Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 28 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 97 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 57 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 47 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout#RfC: Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions?

(Initiated 1 day ago on 14 November 2024) Anyone up for a barnstar? This one's long, difficult, and new. If no-one wants to close it, that's fine. However, it's clearly not reaching the super-consensus required. It should probably be closed so that we can stop wasting editor time and/or apply ourselves to proposals that have a better chance of passing. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, nobody's going to SNOW close a discussion of that nature with that much participation when it's only been open a few hours. It may be "wasting editor time" but there's a darkening mood in the community about this and it's best that we allow a pressure valve: a place for editors to gather and speak their minds.—S Marshall T/C 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, I meant to self-revert. Looking at the page history, I misclicked. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I responded to the RfC, so obviously this is not an uninvolved opinion, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to snow-close the RfC component of this, even though it hasn't been open long. The RfC was thrown together quickly because of a perceived need for urgency; there were even discussions early on about how the normal RFC week+ would be too long and we'd have to close it early. The discussions that are going on can continue even if we shut down the "vote" part of it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	2	3
RfD	0	0	6	39	45
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Category:Online-only games

(Initiated 27 days ago on 19 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 303 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 15 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (44 out of 8844 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case 2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case User talk:42.119.93.195 2024-11-12 10:32 2024-12-12 10:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:182.229.34.80 2024-11-12 09:47 2024-12-12 09:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:219.240.5.188 2024-11-12 09:32 2024-12-12 09:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu 2024-11-12 08:33 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Doug Weller: Community sanctions enforcement Protection Helper Bot Trick Weekes 2024-11-11 19:52 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case

Self-nominations for the 2017 ArbCom elections are now open

Self-nominations for the 2017 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 12 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Admin AuburnPilot - sysop flag move request

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

---

• AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A discussion is open at the bureaucrats' noticeboard regarding moving admin access from one account that has a lost 2FA authentication to another for admin AubernPilot. Community comments are welcome at WP:BN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Interwiki vandals/spammers?

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

---

I'm sometimes minimally active on the German Wikipedia, and I happened to notice an IP that is spamming semi-legible opinions both there and here. Apparently, it's a sock of a well-known and blocked user on the German Wikipedia. I've slapped a 36 hour block on the IP to stop further disruption, but do we have a general policy on such cases? How independent are the different language editions with respect to administrative action and/or user behaviour evaluation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the typical ways we respond to cross-wiki abuse is to ask the stewards for a global lock, which prevents a user from logging into a particular account on all Wikimedia wikis, or a global block, which only affects IP addresses. Aside from these, I believe local administrators on a specific wiki can and do take into consideration actions of a user on a different wiki when considering whether to take administrative action against a user, as such actions have the potential to also affect the local wiki. However, just because a user is blocked on one wiki does not automatically mean they should be blocked on another wiki. I would look at it case-by-case. (In this case, the IP hasn't edited the German Wikipedia for several hours, so it's probably a stale matter at this point.) Mz7 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that matches my expectation with a bit of useful extra info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Per Mz7, my understanding is that cross-wiki behavior is supplementary evidence; it is not by itself enough to enact a local sanction, but when a user is creating problems locally, then it can be brought in as evidence to support a necessary block. If someone is blocked on another Wiki, and has done nothing wrong here, however, we don't block them locally. The key is nothing wrong here. If they're doing the same behavior, ban away... --Jayron32 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Editor895

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

---

Editor895 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When an editor is inactive since 2013 (zero edits) but then suddenly shows up to defend an article repeatedly recreated by a sockfarm - see their deleted contribution, Sabrina Ho, and Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng - should we assume they are part of the sockfarm? I would already block them indef (as I did with their colleague created the article), but I have slight doubts since they seem to have good contributions before 2013. More opinions appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd consult the CheckUser who acted at User talk:MacauMan888. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Let us ping them for safety: @DoRD:. However, we may as well decide that a duck test suffices.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also perhaps worth noting that User:333vip333 (who created the Sabrina Ho (何超盈) article that User:Editor895 defended) has been dormant since 2014 until today, when they also added this puffery to another article. A bunch of paid sock farm sleepers is what this is looking like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Now indeffed by Primefac, making the topic redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac found me on IRC before I saw this. They all appear to be the same, but I wouldn't be surprised if more socks appear out of the woodwork. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to check, DoRD, are you confirming a CU match between Editor895, 333vip333, and the rest of the socks at User talk:MacauMan888? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they're almost certainly the same (same ISP, same geolocation, same device) as the accounts noted at User talk:MacauMan888. Primefac and I also noticed Angrylala, cu-blocked on zhwiki for promoting Ho, who may also be connected to these somehow. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked that one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: The recent edits to user talk pages make 333vip333, Editor895, and Editor43043  Confirmed to the larger group. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And now somebody is trying to break in my password.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours, eh? Primefac (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Unless they have a quantum computer, they are not likely to succeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, this is IP 216.25.187.3, not sure whether they are associated with this sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the geolocation, I doubt that it's related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Tell me if I may update or edit how an user presents non-English Wikipedia related information on ENWP?

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

---

If an user was an admin on an non-English WP but is no longer, may he or she present the info here on ENWP as if he or she is an non-English WP admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsquare (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question. We don't care who anyone is at all. Anyone can discuss anything at anytime for any reason here. We don't care if you are or are not an admin. If you've got something to bring up, do so. You could be an admin, you could be anyone. Just say what you need to say. --Jayron32 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone is not admin but at the talk page states they are admin, we usually edit the talk page. I think the question is whether we would similarly edit the talk page if someone incorrectly states they are admin on a different project. (My guess is we do not care).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you not ask this question at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_12#If_an_user_is_no_longer_an_administrative_user_--_bureaucrat.2C_steward.2C_administrator_et_cetera_--_on_project_not_English_Wikipedia.2C_shall_description_on_user_pages_be_editing_accordingly.? Either way you are an admin here and that is the main thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur with Ymblanter that we don't care. We remove it when non-admins claim to be en-wiki admins because that could potentially be disruptive (if people waste their time asking them to perform admin actions), but other than that we don't care whether the claims people make about their off-wiki activity are true or not unless they're claiming their off-wiki experiences give them a particular authority (cf. Essjay). (I suppose there's a theoretical case we'd take action, if someone were claiming to be a Commons admin and giving people erroneous advice about copyright which other editors were following in good faith on the assumption that a Commons admin would understand image policies, but that's a very niche case.) ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a definitive answer than at last time when I asked. I value Iridescent's idea that off-wiki experiences gives a non-admin a particular authority. A non-ENWP user can claim to be non ENWP admin on ENWP user page as many wikimedia projects have flourished in more than a decade of this online phenomenon called wikipedia. As a user is now difficult to be a WP admin, does carrying the stigma of an admin earn the user an image that readers can look upon? Although JW on a mailing list post claimed that

"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

do we admin need to stamp out the aura whenever it is seen? --- Ktsquare (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment on contributions, not contributors; re-displaying these personal attacks will result in a block.

I think you should look back at your Rfa Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktsquare, and then compare it to more recent ones to see how times have changed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC) I was really wondering how a person who clearly cannot write a coherent sentence in English became an admin - then I saw the date of their getting the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC) EoW, thank you for your suggestion for comparison between recent and past requests for adminship. May you delineate or direct me precisely to where I can understand in detail what a request for adminship have changed drastically? However, I do not see the reason of redirecting a question about editing a user page to the difficulty of becoming an admin. -- Ktsquare (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my question: how did a person who cannot write a proper sentence in English become an admin? Is not communication a necessary quality for admins to have? Does not the possibility of misunderstanding expand greatly when the admin involved cannot properly express themselves in English? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC) BYK, I am stepping away from this discussion because it is no longer answering the original question. Bye --- Ktsquare (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "BMK". Just to note, according to their log page [1], Ktsquare performed no admin actions between 13 January 2008 and 16 August 2017. In fact, in the 12 years they've been an admin, they've made only 50 admin actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) @Ktsquare: You obviously don't need the admin bit, you rarely ever use it. The honorable thing would be to turn it in, don;t you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

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

Paid editor, resolutely trying to get paid, including using OTRS to solicit people looking for help

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

---

I think it is time for an indefinite block of User:KDS4444.

User:KDS4444 was formerly an OTRS worker, but this privilege was removed on 21 October.

KDS4444 was trying to get people to pay him when they asked for help at OTRS. See this page in User:Sphilbrick's userspace, which is anonymized but includes exchange with <redacted>, which did lead to an article. The agent disclosed that it was paid editing. KDS4444 created the <redacted> article, and disclosed that it was edited for pay.

Reviewing that OTRS list, this one is especially egregious: an exchange with <redacted> who is asking about Wikipedia's trademark policy. Here the agent asks for $300, even though <redacted> hadn't asked for an article. <Redacted> asks whether it was an automated response. The agent persists with the misunderstanding, until finally realizing it was a trademark question.

There are also issues with his paid editing efforts as well - for instance directly creating Stewart Levenson even though he acknowledged in the subsequent SNOW AfD that it was terrible and should not have been moved to mainspace. He is trying a second time with Draft:Stewart Levenson and if you review the Talk page, you will see he is bludgeoning that page, trying to convince two independent editors (and the reviewer who declined the draft) that the topic is indeed notable, taking up volunteer time so that he can be paid.

He has complained several times that disclosing paid editing is not worth it, playing the martyr (eg diff, diff, and recently created Conso International Corporation which looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing, and from which KDS444 recently removed a "notability" tag, placed by a NPPer here.

Today, they moved a draft of another paid article that had been at AfC to mainspace, with an edit note Article has been ready for publication for weeks, have now removed from AfC queue.

From my perspective, it is clear that getting paid is more important to KDS444 than being a good citizen. I am proposing a community ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I cannot comment on the suppressed page contents, but I can confirm just one salient fact: "KDS4444's OTRS access was revoked, by the decision of OTRS administrators, after KDS4444 was found to be using OTRS access to the system to solicit customers for payment to edit articles". - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The diffs alone are pretty discouraging but if the OTRS conduct is also true (which I cannot verify), I think there is no question that KDS4444 is not here to improve the project but only to make profit off it. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, temporary interruption: What are summaries of OTRS tickets, naming real people, doing publicly published on-wiki? I could very easily be wrong - SPhilbrick has always seemed to know what he's doing - but I'm suppressing this page until someone assures me that this is OK, and the people who wrote to OTRS - and who's names are visible - either OK'd having their names published, or don't have the right to privacy I thought they had. Discussion can of course continue, but maybe discuss the deleted OTRS page on a subthread or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Floq I had the same concern and emailed a few people about it back when I first saw it a few weeks ago. Given that a) I too assume that Sphilbrick knows what they doing; b) it was still there and c) nothing has happened and d) KDS444's escalating bad behavior, I have just put the cards on the table for the community to act. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your concern, Floq, you've got a point there. I'm not an OTRS rules expert, but according to meta:Access to nonpublic information policy, non-public OTRS information may be released when "community members needs to stop damage to the Wikimedia Sites". What was released here does in fact look like damage to Wikipedia as well as to the OTRS "customer" side. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that, as far as I can tell, the damage was NOT (or was not always) being caused by the people whose names were published. A lot of these were apparently unsolicited offers from KDS4444. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quite right to have suppressed that. It should never have been posted on-wiki. The identities of who submit tickets should never be disclosed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have seen some of the background but was astounded to see User talk:Doc James#"Well known long term paid editor" where KDS4444 demonstrates the alarming degree of disconnect involved. No greater example of WP:NOTHERE exists than someone who cannot immediately see that an OTRS agent should not accept cash let alone solicit payment. Johnuniq (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support and I was actually going to oppose it initially: the whining is annoying, but we have plenty of editors who whine about things, so its not that big of a deal for me, and OTRS is a meta issue, and it has been addressed. However, this move today combined with the concerns that Jytdog has brought forth make me convinced that KDS4444 is not here actually to comply with our COI guideline and PAID policy, but to try to find every possible way around them in order to make money and advocate for his clients. That is unacceptable and has reached the level of disruption that a community ban is warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been reflecting on the OTRS thing since I first learned about what KDS444 was doing there. OTRS is run through meta but it was started by WP editors (I believe that Guy was one of the initiators) and I believe that it is mostly staffed by WP editors and most of the concerns are about WP articles. So even though OTRS is run through meta and his privileges were already removed there, the abuse of OTRS is something that should be addressed here; I feel strongly about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The OTRS abuse is a meta issue, and has been addressed there. What is an en.wiki issue is that he used global rights (which OTRS technically is even though it confers no actual on-wiki technical abilities) to solicit money in private for paid promotional editing on the English Wikipedia. If he had solicited money from a company to factually correct their existing article, while I'd think it was scummy, I'd be content to leave that as an OTRS issue since it technically would not have violated any local en.wiki policy. The difference is that he actively sought to use global rights to violate en.wiki policy (NOTSPAM), and even after it had been explained to him how the COI process must work, decided that he was too good for it today and went ahead and directly published an article without receiving review. All of that combined is enough for me to be fine with a site ban because it is clear he is only here to promote clients and WikiLawyer about why he should be able to do that. It makes his presence on this site a net-negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, absolutely. In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". This user is very determined not to understand that the Wikipedia community is not overjoyed with people profiting form the volunteer efforts of others. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. It's clear, based on the information above, that he is only interested in money. Additionally, this is problematic. Nihlus 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose' KDS4444 has made over 17,000 edits and created more than 150 pages (almost all as a volunteer) over 9 years of editing. The editor has never been blocked. Before trying a site ban I'd much rather see us try a lesser step and see if it works. In particular, I'm perfectly ok if KDS4444 is banned from moving drafts into mainspace (he should have known better on that one), and from directly editing pages for which he is being paid in mainspace. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And over 9 years they have not learnt how to handle confidential information despite being an OTRS member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

They weren't the one who publicly posted the confidential information here, including identities of people who submitted OTRS tickets. As far as I am aware,the accusations against KDS4444 are not related to a lack of confidentiality, but to inappropriate responses to OTRS requests.

KDS4444 should be banned from OTRS, and has been, for using it the way they did, and that should be a consideration in actions here. But I don't think we should jump straight to a site ban for the OTRS actions, and the on-wiki actions don't seem anywhere near sufficient to warrant a site ban without trying something else first. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not. I do not believe that the user is complying with the terms of use. The OTRS issue is not separate fomr this. The OTRS issue is a violation of the terms of use, right there. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Without any evidence that there have been other paid edits, and given KDS4444's openness about being a paid editor, I see no reason to believe that there are undisclosed paid edits. Do you have anything to show that this has occured? If there is sufficient evidence of undisclosed paid edits, I'd certainly rethink my position, but none have been raised to date.

OTRS is a problem for meta. Given that we aren't supposed to even know the contents of those emails based on the privacy policy, I'm surprised that we can even discuss it in such detail here. That said, from what has been said I am completely opposed to KDS4444's actions on OTRS. If people feel that it is a concern for us then I'm ok with that. But personally I don't like this jump straight to a full site ban for a problem that occurred elsewhere, without anything else been tried here first or sufficient on-wiki actions to justify it. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Bilby, a huge amount has been done about it. So much so that it has become a time sink for many of us. It's even spawned RFCs by Doc James which you are well aw:are of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing looking at issues raised by KDS4444's editing, and addressing KDS4444's editing with sanctions less than a site ban. Generally I'd expect some direct attempts to sanction an editor before moving to a site ban. Has a partial ban been tried? The block log is empty, so I assume nothing has been tried there.

I would fully support a partial ban before moving to a site ban, but I can't, in good conscious, support jumping to a site ban based on the small number of on-wiki issues being shown here without at least trying a partial ban first. The OTRS issue is different, and I'm open to a community decision that we can site ban someone for actions committed on OTRS, but personally I'd rather see that managed elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support - The editor's behavior is completely unconscionable. He soils the entire project by being allowed to continue editing here. I'm not sure why the WMF hasn't globally banned him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block here. OTRS access already removed. Jonathunder (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- long-running and entrenched issue; volunteer time is best spent elsewhere rather than having to deal with promo articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Probably should have happened earlier. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like requesting a siteban for someone who's been a functionary, but this is exceptional — as far as abuse of the system is concerned, there aren't many things worse than using your advanced user rights to try to make money. The solicitation itself is an issue for Meta, but related actions here are an issue for us. I won't say "go away and never come back", but this kind of thing warrants "go away and never come back unless you can persuade the community to change its mind", and that's only going to happen with a lot of evidence for usefulness. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per basically everyone upthread. What a waste of volunteer time, just so he can make a little cash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. "I have advanced user rights on Wikipedia, I can get your article on there for $____" should result in an automatic ban, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Can we get a clear statement from an OTRS agent about whether it is accurate that KDS actually said something similar to the above characterization by The Bushranger? I don't want to jump on this without having all the facts, but if something like that was said, that is incompatible with continued editing of the project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  The most I feel comfortable saying at this point is that they have not used that exact phrasing ("I have advanced rights") or anything similar. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Echo Pfac.I do not recall about KDS using the exact phrasing, in his solicitations.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  It may not be exact words, but it's the clear implication, from how this is presented. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I rather fear I started the ball rolling here without mentioning names. No one has tried more to reason with KDS more than I and Jytdog but it has had little effect. Our conditions are lax in even permitting disclosed paid editing (under the assumption that it will prevent it going underground), but some take this to mean that they can make a deliberate career of it. KDS's main issue is that he is fiercly trying to avoid refunding his clients' money as becomes particularly evident in his persistence to get Stewart Levenson published (although the actual rejection of this article is a lack of notability as clearly set forth by Voceditenore) at Draft talk:Stewart Levenson. My objection to paid editing of any kind (except WIR) is that it is freeloading on the voluntary work of the editors who contribute content and maintain the quality of it. It practically always involves promotion of some kind, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We all know the OP has a bone to pick with anyone who ever recieved/s a cent ever for any edit done on Wikipedia. KDS, be more concerned with being a good "citizen" than getting paid. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • L3X1, I consider this oppose along with the edit summary to be bordering on a personal attack on Jytdog. Jytdog in fact has probably done the most of any editor we have to strike a balance between neutrality and COI/paid editing. They are one of the few editors who actually is willing to work with COI editors in reviewing their requests instead of simply reverting them. Jytdog also in the past has proposed things such as a Guild of paid editors for those paid editors who do follow our policies and guidelines (a proposal I strongly opposed, and still do). While you are free to oppose this sanction and to disagree with Jytdog's views on COI/paid editing, your characterization of them here is not true. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry it came across that way, but based off all the evidence I have seen that "balance" involves making paid editors wish they had a less stressful hobby. I believe article creation for profit and advocacy editing can be a problem, but I think they should be attacked/resolved in a manner that doesn't to me look like borderlin harrassment. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for striking your comment. I do not consider requiring that KDS4444 comply with our policies to be harassment, and I agree with what he was told by Doc James yesterday: You disclosing does not give you a free ride to add promotional material to Wikipedia and use advanced privileges to try to get further money. KDS has not tried to follow our rules on the English Wikipedia. Full stop. He has tried to use the global terms of use a bludgeon to force us to accept articles that are clearly in violation of our local policies and guidelines, and has abused a global right (OTRS) on en.wiki to violate our policies for his personal income. That is why we are talking about site banning him: he has violated local policies while trying to hold us hostage to the bare minimum requirements for even being able to hit the save button. That is disruption that is worthy of a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Are we proposing an infinite block/ban or a limited with auto unblock and the standard conditions. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The English Wikipedia does not have infinite sanctions. Site bans are indefinite, but even Betacommand is having his appeal considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • That was what I was implying. Beta's been trying to get unblocked for 5 years. The last one had multiple proposals of various levels attended by a multitude of editors, and even though the appeal is still under consideration, he is still blocked from en.wiki. DrStrauss (the guy, not the account) probably has a good chance of getting an account unblocked (or a new account with Arbcom's approval) because the level of his disruption is limited to deceit and socking. Indulge my crystal ball for a moment: the problem is that when the 6 months roll up, a good number of editors won't be bothered to support KDS's return. "Prove that you've repented" "How will we know that you aren't still taking payment" "unblock=might be trouble, blocked=no trouble" Comments like that and energetic opposition can sink a appeal either by numbers or by preventing consensus. And if KDS is site banned, wouldn't that mean he can't participate in any wiki-project? News, commons, fr.wiki, meta, media etc, right? At least Beta and Strauss can try to show penitence, a sitebanAn indef block will IMO be a damnatio ad beastias for KDS. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Just thought I would chime in here. This discussion, on the English Wikipedia's AN has absolutely no bearing on any other projects. This is not meta. This is not a global ban discussion. Site ban != global ban. They are free to prove that they can follow rules on other projects to their heart's content. --Majora (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I'll strick those parts then. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The user is not here to write a decent encyclopedia. They are here to make money for themselves by adding promotional content about their clients. There comes a point when enough is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Trust has vanished due to the egregious OTRS misconduct. It was also an act of defiance of community norms to move a paid biography of an artist of very dubious notability from draft space to mainspace, bypassing AFC which was established, at least in part, to allow ethical, regulated editing by paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Accepting payments for the creation of promotional "articles" and abusing positions of community trust to solicit said services are both completely incompatible with being here to help us build a volunteer curated encyclopedia. MER-C 07:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Actively soliciting for paid work using OTRS is simply appalling behaviour (and yes, it is an en.wiki problem if it is soliciting for paid work on en.wiki). That, coupled with things like moving his own paid drafts (especially of dubious notability) into main space, show that KDS4444's prime motivation is self-enrichment and not building an encyclopedia. I'm happy to admit that I share my friend Kudpung's distaste for most paid editing, but I do recognize it is allowed under disclosure rules, and also that there is a spectrum of paid editing which at one end covers altruistic work like the WIR programme (and things like simple factual updates by company employees seem fine to me too), but what we're looking at here is firmly at the parasite end of the spectrum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the OTRS issue, this alone should warrant community ban - don't use/abuse English Wikipedia publishing, or fellow English Wikipedia editors in disagreements with a client - either to prove something to the client or to waste the time of other editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with paid editing in and of itself. Everyone has to make a living, and if you can generate an income by editing Wikipedia in a manner consistent with its policies, far be it from me to tell you not to. On the other hand, if you're editing in a manner consistent with policy, you're very unlikely to come to the attention of even the most zealous of the paid editing opponents, and if you're attracting such attention, you're doing something wrong. Clearly something is very wrong here, and using OTRS to solicit for paid work is abhorrent; OTRS access is a position of great trust and you are essentially speaking "for Wikipedia". Add to that the deliberate creation of an inappropriate article to prove a point to a client and clearly the bottom line is more important than writing proper, neutral encyclopaedia articles. And for that reason, support: not for paid editing, but for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - if the community decides he should be indefinitely banned, fine, just wondering whether desysopping and editing restrictions would resolve the issue but retain a good editor with 17,000+ edits to en.wiki.fish&karate 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Fish and karate, KDS is not an admin, nor do they (currently) have any advanced permissions. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oops, my bad - I assumed he would be with OTRS access. Never assume! Above comment amended appropriately. fish&karate 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

TfD issue

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

---

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 15#Template:Authority control has been closed; please would an uninvolved admin now review and close the discussion that has been stared below the closed section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Working Primefac (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Primefac.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Gsfelipe94 on my talk page.

User has claimed I "fell from the sky declaring my opinion superior to others" (a fabrication).

User has claimed I am "messing around."

User's post on my talk page is incredibly aggressive.

I have no intention of humoring it with a reply (knowing myself, I would misbehave as well, admittedly). I merely request an administrator or other authority to step in and give him a proper warning template on his page to let him know that his behavior isn't assuming good faith and is quite abhorrent. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here. Good faith reverting edits over and over again does not fit. "Incredibly agressive" is way overreacted btw. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)@JohnnyFiveHole:, you are a relatively new user and you got involved into a content dispute. This dispute has to be resolved somehow, and trying to resolve it in edit summaries is usually not the best idea. Gsfelipe94 went to your talk page to resolve it, and might have not chosen the best approach, but you need to discuss with them anyway. The article talk page seems to be the best venue for such discussion, and I strongly recommend you to go there, open a new topic, and discuss the changes, at the same time trying to stay cool.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not disputing that much. My case in point is as follows *points to the tone and tenor of the above message by gsfelipe*. "you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This is a long-time user. He knows that personal attacks are a violation of WP policy, yet he's attacked me personally several times. I never have and never will type messages like what he's typed to me. As an aside, a quick perusal of his talk page reveals he's crossed others similarly, often biting the newbie. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This, coupled with the attacks against me on my page (instead of on *what I did*) such as "You've never updated mma articles before, so you can't just fall from the sky saying that your opinions are the ones that matter" and "I'm not going to engage in a worthless edit war because of you." (both unprovoked) are inarguably personal attacks. I appreciate your biased perspective (I'm not a "new user" - I've been around since 2010), but I implore you to see things through a clearer lens. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, but have in mind that a non-biased perspective can srtraightforwardly lead to your block for edit-warring and the absence of minimal good faith. Especially since you have already got a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing personal attacks here. That's not the best way to phrase it, to be sure, but the second of those is unquestionably not a personal attack and the first is hyperbole, not a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, really? A sentence that amounts to "You'll probably fail, because you always do everything wrong" is pretty much a textbook example of an abusive comment. The actual NPA policy (which everyone should probably re-read periodically, so we can get away from the telephone game and actually agree on what the policy says) says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in the original). The policy does not say "You can say anything mean, disparaging, and insulting you want, as long as it's not formulated in the pattern of <You> are a <bad word> and doesn't make us read a bunch of overtly racist garbage". It's obvious to me that Gsfelipe94's comment here would be identified by most people as "insulting or disparaging" if they heard it in the real world, and, as it was directed specifically and personally to a particular person, that makes it a personal attack under the actual definition given in the actual policy.

Perhaps more importantly, there's nothing WP:CIVIL about any of those comments, and that's a policy, too. Johnny still has less than 100 edits. He's exactly the kind of person that WP:BITE was written about. We screwed up. We can and should treat him, and other new good-faith editors, better than this. Let's try to do better next time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Nominations

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

---

How to I submit a page for my mother. She was a famous female Opera Conductor and Educator. Her obit was a feature in The NY Times and several other large papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredericContino (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is read WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG to learn what our notability guidelines are for musicians and generally, and then -- being as unbiased and neutral as possible about your mother -- determine that she qualifies under those guidelines. If you think she does, then read WP:Your first article for tips on how to create an article in Draftspace, which, when it is finished, you would submit to be "published" in Mainspace. But do, please, make sure she is actually notable according to our guidelines, because if she's not, after all the work you will put into writing an article, it's likely to not be accepted or be deleted for lack of notability. You might also want to ask your question on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Music and see what they say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

BMK, it appears she has an entry in Grove's. I expect we can fit her in. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, there you go! Write away! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

News obituaries in major papers like the NYT are a very solid indicator of notability, in my opinion: only people who are actually of a good deal of long-term importance get news obituaries, if nothing else because the size of the newspaper and of its reader base doesn't admit them to spend space on staff-written obituaries except for the most important people, and flash-in-the-pan people, e.g. victims of a crime, will have their deaths mentioned but won't get an obituary. Plus, the obituary itself (unlike a news report about the person) is a secondary source, since it covers the life from a detached perspective rather than reporting what's going on or what's just gone on as an ordinary news report does. SarekOfVulcan, how did you figure out who this was? Is there only one female opera conductor and educator in Grove who was named Contino? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. :) I figured if it wasn't her, we should be writing the article anyway. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start - see Fiora Contino. fish&karate 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

2nd opinion

I'm editing in my sleep and have need of a 2nd opinion onmy talk page. Please see User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Timber_Trail and User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Timber_Trail_continued. Perhaps someone uninvolved can help this user. I will be off line till Tuesday. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've commented there. I think all admins involved are being a bit more rigid that the situation requires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal by Δ (BetaCommand)

The community is invited to comment on the appeal lodged by Δ at Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment.

For the arbitration committee - GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état move discussion

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

---

Hi. Please can an uninvolved admin take a look at the move discussion, ideally to close it as soon as? As this is a high-profile news story linked from the main page, I don't think readers should be drawn away from the topic to a move request. IMO, I think it's a snow close, and for transparency, I did vote/comment in said move request. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

How can I discuss the way administrators mishandle copyright on this site?

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

---

I have watched in horror the way people are bullied and targeted here on wikipedia if they speak out.

But I think this is an important enough issue to bring up.

I am interested in the best way to discuss how administrators mishandle copyright, particularly fair use?

Where can this be done? Thank you in advance. Moscowamerican (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You could start by giving examples in the form of Diffs. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

hi. Roxy the dog. thanks for responding. please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to focus on one person or persons at all. I was recommended this page by someone before and I saw that this page is very very popular. I just would like to discuss the issues and get all peoples opinions, etc. I saw a page like this once, but I don't recall what it was called. Moscowamerican (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it to do with application of WP:NFCC? If you are not comfortable, you can mention a few general examples, but it will be helpful to be ready with diffs (as Roxy have mentioned) to present if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Without diffs as examples, we wont be able to assess your issue. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I know quite a bit about copyright and I think we generally get it right on enwiki. Lately, we've been doing a better job than Commons, in my opinion. Examples would be helpful. If individual files have been mishandled, we should correct that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am fairly sure this relates to User_talk:Moscowamerican#October 2017 given the follow up here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If the info posted above is correct, and this is the issue MA is worried about, I'd say that Diannaa is right on point. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

See also this discussion, started by an openly declared sockpuppet of Moscowamerican. --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• In practice we are very strict on text copyright (probably moreso than we are on files to be honest.) This is because while Wikipedia is an educational project that can reasonably claim fair use for text, our license allows people to reuse the text for commercial purposes (and we want to keep it that way.) Our mission is to be the free encyclopedia, and copyrighted text goes against that. I endorse Diannaa's actions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • thank you User:TonyBallioni for your comments, again, this is not about any editor, this is about policy in general. I think I need Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Moscowamerican (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind our non-free policy is required by the Foundation. We're supposed to be a free content work and use non-free images sparingly. That's why it is perhaps seemingly harsh on what is kept or not. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment- how would I search for fair use discussions before? Moscowamerican (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict)No, because you'd be wasting everyone's time as nothing would change (at best you'd get a no consensus to change result. Likely it'd snow close against you), and our copyright policy has legal implications, so it's really best not voted on without consulting legal counsel. If you want to create a wiki that has a more liberal view on allowing copyrighted text under the claim of fair use than we do, and want to do so without the de facto protection against being sued that the WMF and volunteers like Diannaa provide, you are free to fork Wikipedia into a new wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) There's an extensive searchable archive at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. And you don't need a request for comment to simply ask about this. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Serious sock/vandal issues

Upon the advice of The Bushranger who has spent a great deal of time trying to keep this particular sock farm under control, I am advising AN about the relentless disruption and a sock that simply will not give up.

Here are the IP addresses we’ve been dealing with today alone:

• 63.143.240.94
• 2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66
• 2600:1017:B42E:45B4:B4B3:C34B:1771:55A1
• 75.99.95.250
• BLPN
• BLPN

More information follows because over the course of the past 2 or 3 days, the sock has been relentless:

• See: User_talk:Infamia
• Article that provoked the PAs and relentless sock behavior: Pardon of Joe Arpaio Also see the TP history for more IP addresses.
• More PAs on the TPs of David Eppstein, Oshwah and MrX.

List of other IDs in sock farm:

• The Evil Sourceror (talk · contribs)

15:35, 9 November 2017 - created 06:08, 10 November 2017 - indef'd

• Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)

18:02, 11 November 2017 - created 16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd

• Edit Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)

18:03, 11 November 2017 - created 00:39, 12 November 2017 - indef'd

• Peacebroker (talk · contribs)

18:21, 11 November 2017 - created 08:04, 12 November 2017 - blocked for 48 20:13, 12 November 2017 - indef'd

• Infamia (talk · contribs)

20:51, 12 November 2017 - created 16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd

• 2600:1017:B400:815E:7D94:C251:BEA1:206C (talk · contribs)

21:26, 14 November 2017 - firat used 21:41, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• 209.140.35.48 (talk · contribs)

21:46, 14 November 2017 - first used 21:46, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• 2600:1017:B400:815E:8992:FEEE:349A:99BA (talk · contribs)

21:49, 14 November 2017 - first used 21:50, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• Son of Supervoter (talk · contribs)

20:36, 15 November 2017 - first used 20:38, 15 November 2017 - indef'd

There are more, and the disruption continues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These sock puppet accounts and IP-hopping edits are Kingshowman. Apart from playing whack-a-mole with the IPs as we see them, semi protecting the pages that he's targeting will at least stop the disruption on them. Of course, he could (and obviously would) just move the disruption to another page. Those are your realistic options... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of the named accounts are recent socks of Kingshowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Plase see most recent SPI. Dr. K. 21:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Zwinky

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

---

Could an Admin please delete Draft:Zwinky, which has been tagged since 12 November. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

...which is less than a week ago. G13 deletions, while "speedy", require some discretion on the part of the reviewing admin, as drafts that could potentially be kept should be delayed instead of deleted. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon the snark. I don't think G13 speedies are necessarily the most vital speedy to be concerned about, even if it has been sitting around for six days. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted the page; it might have been salvageable but this REFUND indicates that no one is likely to ever work on the page. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help... I think... JMHamo (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been a weird day. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Request (Winkelvi's request for editing restriction to be lifted)

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

---

Am requesting my 0RR restriction be lifted based on the 25 March 2017 decision found here [2]. Thank you for your consideration. -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature is baffling and difficult to navigate. Please change it so that other editors know that you are Winkelvi. Please tell us how your behavior and approach to editing have changed since the incidents that led to your three month block and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Overall, my behavior and approach to editing has changed in that I now rarely edit for fear of being blocked should an administrator view a change I have made to existing content in an article in such a way that it constitutes a violation of the 0RR restriction. Other than that, I go to article talk pages more frequently than I have before, and often first, to get the opinions of others before making changes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems, then, that the 0RR restriction is accomplishing its goal of motivating you to edit carefully, so I see no reason to lift that restriction at this time. What about your baffling signature, which I consider somewhat deceptive? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not meant to be deceptive. And I guess I strongly resent the implication that I intended it that way. My previous signature was 'WV' for quite a while. This is just a more creative looking version of exactly that, nothing more.

Back to my request: would you mind if other admins were to comment? I was thinking of others such as Drmies, Floquenbeam, Bbb23, NeilN, Nyttend, Diannaa, Black Kite, Boing! said Zebedee, Bishonen, BethNaught, Ritchie333 who were all admins when the restriction was put into place, had a hand in the decision, and commented re: the lift of the block. Further, something I would like to point out in regard to your comments, Cullen, is that the restriction has accomplished its goal to cause me to edit more carefully, however, it is also causing me to pretty much not edit at all (the reason why stated above). I thought the idea is for editors to edit, not be afraid to edit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that you have made 282 edits in recent months, so you remain an active editor. When you were editing at a higher volume, you repeatedly got into trouble, and ended up blocked several times and sanctioned. I believe that the current restrictions are best for you and for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at my editing statistics, the overwhelming majority of those "edits" have been to article talk pages, not editing articles. Is that truly considered improving the encyclopedia? -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not seeing much reason for lifting the ban. 0RR being too onerous might be grounds for downgrading to 1RR. Emphasis on "might". The fear of some roving admin interpreting an innocent edit as technically being a revert and blocking for it is not persuasive to me, and strikes me as more a generalized claim of persecution... which is not generally a positive sign. That is not to say claims of persecution are grounds for upholding a restriction, but groundless or nonspecific ones tend to be associated with poor outcomes in my experience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm not feeling persecuted nor do I have some irrational fear of being indeffed. That said, please see my talk page and the discussion under "Admins only, please" - I'm not fabricating anything to gain sympathy, I was told an indefinite block for changing content could happen. In that discussion, it was established by an admin that there could be some admins who would see a replacement of content with different wording to be a reversion of content. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that discussion is correct in what is generally considered to be a revert. As I said, you might have a case for requesting 1RR instead of 0RR on that basis. Or a clarification that for 0RR purposes "revert" does not include edits that happen to restore content that was removed more than a week ago; or edits that would normally be counted as the initial step in the BRD cycle instead of the revert.

My take on the expansive definition of "revert" is that it exists to prevent gaming of 3RR (or similar restrictions) by combining reverts with other edits, or by making partial reverts. So maybe this is an issue that ought to be talked about more in the context of a policy discussion, if 0RR really does make editing impossible in practice when combined with that expansive definition. But I don't see it as a freestanding reason to eliminate your restriction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm perfectly fine with a 1RR restriction for six months, a year, indefinite. Several other editors were as well, including a decent number of administrators at the time the restriction was imposed. Except in the case of blatant vandalism, I don't see myself using even 1RR because of what I've learned since the block, the discussion, and then the restriction was imposed. 0RR, however, is pretty ridiculously restrictive without any change to the 0RR policy (which is vague, at best). This was also noted in the discussion at my talk page (which I linked to above). I really would like to get back to editing without living in fear that one move seen by one admin (or an editing complaining to an admin) could end my editing career in Wikipedia forever. It's not enjoyable or in anyway enticing to edit when you can't edit without that fear. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I see my name has been mentioned, but my only comment at this time is that you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Question: If the lambda is changed to a 'v', would that suffice. As I've already stated, my signature was 'WV' for quite some time and no one ever complained. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, just make the whole thing link to your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't realize it wasn't. That must have happened when I updated the appearance of the signature. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record: I'm working on fixing my signature. Like I said just above, I didn't realize until it was just pointed out to me that hoving over my signature wasn't showing who I am. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does show when one manages to micro-hover over the tiny envelope, but why not just sign with Winkelvi? Do your friends call you Psi Lambda, or Trident Wavelength or why can't it be your actual user name? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Sluzzelin. I pointed out your signature problems twice and you blew off my concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I have changed it back to the same similar signature from months ago, with everything intact as it should be coding-wise, just with the greek letters as they have been since I changed them a while back. Again, I had no intention of being deceptive and did not realize that one could not hover over my signature and see who I am. Hovering over my own signature is not something I do and it never occurred to me that I should check to make sure that capability was intact. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia. Many have done it for a long time and continue to do so without complaint or any kind of suspicion directed toward them. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No suspicions or complaints expressed from my side (whom, admittedly, you haven't addressed). Just was curious about why you would wish to do it. The answer appears to be that others are doing it too. That's fine. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no slight toward you intended. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I said that your signature was "baffling and difficult to navigate" and that was completely true at the time I wrote it. Signature idiosyncrasies can easily be ignored if editors are not otherwise disruptive. You have been consistently disruptive in the past, although I hope that you have changed. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"You have been consistently disruptive in the past" This subjective comment from you is evidence of what I suspected from your first response to my request. And all of it is exactly why I would like other admins, who were admins at the time of my three month block by Coffee and the accompanying 0RR restriction was implemented - who also commented on same, to offer their opinions now. It would seem that even though I thought you and I had let bygones be bygones (according to your comment at my talk page found here [3]), you are allowing our negative interactions of long ago cloud your administrative judgement now. That's hardly fair or objective with the encyclopedia in mind first -- something administrators are supposed to be. At least, that's how it's coming off from my perspective. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I will allow other editors to comment on your request, and if anyone else thinks I have been unfair in describing your past behavior, then I will listen carefully to what they have to say. To repeat: I hope that you have changed, by which I mean your editing behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's occurred three of four times recently that editors posting on AN and AN/I have sought to have a specific audience -- and preferably only a specific audience -- comment on their requests, something which I find exceedingly odd. Everyone here is a volunteer, everyone edits when they can or want to edit, and they check whatever pages they want to check. That means that the response to a noticeboard request is always going to be semi-random, and vary greatly from moment to moment. The attempt to skew that response, presumably in favor of the editor filing the request, feels to me like a version of WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, that's not what I'm looking for at all. But, because I had a feeling from the tone of Cullen's initial response that he was not going to be objective, that's why I stated I would like to hear from admins who are actually familiar with the history and had more than a couple months of experience as an administrator. I have no problem with striking the admin names above, as I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to canvass here (I'm not - if I really were, I would have pinged them). My point was that these are the admins who were "there" - and if you take the time to look into the responses to each one during the AN/I as well as the discussion(s) about the block/restriction on my talk page, there was a mixed bag of what they all felt about the situation. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: (ec) I would note the part of Winkelvi's editing restriction which states:

  There is also general consensus for an indefinite WP:0RR editing restriction, appealable in six months after the block expires if no talk page bludgeoning has occurred. (emphasis added)

  In looking at Winkelvi's edits to talk pages ([4], [5], and [6]) I note multiple edits to many of the talk pages he edited, especially in the case of article talk pages. I have not examined these edits in detail, but I think it's necessary for anyone responding to this request to do so, as the lack of talk page bludgeoning is a necessary element in an appeal being accepted. In other words, if Winkelvi is still bludgeoning on talk pages (and I do not prejudge whether he is or not), he is actually not allowed to file an appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note re: BMK's comments above: An important part of the condition re: bludgeoning has been left out above:

  "An uninvolved admin or community consensus will decide if talk page bludgeoning has occurred and Winkelvi must be warned and given a chance to stop before the matter is brought to an admin or noticeboard."

No such warning has ever been given since the restriction was imposed, no complaints about bludgeoning in my case have been brought to my attention, or anyone's that I've been made aware of. Conclusion: there has been no violation of WP:BLUDGEON as described by the caveat/condition in the restriction and block decision. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what was written, confusing two different parts of the sanction. You cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned under the terms of the editing restriction unless you been warned against bludgeoning first, but if someone was to examine your editing right now and determine that you've been bludgeoning on talk pages, your appeal would be groundless. You would not be hit with any additional penalties, but your appeal would be moot. You happen to have filed an appeal before any warning was issued (if one was warranted), but any bludgeoning which had occurred without being noticed would still invalidate the appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your interpretation. I would disagree even if the restriction wasn't imposed on me. NeilN was pretty specific in what would be acceptable behavior from the community regarding the block, restriction and appeal. Context here is important. Look at what followed the comments I included above (that you left out). It's clear that these were warnings not so much for me but for the community when it came to what would be tolerated and what would not in regard to the sanctions. As I'm sure you are aware, there are community veterans know how to game the system, find loopholes, and essentially make the lives of blocked and sanctioned editors hell on earth. I have enemies. This was a way to keep those enemies from trying to push the envelope. The clarification regarding how a complaint over bludgeoning was to be reported was a guideline for those who would want to make such a complaint. When you consider that engaging in bludgeoning would be a disqualifying factor in me appealing the 0RR restriction in the future and how those who also would seek to poke the bear (the next warning/caveat/guideline for behavior) could try to goad me into bludgeoning, the context of the guideline is clear: in order for bludgeoning to be a valid form of disqualification for appeal, a complaint and subsequent warning would have had to already taken place. Let's use some common sense here, too: I can't know that I'm disqualified from appealing if I've never had the required warning and opportunity to stop. Which I haven't. Regardless, I've not engaged in bludgeoning on any talk pages since the sanctions, so your point is moot anyway. Even so, it would probably be good to have NeilN weigh in here since he is the one who closed that discussion and set the conditions at the time of the close. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment those editing on an iphone (for example) can't hover over a signature. "Consistently disruptive" is a pretty accurate assessment. 0RR is pretty generous considering past behavior. Is the 0RR really just for talk page bludgening? Seems like it's for edit warring a lot. I don't recall a rule at AN that says only invited admins can comment. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have edited the header to be more specific. I also agree that the signature is both deceptive (trying to maintain that the drastic change was not intended to hide further undermines Winkelvi's already problematic credibility) and prevents access and transparency. For access reasons and for transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be his screenname clearly spelled out. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Two admins asked me to fix it not because of the initials (my signature was the initials 'WV' at the time of the sanctions and for at least a year or more before that) but because - unbeknownst to me - hovering over it did not show who I am. I have since remedied that and have changed it back to the colors of the signature at the time of the restriction(s) and three month block. But truthfully, I'm failing to see what my signature has to do with anything or why it's being tied into this request and my 0RR restriction. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To repeat: The signatures (both the one that this thread started out under, and the one now) are deceptive (trying to maintain that the changes were not intended to hide further undermines your already problematic credibility) and prevents access (as noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. For transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be your screenname clearly spelled out, for both access reasons (noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Opinion: I'm not seeing any comprehension at all of why the editing restriction was put into place, or admission that the user understands why their editing was a problem; therefore I don't see any reason for changing the editing restriction. If the only reason the editor says they have edited differently is because of "fear", then they still do not understand the issues at hand that led to the restriction. Until such an understanding and admission is at hand, and a description of how they plan to remedy the problem, I see no reason to lift the restriction since it has, as Cullen stated, accomplished its intended purpose. Even if the editor were to convey understanding and a new plan, I don't see a way to lifting the restriction completely, given the way this request started out; the only concession that would seem appropriate would maybe be changing it to 1RR, but again, I think it's too late for that since there's been no understanding or rehabilitation other than low editing out of "fear of being indef blocked". Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In spite of what Softlavender has stated above, I absolutely understand why the restriction was put into place: I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with others to the best of my ability is. If that's a "plan", it's the only one I have. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not what you said here and here, and it appears that this confession was only made under duress (i.e., after I brought it to light). A request for removal of an editing restriction should start out with a clear statement of understanding and admission and learning. The fact that it didn't and one is only at hand now is rather puzzling, and seems to smack of more insincerity. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make a "confession", I made a statement. You stated I didn't understand why I had a 0RR restriction, I immediately responded and showed that's not the case. Sure, in a perfect world and with a perfect person making the request, a request such as this should start out the way you say it should. I didn't do that and have rectified the omission. I take great offense to you now saying I'm lying and that I'm intentionally trying to be deceptive (with my signature) Why are you exercising zero good faith? None of this suspicion and being told I'm dishonest is deserved or appropriate. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your actions speak for themselves, as does your previously stated description of and rationale behind your current behavior and approach to editing: [7]. Cullen gave you an opportunity to display understanding, and you displayed none. The complete overhaul(s) of your signature and the timing speak for themselves as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing the restriction to 1RR per ROPE and because there are better things to do than sit here arguing about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The pointless obduracy over such a trivial matter as changing his confusing signature is enough to convince me that restrictions should remain in force. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support 1RR because I actually understand where Winkelvi is coming from. I think it's entirely reasonable that, with the expansive definition of "revert", Winkelvi edits mainspace at his peril. Given revert rules tend to be enforced without regard to intent, Winkelvi could easily find himself blocked for inadvertently "reverting" an edit by adding content that had been removed weeks or even months earlier. Even if that specific scenario is somewhat unlikely, I believe it's significant enough to chill Winkelvi's participation. And, that Winkelvi actually sought out the opinions of others as to the dimensions of 0RR rather than just doing whatever he wants is a positive sign to me. The signature thing... I'm not thrilled about that, but I don't think it's as nefarious as is being suggested. I remember a case from a couple years ago where someone had gone silent after an unblock, blanked his user talk page, and got a username change, and went right back to what had gotten him blocked before... now that was nefarious. This is just silly. At worst, the sig thing is concerning with respect to candor. Well, I'm willing to look past that for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Winkelvi has not satisfied the appeal prerequisite of no talk page bludgeoning: [8]. I would be willing to overlook this single example if were not for the fact that he only made 53 article talk page edits. As a practical matter, there is almost zero chance of Winkelvi being blocked for violating the 0RR restriction because he changed a wrong word, altered current sentence structure, or corrected a date, jot or period out of place, provided that it's not an obvious reversal of the last edit. For the record, I supported a 1RR restriction in the March discussion.- MrX 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't seem to me that Winkelvi has adequately demonstrated collaborative editing in the nearly eight months since his editing restriction. As seen by his edit counts, he seems to have instead virtually stopped editing [9], a behavior we call "waiting out" an editing restriction. Meanwhile even so he has continued his battleground approach on usertalk pages [10] and ANI [11], and article talk as noted by MrX above [12]. I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is my last set of comments in this thread unless someone asks me a direct question. I wasn't going to comment further, but I just don't think it's wise or right to let Softlavender's comments be left without advocating for myself:

First my signature was a problem for you. You accused me of intentional deception via the signature. When I pointed out that the problem had been corrected, you still didn't like the signature and basically demanded it be changed back to what it was when my block was imposed in March. Then, you stated I didn't express an understanding of why the 0RR restriction was imposed in my original request and said the restriction shouldn't be lifted based on that. When I did give a very reasonable and adequate (admittedly necessary) response to your complaint, you didn't like it that the comments weren't in the original request and accused me again of being dishonest. Now you are accusing me of more dishonesty by intentionally "waiting out" the restriction. You further say I should edit for six months collaboratively before the restriction can be reconsidered again, even though that's not what NeilN imposed conditionally when he closed the discussion, and not what everyone seemed to be in agreement with. Remember, you accepted accolade after accolade as well as barnstars from editors on your talk page for your intervention in that AN/I discussion and, in so doing, took credit for what the final decision ended up being. You were fine with the conditions and final decision at the time, but are not fine with the conditions and final decision now. Not to mention you think I should edit more in the next six months to prove being worthy of the 0RR lifted. How does that work, exactly? 50 edits? 500? How does one force someone to edit Wikipedia for a six month period of time? According to policy, editing is not compulsory: "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature has been noted as problematical and deceptive by many people, and you did not change it back to the way it was before the editing restriction; it was still bizarre symbols. I am not accusing you of dishonesty, I am stating facts. I "took credit" for nothing, "accepted" nothing. Trying to point fingers at others isn't going to work for you. You have indeed engaged in talkpage bludgeoning, as noted previously: [13], [14], and moreover, in further battleground behavior at ANI: [15]. As I stated above, I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR per my general opposition to the use of 0RR, because it leaves editors vulnerable to gaming the definition of a revert, which WV has indicated makes them afraid to edit, and I believe them. Further I support WV's use of Greek characters in their signature, given that they've fixed the other issues with userspace links, the rest is just picking on them. It's not "deceptive" at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR That would still meet WP's protective needs. Be aware of WP:ROPE and that you will be under close scrutiny. Also fix the signature. A signature that irritates other editors is not a thing you need in your life. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - 0RR is bamboo under the fingernails. 1RR is far more palatable and allows an editor to develop collaborative skills while helping to keep the worst disruption at bay. It doesn't prevent tag teams for doing the dirty but it does help keep GF editors out of the quicksand. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Upwards of 99% of Wikipedia editors somehow manage not to spend much of their time at the center of heated controversy. Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF. One can't disconnect themselves from their past at Wikipedia or anywhere else in this world, even after they have truly found Jesus. In my opinion, what we're seeing here is but one example of the downside of bending over backward to be "fair" toward problematic editors, and I wonder whether Winkelvi will ever stop consuming vastly more than his share of community time in debates about his behavior. As seen in this thread, he has yet to learn an essential fact of Wikipedia editing, which is the meaning of "don't bludgeon": One can't "win" debates by picking apart every comment made by every opponent, as if there were only one correct way to see things; if only things were so simple. (If I didn't write this, I would expect Winkelvi to pick apart my strictly inaccurate use of "every" twice in the preceding sentence, pointing out the few opponent comments that he didn't pick apart, thereby proving to all that I'm full of shit.)
  If Winkelvi wants 1RR only for reverting clear vandalism, I wonder whether the project might do ok if those reverts were left to others—even if that means leaving them for some time in lower-traffic articles. For repeated vandalism by one user, he has the same access to WP:AIV as everybody else. And I'm not buying the fear argument either. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree very much with your observations here (and I've just had a Talk: comment demonstrating just this). But I would still support giving them just a bit more leeway, to 1RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And you did so, a few comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF." I trust that's not how you really meant to convey your thoughts. Every editor should be treated with fairness and AGF. I agree Winkelvi has exhausted everyone's GF, and it would not be unfair to continue the editing restriction. Moriori (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moriori: I put the project's interest before that of any editor including myself, and there is no case to be made that it's in the project's interest to spend all these hundreds of editor hours to accommodate one editor's demands for fair treatment. I was treated unfairly in the only block of my career, strictly speaking, but I didn't make a federal case of it. Rather, I chalked it up to the inevitable limitations of messy self-governance, part of the price that we all pay for that, and I dropped the issue after a day or two and without a block appeal. In contrast, some editors have no qualms about exploiting every last inch of the community's goodwill, while persistently abusing the project in return for that goodwill, and I strongly object to that. No, I conveyed my thoughts quite accurately. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fully agree with Softlavender's blunt but fully accurate assessment. Winkelvi has substantially downgraded their contributions in recent months; call it what you want, but it is just a "waiting out" tactic. I have no idea why some editors here want to encourage that behavior by lowering his restriction to 1RR. I would like to see six months of collaborative editing -- something worthy of an award -- before granting any leniency on their editing restriction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I couldn't disagree with this assessment more. The worry Winkelvi has voiced is a realistic one, and Winkelvi's seeking input and first requesting clarification rather than leaping headlong into behavior on the edge of acceptability in order to gradually test the bounds of the restriction is an excellent sign. That his approach, particularly with the signature change, comes off as argumentative is not helpful, but in light of the panic this request seems to have engendered, I would consider it truly paradoxical were Winkelvi to fail to defend himself. Winkelvi is not sitebanned or mainspace banned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't term a consistent period of collaborative editing as being on the "edge of acceptability". And I am fully aware there is no site or mainspace ban. I never hinted at one. Virtually discontinuing editing and still displaying battleground behavior here, at their talk page, and elsewhere are not indicators of an editor who has learned from their past behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only has there no clear reason to lift the restriction been established- at least, not one that demonstrates how such a move would benefit the encyclopaedia- but this complete time-sink above regarding their signiture illustrates that the same WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude exists, the principal that if one can do something, then one should. So if one can get away with having a misleading signature, one should? --->phenomonally unhelpful. And, for the record, WV's comment here, in response to Cullen, that "having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia" is a distraction. Per WP:SIG#Custom si: A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page and A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users, regardless of what others' sigs may or may not be doing. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - Oh lord... about 90% of this discussion was entirely unnecessary. I would hardly call the signature "deceptive" - not least because deception is an intent to trick or fool people - as anyone familiar with Winkelvi should have been able to identify them on sight. The shadow and envelope logo have always been present in his signature, psi looks similar to w and lamba looks like an upside down v, you know, WV. Furthermore, WV is not Winkelvi so why has nobody pulled him up on this in the... how many years has he been here? No, now that they've changed it to a slightly less obvious WV it's a problem. Mountain ... mole hill. <rant>And then on top of all that, who the fuck could psi-lambda over here possibly have been deceiving when they linked the AN/I that had the /0RR/ imposed in the first place in their request? What? Joe "Psi-Lambda" Bloggs just waltzed on over here to request that /somebody else's 0RR/ restriction be lifted for them? Huh???</rant> That said, Winkelvi's responses haven't been... optimal. Rather than just immediately going back and changing their signature to their old deceptive signature, so they could deceive us with their old deception, they decided to defend their choice to deceive us with a new deception signature so that we couldn't possibly identify their deception. Or alternatively place the slightest imposition on an editor to... oh I don't know... look at the diff and let the neurons do the rest? (I am bearing in mind that their sig did indeed make it exceptionally difficult for someone to navigate to their talk page and that this should, and was, rectified soon after it was pointed out).</rant... again... I get annoyed at people who start shit over trivial matters> All of that said, however, the non-sig based criticisms are reasonable enough. Winkelvi hasn't been engaging in much productive work, though if the 0RR restriction is effecting that (not affecting it) then it might be reasonable to loosen the ropes slightly to 1RR and I'm not impressed with their conduct at Talk:Bruce Harrell, but, that's probably more true of their "opponent" who came in with the knife out with little reason. In all, I see no reason to remove the restriction, but, I'm fine with loosening it to allow Winkelvi (WV / Psi-Lambda / Deceptive) to edit in peace. Now Imma move along. Μρ ρνδδυδε (ταλκ) 19:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. While WinkElvi has been quiet, I don't see that as an indication of changed behaviour. His edit-warring has diminished the contributions the rest of us would have made otherwise, and a short leash on his editing is quite proper. BTW, I find his new signature baffling, as it uses unfamiliar symbols that require a specific "decoding" to make the connection. I suspect he is trying to evade the associations many of us have with his previous signature, which suggests he does not acknowledge the reasons why he has been restricted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Adding the following as I feel it's important for those considering my request to read (I stated all this below, but I think it's not being seen as it's buried in the discussion).

I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan forward in regard to this request other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block in March 2017. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting the work of others just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with editors to the best of my ability is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that Winkelvi has modified their signature back to an easily navigable and recognizable version. Their kind holiday greetings to various editors popped up on my watchlist, along with the modified signature. Thank you, Winkelvi, for responding to community concerns. I now support changing the 0RR to a 1RR restriction instead, with the stated understanding among all that behavior by Winkelvi that the community finds disruptive will result in new sanctions. I truly hope that never happens. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I see the holiday greetings as a deliberate ploy to contact and get in the good graces of a passel of administrators, which is his normal ploy when confronted by a block or an editing restriction -- we've seen it over and over: his numerous pings to friendly admins during the previous block, and so on. He didn't send out Thanksgiving or even Christmas greetings last year or any previous year, so why today? Plus many if not half of the people he sent the Happy Thanksgiving message to are not Americans. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I think that the greetings may be a response to a New Year's greeting I sent to Winkelvi on December 31, 2015, which I sent to many editors that day but customized to Winkelvi as an "olive branch". As for who received Winkelvi's greetings, holiday greetings are a nice thing. I happen to be Jewish and am not offended when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, though I may respond with "Happy Hanukkah!" I doubt if many editors will be offended by an American Thanksgiving greeting. I think that Winkelvi is trying to send the message that their initial response was a mistake. Wikipedians often tell people, "when you are in a hole, do not dig deeper". It looks to me that Winkelvi is trying to climb out of that hole. Let's assume good faith, and give it a try. 1RR is, after all, a pretty strong restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you, Cullen. Changing his signature back is one thing, contacting a group of admins out of the blue, like pinging a group of friendly admins when he is blocked, is quite another. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Principled, thoughtful disagreements are fine, Softlavender, and I agree with much but not all of what you have said in this conversation. I interpreted the original post as a request for complete removal of reversion restrictions, and I could not support that. That had now been clarified, and we are now discussing 1RR. Winkelvi has now clarified that 1RR is what they seek. I objected to the signature and despite some complaining and input from others, now that issue has been resolved. If Winkelvi had come here with a well formulated plan requesting 1RR, and a clean signature, I would have been inclined to support. They have made clarifications and corrections, so now I support 1RR. This person has editing privileges and is not blocked or banned. They have been reminded quite forcefully of community concerns, and have acknowledged those concerns. I think we should give Winkelvi a chance at 1RR at this point. It will either end well, or it won't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Those holiday greetings. Twenty one of them. ~ Fifteen of them to admins. A slight anomaly? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 07:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? He's not canvassing. There's no rule against being friendly, even if you're doing it in the hopes of impressing someone. If anything, I think it's a positive sign given reviewing this request is supposed to involve evaluating Winkelvi's character and maturity. I happen to think it's an adult, mature thing to do to wish people well during the holidays. Far better than the bludgeoning behavior that's been claimed as Winkelvi's hallmark elsewhere in this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR I'm not familiar with the original case, but I can't imagine any reason not to change a 0RR to 1RR after many months of no violations. Some of the oppose votes raise WP:CIR concerns, but none that suggest that 0RR is beneficial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: Perhaps you'd care to look a little deeper. The reason you can't imagine is the combination of this consensus and the continued bludgeoning documented by multiple experienced and objective editors in this thread. Including, in my opinion as I expressed in my !vote, bludgeoning in this thread. I see no significant change in the discussion style.
  Lest I commit bludgeoning myself, I'll now withdraw from this discussion, unless somebody pings me for some bizarre reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at that, 0RR seems to be a compromise between 1RR and indef. I think that after 6 months of "good behavior", going to 1RR (with a healthy reminder of the WP:ROPE principal) seems reasonable. The closing statement probably needs to include another stern reminder against edit warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• There hasn't been six months of good behavior; there has been six months of almost no editing coupled with a number of battleground/bludgeoning incidents, including [16], [17], [18]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• 27 main-space edits since March is not at all encouraging; I wouldn't blame the closing admin for discounting my vote in light of that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the fact that he's really not been editing makes the claim that he feels unable to edit in mainspace without risking a block more credible. I think it can go either way. What I find disturbing about the claims that "he's just waiting it out!" is that it almost presupposes that the purpose of 0RR is punishment, and that by doing something other than editing mainspace, he's not felt the effects of his punishment adequately. The idea that Winkelvi should have to "learn something" first is essentially endorsing the idea that the restriction is supposed to be punitive, which it is not. He's behaved himself as well as should be expected. We don't require perfection. We just require that the restriction is no longer necessary to meet the goal of preventing disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: So it's your position that this thread can override the condition set forth in that consensus. I disagree, as that would mean it was meaningless to begin with, and therefore bad judgment on the closer's part. But hey, it's only reasoning. Take care. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I absolutely feel this thread can over-ride anything from the previous consensus at WP:ANI. Quite frankly, if he's going to do something new that justifies an indef block, we should let him get on with doing it. If he's not, his edits are OK and 0RR is excessively annoying. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've never seen anything convincing policywise that says a closer can impose arbitrary, complex, and extremely subjective conditions on appealing or requesting the loosening of a sanction. The typical requirement for requesting a sanction to be lifted is something modeled after the standard offer. But the standard offer is merely that: the standard offer. Exceptions abound, both in the sense that some restricted editors may be ineligible for a SO request, and that it may be reasonable to request early relief.
  So, to take your point above: ... that would mean it was meaningless to begin with, and therefore bad judgment on the closer's part. I agree entirely: Because consensus can change, and the usual participants at AN/ANI do not have exclusive and perpetual jurisdiction over community sanctions, long-term prospective restrictions are at best considered guidelines that the community may waive with or without reason. Imposing them in a close is poor judgment because they give the community a false sense of security. This is the, admittedly frustrating, double-edge of WP:NOTBURO... and the degree of bureaucracy imposed with the sanction here borders on byzantine. But even then, I think Winkelvi has done as well as should be expected given how onerous 0RR is when the "partial revert" rule is applied mechanically. Let him edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR, and I think the new signature is fine so long as it's clearly linked. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR. I see no need to continue with 0RR now, and 1RR is usually an effective limit without being so distrusting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR With the condition that any admin is free to revert it to 0RR. Frankly WV has, as SL says above, just waited out the restriction, but I am willing to extend the rope. Let me be clear on this: I don't think they are capable of not edit warring, so raising it to 1rr is the fastest way for him to combust again. Per my comments at the original block/0RR discussion, "He is well aware of 1rr, 3rr etc and since he has repeatedly shown no interest in not edit warring despite knowing full well what it is and all the details around what constitutes a revert, only 0RR has a hope of working. I say working, but I mean 'cause less disruption to other editors'" - 0RR has functionally caused him to stop editing because he cant edit war, and thus has been working in restricting the disruption to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR, 0RR is effectively an editing ban due to the risk of just about any of the restricted editor's contributions being construed as a revert if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so. fish&karate 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR I have had my issues with WV in the past and I concur with the opinions that WV is a difficult person to edit with. I have also been the victim of WV's stalking and editing to prove points. That being said, it might be time to give WV some rope and hope for the best. 0RR is for many a basic block from editing and I do sympathize with the editing on eggshells with this hanging over one's head. I support the 1RR with the same condition as OID, that any admin can revert back to 0RR if it is warranted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR, pretty much exactly as per OID, except I think that if it's violated the recourse should be straight into a block rather than back to 0RR. Any loosening of conditions should be not only subject to a time constraint but also to an edit count constraint (which people will be able to pretty easily tell if it is being gamed). While I'm not optimistic that a lesson has been learned and internalized, in the interests of WP:AGF I don't think extending a short length of WP:ROPE is out of line. PGWG (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR, based just on the contents of this section (without knowing anything about ψλ). And recommend (in general) giving warnings before blocking, in case of any plausibly-accidental violations. Κσυπ Cyp   17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - The opposes all raise valid concerns however lets be honest this 0rr is a gag and it's great short term however I don't agree with it being an indef thing - Everyone deserves atleasr 1rr! - Obviously you shouldn't edit war but you also shouldn't be gagged indef. –Davey2010^Talk 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Need a page semi-protected ASAP (update: protected)

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

---

• Nathan Peterman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resolved

I know this is already at RfPP, but there has been MASSIVE amounts of vandalism on this article, which is related to him throwing five interceptions today. Could an admin please semi-protect this article? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Alexf^(talk) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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

IP unblock?

Hi, can you please unblock 107.77.224.0122 for account creation? It's a public range that I'm running an editathon on right now. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

hi! relatedly - can we lift the account restriction on 64.251.121.244 -- this is the other ip? thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• 107.77.224.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 64.251.121.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)

Primefac (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phoebe: I removed the account creation restriction on 107.77.224.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) earlier after your message on my talkpage, but I don't know about the other IP. Graham87 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phoebe: gave you some temporary flags as well in case you need to create these on behalf of your attendees. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phoebe: As above - I can't see any blocks effecting the 64. ip. What's the block message please? SQL^{Query me!} 23:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Roysandytei

User:Roysandytei, who is an active editor from Ghana, has been blocked, because he was believed to be a sockpuppet of a sock farm. However first checkusering in countries with a very limited amount of providers includes a lot of false positives. Secondly he was blocked because he was writing about African popular culture. But if you look at his articles like Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (Ghana) you will see that there is hardly any resemblance. Roysandytei is an active member of the Wikimedia User Group Ghana and he needs his account back. He has an upcoming Education Program appointment with the dean of the Ghana School of Law for explaining Wikipedia to him and a Wikimedian in Residence position has been approved for him. What proof do you need for unblocking him? --Gereon K. (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The block was made by a checkuser following a sockpuppet investigation. I would suggest that you first discuss this with the checkuser (User:There'sNoTime)) concerned. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime has not edited since 1st of November... --Gereon K. (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He edited yesterday. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, please see this discussion. I'm awaiting another checkuser to review my findings -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime has email activated, unsurprisingly. This might be a good time to use it, Gereon K.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That being said, per the above request, I have unblocked Roysandytei pending a second checkuser review. There's no need for them to remain blocked while we wait -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Mentoring and removal of permissions needed

User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (Dysklyver for short) has been on enwiki since 2014, but has become really active in July 2017. Issues with their editing include:

• On 13 November User:Legoktm asked them to stop posting to the #wikimedia-tech channel on IRC because " I'd like to politely ask you to refrain from helping people in that channel - as far as I can tell all of the advice you gave to people in the past 24 hours was entirely wrong". Dysklyver completely misunderstood that simple request.

• Their rollback right was removed in September 2017 by User:KrakatoaKatie with the support of User:Alex Shih.

• AfC issues: User:DGG said here: "Looking at some of your comments to in your talk page archive, it is clear that you must learn to be more polite to contributors, even when you are absolutely right. And you are not always right. As an extreme example, you declined an article because of a reason that amounts to a denial of the fundamental policy NOT CENSORED, saying "WP is read by children". Considering the poor judgment shown in the recent series of deletion nomination, I think it is necessary to withdraw at least temporarily your right to review New Pages." They concluded the discussion with "In my opinion, the best way we can judge if you are reading to return to afc and nNPP, if relevant, is through good fairly detailed comments at AfD and appropriate nominations for deletion. ." That discussion has an interesting list of the most recent AfD nominations they made, and the results.

• Deletions.

Starting deletion discussions without knowing, understanding, or applying our policies and guidelines. They were asked to refrain from starting nominations or to familiarize themselves with BEFORE by User:Primefac (30 September "Per the close of this AFD, I kindly ask that you read WP:BEFORE and not nominate any more pages for deletion until you have thoroughly read and understood it.", User:Premeditated Chaos, User:GreenMeansGo ("WP:BEFORE is not a suggestion; it is a requirement, and your nominations show a general if not complete lack thereof. You may consider this a warning if you like."), me here, and User:Edwardx.

They promised to stop nominating articles for deletion after this on 19 October 2017: "Out of respect for your concerns I will not nominate any more AfD's until all these have closed, and then 25 weeks, and give you notice of any articles I would normally AfD, CSD or PROD rather than tagging them myself."; they didn't keep the second part of that promise though.

On 2 November, they were instructed that G5 deletions only applied when the creation was made after the sockmaster was blocked. "ok thanks, it was not clear to me the exact G5 procedure, but your comments here and on IRC have helped clear it up." is again promising. However, only yesterday they nominated a bunch of pages for G5 just to get them declined for not meeting the G5 rules...

Early november, they started Prodding articles with dubious rationales. This was discussed at User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Arbcom candidacy. The first such Prod after they promised to stop nominating articles for deletion was Carabao (band)[19]. After discussion, their position still was "" I still can't verify practically anything in the article to multiple reliable sources, this is my default stance to things which remains unsourced, not necessarily representing an issue." If someone is unable to verify these things, despite the subject having e.g. their own full lemma in the "Historical Dictionary of Thailand"[20]", then the problem is with the editor, not the subject of the article.

• Sourcing.

Looking at his article creations, I came across Lesquite Quoit, created on 13 November. One of the sources used was this page, which you should probably read first to fully understand the issues. When I asked them "Or do you think that e.g. a source like this has a place on enwiki and should be reinserted in your article?" they replied "perhaps you have something against druids?" which at first I thought was facetious, but soon turned out to be a completely serious response. User:Doug Weller also tried to talk sense with them about this, but to no avail. Their latest reply about this issue, at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions: "[...] how is that source unreliable? It is published, attributed to a known author, verified (presumably) by the co-author who are both druids." "I will draw your attention to WP:RS, specifically WP:BIASED which says Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So really now my point should be clear, quoting druids on a matter of concern to druids, regardless of whether you actually know how to use dowsing rods (trust me, its just like using a protractor on a star chart, you point a metal rod at something in the sky, and make note of the angle to the object) which was the method used by this druid to determine that a 10 ton stone points at the constellation of Libra on 14th of July at 6:11am (every year). I am not "trolling" this is obvious stuff, although you clearly have no concept of druids." My response "That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published. Any source that published this would disqualify itself as a reliable source straightaway." was read as "So in short, you do have an issue with druids." as if rejecting that source was some form of religious persecution and bigotry.

I have gone on for way too long (original version), so a quick recap: an editor who has been asked for quite a while, by many different editors, to famiiarize themselves with our policies and guidelines again and again (WP:BEFORE, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, ...) but shows no indication that they have yet grasped the essential points in these policies, is continuing to disrupt enwiki by frivolous nominations. They seem to be unable to do a good search for sources, and when they have sources they are unable to recognise completely unreliable ones even after this has been pointed out to them. Such an editor should not hold any advanced permissions (new page reviewer, autopatrolled, ...) and probably needs both a mentor (if someone is willing) and a topic ban from anything to do with deletion. Fram (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Statement by User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver.

Most of Fram's statement seems reasonable. Immense oversimplifications, partial misquoting, stripping of context and missing key points, but essentially correct.

I have only been actively editing since August, not July.

Fram clearly detests druids, but I don't necessarily hold this as an issue, since I am not one.

I can't understand why CSD even exists, it seems impossible to get it right.

Regarding the main debate over my competency. It not so much that I haven’t grasped the key points, more that I have a diametrically opposing view on the meaning of key polices to that held by Fram. I cannot tell for sure if his views are representative of the majority opinion given that numerous people agree with me and vice-versa. For example, my view on notability can be summed up " requiring the presence or availability of enough independent reliable sources to write a short stub " And Fram continually makes reference to how "important" something is, so is clearly part of the "notability = well known" group, which I am not. Otherwise I think everything is self-explanatory from things I have written on my talk page and ArbCom page, as I have already answered all of Frams points in full several times, elsewhere. but if anyone needs clarification on something specific then do ask (and ping me). Thanks. Dysklyver 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Looking at recent articles, this, this, and this contain fairly basic errors in formatting/tagging, and this is still missing projects after two weeks. Those are exactly the kinds of things that NPP can help clean up in fairly short order most of the time. As to NPP itself, it certainly doesn't require perfection, but it does require you to probably be right most of the time, and be pretty exceptionally receptive to feedback when you're not. One way or the other, it does require a thorough understanding of CSD, PROD, and AfD, and when we have several others suggesting a TBAN from AfD, probably only unimplemented because of a voluntary break, then it's probably a good indication that a user isn't yet ready to be a reviewer.

Having said that, I'm generally of the opinion that the more rights we can pass out to competent editors the better, even if they're only occasionally used. In all fairness, CSD can be confusing at first blush, and for many, three or four active months simply isn't going to be enough time to get the hang of it, because it's a system that's designed to be expedient and not intuitive. The same is true of a lot of things on Wikipedia. No prejudice against restoring rights after a suitable period of time and demonstration of further experience, with a very pointed recommendation to Dysklyver to do less arguing and more listening, especially when multiple people are telling you the same thing. GMG^talk 11:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Fram’s proposal re: removal of rights, and if it wasn’t clear there, support s topic can involving anything involving deletion, broadly construed. I like Dysklyver as a person, but there are serious CIR issues here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The 'diametrically opposing view on the meaning of key polices [sic]' is irrelevant. If one ain't on the same page as everyone else, that's gonna cause problems. With full respect to Dysklyver. My name is not dave (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so we are agreed on the user-rights issue, can we move onto clarifying the issue of a topic ban, I believe Fram thinks I should be banned from nominating articles for deletion by any method, this does not seem unreasonable. Especially given that I have already voluntarily agreed to not make AfD nominations. Dysklyver 13:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of rights -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see a compelling reason for a topic ban to extend to AfD participation. If anything, continued participation in AfD (as a participant, and not a nominator) is probably what is needed in order to learn. If you look at AfD stats prior to 19 October, which is the day this discussion occurred, we've got a 54% accuracy. That was it seems the height of the problem with AfD. If you look at the 54 AfDs participated in from 20 October onward, we have around a 90% accuracy, which obviously is perfectly acceptable for any user. GMG^talk 14:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with allowing them to participate in AfDs, but not to tag. Their CSD log is also somewhat troublesome, and I think Fram has had issues with them and PRODs in the past. Allow participation in AfDs as a participant but preventing tagging or nomination of articles would let him learn about our deletion process while still preventing disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec)I can live with a topic ban on any deletion nominations, while allowing participation in discussions at XfD. My concern was that after having many problematic AfD nominations, he moved on to problematic CSD and Prod nominations. I didn't really check AfD participation. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights per WP:CIR, and I must question the Arbcom run here too. Patient Zero^talk 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Any discussion about the Arbcon candidature should be made at the Arbcon election pages not here. Nthep (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support there's a bit of "he's a witch, burn him! take away all his privileges!" going on here. As far as the individual proposals are concerned.
  • I thought he was already TBAN-ed from deletion proposals, and support making it official. If he feels a page needs to be deleted, he can post on IRC, add it to his watchlist, or ignore it and move on.
  • Fram and GMG explain very well why autopatrolled should be removed.
  • No opinion on new-page-reviewer, but it is very difficult to do that job without being able to propose deleting pages.
  • No reason to remove ECP is given, and I don't know of any myself.

Overall, I would support these being indef, with the clause that while he can't appeal them for 6 months, an admin can file an appeal earlier if they feel it justified. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some points: I should probably point out that my previous voluntary TBAN was from AfD nominations (explicit to AfD only) and that this is really whether it should be extended to cover PROD and CSD tags. I have already found it hard to do proper NPR with no recourse to AfD, using the other methods instead, to the detriment of my record. If TBANed from making PROD and CSD also, it would effectively stop me from doing NPR regardless of the right being removed or not. Additionally I should point out that I have only been autopatrolled for a few days, after some people mentioned I should get it, and I have not created any pages since getting it, so it will not affect me or my editing regardless of the outcome here. I had not realized anyone was considering removing ECP, and to do so would seem... odd? I don't think I have even edited an ECP page, and I have no immediate plans to add to the Donald Trump article, so its not really relevant, I think we can assume its a non-issue. Dysklyver 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - We need editors to understand that they should listen to people. Also, they do not have a good understanding of what a reliable source is, after being told. Thus, to make them understand this, and to prevent further going-against-consensus-behaviour, I support this. I do think, although, that a clause needs to be included whereby after this editor has been mentored for, say, 2 months, there can be a discussion opened to override this if an editor believes Dysklyver will not repeat the behaviour that got them restricted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think the IRC issue is related to their editing, but I do think that it shows a pattern of lack of understanding and competence. I haven't looked into the other issues Fram mentioned, but they don't surprise me at all. Legoktm (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection for the articles on Net neutrality due to the current developments in the U.S.

The articles related to the Net neutrality subject can be vandalized or edited with political statement because of the proposal to repeal the current rules in the US. I suggest the articles to be protected in some form to avoid constant edits. This is an example of one such edit

--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)