive criticism (even off-wiki) at any time that would help me better prepare to serve the community in that role). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll check your talk page link out too. If you need a co-nom, feel free to ask. Thanks, Lourdes 02:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been using the highlighter script for a few days now and am liking it. Previously I just hovered with popups. But I'm finding that having the info there for most admins at a glance is useful. Thank you to everyone involved in developing, testing and refining it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• I found the script helpful before I was an admin. There are several editors here who leap to a final warning to editors making mistakes, threatening to block them. It was useful to me to discover that they were empty threats and were not an admin. I'm not advocating more deference to admins but it is good to be able to see some intimidating messages as just bluster, not an actual threat to block. I still think the warnings should be taken seriously, but they needn't send new editors (and it's almost always warnings to new editors) into a panic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• I use the script, and I find it immensely useful, not to judge the behavior by the status of the user, but to judge the user by their behavior. IE if someone is acting out, it's nice to know immediately that their an admin (or bureaucrat, etc). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Eid al-Adha protection

Please add protection to Eid al-Adha which has been subject to a stream of vandalism recently. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Protecting would definitely be an overreaction, as things stand. AGK ■ 09:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

SP two days as the disruption has increased. If protection is again needed, please request at WP:RFPP.-- Dlohcierekim 05:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Appeal my Deletion TBan

I would like to have my Deletion TBan appealed. In the past, I was obsessed with the deletion process and even put an AFD list on my userpage as a scoreboard to flaunt my "achievements", but that is no longer the case. Over the course of the past year, I have been editing constructively to my topics of interest (anime, voice actors and video games) and fighting off vandals by reporting them to WP:ARV. I think I am ready to have my editing restrictions removed; I humbly request that my appeal be accepted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Some past discussions: Sk8erPrince was banned from deletion processes in December 2016 (discussion), unbanned in July 2017 (discussion), and then had the ban reimposed about 18 days later (discussion). There are a number of other AN/ANI threads since the ban was reinstated involving Sk8erPrince of some concern (March 2019 and June 2019), and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince exists (Sk8erPrince was indeffed from March to September 2018). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the timeline. I admit to having socked before, and it was extremely foolish of me to have done so. That mistake almost cost my final chance in regaining most of my editing privileges, so I am thankful to the unblocking admin for giving me a final chance at redeeming myself. I would like to think that during this time (from September 2018-August 2019), I have done a good job at regaining the community's trust, with very little to no issues. Nowadays, I try my absolute best to communicate with other users when content disputes arise instead of deleting their messages off of my talkpage. While there were issues in the past regarding my attitude with AFDs, I can assure that it will not continue to prove to be a problem in the event that the TBan gets successfully appealed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• If the TBAN is removed what do you plan to do around deletion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I intend to nominate articles that fail our notability guidelines for deletion, and vote to keep articles that I believe are worth keeping, giving valid rationales that is line with the AFD guidelines. I would also place speedy delete tags on blatant spam in accordance to G1 and G3. I will not keep a scoreboard if the articles I've nommed for deletion end up getting deleted. Instead, I would place the deleted articles on my watchlist to prevent them from being recreated unless the article has been improved exponentially since. Otherwise, I would place a G4 tag. Some of my issues in the past in regards to AFD include exhibiting a battleground mentality and biting at anyone that does not agree with my rationale (which is bigotry; I now understand that is *not* welcome on Wikipedia). I will be open to different perspectives and rationales, even I happen to disagree with them. With this, I hope that the community assumes good faith that I would contribute efficiently and effectively in that area if my TBan does get lifted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I say remove the ban and give him a chance per WP:ROPE. The above sounds heartfelt, and I am reminded of how disruptive I was when I first started editing Wikipedia in 2006. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Saxifrage

We have problem with Saxifrage (talk · contribs), a usually inactive legacy admin who recently closed a thread higher up on this page (Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan) by supervoting a one-way i-ban into existence. A separate thread is open below that closed thread in which numerous editors have oppose the close and none have supported it, yet neither Saxifrage nor any other admin has actually vacated the supervote closure yet. When Buffs, the victim of this administrative overreach, went to Saxifrage's talk page to seek an explanation, he was greeted by a condescending attempt to shut down the discussion. Saxifrage has made at least two unfounded accusations of incivility against Buffs (see [91] and [92]), which are themselves actionable personal attacks. My final attempt to get Saxifrage to vacate the close was denied and meanwhile Saxifrage is content to complain about the way other editors are interacting with him. It's particularly galling to watch an admin abuse their tools, brush off the editor they have victimized, and then complain about how people are being mean to them (you know, by demanding accountability for a clearly bad use of the tools). We should not allow this type of behavior to continue unchecked, so what I would like to know is how to proceed in light of Saxifrage's evident failure to recognize why their actions are not acceptable. Saxifrage also appears unable to properly handle criticism of their administrative actions. Should this be escalated to ArbCom, or is this something we are capable of handling as a community? Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Further note: as I was composing this post, I received this lovely reply from Saxifrage in which he accused me of giving him orders (incorrect) and referred to me as an angry random person. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Please reword your comments and post them at the discussion above about whether to overturn Saxifrage's close. I don't understand why you opened a new thread. After you have "moved" your comments, you should remove this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

On reconsideration, moving your comments probably doesn't make sense. Apparently, you've expanded your objection to Saxifrage's close to an allegation that Saxifrage has abused their tools/administrator authority. You're of course welcome to pursue that here, but my view is that you have no shown any evidence of persistent abuse, which normally is necessary to take action.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that less evidence is required, or indeed possible, in the case of a largely-inactive admin like Saxifrage. We have: 1) a misuse of the tools, 2) dismissive treatment of the editor punished by the misuse of the tools, 3) failure to heed those pointing out the misuse of the tools, 4) unsupported accusations toward the target of the misuse of the tools, 5) failure to properly distinguish between disagreement and incivility. Saxifrage's actions in this dispute have been troubling, and there is little recent evidence that this a mere lapse in otherwise good judgement. Lepricavark (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been asked several times to take voluntary actions. I have declined. I trust that Wikipedia process will handle things the way they need to be handled, and I have no desire to short-circuit that just because someone repeats a demand that I do. So my demurring causes no problem of process.

The close review is ongoing and I've felt from the beginning should be closed by an uninvolved admin. I don't know why it hasn't been closed yet—perhaps passing admins have looked at it and decided it would be too soon, or that they are not the admin to write an acceptable closing summary. In any case, that's procedure working as intended. I have no interest in doing an end-run of it on demand.

I don't know Lepricavark from the proverbial Adam, and their insistence that I do what they, specifically, tell me I should do just because they've shown up out of the blue on my talk page is clearly silly. I have no intention of subletting adminship to random people showing up to request it, and those who do so angrily make me extra disinclined to do so. Standing firm that I am not obligated to accept requests is within my rights, so there's no problem of interaction there.

We have review processes specifically so that pressure tactics like these can be done away with on Wikipedia. They're harmful to the community and contribute to editing as blood sport rather than editing as a cooperative endeavour.

Additionally, resisting pressure tactics is a responsibility of admins. Anything reserved for administrators must not be given away just for the asking, let alone given away under pressure. I've never compromised my account by bowing to concerted pressure, and I'm not about to start now, especially when there is a process underway already for taking care of the very same thing.

In summary: There are plenty of admins on Wikipedia, and it's unnecessary to personally badger me to do it. Badgering anyone on Wikipedia, admin or otherwise, is bad for the project. Impatience is not permission for poor behaviour. That it isn't necessary nor appropriate to badger a specific admin to take voluntary action seems like it should be self-evident, and should not be controversial when it is stated explicitly. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I think that your supervoting an unjust i-ban into existence is far worse than my perceived badgering which consisted of two posts on your talk page. If you want to talk about things that are bad for the project, cowboy admin conduct is very high on the list. Also, reversing your own decision, especially when it is an incorrect decision, hardly counts as short-circuiting the process. And it's interesting that you admit you don't know me from Adam, yet you are still prepared to make judgments regarding my emotional state. Lepricavark (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia operates on a "two wrongs make a right" principle. Thanks for acknowledging that it's a bad thing to do though. That considerable improves my first impression, if that matters any.

As for "angry", there are ways to request things that don't come off as angry to one's reader. It's not necessary to exclude the middle and grovel (and any admin that expected that shouldn't last!), but there's a awful lot of middle between that and coming in guns blazing (which leading with an ultimatum of capitulate or resign is). I really did mean to comment only on your approach, rather than your state of mind, which you're correct is not accessible to anyone. Minds being inaccessible in text, it is important to acknowledge that our words convey emotion though — as you noted, I have been coming off as pontificating, which you correctly identified as relevant to my posting. (For context, it's partly just how I slide into formality when discussing official things, such as reviews and procedure, and partly an intended tone to emphasise the "I'm really not interested in being pushed around, no really" message.) It didn't help that I had no concessions to offer, as I'd already committed to letting the review proceed independently, which I'm sure was frustrating and made it hard for me to meet you partway and do any of the defusing things that makes arguments smoother.

If this is a review of my adminship, that's fine. That's a concession I can give: many eyes make problems shallow. My account had an admin bit flipped because of community consensus, and the community consensus can unflip it. I trust procedure around here, and part of that is knowing that even if it's never perfect, it slowly approaches that ideal. I do hope that we understand each other a bit better now though, regardless. I'm likely to approach future clerking (if any) with extra caution, regardless of my feelings about my summary, so that's a net benefit, and I hope a useful reassurance. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your inputs and "I'm really not interested in being pushed around, no really" are the problem. Consensus was unanimous that what you did was incorrect. You weren't willing to say "ok, I see your point" or even explain your actions. Your actions are open for review and, if someone asks, you should be able to clarify. It wasn't until 5 admins and a bureaucrat were involved that you provided any clarification...clarification that no one agreed with. That you're still unwilling to admit it was a mistake in the face of 100% opposition to your actions, I think that's an indication that you haven't learned anything from this. Feel free to correct me in any part where I'm wrong. Buffs (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• "We should not allow this type of behavior to continue unchecked." But it hasn't continued, let alone unchecked. As I said in the section above, I believe Saxifrage acted in good faith, and I don't think he "victimized" Buffs either. Lepricavark talks about how "galling" it has been for him to watch these events, and it is indeed obvious from his commentary here that he is galled. @Lepricavark: I think you're blowing this one instance of a supervote out of proportion. Supervotes are (unfortunately) not as uncommon as all that. They should be vacated, that's all, unless an admin makes a habit of them. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC).

  I respect you too much to argue with you, and it appears unlikely that this thread is going anywhere in any case, but to clarify: I am more troubled by the behavior after the supervote than I am by the supervote itself. Lepricavark (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• As far as being in touch with community norms, or however we choose to phrase it, Saxifrage has made on average one edit a fortnight for the last decade; it's hard to see an experienced editor here, let alone a holder of advanced permissions. ——SerialNumber54129 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• I must admit, I was a little surprised to find that their tools haven't been removed for inactivity – apparently it's 1 edit or 1 logged action in a year. Saxifrage has used: the block button once in the past 13 years;[93] the delete button once in the past 12 years;[94] and the protect button twice in the past 13 years;[95]. All up that's four admin actions in 12 years – they also hadn't edited this page for 13 years up to their close. I'm not at all surprised, after that little activity, that Saxifrage is out-of-touch with community expectations. That's not itself an actionable issue.
  Saxifrage's conduct on their talk page has been objectionable, in my opinion. I have significant respect for Bish, but I'm unable to view Saxifrage's conduct as being in good faith. Condescending is not a strong enough word for it, but I don't know of a better one. Some additional adjectives: snarky, patronising, incivil and bullying. There's also an air of smug superiority (see patronising again) in their comments. Putting myself in Buffs shoes, having just been bitch-slapped by a one-sided admin action, I'd have been upset. Dealing with Saxifrage and Mark Ironie would have made me livid – indeed that's entirely why I formally challenged the close. Honestly, I don't know how Buffs could have been better composed on Saxifrage's talk page. I can't say whether this should be escalated or not now; but I will say that if there's a repeat of this conduct, I'd be prepared to ask ArbCom to have Saxifrage de-tool-ed. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn - Essentially this is a non-admin here .... 1 admin logged edit a year and one block in 12 years isn't an admin in my eyes, Overturn the close and allow it to be closed by an admin who's done more than 1 logged edit a year. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nvm going blind. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• The action on WP:AN by Saxifrage was appropriately overturned. I'll abide by the consensus of the community on whatever the outcome is determined by an uninvolved admin who can assess consensus rather than assert a supervote. As for Saxifrage's attitude, IMHO, it's very clear to me that he doesn't understand his role as an admin. User:Mr rnddude's summary of these interactions is spot on re:Saxifrage and Mark Ironie. To ask "Why?" and to be told "I've been expecting you, but you shouldn't even question my decision or contact me. You're beneath me and obviously don't know what you're doing. Learn your policies: read this!" After quoting that the policies he mentioned stated that I should contact him, I was summarily ignored. For remedy, I propose a warning on his talk page that the consensus of the community is that he overstepped his authority and such actions in the future will be escalated. That's really all we need here. Buffs (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• comment - As I stated previously, I do not care what form an IBAN comes in. I really don't. I have removed articles in common from my watchlist with Buffs weeks ago and have not touched them. I have no intention of doing so. This is not a win lose game for me, if he wants them to himself [96] that's fine. He can have at it. I'm not about to 'game' [97] anything. I have not edited any of the articles since July 15th and prior to that on the 10th and that edit was in consensus with Buffs. I simply don't care. I do have a concern, however. I am not sure what an individuals political leanings have to do with their admin abilities. I understand that the close was not done properly and to everyone's satisfaction. I do not see how Saxifrage's assumed political beliefs ties into this. Editing and admining should be non-partisan. [98]. I am not sure how Saxifrage's decision can be attributed to political bias. It just seems, I don't know, mean I suppose to make these types of statements and underhanded in that they are hidden. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I found it exceedingly strange when Buffs (talk · contribs) put a hidden message in the "Request review of close" section (discussion closed now) a few days ago. <!--Likewise, have you considered that he WAS behaving in a partisan manner? MI, IG, and CV are all part of the same Wikigroup.-->diff ("He" refers to me.) The edit summary is rather opaque on the addition: (→‎Request review of close: rephrase to include the words I'd intended to use...wow...that was poorly phrased)) I have never seen this done on a noticeboard or talk page, only in articles for date format, etc. I decided to let it slide so the review could run its course without distraction. Pointing out Buffs' misunderstanding of how Wikiprojects work and function seemed petty as well. The one that Indigenous girl spoke of above seems more like commentary he doesn't want publicly visible. I'm having trouble discerning its purpose or audience. <!--I don't know Saxifrage's motivations for such a decision, but it is similar to others who openly support leftist/socialist ideals. If I had to guess, it's an attempt to silence conservative views rather than balance them within Wikipedia. No objective view of that discussion can possibly come to the conclusion that Saxifrage came to...to be blunt, I've never seen 100% opposition like this for an administrative action. In articles revolving around the humanities, such a bias is a significant problem. In universities, 95%+ of humanities professors vote for left/liberal candidates, and their work/conclusions reflect this bias.-->diff The only guidelines I could find were in the Manual of Style in Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text and Invisible comments. Inappropriate uses of hidden text offers this: "Using it as a talk page," the meaning of which I'm finding difficult to interpret. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's not hard to imagine why an editor who has been unjustly blocked, t-banned, and i-banned might think that people are out to get him, and you have not helped matters by making disingenuous comments such as this one. I hope you aren't planning to derail this thread with more walls of text. Lepricavark (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lepricavark I have no intention of posting walls of text. I only posted twice, I believe, in the IBAN thread. I think that the issue folks have with Saxifrage can be handled without being sneaky. If somebody feels they are targeted for their political views, why not simply post it in mainspace? If they honestly feel that way then I see no reason to hide those concerns. I'm not trying to derail, this has to do with the matter at hand, which is Saxifrage, and hidden text in the thread. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I too would ask that you keep discussion concise and on point. This is about Saxifrage, not me. Saxifrage's political beliefs are prominently displayed on his user page. As for the hidden text. It's just more information. It doesn't need to be visible to make my point, but if people want more, it's there. It isn't even addressed in any guidelines, so please stop insinuating there's inappropriate behavior when none exists. Buffs (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• @IG, I'd ask that you remove your remarks as these aren't related to the topic at hand: Saxifrage. Likewise, you cannot demand I not talk to you and then go to unrelated sections and make comments about me. If you want me to leave you alone (something I've done), stop talking about me. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Lepricavark: You seem to be missing my point: Hidden text in a noticeboard comment is highly unusual in my experience. Yes, it's visible to anyone editing/contributing to the discussion but not to the casual reader. It is still passing strange. As to my comment on Saxifrage's talk page, do you think I just wanted to protect the close result? (Which was a complete surprise to me.) My response was purely about Buffs badgering Saxifrage. I had intended to stay away from the whole brouhaha of the close review (and did so after that comment) but I'd seen this behaviour far too many times over months from Buffs. There's a reason I apologized to Saxifrage: I was admonishing an editor on his talk page. This was impolite and rude of me, not to Buffs but to Saxifrage. You think my pleading with Buffs to stop was disingenuous? That it was mere self-serving about preserving the close? I knew there was a perfectly well-established procedure for challenging the close, one that Buffs could easily have found or asked about. Yet Buffs (and you) responded in very unpleasant ways on Saxifrage's talk page. Acrimony, incivility, bullying, and abuse-disguised-as-argument were uncalled for. How we react to adversity reflects on our character. I'm sorry if the length of my comments is too long for you. I value clarity. I don't write at length to obfuscate, to overwhelm with "walls of text". I write in an effort to be precise in the details. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, Buffs using hidden comments was a little weird. I get that. But I'm one of those wackos who thinks it's a big deal when a user, in this case Buffs, gets picked on repeatedly by people who insist that, no, he's actually the bad guy. So I'm going to extend a certain amount of latitude to Buffs for strange behavior under the circumstances. IMO, it's outrageous that you can see an admin supervote a one-way i-ban into existence, the target of that unwarranted i-ban protest at the overreaching admin's page, and then you come to the conclusion that the targeted editor is the problem. Moreover, it is unacceptable for you or Saxifrage to insist on strict adherence to proper procedure for appealing a sanction when Saxifrage did not adhere to proper procedure when imposing the sanction. I don't much care for the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude on display here. When I asked Buffs to stop with the walls of text, he did. Maybe that's because he is acting in good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm solidly involved here, so won't do it myself, but IMO this should be closed. Yes, it was an egregious supervote. Yes, it's bad that they didn't recognise consensus and undo the close themselves. Yes, their statement above insisting on wasting the community's time with bureaucratic paper-pushing process obsession makes it worse, not better. But no, this on its own is not the basis of desysopping for cause. GoldenRing (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  I concur. Unless further information/examples are brought forward, a warning on his talk page is sufficient. Buffs (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (involved) Saxifrage does not need to be warned. Nothing he did was "egregious". As one of the only uninvolved people here, he summarized the dispute as he saw it.Diff From what I can see, unlike most others who weighed in, he actually looked at the evidence. Then he was ganged up on over a technicality. He's been bullied enough already. There is no need for any warning. This has already been excessive. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you think that a supervote is nothing more than a technicality, you should not be an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Supervote is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Note this example: "if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, an admin who doesn't take supervotes seriously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to ask for a delay in closing the thread. I'm writing a response I'd like included in the thread. Thank you. Mark Ironie (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Many of the comments on Saxifrage here seem to devolve to "Burn the Witch." Metaphorically. There are quite a few adjectives being used to describe Saxifrage and his actions, many of them insulting and/or ad hominem attacks. I'm even seeing a level of "own-y" response from Buffs to the thread where, per usual, Buffs tells people what he wants them to do. Most specifically, he again tries to force Indigenous girl to interact with him, and focuses on silencing her,(comment to IG) as he has for several months.

There is a qualitative difference between IG's participation here and Buffs. She asked a question about the treatment of Saxifrage and the use of hidden text. Buffs, instead, addressed his comments directly to her, and complained about not being able to post on her talk page:(comment to IG). Though others have said things he considers "off topic" she is the only one he tried to order to delete her words, asking her to "remove your remarks". These are more of his same attempts at boundary violation and silencing he has shown towards her through this entire conflict. (Such as when he hid her remarks on article talk and declared the "discussion closed" after she posted a source.[99], right after he came off a block for harassing her.[100]] She has never done anything even remotely like this to him. This harassment has always been one way.

This is not off-topic; I'm drawing a parallel to reactions of outrage about Saxifrage's close of the discussion and his responses afterward. Yet the majority of opprobrium here is in the eye of the partisan rather than what Saxifrage actually said, objections to tone rather than content. Additionally, Buffs continues to post misrepresentations (or maybe he is this confused), in describing events, such as Buffs' description of this situation: "It wasn't until 5 admins and a bureaucrat were involved".

After Bishonen called the close a "classic supervote", that emerged as the main reason for overturning the close, invoked frequently from then on as if it were obvious and proven true. It was not a supervote nor was it proven so in my opinion.

It was a Boomerang.

Evaluating this case includes being able to pull back from details and get an overview of the material. Evaluating the evidence requires a frame of mind that makes sure things are aligned and consistent. It's a focus on whether wording and footnotes (or diffs) support each other. If there are contradictions, can they be resolved? So I tried to look at Saxifrage's close and how he might have gotten to the very detailed evaluation and decision he did.

A vociferous group showed up to contest the close and began a process of vilifying Saxifrage, here and his talk page. This seems based on Saxifrage standing by his decision and suggesting people use standard processes to overturn the close rather than demanding actions of him. Lepricavark demanded he vacate the evaluation/close or resign adminship, an exceptionally strong statement on a long and complex case I sincerely doubt he has thoroughly read. (For instance, Lepricavark has now posted in the original closed and unclosed discussion, to support Buffs in saying no IBAN is needed, citing Green Means Go as the voice of reason, but Lepricavark seems unaware that GMG has not only endorsed an IBAN, but has been an involved editor since the beginning of the conflicts.)

My point: if you back away from the case, look at the evidence without prejudice or partisan glasses, without choosing who's right or wrong, Saxifrage's close makes sense and is in line with policy and process. His subsequent responses to Buffs, GoldenRing, and Lepricavark were formal rather than informal. Any perceived incivility seems bought by the aggrieved rather than from Saxifrage (yes, I mean "bought"). For example, Saxifrage's first response to Buffs has been called uncivil and condescending (Lepricavark, opening at the top of this AN section.) Remember, Saxifrage had recently finished reviewing the long and complex AN thread before closing it. It seems to me that his review was thorough, including evidence of Buffs' interactions with people on AN and elsewhere. Buffs-as-victim was an integral theme from GoldenRing's opening post and continues to be the dominant narrative from several people here, blindly and despite all contrary evidence. Buffs showing up on Saxifrage's talk page was entirely predictable as was Buffs explaining the faults/lack in Saxifrage's reasoning in the close. Saxifrage expected it. When Saxifrage spoke of being "an admin who doesn’t take personalised guff,"[101] it wasn't lack of AGF as much as it was a recognition of Buffs' consistent and historical adversarial attitude. This was evident from Buffs' first post on Saxifrages' talk page where he ignored the quite detailed close text and tallies up !votes (his version.) This latterly painting of Buffs' behaviour as rooted in the justified righteous anger of the wronged is dissociated from actual events and facts.

There is a hard core of participants here that seem focused on vengeful retaliation on Saxifrage because he actually read the evidence and made a close based on what he saw. That, apparently, is horribly wrong. Impugning Saxifrage's grasp of policy and process is inexplicable to me. Saying he is out of touch with current WP norms and standards because of sparse activity levels is patronizing and condescending. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of text. I shall respond to the substance, of which there is considerably less, even if you tried to dress it up with fancy language. For someone who exaggerates the extent to which others use rhetoric, you sure use it a lot yourself. I don't see how this could possible be a boomerang. This issue was brought to AN by GoldenRing, not Buffs. It is of note that the only individuals who deny that this is a supervote are those who liked the outcome. Buffs, his defenders, and neutral observers generally held that it was in fact a supervote. You can say, if you like, that they are all wrong, but that seems unpersuasive given that your alternative description is false by definition. You are trying to present yourself as a neutral observer, but clearly you are incapable of arriving at that vantage point. I'm not surprised to see one out-of-touch legacy admin defending another, but I refuse to descend in your game of talking past one other in walls of text. I trust that any editors who consider it worth their time to read your novel will be able to form appropriate conclusions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're funny. You use "legacy admin" like it is a cabal, a protection racket. Your pejorative usage is not lost on me either, sort of "old and in the way" meets "quaint and old-fashioned". Perhaps unsophisticated as well, and a touch of simple-mindedness. You seem incapable of affording me WP:AGF or a reasonable facsimile of it. Because "fancy language" and "rhetoric". You don't have to agree with me and I don't expect it. My opinion is part of the discussion despite your denigration and insults. You might consider reining that in; aggression and denial are not persuasive points in debate. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

[A]ggression and denial are not persuasive points in debate - Excellent point. If only you'd apply it to your uni-dimensional, Buffs obsessed, wall-of-text bludgeoning of this thread and the one that spawned it. It doesn't matter how many words you write, or how detailed you get. Your assessment is transparently skewed. [I]ncapable of affording me WP:AGF - Don't ask to receive what you don't in turn give. Your "participants out for vengeance" bit is pure distilled ABF. I won't say you're out of touch, but you are definitely not without prejudice or partisan. [D]o you think I just wanted to protect the close result - I think you've answered your own question here. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Like Saxifrage, you have repeatedly failed to distinguish between incivility and legitimate scrutiny of admin conduct. You begin your statement with You're funny and then talk about how I've said pejorative things about you, even though it's true that you are one legacy admin protecting another legacy admin who talks and thinks a lot like you do. You talk about "aggression and denial", but that remark rings hollow as your participation here has been full of both. You've tried to present yourself as capable of objectively evaluating Saxifrage's closure... and you've arrived at the conclusion that everyone who disagreed with you was wrong (how objective!). On which of these bases should I assume that you are acting in good faith? Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice neither of you (Mr rnddude and Lepricavark) addressed any of the substance or points of my comment above. Instead, responses include rebuttals of my phrasing with extreme doubts about my integrity and veracity. Assertions that my relevance and even mere existence on WP is detrimental to the 'pedia seem like incivility to me. There is no substantial engagement with the pertinent issues I brought up, just shallow and empty attacks on me. In general, the contention that Saxifrage's close was a "supervote" lacks substance if anyone had bothered to read beyond the lede, such as this section of the essay. To be clear, Supervote is an essay and it is neither a policy nor a guideline. Even so, I think its application to Saxifrage's close is questionable, no matter how many people think otherwise. That's called independent thought. In the end, here, I might be in the minority of consensus on this point. That's OK. I'm comfortable holding a minority opinion. Counterpoint opinion is a necessary part of the process. We look for consensus, not unanimity. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind your claim to independent thought. I mind your claim to objectivity. I believe that we are in fact responding to the substance of your posts, and not merely the phrasing. Also, I don't recall asserting that you don't belong on Wikipedia, and I think it's actually uncivil of you to falsely claim that I said that (unless you meant it came from Mr rnddude, who also hasn't said such a thing). Indeed, I have not intentionally crossed the bounds of civility during this entire dispute, and I dare you to provide one actual quote to the contrary. Disagreement, even when expressed strongly, is not inherently uncivil. Prior to this incident, I don't believe I've ever seen any admin use the 'it's just an essay!' argument to minimize the severity of supervoting. Given your lack of familiarity with how this community perceives that issue, I don't see why anyone should accept your definition. There's an issue in the inaugural thread noted by two individuals (ironically, the two individuals whom you accuse of ignoring the substance of your remarks) that you have yet to address. It concerns your misrepresentation of evidence against Buffs. Please address it. (Note that this is a request, not a demand. You've gotten those confused in the past.) Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

MI, you're correct that WP:SUPERVOTE isn't policy. It IS, however, a definition of the term and what people are accusing Saxifrage of doing, ergo, policy or not, that is the definition of what happened and, furthermore, an explanation as to why it's wrong, rather than rehashing every single argument here. I concur with Lepricavark...your level of incivility is not helpful. I'd go one step further and say that as an Admin, you should know and act better than this. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add a "me three" to this assessment. If you assess IG's remarks as "She asked a question about the treatment of Saxifrage", you're being willfully blind; most was remarks about herself or misleading remarks/insinuation of malfeasance on my part unreleated to Saxifrage. Our interactions with Saxifrage are not because he is "standing by his decision and suggesting people use standard processes to overturn the close rather than demanding actions of him." Rather, it is because literally the first steps listed in "standard processes" specifically state to discuss with the closing admin and ask the closing admin to revert: WP:Closing discussions, WP:Supervote, and WP:ADMINACCT. Buffs (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie:, what do you mean by "bought"? Buffs (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I see from your comments over on Bbb23's talk page that you are concerned that I am accusing you (and/or others) of legal crimes. I sincerely apologize if I gave that impression. Emphasizing the word "bought" was a mistake on my part. It was unclear, unexplained, and open to interpretation. What I meant is too abstruse for this discussion and I could not expect other people to understand it. "Bought" represents a transactional exchange of goods for money. On a different level, it means rising value of goods equals a rising value of investment. Thus, the more people "invest" in a specific outcome ("goods") of a discussion, the more rigid and intolerant of opposing views they become. My usage did not encompass an absolutely literal meaning of people and opinions being bought. No accusations of bribery or meatpuppetry, and I was not implying I believe in conspiratorial opposition here. I don't know why you jumped to accusations of legal crimes. I understand that you and some others here have a very low opinion of me and my views (e.g., this whole discussion) but, wow, this is a new level of lack of AGF for me. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, it didn't sound like an accusation of crimes to me and I'm rather surprised that Buffs arrived at that interpretation. As for the overall tenor of this thread, it has become rather unpleasant and we are not going to accomplish anything, so I'm bowing out. Lepricavark (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It was rather unclear from the context, which is why I asked. You stated very clearly yes, I mean "bought" when you could have further clarified. From what I'm understanding now, you effectively mean "they bought into that argument". Prior to this explanation, your intended meaning was not discernible from your given remarks and easy to misinterpret/bring confusion. If it's too abstruse for this discussion, don't bring it up.

Please stop following me around. It's getting creepy. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"the majority of opprobrium here is in the eye of the partisan" "continues to be the dominant narrative from several people here, blindly and despite all contrary evidence" "There is a hard core of participants here that seem focused on vengeful retaliation"

wow, this is a new level of lack of AGF for me indeed 199.247.44.10 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review this block

Will an uninvolved administrator please review the block I imposed and the subsequent discussion at User talk:Merge8productions? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the block. The user is free to submit a proper unblock request, where their reasoning ought to be relayed in a concise and cogent manner. It is a promotional username, as far I can tell, regardless that the company is now defunct. El_C 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Good block. I think there's a substantial chance this person or persons is trolling us, because there's a degree of righteous indignation that I don't often see in genuine newbie. But even with AGF and all that, the block is justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Endorse block. Some contribs I pulled at random also seem promotional (or just odd), so there may be something on that front, as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Jumping into this thread rather than creating a new one - could I trouble one of you all to revoke talk page access? The user is just continuing to post about how terribly they've been wronged and argue about whether their name is okay without submitting a proper unblock request. creffett (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Reblocked and notified due to the post block behaviour. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for more editorial eyes

I've been trying to work on making some edits to Smartmatic, but would appreciate a few more administrative eyes to help ensure that changes reflect a consensus of editors, rather than just one editors views.

I'll post a more comprehensive summary of the back story on the article talk page: Talk:Smartmatic#Request_for_more_editorial_eyesS Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for lifting editing/creation restriction

It would be nice if these very old restrictions could be removed. I feel they are a dead letter. (Indeed the creation was supposed to be temporary.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

• For clarity, I believe we're talking about these two discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Automated creation of incorrect categories. The restrictions are as follows (taken from Taken from WP:EDR):

  Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

  Imposed October 2010, and

  Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation.

  Imposed January 2011. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• What reason does the community have to lift those restrictions? --Izno (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• You say that they were "supposed to be temporary", but they are both indefinite, which means that no one thought they were temporary at the time they were imposed, except perhaps for yourself, or they would have had a time limit placed on them. You give no reason for lifting them, except, basically, that you don't like them. Considering that you have been the subject of quite a number of sanctions over the years, included a de-sysopping for cause [102], there's no particular reason that the community should lift these sanctions absent a very good reason to do so. Please provide a rationale for their removal which is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I did not say they were supposed to be temporary, I said the creation one was:

I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.

— RD232 [the editor who imposed the sanction]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

• One editor speculating that a sanction would be superceded is not the same as a general expectation that the creation sanction would be "temporary". As I said, if they thought it would be temporary, they would have written it that way. They did not, they made it indefinite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Related:

• Block log.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction
• desysopping
• failed re-RfA
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Rich Farmbrough
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131#Rich Farmbrough
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive149#Rich Farmbrough

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note: "desysopping" and "failed re-RfA" added by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Desysopping was as a result of a vacated arb case. And the RFA was not failed but went to 'crat chat which closed as no consensus at my request. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• You aren't helping your case by misrepresenting easily-checked facts. The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". That's the definition of a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." You had your chance to withdraw before the RfA closed. You didn't and the RfA failed. At this point our page at Law of holes may be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was referring to this. And I have amended my statement above to be more accurate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Oppose Thanks for the handy links, Guy Macon. I had already gone over the Arbcom ruling and amendments. Rich's block log was, ah, informative. I won't say never but it would take a lot of convincing for me to go along with changing Rich's current restrictions. Old they may be but I'd say earned from the evidence. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The restrictions were earned through Rich's actions and after much discussion. They serve the useful purpose of preventing the resumption of those actions. If Rich wants to explain why those actions were wrong and to assure the community that they will not resume and to agree that an immediate block would be the proper outcome should any of them occur again then I might reconsider this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support my interactions with Rich have led me to believe that he is here in good faith and I therefore favor giving him another chance by removing these sanctions from eight years ago. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• My question to Rich would be whether he intends to do either of the following: "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page" or "mass creating pages in any namespace, [without] prior community approval for the specific mass creation task".
  I'm mindful of a recent discussion where it was suggested that we could lift a TBAN where the editor in question wasn't intending to go do the stuff that was banned would agree that he'd abide by the TBAN even though it was removed from the rolls (WP:AN#Request to remove Topic ban). In other words, the editor was agreeing to have an off-the-books TBAN, which struck me as improper for a few reasons. My way of thinking is that if Rich has no interest in doing those things but does want the bans lifted so, for instance, there's no concern with things that might be edge cases (i.e., whether a handful of articles means "mass creation", or whether the occasional cosmetic wikicode change merits being dragged to AE/AN/ANI), there should be little problem with this request provided there's no recent (say within 6 months-2 years) issues with violating them. I would not make that exactly a binding guarantee since, as I said in that other thread, it's tantamount to an off-the-books editing restriction, which we shouldn't be doing. Rather, I'd consider Rich immediately going back and doing the same stuff that got him these restrictions, we could reasonably infer that he had lied in order to get out of this restriction, and reimposing/blocking would be appropriate. And if he does go back and start disrupting but beyond "immediately", the same restrictions can be reimposed.
  Another idea would be to add a sunset provision to both restrictions. Something like: "Effective on [date of closure], this editing restriction is suspended. On [date of closure + six months], if a community discussion does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse. This paragraph is not intended to limit the community or an uninvolved administrator's ability to impose appropriate sanctions for disruptive conduct that is incidentally covered by the suspended editing restriction." Thoughts on this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not a fan of the off-the-books restrictions and conditions either. I prefer a clearly defined set of conditions, explicit in the details. This is the current status quo. The sunset arrangement has problems as well, particularly if there is a delay on it (closure + six months or whatever.) This puts a burden on others to check up on Rich at a later time. Overriding some Arbcom decisions makes me a little queasy. There are levels of AFG and giving people another chance that I have trouble with. This is one of those times. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Mark Ironie This is not an arbcom provision, it was imposed by [[User:RD232], who left the project seven years ago, without a !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Right, my thought with the sunset provisioning is more if people think there's reason to give Rich a shot (i.e., if he's not violated the sanctions in a long time) but don't want to risk a full lifting right now. I'm with you as there being an added burden to watch for problems, but I'm really not sure how much of a burden that would be. People subject to long-running sanctions—Rich had both community-based and Committee-imposed ones (the latter having been vacated entirely in 2016)—tend to have no shortage of folks checking up on them as a matter of course. Here's an alternative thought though: "After [date of closure + six months], Rich may open a community discussion on WP:AN to request that his status be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the restriction is still needed. If this discussion, having duly considered whether the restriction is still needed, does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse." That way, the burden is on Rich to ask at the end of the probationary period before the restrictions will be vacated. I'm certain that the AN regulars would provide a robust discussion. Anyway just my thinking on how to approach this procedurally if it's decided to be worth trying. I'm still not decided on whether it's worth trying at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would have thought 9 years is probably a long enough sunset provision.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

• As far as I am aware, there is no such thing in Wikipedia policy as a "sunset provision", so citing it as a reason for lifting these sanctions is an invalid argument. Perhaps there should be sunset provisions. If so, then someone should propose it at WP:VPP and get it approved by the community. Until then, sindefinite sanctions stay in place indefinitely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv I do not intend to make non-rendering changes which do not have consensus. Page creation as described is now written into policy, which, of course, I do not intent to break. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

• Oppose - No reasonable rationale provided for removal. As demonstrated by the links above, RF has a history of being sanctioned, and a further history of then violating those sanctions, which means he simply cannot be trusted. Lifting the sanctions still in place leaves him free to take the same kind of actions that got him restricted in the first place. I don't trust him, and do not think that the community can afford to place its trust in him, any more than it did when he applied to be an admin again, and his RfA failed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Approximately 70% of the community supported my RFA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Which put it in the discretionary range at the time, and the 'crats -- who are, after all, part of the community -- decided against promoting you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• No they didn't. To avoid placing them in an invidious position, and to avoid an adminship tainted by being a close call I asked them to close as no consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". In other words, a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." BTW, good job getting Beyond My Ken to agree that both of you stop WP:BLUDGEONING this page and then continuing to post comments after he stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• In fairness, here's the timeline: Rich agrees to stop, BMK says he has no more good faith for Rich, and then BMK says he'll stop. Not sure it was nice of BMK to take a parting shot like that, although he could have wrote it before seeing Rich's agreement to stop. Lepricavark (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, it wasn't a "parting shot". I made two (maybe 3??) comments, including one about the lack of good faith, turned my attention to other stuff (no edits, but a five minute gap in activity, according to my contrib log), and then came back to re-read the thread, which is when I saw Golden Ring's remark and immediately agreed to his suggestion. So, the history may look damning, but it doesn't actually indicated a parting shot, which it was not. In fact, I distinctly remember thinking that I wish I had seen Golden Ring's suggestion before I had added the previous comments, just for the sake of appearances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's fair. Stuff often gets overlooked in these conversations. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support in the absence of evidence that the banned conduct has been a problem in the last, I don't know, two years? Eight years on, IMO we should be giving someone the chance to show they've changed enough in that time that the restriction is no longer necessary; if eight years is not enough, I don't see any way that these could ever be lifted. I don't object to the sunset clause proposed above, but don't particularly support it, either. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Bygones (this page should exist). Seriously, restrictions from 2010??? I trust Rich to be wise enough not to be disruptive today, especially not in the manner he was disruptive nine years ago. — JFG ^talk 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Eight years is long enough for these restrictions to be lifted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• An indefinite sanction is not "infinite", but it does stay in effct until it is lifted. It does not dissipate, or fade away over time, it is just as much in effect at this moment as it was the second after it was imposed. These "support" votes seem to be saying that the evidence the sanctions should be lifted is the fact that the sanctions have done their job well, so we no longer need them. Someone attempting to get a restraining order lifted on the basis that they had stayed away from the person for the 8 years the order was in place would be laughed out of court - the fact that the restrainimg order worked is the evidence for the restraining order continuing to be necessary. Add to that that other people are providing rationales for the sanctions to be lifted, while RF has made no argument of substance at all, and you have more than enough reason to reject this frivilous and unnecessary request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have seen this Procrustean argument before. "It worked, so it was necessary. Had it not worked, a stronger sanction would have been necessary." By this logic indefinite is infinite.

Moreover there are side effects, people oppose granting of bits based on things like this.

I don't think that calling my request "frivolous and unnecessary" is WP:AGF - but then little you have said here is.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

You are correct. Your behavior ran out every possible bit of AGF I had regarding you years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the cosmetic restriction, as it was being broken as recently as Jan 2019. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Could Rich Farmbrough and Beyond My Ken stop trying to bludgeon this request to death and let the community review it please? GoldenRing (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm game. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

  Sure, I'll refrain from further comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don’t see any need for these to remain in effect. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie, I respect your opinion/!vote, but have a question - regardless of whether it's a "good" restriction (i.e. let's put aside whether it's appropriate for the ban to be in place), do you think someone under a restriction should be violating it before they have it lifted? Primefac (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  What was the negative effect to the project from breaking the violation? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  In the case I listed above, and in general, hundreds of pointless edits and flooded watchlists. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• support per WP:ROPE and the spirit of WP:UBCHEAP. The violation Primefac brings up is noted, but Rich's explanation was actually quite reasonable even if it violated the letter of the restriction. It's been nearly a decade; I think it's worth seeing how things go without the restrictions. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I wasn't going to take a stand on this, limiting myself to providing some related links, but since then I have taken a deep dive into the edits in question. Too many errors of the type caused by poorly-written automated tools combined with a failure to preview the edits and fix obvious screwups by the automation. Things like nuking a ]] without removing the matching [[. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this restriction does not apply to the type of edit you describe, only to edits which make no rendered difference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC).

• Oppose as these restrictions really apply to all users. But most do not step over the line. Any mass action should have consensus. Our appealer here has not indicated that compliance will be observed, just that it is not nice to have restrictions. Mass editing requires mass checking and mass errors need mass fixing so much more care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence of a benefit to the community. Automated mass edits are difficult to safeguard on a good day, and user has not demonstrated a need to make them or the ability to make them safely. ROPE is not a good reason-- the user should convince the community the sanction is no longer needed before removing the sanction.-- Dlohcierekim 00:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree, necessarily, but I guess my question is how Rich would show he can make these edits if he cannot make them? That's really the point of my rationale. If this is as recurring a time sink as Guy below says, perhaps the efficient route is to give Rich one last chance to prove us wrong, and if not we can resolve this quickly at that time. I'm fine maintaining the restrictions, I just think that, at this point, perhaps an ultimatum will save further drama in the future. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Graeme Bartlett. If these restrictions really apply to all users, what's the point of marking Rich with the aforementioned scarlet letter? By this token, you might ban someone from worse things, like "no replacing pages with obscenities" or "no disruptive sockpuppetry". If policy prohibits something, applying special restrictions to a certain person basically just gives enemies "gotcha" opportunities, which it definitely seems to me has been the situation with Rich. Just look for interaction between him and Fram, including five of the six "Related" links given by Guy Macon at 22:45, 11 August 2019. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PS, for years I've noticed that Fram was frequently (maybe almost always) the one filing complaints about Rich. It's one thing if you edit in an esoteric area and one other person is basically the only one who has the chance to notice, but when you edit in a very public manner and one person is making most of the AN/ANI/AE/etc. complaints about you, to me it looks very much like you're being targeted, because if you really were the massive problem that's alleged, lots of people would have made such complaints. We shouldn't treat one person's persistent complaining as if it were truly representative of what most editors think. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    Just as a minor note, I might not have been raising anything at ANI or AE, but I've noticed a lot of these issues over the years (as can be seen in Rich's talk page archives) - this is primarily because I'm an AWB/bot user and Rich edits in the same areas that I do. Just because no one has put something on a noticeboard doesn't necessarily mean they don't notice; I just preferred to discuss the issues with them on their talk first. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    • I think that whether the complaints lead to sanctions is a key point. If editor A keeps reporting editor B and pretty much every time editor B gets a warning or a block, that's one thing. If there is a long string of the result being no violation, content dispute/not an ANI issue and/or boomerang, that's another thing entirely. Either situation is a problem -- somebody isn't responding to feedback. If I kept being reported and warned, I would figure out what I was doing wrong and stop. If I kept reporting someone and my reports didn't result in any action, I would give up and stop reporting that user. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very much like in the other case on this board, people with this sort of block log would need to give a very good reason for why we should explicitly allow them to do things that all users should not do in any event, and I'm not seeing it. Sandstein 18:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not asking for that, I am asking for special restrictions to be withdrawn. These have a tendency to be hair-trigger, as you know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
    

Proposed additional restriction (withdrawn)

Proposal withdrawn: not getting any traction. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed: If the above appeal fails, Rich Farmbrough is not allowed to appeal or otherwise ask again that his restrictions be lifted until January 1st of 2020. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Edited 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Support as proposer. The previous requests have been a major time sink. Note: If this passes, he makes another request after Jan 1. and it too gets shot down in flames, I intend to request a one year extension of this restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) @Guy Macon: Is this requested often? It's the first one I remember seeing (a poor metric), but if this is a recurring time sink, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Oppose seems less than ideal to make this suggestion before the above thread has been closed, especially in light of the fact that it is not exactly SNOWing up there. Lepricavark (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Added the phrase "If the above appeal fails". I probably should have specified that from the start. Does that address your objection? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) It kinda addresses it, but at the same time I don't believe such a restriction is necessary unless there's a recent history of Rich filing these appeals too frequently. Otherwise, it almost seems like piling on. To be sure, you could reasonably contend that this proposed restriction is preventative rather than punitive, but is it something we normally formally do? Lepricavark (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Not formally and not normally. There is an explicit six months before an appeal will be considered that is added on to many arbcom and ANI decisions, but there are plenty of times (I would guess more often than not) when this is not done. And of course any such time limit can be undone if, for example, new information completely exonerates the blocked user. That would be a legitimate situation to invoke WP:IAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser block by vanished user

User talk:Kiroranke has an unblock request; the account's owner was given a {{checkuserblock-account}} last year by BU Rob13, but as BU Rob13 has retired, I can't go and ask him what he thinks. How again does one request review of a checkuser block when the checkuser's no longer here? Seems that the logical thing is just to go ahead and have a discussion here, but I know the higher-ups get really picky about this kind of thing (can't trust the community to make decisions for itself...), so I don't want to get in trouble for ignoring rules that prevent me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd ask another checkuser or refer Kiroranke to the Arbitration Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

2018 block-- it's probably stale accept to check for current activity. Even then a single edit would be hard to go by. They might need to email ArbCom, unless a CU has better options.-- Dlohcierekim 06:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• We can hardly uphold a vanished sock block when there was no indication logged as to who they were a sock of.

I would like to see a policy change such that all sock blocks must identify the suspected sockmaster or SPI page. I can see no excuse for these unattributed ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I believe WP:DENY is the usual justification for this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see that for mainspace, but not here. We just end up with unclear allegations like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, some sockmasters like to see how many socks they can get labelled with the master's username. If that seems sad and desperate for attention, well, it does to me, too. But this is the result. GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That can invoke privacy violations, so won't happen. Example: master identifies bya real-world verifiable name or handle; blocks are IPs and identifying would link identities to IP addresses. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Could the CU policy be amended to require that all sock blocks, if they do not identify the suspected sockmaster or SPI page, must be logged with that information at the CU wiki? That would avoid the issue of publicising things that need to be kept private, since only CUs have read rights there, but maybe there would be some other policy issue with the idea, or maybe it would require too much extra work. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It could, but that’d be a bad idea. Speaking for myself, I’ll block without an SPI or tag if it’s an LTA or if there is obvious socking going on, they obviously aren’t the original master, and ur isn’t clear who is. Example: 6 vandal accounts on an IP with multiple sleepers. Likely someone else, and not worth adding another name to SPI or clogging up CUwiki. I’m going to block but I’m also not really going to put much effort into figuring out who it is because it doesn’t matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• The block log and CU law suggests it was related to a check performed at wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive#22_February_2018. Rob never checked this specific account, which means it had to show up in the results from another account. I don’t have time to review right now, but other CUs can and Rob being retired isn’t a big deal on this. Just treat it like any block from MikeV... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've taken a spin at it, the things from the CU logs that show up are pretty damning even till now without being able to go back on the useragent. The allegation is that this user is WCF. Besides showing up on a more public, shared IP for your unblock request as a way to hide what range you really come from is the worst tactic in the book. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad, based on your comments, I've rejected the unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong page?

Excuse me, but is none of what's treated here important at all? Have I placed that on the wrong page? Not even block evasion very exciting at English WP anymore? Realiable sources? COI? I'm confused, but also not very good at making proper reports. Thank Goodnes there hasn't been much need during all these years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The block evasion suffices. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Paedophile redirects yet again

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Paedophile redirects issue was closed and archived, and nobody disagreed with the comment "I think from the discussion above it is clear that article titles which label someone as a paedophile are not acceptable", but one of the redirects still exists and the discussion has been relisted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Angela Allen (paedophile). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. Angela Allen is a redlink so there's no need for the disambiguation anyway. Either delete it or rename it, utter stupidity. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the RfD is already going, let it run. And frankly, the subject in question has much bigger issues than a Wikipedia redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon requests clarification or lifting of restrictions

In the 2015 unblocking statement (when I did the "standard offer" return from an indef block for sockpuppetry), I was warned to not misbehave, with one wording at WP:AN and another at my talk page. I would like to get a clarification of whether either of these should be considered to be still in effect, and whether the one on my talk page is a "ban" against the work I have been doing for the last 4 years, and if so whether any restriction or ban could be appealed and lifted.

The particular statements in question were both made by User:Prodego:

• At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Standard offer unblock request from Dicklyon:

User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here.

• And at my talk page:

Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves.

(my bold in both to highlight the relevant difference)

Why I'm here:

I don't recommend trying to wade through it, but reference WP:AN/I#MarcusBritish personal attacks, where Beyond My Ken tried to whack me with a boomerang. He proposed and argued to sanction me for making a lot of page moves over the last four years, which he says is evidence of my violating these terms.

In closing off that megathread, User:El C reminded me on my talk page to "to adhere to the terms of your ban, pending an appeal". I didn't know I had a ban (he clarified he meant what's implicit in what Prodego wrote on my talk page), but if I did, I hereby appeal, per his advice. The idea of avoiding "potentially controversial actions" is hard to imagine, but I do a good job of resolving controversy before making mass moves.

Background

As I stipulated at that AN/I discussion, since my 2015 unblock I've moved about 7000 pages manually, plus nearly 3000 via approved bot assistance, and hundreds (at least) more indirectly via RM discussions and RMTR requests. When BMK was not able to find or elicit any evidence of any of my mass moves being controversial, he invoked the wording of my "ban" to say that I'm prohibited from mass moves generally, not just controversial ones, and therefore I ought to be indeffed.

@Prodego:, the 2015 unblocking admin, wrote

In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant.

and later wrote:

I'd reaffirm that I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point, and that it would be improper for an admin to block based on them.

Moving forward

The accusations didn't stick, but neither did I get exonerated. So I'm seeking clarification, having been a very active and usually quite good editor for the last four years (if you can believe the bunch of editors who showed up to defend me). If anyone here wants me to detail what some of the big masses of moves were about, and why they were non-controversial and a net improvement to en.WP, I'd be happy to elaborate.

Thanks for your consideration. My plan is to say nothing else unless asked, and I would assume that anyone who was part of the AN/I debate will preface their comments here with "(involved)" or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's move past this, shall we? This exchange will produce more meaningless drama, and we've had our share.-- Dlohcierekim 13:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not try to "whack [Dicklyon] off with a boomerang" (which incidentally, has in the US a sexual gloss -- "whacking off" meaning "jerking off", which I'm sure Dicklyon did not mean), I assessed the discussion which had already taken place and concluded that MarcusBritish should be indef blocked (Proposal (B)) for this continuing incivility and personal attacks, which je was, and that Dicklyon had violated his 2015 unblock conditions, which were still in effect, by making mass moves, an opinion which had previously been expressed by a number of people in the discussion which had already taken place, and that the indef block should be re-instated. (Proposal (A)) I did not invent that argument out of whole cloth, and Dicklyon himself admitted to the mass moves himself. The locus of our disagreement was in our differing understandings of his unblock conditions. My contention is that what Dicklyon was told on his talk page, where he was actually informed of the community's unblock baseed on granting his SO request, was controlling, and that lannguage is clear: Dicklyon should "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." Since this was the official notification of his unblock, this should be controlling. This clearly tells him to avoid mass page move because they are potentially controversial. Dicklyon on the other hand, apparently relies on the language of the closing at AN/I, [103] to avoid "large scale controversial actions". Those two statements are indeed different, but only the one (the first) was officially given to Dicklyon when he was unblocked, and so should be controlling. Nevertheless, I have no objection to Dicklyon's seeking either a clarification of his unblock conditions or a lifting of them altogether. Editors here should read the AN/I thread in which the community (not Prodego!) granted him his Standard Offer request in 2015 (it's here [104]), read Prodego's official unblock notification ([105]), and at least try to pick your way through the very long, very convoluted recent discusssion ([106]), before evaluating Dicklyon's contributions over the last 4 years since he was unblocked. No, my only objection is to Dicklyon's ascribing to me a malevolent intent in floating Proposal (A), which was never the case. In any event, it's not relevant to his request, and I would ask him to stop these near-PAs snd to simply about his task of convincing the community that the sanction should be lifted. I don't plan to participate any further, so there should be no more reason for my name to arise here at all. This is not about Dicklyon vs. BMK, this is about Dicklyon making a request to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, he did not say “whack off,” he said “whack” which carries no other connotation, and is a perfectly appropriate word to describe what happens when a boomerang hits something. This is not the first time you’ve misrepresented someone’s words on this page, so please be more careful. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC) @Mr Ernie: You are correct, he wrote "whack" and not "whack off", so I have corrected my comment above. My error, and my apologies to {{ping|Dicklyon)). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal – lift ban

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

---

• Support removing ban God, here we go again, but the gist of what I got from that horrid mega thread was that the ban is no longer needed. Not sure if everyone will agree with that, after all of the Sturm und Drang, but here it is. And yes, it was indefinite, meaning it requires discussion to lift it, not "oh, it was so long ago, let's pretend it isn't there." Probably Dicklyon should have appealed at some earlier time, but not everyone is familiar with navigating this toxic waste superfund site's peculiarities-- Dlohcierekim 12:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  contra Andy Dingley, I think it was determined in the mega thread that his page moves were constructive rather than disruptive, his violation of the restriction was through misunderstanding, and that there were strong assertions there that the restriction had outlived its usefulness.-- Dlohcierekim 13:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  per Dicklyon's request above, I was a part of that horrid mega thread, but my opinion changed from what it started as.-- Dlohcierekim 16:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I agree. As the closing admin of the last God, here we go again, I've insisted on this appeal (and been criticized for that), but I felt I had little choice. Noticeboard consensus saw these restrictions placed and, in turn, such noticeboard consensus should see them lifted. El_C 12:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't think an unblock condition that results from ANI consensus becomes invalidated just because the closing admin feels it lapses with time or that they failed to properly log it (though the latter is a problem). Either the close is invalid, or it isn't. Either the time is specified, or it is, by default, indefinite. Still, I must admit that I viewed this as more of a formality and, in light of Dicklyon's voluminous contributions, I expected this request to be accepted without much friction. The fact that it is not, saddens me, and frankly, now I'm thinking whether for pragmatic reasons I should have closed with the unblock conditions lifted, even if it goes against the procedure of noticeboard consensus and its binding nature. Certainly, I don't expect Dicklyon to prove a negative with respect to their record for the last four years, but I think the fact that no reports (to my knowledge) were brought to the admin noticeboards which took issue with him violating the 2015 unblock conditions, speaks for itself. I, therefore, reiterate my support to have Dicklyon's unblock restrictions lifted and am hopeful his efforts to do so does not get curtailed due to unrelated past conflicts. El_C 18:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• topic ban I was unaware of your 2015 ban or any conditions regarding it, lifted or still applied. But for a period of some years since this, we have been in perpetual conflict where you have done everything possible to stamp out capitalisation. I have not sought you out over this, but you've popped up at areas of my own technical interest, from British railways to the Apollo CSM which you moved to the lowercase form [107]. Most recently you have done the same at one of Gibralter's unique pieces of Edwardian engineering, renaming "the Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant" as "an air lock diving-bell plant" just to imply that these things were commonplace and thus not capitalised. Everywhere I see you, you're campaigning to convert the capitalised proper name phrases of distinct items into uncapitalised generics: Talk:Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant. You have no knowledge of the subjects involved, you not merely excuse but actually flaunt your lack of knowledge and claim that simplistic wiki dogma on capitalisation overrides all other sources.

So yes, you have spent the last few years being perpetually disruptive, controversial and involved in mass page moves.

I'm only here because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. I know nothing of previous restrictions, but as of now I would like to see a strong topic ban against these. And importantly, not merely for moves but also for renames within a page (advocating them in talk: space would be reasonable). I do not call for any sort of bans or restrictions on editing otherwise (but if others want to go that far, I'd probably support it). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lift any ban, if there is one. Every single editor on this site is expected to refrain from performing large-scale potentially-disruptive actions without first inviting discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Reaper Eternal. — Ched :  ?  — 16:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Reaper Eternal. Indeed, "Every single editor on this site is expected to refrain from performing large-scale potentially-disruptive actions without first inviting discussion"; when one on many occasions hasn't refrained, however, it sometimes becomes necessary to explicit-ify that which should be obvious. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been asked for examples of potentially disruptive actions; i apologise, Dicklyon that it has taken a while ~ work, you know.... So, there is this, where the conclusion was no outright ban but clearly Dicklyon was on the verge of disruption. And this in which multiple reverts, while well-intentioned, were disruptive. And this, where it is argued that he had violated unblock conditions with controversial moves (hmm, familiar). I think that the nub of the issue is the intention: I have no doubt at all that he is always well-intentioned in his edits, but the good intentions are not always enough to hide the disruption of the action. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

On the basis of this edit (though i would be happier without the final four words, which i think could still allow for controversy) i now support the lifting of the ban. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It became prettyt clear during the previous discussion at AN/I that Dicklyon had violated the terms of their extant t-ban, saw nothing untoward about their actions and would do so again. While I didn't think Marcus British handled the conflict anywhere remotely close to appropriate, Dicklyon has not earned the trust necessary to lift the t-ban. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support removing ban Primary reason: To me, this comes down to one simple question. Do I trust Dicklyon to not be disruptive if the ban on "large scale, controversial actions" is lifted? Yes. I do. I believe that he has more than earned our trust. Secondary reason: If it turns out that I am wrong, I would prefer a new response from the community, based upon behavior since the unblock, and not mixed up with a block/appeal for an unrelated past sockpuppetry issue. But I don't think I am wrong, and I don't think we will ever again have any issues with Dicklyon making large scale, controversial changes without seeking consensus first. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support lift – No recent issue with Dicklyon's behaviour. — JFG ^talk 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support removing ban – Dicklyon is one of the most professional of our editors in housecleaning the project. He does an enormous amount of good that clearly passes under the radar of some users here (and as for all of us here, the errors he does make are tiny compared with the size of output—errors that seem to be amplified by others in support of particular agendas). And I see above that there's confusion between (i) sudden, mass changes, and (ii) carefully argued, properly proposed multiple moves that rely on editors' feedback on the page before anything is finalised. Tony (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he does good. But if he can't do that without also doing harm, and intensely irritating the other editors around him, that's not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is a highly disruptive user who has violated his unblock agreement and doctored an MOS page to make it look like his position was already supported. Show him the outside of the door. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• On the fence, leaning oppose I intend to find some time to look into this further and clear that up one way or another. But for the moment, I'm seeing someone who willfully violated their unblock condition and we shouldn't respond to that by removing the unblock condition. If Dicklyon didn't understand their unblock condition, they have serious problems with reading comprehension. It wasn't difficult to follow. The alleged confusion seems to me to be much easier to understand as an attempt to wikilawyer around the ban than actual confusion over the wording. I'm also not convinced that the mass page moves they have carried out were uncontroversial; several have been reverted en masse and by Dicklyon's own admission, a lot of people complained about them. Lastly, modifying MOS to support one of those mass page moves to support your position in an argument about one of them is - how can I put this politely? - not the move of someone whose restriction is no longer necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• There is no ban - with respect to Prodego, the wording in the unblocking close is not sufficient to establish that a ban was enacted in the first place. Banning someone from "controversial actions" is so vague as to be unenforceable as a sanction. Furthermore it is not logged and has never been logged at WP:EDR, and the sanctioning admin has endorsed this approach; the community cannot endorse a restriction that does not exist. It is moot. If someone wants to propose that Dicklyon should be topic-banned from [mass-]page moves based on recent behaviour, they should do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support lifting... if the ban exists at all. While I don't think Dicklyon's handling was perfect, I can empathize with his frustration with vagueness of "avoiding potentially controversial moves" and subsequent catch-22 interpretation that several have been reverted en masse and therefore, they were controversial. Sorry, "controversial" does not mean "anyone objects for any reason including IDONTLIKEIT". As Ivanvector said, anyone can propose a ban that defines a clear bright line, but the current situation is simply untenable. As the evidence suggests, his page moves have been largely uncontroversial (sensu stricto) and he did not move-war when challenged. I'm pretty late in the game to make a proposal, but we could have formulated a restriction that Dicklyon must announce any move involving more than X (~20) articles on appropriate wikiproject(s) and/or RM and wait for 7 days before execution. Something like this would still be a good idea for Dick to follow voluntarily if the ban gets lifted. No such user (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@No such user: Er... what? The restriction explicitly included "mass page moves" as something he was banned from doing because they are potentially controversial. No catch-22 here. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Well, the wording (and history of sanctions, I don't feel like searching for the original move ban discussion – was it formalized?) certainly included sufficient wiggle room. I'm not sure I subscribe to the notion that "" As Guy Macon pointed out, [I] would prefer a new response from the community, based upon behavior since the unblock, and not mixed up with a block/appeal for an unrelated past sockpuppetry issue. WP:ROPE, WP:BYGONES and all that. No such user (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Maintain the ban. I'm not acquainted with this editor or their history, but I do not trust a person with this sort of block log - edit-warring for years on end - to perform mass actions of any kind, let alone "large scale, controversial actions"". These are best avoided by everybody in any event. Sandstein 18:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sandstein, Dicklyon deserves more than just a cursory glance at their block log. If you can’t bother to look into the issue then please don’t offer an opinion. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lift ban if it exists. Ivanvector's argument is probably sufficient by itself. AFAIK, Noone has challenged the claim that he hasn't warred once reverted. That sounds like an editor aware and mindful of his past and looking to improve the encyclopedia without causing disruption or getting into trouble. Many editors (in the previous discussion) were of the opinion that his work is a necessary one. These editors seemed to be aware of the big picture in which the actions were carried out, while the opposing editors still seem to me, mad about few that they are closely involved with. Considering the scale/volume of his work, that's an understandable/unavoidable amount of controversy, IMO. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 18:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per LindsayH. This editor has a long history of asserting his actions are uncontroversial because they are fully justified in his own mind and constantly pushing the limits. Only a bright line rule will work. Jonathunder (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support lifting if there is a ban. There's a strong suggestion that this "ban" was imposed in a way that isn't permitted in the rules, in that it was decided by a single admin rather than AN consensus. But if that that interpretation turns out to be invalid, then I also support the proposal to lift it. That is not to say I think Dick should head on out and perform large-scale controversial moves. Of course not. But, as already noted, neither should anyone else. Dick has not done anything that I know of in the last four years to merit being singled out from other editors in this fashion. And to anyone who thinks it doesn't really matter, the recent ANI episode – where Dick's reporting of a problematic editor (who was blocked for incivility) almost resulted in a BOOMERANG because of this sanction – shows that actually this is something that looms large over Dick's Wikipedia career. And at this point in time, even though I don't always agree with Dick, I don't think that's fair because he cares about the project and by-and-large he follows the rules. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Lift ban. Support IV's vagueness / process arg. Dicklyon is a good editor with a strong technical background. Glrx (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Lift if there is one at all (I think not per Ivanvector). I've seen Dicklyon's comments on a number of RMs, and they generally seem to be sensible. I trust their ability to move pages in accordance with policy. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Lift any ban Paul August ☎ 00:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon comments

OK, nobody asked, but allow me a few reactions anyway.

First, many thanks to all the fine editors who stood up for me, knowing me or not. And especially to prodigal son Dlohcierekim, who was able to change his view on me. And El C for his naively optimistic idea that an appeal would be a simple formality.

Nyttend was the only editor besides MarcusBritish in what Beyond My Ken refers to as "a number of people" who expressed in the AN/I discussion that I had violated my "2015 unblock conditions" before BMK moved to indef me for that. Nyttend's comments there, and here, should be evaluated in the context of long-running style debates at RM discussions, which he has generally lost. Moves, not mass moves. His anti-MOS drama and WP:INVOLVED interference goes back at least to this 2013 RM discussion, which he lost. And this 2016 mess, which I lost. His beef is with moves and MOS, not with controversial mass moves. He's likely still sore that I took him to AN/I about it in 2017.

Andy Dingley just likes to cap stuff that's important to him (rail lines, computers, ships, whatever), but loses at all the relevant RM discussions. These discussions generally come early, and get resolved before "mass" moves happen. Some are not at all associated with mass moves (the computer and ship examples). And the British rail fans insisted on discussing pretty much every item, so we did, over quite a few months, including many in separate RM discussions, as they requested (e.g. see long list open in Feb. 2017 at the bottom of this article alerts page where you can see that almost all moved to lowercase line). Andy now claims (above) that I downcased the Apollo command and service module, but his link belies him – it was in fact closed and moved by RGloucester after Andy lost the debate in 2018.

GoldenRing is politely discussing with me to see if there's anything behind his complaint: User talk:GoldenRing#Examples, background?.

Simonm223 declined to clarify at his talk page.

LindsayH responded above to a clarification request. He found a British railway fan wanting to ban me since the RM discussions weren't going their way (not really "mass", but there may have been dozens by then, such as this one). And a not-move-related Vitamin D argument. And a complaint about my work related to MOS:JR, a provision that was very widely supported, eventually led to many thousands of moves including a few thousand by me and a few thousand by Mandruss and others after more discussion. Not exactly controversial mass moves.

Sandstein shows a lot of gall with his claim "I don't recognize this editor" after all the complaining I've been doing about his WP:INVOLVED action on unrelated matters in the last 3 days: multiple edits at this AE action, a trout on his talk page, and a snarky congrats; maybe he didn't notice. And then he argues for a ban based on not trusting me, for blocks from before I had 7 months off to think about my role in WP. And his anti-MOS involved actions go back to 2014 at least. His opinion can be weighed accordingly.

Jonathunder is just saying bad things for reasons I don't understand. Maybe he's been in some of those MOS-related discussions?

I'm not claiming everyone loves me or MOS-related style fixes, just that I don't abuse the system and I don't do controversial mass moves. Yes, as I stipulated at the start, I do "mass moves", but none of those masses have been controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I would really appreciate some kind of commitment that when you move pages, you will link to the discussion that preceded the move in your edit summary. It's not a policy requirement, but if you are regularly moving dozens to hundreds of pages, it is a tremendous help. If the link is too long to fit in the summary, you can use Special:PermanentLink. I also think you should consider the probability that all mass moves are controversial. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will commit to linking discussions on future moves wherever it's not obvious. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

On the 2015 "ban"

When I closed the original AN/I thread, the rationale was "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." While a ban on page moves was proposed in that thread, it did not have consensus and no ban was established. The word "ban" does not appear in the closure, the message on Dicklyon's talk page, or the unblock log message.

This "provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions", as many correctly surmised above, is restatement of a policy that applies to all users. It is a warning that such actions will result in being reblocked. Any increased vigilance of monitoring Dicklyon's page moves due to this four year old warning is long past.

There is a separate question of whether consensus in this most recent AN/I thread established a new ban, which was unclear. This discussion has now made that clear. Prodego ^talk 16:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably a very good idea for admins to watch this closely

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and associated pages. I mean current event pages in the countries of US rivals will always be a mess but this one looks particularly in need of careful, neutral, admin oversight. There's been a fair bit of WP:RGW from both editors with pro and anti China POVs there, and there's a lot of editors on IPs trying to use Wikipedia as an organizing and communications tool rather than an encyclopedia. At this point, I'm not running to AN/I to call out any specific editors, and would in fact advise caution and care toward WP:BITE. But I do think admins being alert to this cluster of event pages and filled in on the rapidly changing landscape of discussion here would be a very good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I've been trying to keep an eye. El_C 18:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to all that Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard also exists now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's use of full protection at Moors murders

SlimVirgin has full protected the article to prevent improvements and demanded that any discussion take place according to Featured Article rules. Individual wikiprojects do not dictate content, how articles are edited, or what improvements can be made. Apart from locking the article in their preferred version, SlimVirgin demanding that discussion take place elsewhere is an egregious abuse of admin power over article content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is SlimVirgin's preferred version; they don't seem to have edited that article in that article's past 1000 edits. Can you please clarify as to why specifically you think this is SlimVirgin's preferred version? --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

She last edited the article in 2010, before protecting today. I'm struggling to see her "preferred version". I'm also struggling to see where FA is defined as a "wikiproject", any more the GA, B-Class, C-class are... - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(EC)See the discussion. "I've protected the page for 24 hours. I can lift or extend that according to whatever the editors who are working on it at FAR prefer." That is stating a preference for one group of editors contributions over another in order to control content on an article. I described FA as a wikiproject as its a kinder description than others have used. 'Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria' doesnt roll off the tongue as easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

1. It doesn't state a preference for one group over another, just one process over another: anyone can partake at FAR, even all those who have been on the article's talk page. 2. "Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria"? thanks for the incivility, and/or your personal take on the FA process. We have a grading system and FA is part of it. If you don't like it, open an RfC to overturn it and see how far it gets you, but please don't insult the many, many editors who put so much effort into writing articles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: in fairness here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. I'm also pretty sure, with a few exceptions, anyone can participate in any WikiProject. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat and Yamla: They expressed an opinion that a certain version was better without the tags [108] "Tag bombing (subject heading) This needs to stop because it's making the page unreadable". They then protected at the version [109] about 30 minutes later. Someone doesn't need to edit an article to have a preferred version. It may not have been their intention to protect their preferred version, but they did so, and therefore as I said below, at a minimum this creates a perception they are abusing their tools to protect their preferred version. The way this can be avoided is by not using your tools when you are involved. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Only in death, I decided to remove the tags & the red error messages because I strongly believe our readers deserve better and randomly chose the previously protected version [110] to revert to, [111]. I don't have a dog in the fight, haven't even been following and haven't a clue whose is the "preferred version". EEng reverted, [112], and I reverted a second time, [113] and honestly would have kept going even if I got my first block. It's no way to treat an article, regardless of what anyone thinks of the content or the editors. SlimVirgin protected, which was probably wise. Just thought I'd set the record straight. If you have an issue with my actions, fine, I'll take the hit. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I, for one, don't think there is anything wrong with SlimVirgin's actions here. The article was clearly undergoing a slow motion edit war for which protection was an appropriate response. She may well have protected it in the wrong version but that's normal for this sort of action. I am not impressed by the head-in-the-sand reaction of some of the other editors of that article over claims that the article has sourcing errors, but I don't see SV's protection as taking sides in that debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• First, FA is not a Wikiproject, and anyone is welcome to edit FAs, including FAs at FAR, bearing WP:STEWARDSHIP in mind, which is policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." I said I would lift protection early, or extend it, if the people working on the article wanted it. It's not unusual for me to say that when I add full protection. I protected for 24 hours because EEng had reverted three times to his extensive use of {{failed verification span}}, which was making the article hard to read; see this section for example. I suggested that, if he wanted to make heavy use of that template, he should post the article to a sandbox and do it there, which would be just as useful for editors. The FAR is now open at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1. Input there would be helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Good protection. The behaviour of established, respected editors at the talk page of that article is shocking. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I disagreed with SlimVirgin's actions, and told her as much, but I don't see them as being outside admin discretion, nor do I see evidence that she is abusing her authority. This discussion is only increasing the heat-to-light ratio; I'm getting sick of saying this, but really the only reasonable way ought of this mess involves us focusing on the specifics of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• I fully support the good call to protect the article. The talk page discussion says it all, and also the fact that this was brought to this noticeboard also proves how infected this situation is. If anything the protection is too short and the edit disputes will continue for sure as soon as the protection is gone. BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse protection; I've also just extended that protection by another week out of an abundance of caution. Please let me know if a resolution is reached before then. El_C 22:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think either side of this dispute is completely in the right here, but given that there is clearly edit-warring going on here, +1 good protection. I also suggest that Only in death not go accusing people of abusing tools to force "their" version of the article without evidence, it smacks of casting aspersions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse protection and support El C extension as well.--MONGO (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Can we also acknowledge the quite bad timing of the FA status review nom of Moors murders. In the middle of a huge edit dispute.BabbaQ (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• @BabbaQ, huh? That's precisely the time an article should be taken to FAR; it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day is explicitly necessary for an article to remain FA. ‑ Iridescent 06:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I see the FAR as an opportunity to depersonalize this mess and refocus on the actual article content. This sort of thing is what FAR is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• IMO it was right for the article to be protected. It was wrong for SlimSV to do so, because they had already expressed an opinion on their preferred version and protected it at that version and there was no emergency requiring an involved admin to act. While everyone admin would have protected it at the WP:WRONGVERSION and of course it's quite common for someone to request protection just after they've reverted to their preferred version, an admin protecting at their preferred version at a minimum causes unnecessary ill feeling and perceptions that admins are entitled to use their tools to further their views in a dispute. Note that because the article should be protected, and because this is only a single instance there's actually nothing we can do here which is unfortunate. We're now at a situation where people are going to reasonably feel aggrieved and there's nothing we can do about it. This is precisely why involved admins should not act in an administrative capacity except in exceptional circumstances. If SlimSV had just waited for an uninvolved admin to act, e.g. El C or anyone at WP:RFPP perhaps people wouldn't be entirely happy, but I think most experienced editors will feel it's fair enough and the way things go. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  BTW, in case people think this is something to do with me being unhappy because my preferred version wasn't protected, I only looked at the article after I wrote all above precisely because it didn't matter. Now that I've looked, I am of the opinion that the extensive tagging was not the best way to handle the concerns and it was better to revert and deal with them in some other way. There may have been a decent chance we could reach consensus on removing them on the article talk page. Or alternatively an uninvolved admin may have returned to the version when protection expired or protected at the wrong version by chance. Yet even if this didn't happen and we were stuck with the the tagged version for a while, this would not be a big deal and a far better scenario than an involved admin protecting at their preferred version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  This only serves to air a grievance that was I thought others judged to be spurious, how was SV somehow "involved" in their unobjectionable administrative action? [ec] At least there is a clear admission that you thought it was the "wrong version", which provides some context to assuming a COI in others. There is an FAR for improving the article, if there is a problem with the version. ~ cygnis insignis 08:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

An abundance of caution

I just felt the need to report this user, Kamrul079 based on their recently created promotional page. God knows what they plan to contribute but I presume it will be promotional and PAID. Trillfendi (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Account creations appear to be getting throttled to 2/day for editors

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T230521
Resolved

Hello all, if you are running in to this, it appears to be a temporary issue. Discussion and linked phab tickets are available at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#T230304_and_account_creation_being_blocked if you want to follow for more information as it becomes available. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There was an email to the ACC list a couple days ago indicating this was intentional, to fend off a spambot attack, and yes it's temporary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there was an insane amount of spambot registrations xwiki, including large projects. As an example of the sheer number, take a look at my deletion and block log here and registrations here. Not that it changes anything here but just to give an idea of the sheer number that various projects were dealing with. Praxidicae (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dang it! I'll have to create my evil sock army another day.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I just became the latest account creation at warwiki, simply by browsing your deletion/block log link. It also created my user page, copying it from meta. I don't know if this is intentional. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: yes, "autocreate" accounts are normal the first time you visit another WMF project. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

On all projects where you are registered and have no userpage your meta userpage, also known as your global userpage, is shown. For example, I have no userpage on enwiki and the global one is shown. Vermont (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, phab:T230521 rpeorts that the wgAccountCreationThrottle setting has been restored to 6/day. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

blanking for page move

I accidentally recreated Juliano at Juliano (surname). Then I blanked Juliano (surname). I would like Juliano moved over (surname).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted the accidentally recreated page, now you can move the other one over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by Darkfrog24

• Note: The below appeal has been posted on behalf of User:Darkfrog24 for review by the community. For the purposes of this appeal, Darkfrog24 will have their user talk page access restored for use for the sole purpose of the appeal.

I am writing to appeal an indefinite block from June 7, 2018. It started as an AE/DS block, but the enforcing admin then left Wikipedia. No one else had the authority to lift or change it until its one year of AE/DS-ness expired.

I think the immediate cause was this post: [114]. It looked to me like admin Spartaz asked me a question just then, but it was actually posted a few hours earlier before the appeal closed.[115]

I replied on my talk page. I now recognize that I was not permitted to answer him. I also understand that I am not permitted to refer even indirectly to anyone with whom I am under an IBAN. I did not intend the word "someone" to mean anyone specific, but I guess the admin didn't know that. I will report any escalation through formal channels. In the future I will avoid making any similar posts on Wikipedia.

I plan to focus on the same main areas as last time I was unblocked: updating articles using material written for Wikinews, helping at RSN and 3O, and so on.

These were constructive, uncontested, noncontroversial edits. As you can see from my edit history before the appeal, I was an asset to Wikipedia during this period, with no complaints, accusations, or fights. I also never interacted with the editor with whom I am now under an IBAN – a voluntary decision on my part.

I am a lead reporter in Wikinews, having drafted over a hundred now-published articles. This often leads me to new material not yet in Wikipedia. If my edit count seems low it's because I often add large amounts of text to mainspace with a single edit e.g. [116] and I was splitting my time across many parts of Project Wiki. Notable activity:

• Imported material to mainspace from 61 articles I originally wrote for the Spanish Wikipedia. [117] See my contributions [118] under "(translated from Spanish Wikipedia)".
• Updated several Wikipedia articles with new content from Wikinews. [119]
• One of the facts I added from Wikinews[120] made "Did you know?" [121]
• Over 100 contributions to RSN. [122]
• One RfC. [123]
• Three 3O cases. [124]
• Two ARCA cases, for one of which I was awarded a diplomacy barnstar. [125] in recognition of [126]

For future appeals of the 2016 topic ban, it is my understanding that the admins recognize that I reject the original accusations but as of June 2018 do not merely advise but require me not to present evidence about this. Instead I am required to focus on present and future positive contributions.

Please inform me if there's something I haven't understood, or if you want me to add or change anything. If you decide not to lift the block, I hope you will consider restoring talk page access. I will respond to any other issues the admins think necessary upon request. Because I am not permitted to reply here, please place questions and comments on my talk page. Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 responses

Copied across from usertalk page at Darkfrog24's request -- Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but I guess I didn't:

I will continue to stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.

I see others among you saying that their biggest concern with my user access being restored is that I would immediately return to what they call relitigating the original accusations against me. As GoldenRing points out, I've been clearly ordered not to. I will not discuss the matter on Wikipedia outside legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as we are engaging in right now.

My plan for the topic ban appeal, a year from now, to prevent relitigation, is to list my plans for future contributions but add a line at the end, "If any admin here wishes me to address the original accusations, I am prepared to do so." I don't expect anyone will take me up on it, and if so, that's the end of it.

Is that acceptable?

In my time since the original sanction was imposed, I have also taken several steps to explore conflict resolution and deescalation, with noted success at 3O and noticeboards, as you can see from my edit history during the previous six months when I was unblocked.

Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures.

I have edited Wikipedia in a conflict free way in all the topic areas mentioned in the appeal (mainly RSN, and adding material from Wikinews and the Spanish Wiki). I have shown I am an asset to the encyclopedia, as you can tell from the six-month history before the last appeal.

These topics are also far from MoS with no gray-area issues. An AE admin made it clear that I am permitted to do style edits (wikignoming) of Wikipedia articles generally, so long as I don't discuss the edits, and in practice that caused no problems.

Seraphimblade, do you feel I have addressed your concerns?

If there is something else I haven't addressed here please ask and I will respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Community comments

Where is the link to the actual AE/DS block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically, reading backwards through Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log, Darkfrog warned of discrentionary sanctions in 2015, topic banned in January 2016, topic ban expanded in February 2016, indefinitely banned later the same month, after discussion here. Related arbcom motion here. Appealed again in 2018 declined. Indeffed (again) here (oversight only diff). There is some weird shit in there, and arbcom might know more. There are also a half dozen declined UTRS appeals, btw. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appeal is missing the crucial point: Darkfrog24 must indicate that they understand exactly what the topic ban imposed upon them means, and will stay far away from it. The entire previous disruption was the endless requests for "clarification" regarding it. No more "clarification", stay far, far away from that area, doing nothing that could even be remotely construed as touching on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with and share Seraphimblade's concern. I am glad that the user found usefulness elsewhere, but until they recognize that their behavior was wrong, we would be reinforcing these same impulses - which would recur. I suspect the user is playing along, checking the boxes she needs to get unblocked, and will likely try to avoid trouble. But not for long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think they’re a good guy, but based on my interactions with them, they are the type who will never get the point and honestly in good faith will think whatever disruptive behaviour they’re engaging in is helpful. While that doesn’t make them a bad person, it does make them a bad fit for the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Strictly speaking, for a petition for relief of sanctions (this really isn’t an “appeal” in the proper sense, which challenges the correctness or propriety of the original action), I don’t usually think it’s necessary to admit wrongdoing, though it can be persuasive. After all, there may be cases where there is a legitimate difference of opinion with the blocking admin. I’m not saying that’s the case here—actually it’s hard to tell what the whole story is from Darkfrog’s explanation, which I actually do find problematic. As such I’m in much the same boat as Someguy1221; there’s some weird stuff here that I don’t really understand. Moreover, seeing as there are suppressed diffs connected to blocks (per Someguy1221), I think we may want an oversight person to give an opinion on whether this request adequately addresses the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The suppressed diff is just a block notice. Doesn't appear related to the reason suppression at first glance, but I haven't looked closely. To clarify my stance above, yeah, it's similar to yours: he's rambly and doesn't really ever get to a point. I revoked his email access because he was sending multiple followup emails to a reviewing admin from UTRS via the email user function and they appeared to find it very frustrating. I'd put him fairly firmly in "Well meaning but bad fit for the project who doesn't get why." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The "weird stuff" was added to the page before the block notice, and removed afterwards. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes, I was looking just at the diff you linked the block notice in. I think I remember there being a discussion on the list about this at one point. Anyway, having looked more closely at the suppressed material, I think it falls in line with my general impression here that this is someone who may have issues that are not best addressed through noticeboard discussions and that this may cause concerns in the future. I'm not really sure how else to put that, but yeah, I think it's likely to cause issues in the future... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
        • In light of this further information and discussion, I oppose the request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - No convincing rationale provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni who analyzes the situation persuasively and provides the right amount of additional information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional support - appreciate above that there are quite a few issues. I don't necessarily agree that someone blocked should stay blocked forever. I think the standard offer should apply here, with a clear understanding that a) They must stay away from absolutely everything to do with the Manual of Style, in any description, and drop the subject about their topic ban. It's not exactly necessary to admit fault here, just a commitment to avoid the behaviour in future. Violations can be dealt with swiftly with blocks/reimposition of indef, but I think given their proposed work on Wikipedia I'd be open to them at least having a conditional unblock, perhaps with namespace restrictions if really seen as necessary. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The main problem that led to this block was the interminable relitigation of the topic ban (trying to appeal to AE after being rejected at ARCA twice and various other venues). It seems from this request that Darkfrog24 acknowledges that further relitigation is not acceptable. The conditions of the topic ban (according to AELOG) are that it may not be appealed until twelve months after an unblock, and their IBAN may not be appealed until the TBAN is successfully appealed. I'm happy to see an unblock under those conditions; any TBAN violation or attempt to relitigate the ban should be met with an immediate re-block. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tony but also the idea that "if someone violates again, they'll be swiftly reblocked" is patently untrue around here, it's often harder to re-ban and undo the damage that's been done in situations like this. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: In general you might have a point (though actually I see this said a lot but don't really see it happen), however this topic ban is under ARBATC and any admin can unilaterally block for violations. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Other communications and behavior from the user in question lead me to believe that he is incapable of working collaboratively and actually listening. I'll leave it at that. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unconvinced that will not re-enter the relitigation of the original topic ban, furthermore, based on their behaviour on IRC, where they repeatedly appealed their block (to the extent they were banned from the unblock channel) I have no confidence that they will not engage in obsessive litigious behaviour concerning disputed edits to content. I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned, is likely to result in significant disruption and excessive use of administrator time to manage. Nick (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've watched this case for a long time. While I do agree that Darkfrog's reaction to the original topic ban was less than ideal, I believe they understand that it will not be accepted. That said, all the subsequent issues stem from what was a blatant guideline-violating load of near-libelous BS that should have resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG block and almost amounted to harassment. Even the current block was an overreaction to Darkfrog asking for help to prevent further interaction with the slinger of false accusations. The fact is, Darkfrog was severely wronged, and their reaction since then is not only understandable, it's outright justified. The continued punishment (and at this point that's all it is, as it prevents nothing) of the wrong person is outright ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tony, "I don't get it" springs to mind when reading their unblock request, Also getting yourself blocked from the IRC unblock channel is worth a block alone. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I second the comments by oknazevad, User:Steven Crossin, and GoldenRing, on these two principles: 1) him apparently having learned his lesson about his original mistakes including spilling gasoline on the campfire and 2) excessive sanctions. Admins should seriously research the background of GoldenRing's comments because they indicate a lot of wrongful conviction and harassment, aside from whatever actual transgression. I met Darkfrog24 a few weeks ago in #wikipedia-en on IRC, where he spends all his time building people up, and showing the utmost respect for the project. Never a bad word about anyone or anything, just a joy to be around all day. He's given editors careful, detailed, general advice when they ask. When the topic of blocking has come up, maybe if someone else jokes about getting blocked, Darkfrog24 was speaking of the remorseful regretful longsuffering for his block status. He has advocated to people not to get blocked, and explained the ways to generally avoid it. Generally speaking, based on that first impression, if I saw someone with that kind of personal attitude, that kind of a heart for the public works, that kind of eagerness to contribute ASAP, that kind of hurting for being unable to contribute, and with those academic credentials seen on his User page, I'd be seriously wanting that person as a contributor to public works. And then seeing his outstanding quality of writing on at least one article, I'd be wanting to drag that person in to Wikipedia. Being blocked for a year, and being unable to even appeal it for a year at a time, is like a sockpuppet parole or like a murder or burglary parole in real life. Speaking of which, I know people are saying that he was severely annoying in the past and climbing the walls about his block, but I believe his lack of sockpuppetry and his suffering over it shows a commitment to justice. He didn't ask for my comment but I looked this AN up and I just can't do nothing. Please find a justly sized parole sanction, and review his interim contributions. Thank you! — Smuckola(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I decided to review this with "would I support if he'd never mentioned his old cases in his appeals or now?", and with Steve as a mentor below, I think it's reasonable. It can certainly be irritating if someone wants to relitigate issues constantly, but they've been prohibited from that. I still feel that requiring people to concede every accusation before allowing them back in is unfair and just tests editors' lying skills. There are differences here from what we have seen before. Any attempt to relitigate should (re)trigger the indef, but factoring in the IBAN, TBAN and mentoring I think rope is legitimate. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• OpposeRight off the bat, Darkfrog24 has been incredibly persistent in their requests for unblock. In most cases, this persistence would simply be annoying, but in this case shows that Darkfrog24 has not understood the reason for their blocks. I believe that they are contributing in good faith but can not learn to drop the stick. The mentorship proposal is not encouraging to me either. Unblocks with mentoring only really work when the mentor is ready and willing to impose sanctions and when the mentee has already made strides toward resolving the issue that lead to the block. I don't see either of that in this case. Darkfrog24, I encourage you to continue working on other projects. Show that you know when it is appropriate to be persistent and when it is appropriate to back away from the horse carcass. Come back in no less than 6 months and make exactly one unblock request. Do not discuss it off-wiki except for a single request to restore talkpage access if necessary. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentorship suggestion

Coming to the community with a possible idea. In the past, I have mentored editors that have had somewhat problematic pasts after a discussion at AN, ANI or an RFC - (here and here). Acknowledging that there are issues presented above, I do think Darkfrog is sincere about trying to do better here and keep his nose clean. I'm wondering if the community would be open to an unblock if they're placed under mentorship, perhaps with similar conditions to the ones Knowledgkid87 was put under (and in addition to their current topic ban?). Appreciating that some may feel it's not worth the effort, I am willing to take this on in order so this user can be given another chance. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Steve has had luck in the past working with users that have run into difficulty - I'm willing to support him here. — Ched :  ?  — 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely - I've already !voted above in a general sene, conditional on this, but I wanted to push that I think it would be worthwhile. It's not always helpful but I think mentoring seems a reasonable use here, if Steven is willing to take it on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose no. There are many issues with this proposal: the first being, as I indicated above, Darkfrog24 likely has issues that cannot be resolved through discussion and mentorship. I don't really know how much more explicit I can be than that while still respecting him. This proposal would not be able to address those, because he's indicated by his behaviour that he is incompatible with the English Wikipedia
  Then there is also the issue that "Mentorship" is Wikipedia code for People who I will use to prevent me from being sanctioned again even if I am exceptionally disruptive and who will do nothing to actually change my behaviour. I have never seen a mentorship proposal work, and like many who are finally coming around to see that "reblocks are easy" is a fantasy, I'd argue that the idea of mentorship as an unblock condition that works is a hallucination. If someone is unable to edit on their own without the need for handholding they should not be unblocked. Pure and simple. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I very strongly oppose this and perhaps I'm missing something here but mentorship from an editor who is fresh off a 7 year break doesn't exactly seem ideal, especially given Wikipedia's changes over the last five years with regard to policy, consensus and general community standards. That aside, what exactly will mentoring do? I'm also concerned about the IRC canvassing that has happened here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• *shrug* It's worked before (mentorship). Nor was I one that cut the people I mentored slack - the user made a commitment to do X and that user failing to hold up their end would have been a poor reflection of me. I do disagree with your characterisation of me not being here for 7 years and thus not knowing my way around here or being familiar enough with policy and consensus - while my edits haven't been overly frequent until recently, I was somewhat active in 2018, 2017, 2016 etc and think I've demonstrated I still know how things work here. Nevertheless, Darkfrog here is asking for a chance. I'm here because I think they should get one, but at the same time, I don't know the user and I'm really not vested in this conversation. I'm not going to start an angry mob over this discussion if the status quo remains. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you and that is okay. However, I believe that Darkfrog was given ample chances and threw them away, however the bigger issue here is, as Davey2010 said, is "I don't get it/WP:IDHT" behavior I don't see any evidence that they understand the reasons that they are currently indeffed or the opposition here. Mentoring doesn't help bullheadedness. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair point re bullheadedness, mentorship is not very effective in those situations. I guess the only other question I have is, in situations where a user is indeffed, what would one need to do to be unblocked? My understanding of the standard offer (of course, this isn't given to everyone) is that one doesn't necessarily need to apologise, but commit to avoiding the problematic behaviour in future, which seems to be the case here. If this request is indeed declined, what does it take for a user to regain the confidence of the community in future? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The question on unblocks is simple: do the potential benefits of unblock outweigh the known risks of disruption. It is not about regaining trust, it is about whether or not the community is willing to take a risk to let you work to regain that trust. There is nothing here that suggest that would be anything other than a horrible idea in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)r

• Oppose as per Tony and Praxidicae - I have a saying in my head but out of respect for DarkFrog I won't say it ... so in polite terms I'll say "Mentoring won't fix it". –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• You'll get no arguments from me - sorry I stumbled onto an AN thread anyway. — Ched :  ?  — 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per TonyBallioni. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP

There is an IP-hopping anon with a bone to pick who has been vandalizing WP:RPP. I semi-protected the page for 1 day, but additional eyes on it -- especially once the protection lapses -- and the other pages the IP was targeting (like Aircraft carrier) would be appreciated. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B000::/42 range blocked for 31 hours. That should stop the disruption for now. It might need to be widened to a /40, so let me know if it continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

One for the old timers

Anyone who's been around forever might remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Overstock sued a bunch of Wall Street firms for $3.5bn or so for naked short selling,and duked it out here as well. Apparently that all settled by 2016 for a total of about 1% of the claim, including dismissal of a comedy RICO claim, but that's an aside. They diverged into selling their own stock online, and (of course!) did an ICO. And today Patrick Byrne is back in the news due to a liaison with Maria Butina: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/business/overstock-paul-byrne-maria-butina-affair.html?fbclid=IwAR2lS5ljxNsJUosvJXK8nBC2nFZzmlST5aYYurvPCUjApZL4h80FrvRrbHw. Welcome to Wikipedia, where both sides of a dispute turn out to be shitty. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Now, now. That isn't entirely accurate. Sometimes there are three or more sides that all turn out to be shitty. :)

Also, you should apologize to shit for comparing it to certain of the more unsavory denizens of Wall Street. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

What both these guys said. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to create Baltimore Gneiss article

The article title is currently blacklist, however I would like to create this page as it is a significant geological unit that merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Avg W (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Done here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Users should create drafts, then ask an admin to move them. Blank pages will just get speedy deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, NinjaRobotPirate; with that in mind, I've taken the liberty of creating a User:Avg W/Baltimore Gneiss page for Avg W. Hope that helps. ——SerialNumber54129 09:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have put a starter page at [[User:Avg W/Baltimore Gneiss so an admin can move it. I intend on filling it out with more detail. Avg W (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Avg W: Proterozoic Tectonic Evolution of the Grenville Orogen, US Geological Survey, Gneiss Domes in Orogeny, Potassium Argon Dating, The geology of the crystalline rocks, The Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States, Baltimore, Migmatites. ——SerialNumber54129 11:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be blacklisted; the problem is with the title blacklist, where the first letter of each word is missing in some titles - .* is 0 or more characters, not 1 or more. Other corrections and updates are needed there, such as the numbers (last updated in 2016) preventing creation of many IPv6 talk pages, the repeated namespace for "Portal" missing a colon, and blacklisting of IP talk pages for which the blocks expired in 2009. Peter James (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  This blacklisted entry exists because of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinanike101, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Arab–Israel conflict

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:

• Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
• Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularly arbitration enforcement (AE), with regard to related pages.
• Currently-authorised remedies under any arbitration decision that affect related pages.
• Prospective amendments to, or replacements for, existing remedies.
• Other general matters relating to the ease with which Wikipedia keeps order on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case will be suspended until September 19, and parties and participants will be notified by then of the timetable for the case as well as any other necessary case management information.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding the Arab–Israel conflict

Edit review

Hi, edits made by Hildeoc on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and Wikipedia:Requested moves review needed by admin. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Before coming here, couldn't you first have a normal human conversation with them? Find out what they're trying to do? Explain why you think it's incorrect? That kind of thing? Something more than edit summaries and canned warning templates? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of this discussion. @ZI Jony:, please remember to do that next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I tried to make clear my edits, and their reasons to the inquirer within the relevant edit summaries, as well as [my personal talk page]. However, the inquirer has not responded to my statement so far.--Hildeoc (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett

In the last week Eric has been baited into a block on various threads, mainly surrounding Moors murders which is currently at WP:FAR as a result of being ruined by some fairly well-intentioned editors. Eric was blocked by GoldenRing for 72 hours and was asked we he can't "let stuff go". Then, 72 hours later (maybe more) Eric is visited by an admin, Scottywong, who leaves this rather unnecessary and provocative message, in order to provoke an equally unnecessary and provocative retaliation from Eric. It is clear that Eric and Scottywong have history, so will it be a case of sitting back and watching with bated anticipation, to see if Eric responds with an equally uncivil retort, so he can be blocked, or will Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble? Cassianto^Talk 03:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, EC will ignore the bait. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. Someone should have the foresight to deal with the instigator rather than the instigated. Cassianto^Talk 03:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate to some standard that the intention of the comments to which Eric is reacting inappropriately is to provoke just that reaction for the purpose of having Eric blocked or banned, then I think there is grounds for intervention. Otherwise, it still comes down to Eric needing to bite his tongue and not rise to the challenge. If nobody can prove to some reasonable standard that the baiting is intended to cause Eric to violate his editing restrictions, then we're well into WP:NOTTHERAPY territory. As to that one diff, I just don't see it as being intended to cause him to violate rather than an unfriendly, snippy remark. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For "unfriendly" and "snippy", read incivility. There is not a separate rule for sysops. Cassianto^Talk 04:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read my filing comment? SW's comment offers nothing relevant to the thread, other than to mock Eric's "style" - indicated by the provocative use of quote marks. EC and SW have history, further evidence with regards to a motive. And no, it does not fall to Eric to bite his tongue when we have people actively going about provoking incivility. If this kind of provocation didn't exist, Eric wouldn't react. Can you demonstrate the positivities of saying such a comment to someone who's just come of a block? Cassianto^Talk 04:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who has tried to understand and get to know Eric as a person knows that he has a touchy or prickly personality, but also that Eric is a great Wikipedia editor when nobody is trying to pick a fight. And very smart. I will never forget the help he gave me on my first Good Article, an article that I really cared about. He has provided similar assistance on many, many other articles, when other editors were happy to work with him. In my opinion, any administrator who comments on his talk page (or the talk page of any recently blocked editor) should have a clearly articulated and valid reason to communicate. Poking at a person who has gone through such a tough experience is a very bad idea. Administrators should always try to keep caution and compassion in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If I accidentally removed part of another editor's comment, then I apologize. Please feel free to refactor to clean up my mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The notion one must "demonstrate the intention" or "prove the baiting is intended" is absurd in the context of text-only WP. (Even in court of law, successful perjury cases are nearly non-existent, because the standard of proving intent, that the liar "knew they were lying" is an almost impossible bar to meet. So in WP, which is not a court of law, the suggestion is doubly inappropriate & absurd.) The text is there in black & white for any reasonable person to read & interpret whether baiting or not, as well as any accompanying history or context. --IHTS (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There must be intent. In the absence of intent demonstrated to some standard, you're assuming bad faith inappropriately. So in WP, which is not a court of law, the suggestion is doubly inappropriate & absurd. Of course Wikipedia is not a court of law. But we still must adjudicate problems like this fairly and even-handedly, according to policy, rather than what we "feel" is right or wrong, baiting or provocation. I see no clear facts being asserted to demonstrate intent to disrupt or intent to cause Eric to violate his sanctions. In the absence thereof, I would advise that this discussion be ended. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I think you sometimes go way too far with your attempts to interpret things on a legal basis. You know full well that Wikipedia is not governed by such things. I realise that, like me, you cannot read SW's mind but can you please try to explain how you think their comment was useful/what purpose it served, bearing in mind in particular the past interactions and the unusual grammar. That is, in your terms, the "intent". - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I think you sometimes go way too far with your attempts to interpret things on a legal basis. You know full well that Wikipedia is not governed by such things. On the contrary, I'm trying to bring a measure of logic and analytical response to this matter, rather than an endless reliance on "concern" for "problematic" comments. One needn't read someone's mind to determine intent, after all. And, indeed, I don't think SW's comment was constructive or intended to be particularly constructive. But I also don't see any indication that the comment was intended to push Eric into violating his restriction. If that comment is worthy of sanction under the ordinary policies, then it should be sanctioned. If not, it should not. All this talk about "baiting" Eric is meaningless unless there's intent to cause Eric to violate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the law or its processes are particularly good exemplars of logic. Given your opinion of SW's "intent", why should the comment have been made at all? - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the law or its processes are particularly good exemplars of logic. I have no interest in your prejudices. The only interest any of us should have is that this complaint is resolved rationally. The only way to do this is to put aside personal, subjective feelings and by pursuing this in an objective, repeatable manner. This is the approach I have advocated from the beginning and will continue to advocate. If SW can be shown to have intended for Eric to violate as a result of his comment, then he should be sanctioned. Similarly, if SW's comment violates standards for civility, then he should be sanctioned accordingly. This is not hard by any means. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: No, the only interest any of us should have is that this complaint is resolved in a way that minimises disruption to the encyclopaedia project. If totally irrational actions result in that end, that's fine with me. I don't care what SW's intent was; anyone can see that this is unnecessary and likely to be provoking, especially given the history between these two. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, totally irrational actions don't result in minimizing disruption. Totally irrational actions–especially admin actions–always increase disruption. Exhibit A: deleting dlthewave's firearms page as a DS sanction; Exh. B: indef'ing Huldra when Sir Joseph had a 3 month tban; Exh. C: removing Scottywong's comment but doing nothing about Corbett's just-as-bad-or-worse comments (see my next comment below). I wish you would take on board that Mendaliv's point here is correct and yours is not: there needs to be rationality in enforcement, or else the people rebel. That's why the real world has laws and not just cops who do what they think is right from moment to moment. – Levivich 15:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that Golden Ring blocked Corbett less than a week ago? Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Exhibit D: when an editor is blocked for incivility for a month, then comes back and is even more uncivil, giving him a 72-hour block is irrational and leads to–you guessed it–he's back after 72 hours, and still uncivil. (In fairness, GR's issuing of the AE block was per admin consensus and not a unilateral action, as far as I read it. But it illustrates mendaliv's point about rationality in enforcement actions [though I'm not sure if mendaliv supported the block at all, I can't remember]). – Levivich 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric is always going to be uncivil. I've never much cared for that and I used to be one of the editors making a big deal of it. Frankly, I don't know what should be done about his incivility and, if yet another discussion was held to try and figure out a resolution, I wouldn't touch it with a 39-and-a-half foot pole. But none of that makes it okay for Scotty to bait Eric, and I'm not down with going easy on Scotty just because Eric is uncivil. I brought up GoldenRing's block because you made it seem like he was completely ignoring's Eric behavior when, in reality, it takes a great deal of courage to block Eric given the backlash that normally ensues. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that GR was ignoring Eric's behavior (I might take issue with how GR uses the tools sometimes, but GR certainly doesn't ignore issues; he often tackles the toughest disputes, much to his credit). As for EC always being uncivil, I hope you're wrong, but if you're right, the answer is an indef block. Having recently read his last 500 contribs (going back to May 2008), it seems to me he is definitely capable of communicating normally, he just chooses not to. – Levivich 16:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that every single interaction with Eric includes incivility, but rather that I believe these civility issues will keep reoccurring in perpetuity. Baiting is a large part of the problem, although not the entirety of the problem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the facts don't much matter here, but the recent one-month block was not for incivility but for mentioning a certain project with a tangential relationship to GGTF. Eric Corbett 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

poor judgement [...] in her membership of WiR was the offending statement. – Levivich 17:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been concerned about this too. Cassianto, thanks for bringing it here. One of Eric's FAs, Moors murders, was recently edited extensively (I'm choosing my words carefully) just as Eric was blocked for a month. To cut a long story short, it led to Eric receiving another block when he returned, several editors turning up who seemed hostile to Eric rather than interested in the article, serious personal attacks against Eric, the opening of a FAR, and editors who could have fixed the issues taking the pages off their watchlists in disgust (including the FAR nominator). I followed suit and took the FAR off my watchlist today.
  It is unfair that when Eric is baited, only he receives a block because he is under an ArbCom civility restriction. I'm pretty sure the ArbCom would not have intended to create that disparity. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Sarah, it's even worse when one of the baiters happens to be an admin. Talk about lead by example. Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin Please explain why you raised the FAR in a thread that is about editor behavior rather than article content, and why you appear to think that opening an FAR (to address what appear to be extensive and specifically stated article content issues that earlier measures including directly editing the article and discussion on talk had prominently failed to address) can be interpreted as a personal attack on an editor or indeed as anything other than purely being a step towards keeping our FAs high quality. Interpreting the FAR as an attack, as you articulate here and as Eric Corbett has explicitly articulated on the FAR itself, and then stepping away from the FAR as you and Eric Corbett both say you are doing, appears to make the failure of the FAR more likely. Your continued protection of the article, despite being necessary at the time, also stands in the way of the success of the FAR, because without being able to edit the article it is difficult to fix any issues. I'd rather think you'd prefer (as I do) that the FAR succeed in addressing the issues, returning the article to FA quality, and reaffirming its FA status. But for that to happen, it is essential that the review be depersonalized and depoliticized, or to put it more bluntly that editors feel free to criticize the wording of the article without fear that in doing so they will be taken to WP:AN as trying to bait Eric Corbett. It appears to be the case that criticizing or even editing the article acts to bait Eric Corbett, but if so, that should be his problem, not the problem of people trying to make FA and FAR work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You've misunderstood. I protected the article for 24 hours only. I did not interpret opening the FAR as a personal attack. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Then why even mention it at all here, in a thread that is purely about personal attacks to or by Eric Corbett? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Personal attacks? I think you may be confused with another thread somewhere. No where have I said this is a "personal attack". This is about baiting behaviour, aggravated by the fact that it was by an administrator. But thank you for your valued input as always. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • David Eppstein I'm not sure why you're attacking SlimVirgin but the FAR is to some extent directly related. Regardless, as I've explained to you now numerous times opening a FAR was my suggestion as the only means forward to solving intractable talk page issues at that article, almost all of which occurred in Eric's absence. I expected that Eric would and should be involved in the FAR, but it's not yet another venue for editors to attack each other. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I personally don't see any baiting on the part of either Scottywong, GoldenRing, or Sandstein. None of them use clearly insulting wording like "incompetent gutter-snipe", "Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills", "stupid", or "unpaid goons" -- for all of which Eric Corbett was blocked [127]. If Eric Corbett wants Scottywonng to stay off of his talkpage, he has only to say so. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• +1 with Softlavender. Much as I love Cass and Eric and the absolutely outstanding work they have contributed (even saying this sounds patronising; and that's what I feel is the top value of their work), there is no baiting here – though I am sorry Eric has to go through all this. Lourdes 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Softlavender, yours seem to be the "naughty words" approach to civility. Putting style in scare quotes, as SW did, is clear baiting. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• The quotation marks were directly quoting what Eric Corbett had said immediately above; therefore they weren't "scare quotes". If Eric Corbett wants Scottywong to stay off of his talkpage, he has only to say so. If the community wants to enact an interaction ban between Scottywong and Eric Corbett, then someone needs to propose it. Scottywong's comment does not appear sanctionable per se. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, come off it! - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you believe Scottywong's comment is sanctionable per se, then what sanction to do you propose? Block? De-sysop? And based on what policy? Ad hominem comments like "Oh, come off it!" appear to indicate that you have no argument at this point but are merely bludgeoning those who disagree with your point of view. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please read Cassianto's opening remarks in this thread. I have no idea why you are using the phrase ad hominem. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• So if you agree with Cassianto's apparent suggestion that "Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble", then I would suggest that you compose a boldfaced "Support" !vote for a block (including a policy rationale), rather than telling good-faith commenters to "Oh, come off it!". -- Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• My congrats. First you insert ad hominem, which you know is usually used in the context of WP:NPA, and now you insert good faith with its implication that I may not be such because we're disagreeing here and you are. Smart stuff: if you honestly cannot see the baiting and totally unconstructive nature of SW's comment then I despair and hope that our paths do not cross in future because it doesn't look like I would get fair treatment. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• More ad hominem remarks instead of clear arguments. I never said Scottywong's comment was totally constructive; I said, and repeated myself, that in my opinion it is not sanctionable per se. If you believe it is sanctionable per se, then please propose an actual sanction and back that up with a policy rationale, and stop bludgeoning the conversation, questioning the good faith of those you disagree with, and posting ad hominem insults. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• So says the editor who replied to my comment at RfA (that admins have no business being admins if they can't do the easy thing of turning off their mouths from saying "Fuck you", as cops on-the-job don't do to citizens) by referencing my block log. (Seems to me that makes you transparently hypocritical re your ad hominem complaints.) --IHTS (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Eric Corbett has a number of restrictions by Arbcom because admins like SlimVirgin singularly failed to curb his bad behaviour, agressiveness, and article ownership issues. In many cases enabling it further. So whinging that he gets sanctioned under those restrictions is amazingly lacking in self-awareness. It is unfair that editors have to deal with Corbett and his protectors every time he throws a fit over his contributions being criticized, articles he has worked on being edited etc. But they had to deal with it, and it took an arbcom case to give them some form of parity. If admins had taken a more rigourous approch when these issues first appeared, it wouldnt have ended up at arbcom with Eric under a spotlight. So, only the enablers to blame at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider it actionable in this case given that SW and Eric seem to have avoided each other for the last five years, but Scottywong used to have a long history of appearing in threads in which he'd never previously commented to try to goad Eric (take your pick here). I can certainly appreciate that this kind of petty point-scoring is conduct unbecoming, although I can't see that a one-off instance is anything actionable. It takes two to tango and if Eric stops rising to the bait, SW will get bored and find another game to play. ‑ Iridescent 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is the "conduct unbecoming" which is the issue here. You are placing the onus on Eric Corbett not to rise to the bait. SW needs to be trouted and told to stay away unless they're going to contribute something which is, without question, constructive. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but as far as I can tell this is the first instance for five years, which is why I said "not actionable". On the general issue of taking two to tango, All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken is explicit written Wikipedia policy. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes, it is the "conduct unbecoming" which is the issue here. Then this needs to go to the Committee, which has exclusive authority over such matters. You are placing the onus on Eric Corbett not to rise to the bait. The onus is already on Eric based on the GGTF remedy, which requires him to disengage if he feels the need to fight back against someone that's annoying him. If this is unfair, an amendment should be sought at WP:ARCA. Until such time as that remedy changes, the onus is on Eric. This is not difficult. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree completely that Eric should not rise to the bait - no issue there. However, if there were no bait there would be nothing that might cause reaction. This doesn't need a formal sanction, just an informal shot across the bows so that SW is in no doubt that the edit was bad form. And all that needs is the notification of this discussion on their talk page + a consensus that it was indeed a poor comment. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• It was unnecessary, ill-advised, inappropriate, etc. etc. Clearly provocative. But why bring it here and increase the potential for drama? Words to the Admin's. own talk page directly would have been more effective. This section is another unnecessary magnet, as can be seen..... Leaky caldron (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• A sanctimonious, self-promoting, trolling and clearly unsought comment which says more about Scottywong then Eric would ever be permitted to say. Probably not sanctionable as a first “offence”, but if this regrettable behaviour continues, then removal of his tool should be the first step in discouraging him. We expect better behaviour from our Admins. Giano (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I've removed the comment (and a response to it as collateral damage). It was completely unnecessary provocation of an editor who's just come off a block for responding to similar. It is deeply disappointing to see an admin stooping to this level and I agree with others than any repeat should be sanctioned, either by the community (IBAN?) or arbcom. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• ((edit conflict) with GoldenRing) I'm sorry to see Scottywong has ignored the ping in the original post, even though he's active. I'm also sorry to see Cassianto has not alerted Scotty that he's being discussed here, because pings are not sufficient (they don't always work). I have rectified the second thing, and posted an alert of Scotty's page. My opinion of this thing is that, no, it's not necessary to "prove intent", Mendaliv. Since we can't inspect the insides of each other's heads, we don't know other's intent. Scotty made a post that he should have known was provocative, a few days after Eric was blocked. I don't agree with Cass's implication that that post was specifically intended to cause Eric to flare up "so he can be blocked"; I don't even believe anybody would block him for responding rudely to provocation; or, if some admin did block, there would be an outcry and an unblock. No. But I do think it was a very poor idea, @Scottywong:. I don't know about past interactions (Cassianto's link for "have history" is less than helpful), but it's enough that you're an admin and Eric is not, which means that you have more power here. Eric had a recent block in his history, which was an appropriate and sufficient sanction IMO. GoldenRing, who placed the block and a note about it, was very polite, as was appropriate. There was absolutely no call for Scotty to go there and poke Eric. Please hold yourself to a higher standard. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

• Oops, sorry, Cass, I see you did notify Scottywong. I should have checked the page history. He removed your notification with the comment "lol", and didn't deign to reply here. Lovely. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

• My less than helpful link is probably down to my inability to search for key things using the method Iridescent used - he found what I was looking for in his comment. Cassianto^Talk 11:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse GoldenRing's action and analysis. Haukur (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse GoldenRing. See "admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric" (July 2014). Also, Scottywong indeffed Eric on 5 July 2013 (reduced 7 hours later). Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• IMHO it's clear baiting and I certainly endorse GoldenRing - Any repeats should result in sanctions (I would've liked to have seen sanctions now but maybe that would be punitive. –Davey2010^Talk 10:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• I just like to note the irony of Cassianto filing this complaint. My talk page is a good example of Cassianto baiting just as good. Anyway, ScottyWong should be at best warned about the behaviour. It is up to EC to ignore it. Thats it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't about me, so kindly do one. You're like an itch that wont go away. Cassianto^Talk 11:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This comment by Cassianto is a striking example of incivility in a thread where I would expect everyone to be more careful of their own behavior than that, however provoked they may feel. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • This comment by David Epstein is a striking example of someone trying to create a straw man argument to take the emphasis off of the real issue, which is Scottywong's baiting behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Your incivility, in a thread on AN about incivility, is not a straw man. And I believe in the ability of AN participants to continue examining both Scottywong and Eric Corbett's behavior despite now also being pushed by your incivility to add another incivil editor to those under examination. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • • It is a straw man as this was never about incivility. Why don't you put some spectacles on and actually read my very first comment? Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Is that the main incivility that strikes you in this thread, David, really? For my own part I'm more disturbed by the fact that Scottywong has removed Cassianto's AN alert from his page with the edit summary "lol" and has now also removed my own alert with "yawn, not interested". He can't be arsed to reply to the comments here, from many users, including the admin who blocked Eric (GoldenRing). I call that incivility and nonchalance. Note also WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
        • Removing material from one's own talk page and laughing it off is not incivility. And the existence of other incivility nearby does not provide any justification for Cassianto being incivil. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Something about stones and glass houses. For the record, BabbaQ's comment could also been considered an attempt to bait Cassianto. As for Scotty, perhaps a short block would remind him to not do this in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • How is tu quoque a useful response to this? But if you insist on going in that direction, and the least civil thing you can find by trawling through someone's talk page looking to discredit them is a mildly-colorful adjective directed at the quality of Wikidata rather than at an actual editor, then you should look harder. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I could've brought up other stuff. Be grateful that I didn't. Regardless, it wouldn't be okay to scrutinize low–level misbehavior on the part of one editor while completely ignoring the blatant provocation even if you weren't yourself guilty of recent incivility. But of course, the exchange between BabbaQ and Cassianto is a microcosm of this entire thread. Person A provokes Person B, and a sizable number of people want to give Person A a pass while suggesting that Person B better not say anything dumb in response. Seems unfair. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh, let's not have a long game of 'oo killed slagged off 'oo. And while I'm pretty disappointed with Scotty's response to this, a block would be punitive, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Not necessarily. Scotty's given no indication that he understands he needs to refrain from such behavior; indeed, he seems to find this all very amusing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll be making a full comment about this alleged baiting later, but for now I ask people refer to my previous statement at AE (which will likely get ignored by most admins again). My friends and I are going to the beach for now, though because I need to do something that isn't Wikipedia for like a day, I mean come on MJL you were editing for most of your birthday too.. that's just sad.
  I'll comment later, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• What is the point of raising something that was already covered in a now-closed AE thread? It is history and Eric got a block for stuff raised in that thread. The current issue here is not merely about baiting but about admin conduct, which is arguably a higher level of concern. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• SW's comment, I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style"., has been removed by an admin. So far, no admin has removed Corbett's comments from the two days since his last block expired:
  • (In response to a conversation between two editors about a social/cultural impact section being added) And you really think that you're the man to do it eh? God help us! In the same damn edit, Corbett writes "Obviously I will be taking no part in this review given the poisonous and insulting atmosphere created by certain individuals, and one in particular ..." followed by a bunch of attacks against EEng (again)
  • To David Eppstein: You have your opinion, I have mine. So why not get back to the evisceration and leave me alone?
  • To EEng, again: And I propose that you extract your head from your arse and get on with all your "improvements". – Levivich 16:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    ...and though at least one of those comments was hatted and then moved to a talk page (Corbett moved it back), nobody deleted them, nobody posted a warning on his talk page, and nobody started a noticeboard thread. Why? Because this is par for the Corbett course, and everybody knows we're going to need like a lot more diffs like that before anyone can even try, for the umpteenth time, to stop the incivility. – Levivich 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    • FWIW I don't consider the remark by Corbett quoted above and directed at me to be incivility towards me. It demonstrates a regrettable and hostile attitude towards editorial examination of article content and perhaps a hint of ownership, but that's a different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

      Calling your efforts to improve an article an "evisceration" is uncivil in my book. – Levivich 17:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt anyone cares about your book right here, right now. That issue is done and dusted. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wasn't this report supposed to be about Scottywong's behaviour? Why not close it now with a summary to the effect that it doesn't matter how uncivil anyone is towards me, as that's evidently the conclusion that's being drawn here. Eric Corbett 17:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion

El C, I'm sorry but I think discussion needs to continue. I don't think Eric was actually asking it to close. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't asking for it to be closed, I merely asked a rhetorical question. Eric Corbett 18:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)and it isn't the "Moore" article. :( Leaky caldron (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Will undo. Anyway, do (any of) you have a concrete proposal on how to resolve this? El_C 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

El C, if the discussion continues, we might be able to figure out what's been happening. It isn't straightforward. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry again. El_C 18:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• What bothers me here is the intentional goading, EC is responsible for his own behavior and responses but at what point do the people trying to right great wrongs become a large part of that problem too. One very valuable thing I learned from the Lightbreather arb case is that even when you feel the other person is the problem the actions you (SW) take not only make the problem much much worse it obfuscates the actual "problem behavior" they wish to highlight. It may not just obscure that POV it may also deepen the problem for both individuals...took me a I-ban to figure that out but it was a lesson I have learned... Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wrote up this reply to Levivich, but then the thread closed, so I'll post it down here.
  I've seen nothing but good work from you since you started editing in 2018. I was surprised to see you arrive at Talk:Moors murders on 13 August to support installing EEng's shorter version, after your detailed post against Eric on 11 August at AE. That seems to mix up editor disputes and content issues. It seems from your comments that you're not familiar with the topic, and you've followed whatever EEng wants (e.g. you were about to make an edit request but stopped when he advised against it). You've also ignored personal attacks on Eric.
  For example, when EEng found the sourcing issues (common in older FAs), he posted a link to his comment with the heading "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs!" on the talk pages of eight editors, including you and five admins. [128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135] No one blocked him. Goldenring warned him. You thanked him. [136] Is this not a clear example of double standards? Increasingly it feels that anyone can say whatever they want to or about Eric, can undermine his work while he's blocked, and if he doesn't express his frustration in the right way, he (and only he) gets blocked again. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin:

• What you leave out (and you do have a way of leaving things out) is that I agreed poseurs was overboard, and changed it to have feet of clay just like other editors on my own initiative [137]. My unutterable astonishment on finding – even while the target of a barrage of nonspecific allegations that I'd edited out "nuanced meaning" allegedly present in the sources – that our vaunted Content Creators pushed an article through FA with scores of unverified passages is best summarized here [138].
• While we're here, I'm sick and tired of you repeating your fucking bullshit (which you emitted once before in this very thread [139]) that I undermined [E.C.'s] work while he's blocked. To quote myself:

I had absolutely no idea EC had been blocked. I've worked on this article here and there for a year or two, and it's simply a cosmic coincidence that I really got into it the other day. In fact, EC was blocked that day after I started this round of edits [140], which was stimulated by this [141] pretty-awful edit by an IP.

That quote is from the article's talk page [142], where you've been stalking about with a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick for some time now, apparently without bothering to read the thread (the one I just linked) which was the background to the events on which you've been pontificating. Or did you, in fact, read the above and just choose to ignore it because the facts are inconvenient to the poor-baited-Eric mythology to which you've married yourself? You tell us which. I'm not in the habit of asking for apologies, especially from those willing to insist that black is white, but now that this particular lie has been exposed in this very public forum I assume we'll hear no more of it.

• I've got one more for you before I leave you to put all this in your pipe and smoke it. Where was the baiting in this thread [143] that led to E.C. suggestion that I extract your head from your arse and get on with all your "improvements"? Do inform us.

EEng 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• • My concern is that you are prioritizing Eric's feelings over valid article content issues. Who cares whether EEng presented the issues with the moor murder article in a somewhat abrasive way? Who cares whether one of the people who brought it to FA status ten years ago got himself blocked for unrelated reasons a day or so after EEng started copyediting the article? None of those things is a reason to prevent improvements to the article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Let me try and spell it out for you. That "complete fraud" accusation was why I will take no part in the FAR. Which, just to be clear, I would have opened myself if nobody else had. There's nothing in it for me whether Moors murders keeps its bronze star or not; The standards for sourcing are different now to what they were ten years ago, but I'd defy anyone to find any "fraud" in the article. Eric Corbett 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • And at the risk of yet another block, let me be even more blunt. Any problems with the sourcing could very easily have been fixed by those who actually had access to the sources and knew that material. But no, all of them were chased away. So you will end up with a camel of an article which in the end will satisfy nobody. Eric Corbett 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The difference between fraud and falsification is merely one of intent. I have good faith that there was no fraudulent intent in the creation and editing of the article; it could much more easily be explained as sloppiness. But once problematic content has been identified, and a group of editors reacts not by fixing it but instead by kicking up a huge fuss about civility as an excuse to not to anything, protecting the article in the old problematic version, repeatedly reverting to that version, and then claiming to walk away from the mess while simultaneously derailing the improvement process with off-topic comments about how offended they are, that good faith is harder to maintain. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • David Eppstein, I went through a period of being harassed several years ago. I recognize the signs of it, and I think it's happening here to Eric. That doesn't mean that everyone not on his side intends to do it. But regardless of intention, we need to be aware of it and find a solution. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • We should not allow anyone to harass Eric or anyone else. Scotty's comment that kicked off the thread is of a type I have seen from others on Wikipedia: carefully staying this side of the line of overt incivility but intended to provoke. If we're going to sanction that sort of behavior, good, but we should do so consistently with others as well. On the other hand, we should also not allow claimed harassment to be used as an excuse to avoid content issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

David, the problems at the article are to do with citation density, nothing more, which is common with older FAs, and we deal with it routinely. The content is almost certainly solid. No one has removed themselves "as an excuse". The authors and others familiar with the topic have decided they don't want to interact with someone who keeps attacking them and people they respect. If you agree that Eric should not be harassed, then please take a step back and look at the recent two AEs, and the timing of people arriving at Moors murders. Just as harassment should not be used as an excuse to avoid content issues, content issues should not be used as an excuse to engage in harassment. We should also recognize that people can engage in harassment without intending to. But that doesn't make it feel any better to the person at the centre of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the it-just-citation-density plea. I addressed that here [144] when E.C. entered the same plea:

This has nothing to do with citation density ... but rather WP:V, which has always been policy. [At FAR] is a list of 55 points at which the source doesn't support the text (and that's after a review of only half of the article, and doesn't include the 5 or so instances which have been fixed and removed from the list), most of which seem to have been there since you nominated the article for FA. I have little doubt that 90% of that material is correct and verifiable; but that leaves the 10% that isn't and needs to be removed, and there's no way to know which is which without the citations. If it's all so easily verifiable you should have done it ten years ago before nominating it for FA; now others are going to have to do it, and you can either help or get out of the way. Articles often have problems like this, but they're not supposed to be FAs, and this constant heaping of abuse on those now doing what you should have done is transparently defensive.

EEng 20:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, you asked for an analysis of timing of arrivals to Moors murders and their relation to other events involving Eric C. Eric violates a topic ban on an unrelated issue: July 1 2019. EEng (who had edited Moors murders as early as November 2016, and made some other significant copyedits this May) starts a long string of copyedits to the article: July 2 2019, with no evidence of having seen the AE thread on Corbett's violation. Eric is blocked: July 3. Martinevans123 (who had edited the article since at least a year earlier) starts interacting with EEng: July 5. Iridescent (who had also edited the article since at least a year earlier) starts interacting with EEng: July 9. Cassianto, DrKay, and Kieronoldham (who had edited the article since at least a year earlier) start interacting with EEng: July 10. So far, all very peaceful, although not all editors agreed on all edits. Eric C is unblocked: I assume some time around August 3. First major reversions: Serial Number 54129, quickly self-reverted, then Cassianto, restored by now-blocked Hari-kiri Te Kanawa and re-reverted by BabbaQ, August 5, leading to the first round of protection. So EEng's timing appears to be a complete coincidence, but Cassianto's and Te Kanawa's timing might have a connection to Corbett's block, and after that things became a mess. Is that what you were trying to imply? Or is there some other entrant to all this that you're referring to instead? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please don't refer to me as "Corbett". I find that most insulting. Eric Corbett 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] Ok, will do, sorry about that. I have complained before about people addressing me as "Eppstein" (although I don't mind if they use that name when talking about me in the third person) so I know how it feels. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  ... he said, completely ignoring the substance of the post. No doubt if he'd referred to you as "Eric" you'd be bristling at the presumption of his overfamiliarity. EEng 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Eh? The post was in response to Slim Virgin, not Eric. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Eh? What? Who's on first? What are you talking about? What post? Who are you talking to? EEng 20:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  User:EEng is there really a need for the bad faith assumption about what EC likes or wouldn't have liked? Can't we stop the baiting at least here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Evidently not. Eric Corbett 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

... back to the original topic

• Whatever else may be relevant here, this remark: 'I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style".' by Scottywong to Eric, is inappropriate and unhelpful, especially for an admin. If I were voting for adminship, such behavior, were it shown to be more than a one off loss of temper, would lead me to vote against. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, per WP:NOTVOTE please consider amending the above as to not mislead others. —Sladen (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I though Scottywong was deysopped, I don't support his having advanced permissions. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)