This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes.ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}}{{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
(Initiated 19 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preemptively commenting that I have been sick for the past couple of days: not seriously, but enough that I feel like I haven't had the mental energy to give this the attention it deserves. It has not slipped my mind. —Compassionate727(T·C)18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 89 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 54 days ago on 24 July 2024)
Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 35 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 August 2024)
Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S MarshallT/C09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Potymkin: It's not due for closure, as it's been open for 19 days not 30. The last comment was four days ago, at 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC), so I also don't think that it's stabilised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay thank you for your output and also for correcting my form, I apologize for mistakes i made in the template on this form as this is my first time. I have made wrong judgement when I read " 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." I fully trust your judgement that the discussion is not yet ready for closure. the person who started the RfC @Kovcszaln6 said in UserTalk Page " In order to avoid any future trouble (see WP:INVOLVED) I decided that it's best if I don't close the RfC myself. As I have stated, I'd suggest that you request the RfC's closure at WP:RFCL" so what do you recommend I do next ?
5 to 9 (just counting heads) is not "unanimous". Neither is a list of several opposers supporting close (with one supporter "ambivalent", and one of the RFC opposers opposing the early close). And a rename proposal doesn't interfere with whatever other discussions you may be having. If some future discussion does even more - great - consensus can change, after all. RFCs run for 30 days. And this one should too. - jc3721:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the discussion about an early close being nearly unanimous, not the RfC itself. A closer here will weigh the arguments and make an appropriate decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 0 days' time on 17 September 2024) This RFC is more than 40 days old with the last vote coming 13 days ago. Could an uninvolved editor close it, please? castorbailey (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
(Initiated 112 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 100 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR(Please ping on reply)20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 71 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The below note was posted on the Commons admin noticeboard:
A notice to admins that I recently globally blacklisted files.wordpress.com due to a ferocious and broad WMF-wide spambot attack. There will be consequences with that while it is blacklisted. I am unsure whether it is just a temporary measure, or whether it is has anything more than occasional inconvenience. At the moment there seem to be about 4000 links to that domain (special:linksearch/*.files.wordpress.com, 2000- links and special:linksearch/https://*.files.wordpress.com, 2000+ links). If this blacklisting is seen as not acceptable to Commons needs then we should whitelist some or all of the sub-domains in Mediawiki:spam-whitelist. If you are prepared to wait some days to see whether the spamming stops/has stopped then we need do nothing. Look forward to hearing your opinions, especially in light that it is not an authoritative domain for source files. — billinghurstsDrewth 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the benefits of this will almost certainly outweigh any harm. Links to this subdomain are often either spam or copyright violations. They are very rarely going to meet WP:RS, and if they do, they will probably have been published elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions enforcement review
I would like to request a review of Coffee's enforcement of discretionary sanctions concerning an edit I made to Presidency of Donald Trump (diff), together with an edit made by El cid, el campeador (diff). Both of us feel the instant imposition of blocks and the subsequent logging of our "transgressions" at the DS log (diff, diff) were unusually harsh. Both of us are experienced editors, yet we both misinterpreted the "letter of the law" concerning the sanction. Neither of us have ever been sanctioned before. It is our view that while we recognize we both made a mistake, the matter could easily have been resolved with a simple warning. Our hope is that following a review, you will consider rescinding the notations in the DS log and (if technically feasible) modifying our block logs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a procedural note, someone may want to consider tweaking this archive which included the open sub-thread that seems to have led up to this thread being opened in turn (or consider formally closing it if that seems appropriate). GMGtalk15:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blocks both on the merits and procedurally as the blocks have expired. There were clear sanctions violations by both of you and Coffee enforced them. The fact that he was willing to sanction experienced editors should not have any impact on this at all. It is experienced editors who are most often affected by discretionary sanctions. You both clearly violated the sanctions and were blocked accordingly. This was well within the discretion of the DS system. Just because Coffee has made mistakes that got a lot of attention here recently doesn’t mean his actions in this regard were mistakes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blocks - I'm afraid you clearly reinstated challenged material, and El cid clearly made more than one reversion per 24 hours. This is highlighted in yellow when you edit the page. This does not mean I have no sympathy for your plight, and these blocks don't change the fact you are both highly valuable here. However, Coffee's blocks are well within reason. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect that would somehow challenge Coffee's right to make the blocks. I'm just saying that in this particular case, warnings would've achieved exactly the same purpose and I would hope administrators would prefer to use preventative, rather than punitive measures. Coffee even said as much on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect" <-- well, I for one very much wish that this thread, or something, had a "chilling effect" on Coffee making these kinds of blocks. He's been on a sanctioning spree that's been getting out of control. He's made at least three (not counting the blocks here) bad calls - all extreme over reactions - in the past ten days or so. This is not going to end well, and having Coffee "chill out" before it gets worse is probably the best outcome here. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it was a valid block that expired before he lifted it. It was not one that I would have made, but it was fine within the DS system. As it expired without being lifted, I'm not seeing the point of this appeal. You were validly blocked, and it was logged. It expired. You're now aware of the sanctions in this area, and you also have been sanctioned for violating them, so keeping it in the log makes sense. I'm aware that I have been one of Coffee's defenders since he has returned, but that is because he generally does do the right thing and of late it seems like people are trying to put every action under the microscope. If he had acted in a way that was outside of policy here, I'd be willing to say it, but as it stands, he didn't in my view. I'd also like to emphasize like 78.26 that this in no way is saying that you or El Cid are not valued contributors here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not of late, TonyBallioni. Coffee's admin actions are always backed by policies and guidelines but that doesn't mean they use the best judgement in making them. Even before they went on break I had my issues with at least a couple of them, serious enough that I said something (no admin is going to agree with every action another admin takes but this is almost always shrugged off as a judgement call and nothing is said). With this situation, Coffee made a technically valid block but I don't think your "of late" clause is accurate. --NeilNtalk to me17:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I was saying of late because after his return of course everything he does is going to be under the microscope. I don't think that is fair, but we know it is going to happen. Coffee takes a hard line on AE, which means that some of his actions are not going to be popular. I think he might want to consider taking it slower because of the microscope effect, but that doesn't make him a bad admin.As I said, I would not have made this block because I personally weigh things like whether the eventual appeal would create more disruption than the block prevents, but like you said, Coffee was backed up by policies and guidelines here, and that this is nothing like the previous thread with Volunteer Marek despite what has been claimed below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying he wasn't technically allowed to make the blocks. And you're wrong about the comparison to Marek: he was ABSOLUTELY "technically" allowed to do that as well. Arguing that the "consensus required" tenant is somehow more tangible than the "behave civilly" tenant is silly in my book, and not really central to the argument anyway. The point of this review is that while the community acknowledges that these sanctions are inherently discretionary and will vary somewhat as a result, the community absolutely DOES NOT agree to be governed by an admin that acts Trunchbull-esque or clearly displays a wanton attitude toward our expectations of his behavior. Scjessey's block (and Mareks, and the exchange that led to this) demonstrate spectacularly bad judgement that other admins (including you, Tony) avoid by thinking with cool heads and keeping the needs of the encyclopedia first. I understand you have a history with Coffee that helps you see the best of what he is capable of, but right now that's not coming through. He is a HUGE negative to the encyclopedia right now, and something needs to change. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I called on him to voluntarily rescind the Marek action, and you are wrong: I don't have a personal history with him. I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break. I am able to see the controversy that is caused, and I think there are some legitimate criticisms (in the Marek situation, a 1 day topic ban was sure to cause more drama than it solved). At the same time this review accomplishes nothing: the block was technically good, the users are unblocked now, and all it accomplishes is to let people pile on about an admin doing what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia. Especially since in every one of the situations involving AE actions of late, he has either rescinded the blocks when asked to or offered to do so. I don't think that an appeal of an action that is no longer in effect and that was sure to turn into personal drama about Coffee is a positive for the encyclopedia. As I said above, this isn't personal: I was never friends with Coffee before his break. I just also don't like seeing pile-ons and will speak up when I see it happening regardless of who the user is. I think there may be valid critiques of Coffee, but those are best handled in talking to him directly and not by an appeal of a valid action that has lapsed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break" <-- As I mentioned in the previous thread, I have no idea about any profiles of his break, high or otherwise (I have caught up a bit on it in the meantime, but I'm still hella confused and out of the loop), it is simply his actions that are problematic. I think best thing would if Coffee voluntarily stepped away from administratin', particularly in the discretionary fashion, the American Politics area for awhile. Note that he's throwing out these sanctions over relatively minor incidents - believe it or not, a few IPs or fly-by-night accounts aside, there's not all that much going on in that topic area right now (prolly cuz holidays, but still). Most of these sanctions are just simply not necessary and they screw up the normal editing and consensus building process. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the way Coffee uses a user's history of blocks in his arguments about why discretionary sanctions are warranted to understand why this could be viewed as "severe" by the editors on the other end of this. So what the blocks have expired? Does the bad judgment that led to the blocks also have an expiration date? Will the editors with these silly blocks on their records be subject to escalating sanctions by another judgement (either deserved or undeserved)? Surely you understand why "sweeping this under the rug" would be a net negative for everyone involved. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This review does serve a purpose: revealing the community's expectations for admin judgement when using their most serious tool: blocking. Perhaps the tide will change, but so far, there's a pretty strong signal that admins are expected to use restraint and discretion before blocking editors, and not simply apply black-and-white thinking. In another instance, Coffee sort of considered an alternative to blocking before he blocked Casprings, by giving him 10 minutes to self-revert this edit (see user talk:Casprings#December 2017). In my experience, Casprings would have gladly self-reverted without complaint if give a reasonable opportunity to do so. He did not need to be blocked. If this review does nothing more than showing Coffee that he needs to recalibrate his approach, then it will have been worthwhile.- MrX19:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on! How people manage to maintain their cool with this admin should be met with the awarding of barnstars all around. "You have 10 minutes?" Look at Caspring's response, and you can get a feel for just how absurd this action was. How is this acceptable behavior? 172.56.21.117 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a stupendously stupid block - even if technically correct that it is 'allowed'. It is not 'required'. Firstly that ridiculous consensus required DS has already caused problems like this, where it promotes a first mover advantage. Secondly blocking someone for 24 hours, 24 hours after the offense is completely pointless. BLOCKS ARE PREVENTATIVE NOT PUNITIVE, and a quiet word to Scjessey would have sufficed. Blocking with 'be told!' is overkill. This is not the first knee-jerk admin action Coffee has done recently and I think its time for a comprehensive review of their fitness to be an Admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad blocks - The purpose of Arbcom authorized discretionary sanctions is to quell disruptive behavior like edit warring, personal attacks, and POV pushing, so that we can focus on improving the encyclopedia. We are not a bureaucracy that is required to slavishly apply prescriptive remedies, otherwise admins would be required to block in all cases where page restrictions are violated. Imposing harsh penalties like blocks on volunteers editing in good faith is profoundly discouraging, harms those editors' reputations, and creates a chilling effect on everyone who wishes to edit these articles. Past behavior should have been given more consideration and a polite warning placed on these users talk pages as is common practice among many highly respected admins.- MrX16:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone. User:Scjessey, If you had remembered to notify Coffee about this request, you would have seen a big notice atop both his talk page and user page saying he’s away until January 13. Would you have gone ahead with this request at this time? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. We already know that Coffee endorses these blocks. Also, he didn't say he wouldn't be available until January 13.- MrX16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the explanation he would have given here. My question to Scjessey stands. (The notice says, “Coffee is away on vacation in Indonesia from 24 December 2017 until 13 January 2018 and may not respond swiftly to queries.”) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. The message does not say Coffee isn't able to respond, just that responses will not be a swift as usual. If that were not the case, I would agree postponing was fair; however, I don't think postponing is necessary in this case as long as due consideration is given to Coffee's response time (if responses are needed). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible block but technically sound -- That you can do something does not equate to that you shall do something. This ain't a bureaucracy where blocks are made after 24 hours of violation of a certain clause, just because they ought to be. And, then, AGF et al. Winged BladesGodric16:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad blocks, and not the only recent bad admin action/poor judgement, either. See [2]. Others have complained as late re: similar behavior from this admin - just look at the comments in the linked AN discussion. This is not an isolated incident. The following comment may be controversial and will probably be criticized, but perhaps, because of how and why he was "on break" for months, Coffee's return should have been addressed differently and with some monitoring? What we're seeing now in the way of his judgement certainly seems to speak to a need for...something (different than the status quo). -- ψλ ● ✉✓16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you aren't logging in with your actual account and are, instead, being a coward. I fully admit I have a long block log and a history of edit warring, my last block being delivered by Coffee. That said, my comments regarding his recent actions have nothing to do with that block. My concern is for the harm he's doing by what appears to be a misuse of the power of the tools -- both to the editors he's sanctioning and blocking, his reputation, and the trust editors need to have toward administrators. Someone pegged it very nicely above: what Coffee is doing leaves a chilling effect and dissuades editors from editing. Certainly, that's not what admin actions are supposed to do. When that kind of thing happens, we all lose. -- ψλ ● ✉✓18:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Endorse Blocks This looks like it falls well within the guidelines for a legit block and that means it's a judgement call. I am not seeing anything that suggests that this was outside the bounds of reason. That said, I don't think I would have done it. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Excepting those situations that obviously fall under the broad heading of NOTHERE I tend to take a very restrained approach to blocking. To my mind anything other than a NOTHERE block should be a last resort, done only after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and where there is a strong likelihood of continued disruption absent a block. I don't think this situation meets that test. But again it is a judgement call and I do believe that this falls within the guidelines under admin discretion. And to be fair, I have been criticized a few times for my reluctance to drop the hammer in situations where others thought the need was real and immediate. [To block, or not to block. That is the question.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would go so far as to request Coffee not admin in any ARBCOM DS area. He has shown time and time again to give out blocks that are not really necessary, even if they may be appropriate. Sir Joseph(talk)18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is evidence of someone just wielding power because they can rather than someone trying to prevent disruption because they need to. Definitely NOT what admins are supposed to do or are entrusted with when given the tools. -- ψλ ● ✉✓18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coffee in this particular matter based on these particular facts. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if every clear violation of discretionary sanctions results in some amount of administrative action. The point of having rules is to ensure equality. Discretion is fine when the matter is unclear, and it is also fine even in clear cases as to the degree of administrative action. But more discretion than that guarantees inequality. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Edited18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't administrator standards of behavior and appropriate use of the tools what should be supported rather than individual administrators? Your "Support" !vote sounds more like you're approaching the issue as if it's a popularity contest. -- ψλ ● ✉✓18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Let's wait until Coffee returns - As someone who had Coffee strip his editing privileges (and later reinstated, though without apology or explanation), it might sound odd for me to suggest this. I think that Coffee, making certain blocks immediately before his holiday was a stupid, stupid move; you just don't do that if you aren't going to bearound to defend those actions - you. just. don't. That said, others here have said that the blocks, though malformed, solved the problem. While I think that suggesting that its all fine because it worked out is like saying that murdering 11 million people is a great way to open up the housing market.
Coffee should have the opportunity to defend his actions, and clearly needs to. While it absolutely sucks for those affected by those actions (and there's little to be done to recompense those affected if Coffee is found to have taken bad action), I think we have to be fair, and allow Coffee the opportunoty to solve the problem that he has created. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if Scjessey was asking for Coffee to be desysopped: he's not though. He's asking for an assessment by the rest of us to determine if there is consensus to get the not-so-great blocks off of his "permanent record", as it were. We don't really need Coffee for that (and if there is any question about what Coffee might think about it, it might be helpful to take a look at the linked archived section). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blocks as procedure and note that best practice is difficult to determine. As others have stated, these blocks are sound and are within the letter of policy—this is not controversial. Whether the implementation of these blocks reflected best practice (and good judgment) is less clear. If I had been monitoring the situation, I would not have blocked El cid, el campeador. The violation there was technical—a simple note letting him know that he should not revert a second time to enforce the discretionary sanctions would have sufficed (in my judgment). Another issue raised is that the blocks came 24 hours after both editors had stopped editing the article. Late blocks often appear to be punitive rather than preventative; however, late blocks are often made in order to deter future disruptive behavior (WP:BLOCKP). This is another area where Coffee had to make a judgment call—making judgment calls often appears arbitrary. My reading of Coffee's response to Scjessey was that Coffee was attempting to be consistent with his procedures for discretionary sanction offenders. Consistent standard operating procedures reduce the arbitrariness of discretionary-sanction enforcement, though it does tend to lend an air of heavy-handedness. Personally, I would tend to err on the side of arbitrary lenience, but it is not clear that this is the better approach.
Regarding the request for relief from Scjessey by a modification of the editors block logs or DS log entries: (1) The block log cannot be modified. The only way your block log could have an additional note added to it is by an administrator blocking you again for one second with an explanatory note. I doubt that another administrator is willing to do this without Coffee's agreement, though we have yet to hear from Coffee on this matter (and I doubt he will do this). (2) The DS log is both there to log violators and to log administrator actions, so I do not think it would be appropriate to rescind the note. It would be possible to add a sub-item linking to this discussion when it concludes--which there will likely be consensus to do. Malinaccier (talk)18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Everyone knows that the block log is technically changeable via revision deletion and/or oversight. It is long standing policy that that would be considered misuse. Any admin doing so would be risking a lot. And besides, there isn't even consensus that this was a bad block to begin with. --Majora (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't your intent perhaps mind your wording next time, but the gist I got from your note is that you absolutely believe it can't be modified, and I linked to a longstanding admin who says otherwise. As far as consensus: this was a bad block. Almost every non-admin commenting has said as much. As for the admins themselves: almost none say they would have performed the block, though admit it is "technically" sound (yes, those were ironic quotes based on your last comment). This block violated the spirit of the trust that the community places in admins... Perhaps there's an argument to be made about DS in general, and I would certainly be interested in that. It doesn't change the crux of the issue here, though, which is that two four+ editors were blocked, banned, or had special permissions removed based on one admin's poor judgment. 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I even start. First wikt:technically has more than one definition. Technically as in based in the facts and technically as in software. Perhaps you should pick up on the differences? Second, just from counting (yes consensus isn't a vote blah blah blah) there are eight people who say they endorse the block and five who say it isn't (one of which actually lands on both sides saying it is a bad block but technically correct). As for non-admins or not, that has nothing to do with anything. Just like we allow IPs to voice their opinions with the same weight we allow non-admins to voice theirs. Everything as the same weight. Then, going by actual arguments, and not counting (which consensus actually is) there is pretty clear consensus that the blocks were perfectly within policy. Ergo, not anywhere near the level that would require breaking rev'del policy to modify the block log. If you want to change policy there are plenty of avenues to do so. This isn't one of them. Stop getting off topic. Stop complaining about how the policy is written and use what is currently accepted. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that, recent events aside, if more admins were actively watching the American Politics pages and preemptively blocking DS violations, we would not have a small number of POV editors disrupting the area and driving long-time solid contributors away from this topic area. AE is a zoo just like ANI and the purpose and intent of DS has been vitiated by the unwillingness of Admins to enforce sanctions against obvious and persistent disruption. SPECIFICOtalk19:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Endorse blocks as within DS policy. I'm torn by things like this, because I seriously dislike the way DS violations are often handled, and I think there are too many heavy-handed authoritarians working DS. That's largely why I steer clear of DS - because it frustrates me the way too often a good editor who has made a minor mistake gets blocked (or whatever) when a friendly word could have achieved so much more and left people a lot happier. Did Coffee deal with this in the best way? Not by a mile, in my view. Would I have made the blocks in question? Absolutely not. But Coffee's action falls within the currently-accepted range of options he had at his disposal. (And I just want to add that this does show good faith.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad block - Coffee's blocking of both editors was punitive to say the least, Yes both editors reverted after 24h however there should've been a stern warning from any DS-enforcer or another admin beforehand .... IMHO this was a bad block by far. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commute to time served Enforcement is preventative. We make judgements based on overall contributions as well as technical violations. There is no indication that continuing the sanction will protect the project. We don't need "examples." We certainly don't need sanctions on editors that now clearly understand why they were sanctioned. This is not a referendum on Coffee, it's an assessment of whether sanctions are required. They are not. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Malinaccier: I appreciate your explanation of why it isn't technically feasible to amend my block log, and why it isn't appropriate to remove the corresponding entry from the DS log because of its dual purpose. Irrespective of the outcome of this review, I accept it will not be possible to get "relief" for what has occurred (although I cannot personally speak for El cid, el campeador, of course). If the ultimate outcome of this review is just to encourage Coffee (and other administrators) to more often issue warnings before pulling the block trigger on matters concerning discretionary sanctions, I will be satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blocks. It being "harsh" is totally irrelevant in my view. Technically, you broke discretionary sanctions. It is what it is. Mistakes happen and there really isn't a whole lot that can be done since the block was completely within currently accepted policy (which of course can always be changed if need be either through an arbcom amendment or via community consensus at the pumps). We expect (or at least I expect) that admins will follow and apply currently accepted policy evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Which is what happened here. There really isn't much anyone can do anyways. Block logs are permanent and striking it from the DS log page would just remove a useful link back. You are both still valued editors in any case. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blocks: There was no abuse of discretion here. Just because we wouldn't have blocked ourselves doesn't render the blocks improper or abusive. That's the nature of discretionary sanctions: The sanctioning admin is given great deference. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a lot of the trouble here is caused by this ridiculous "consensus required to undo any kind of edit" provision (I know that's not what it says, but that is what it amounts to in practice). Which of course was invented by Coffee. This DS has been subject of numerous AE reports, it's confusing as hell (which edit is the one being challanged and which one is the challanger?), it's easy to game, it's easy to trip up over, it just fuels the WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area. All of this has already been said at WP:AE by editors and admins alike. Somewhat unsurprisingly, editors who edit tend to hate it, admins are split with some for, some against. There's enough "for" that the sanction has not been removed or rescinded. Some of the admins who are "for" argument is simply that it'd be a pain in the ass to remove it since Coffee has slapped it on so many pages - which is a particularly lazy, stupid, argument. Anyway. After my latest run in with this piece of bureaucratic dog poop I've been considering starting an outright "petition" or RfC on the "consensus required" sanction. Because of lack of time (holidays and all) I haven't gotten it together. Furthermore, I actually think it crucial that admins who administrate at WP:AE do NOT provide input - the petition should be limited to editors who actually edit the topic (which does include some admins, like User:MelanieN. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone who's reasonably active in the topic area, whatever their POV, ideology, religion, favorite OS, feelings about the last Star Wars movie, hates the provision. Which means that most likely it really is a very bad idea. Might around to it soon. In the meantime, the bureaucratic machine and love of silly, counter productive rules-for-rules sake, marches on. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It takes all of a 20 minutes to throw together a RfC. An hour if you really need to think about it that hard. Or request a clarification from ArbCom as to the exact nature of this area. All of which is prescribed in normal proceedings. Seeing as post-1932 American politics is incredibly large it is logical to think that an enormous amount of articles falls under this DS. As for Coffee "making things up". No. That is part of the policy as well. An admin is allowed to impose prohibitions on the addition and removal of content as they see fit per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page restrictions. It really seems like you are on more of a crusade against Coffee than anything else. And limiting anyone from participating in a RfC is really not going to fly. Everyone gets their say. That is how Wikipedia works. --Majora (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To "throw" one together, yes, maybe 20 minutes. To do it right takes a bit more work. Like diffs and past statements from WP:AE, WP:ANI, article talk pages, user talk pages, all the sanctions and why they were problematic etc. And all that takes a lot of time digging through histories. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer doing it right rather than doing it sloppy (and in fact, I'm not sure if RfC is the best way to go).
And yes, Coffee "made it up". I didn't say he wasn't allowed to do it. I said he "made it up". And just because "he saw fit" that does not in any way, shape, or form, imply that this was a good thing.
And no, I'm not on a "crusade against Coffee" (nice attempt at poisoning the well there, by the way). I'm on a crusade against a stupid restriction.
"You are complaining about how policy is written and then say that you don't have time to change policy" <-- Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm complaining about a policy (more precisely a discretionary sanction, not a policy), because it's a bad one, and yes, I don't have time to try and change it right now. What's confusing about that? Volunteer Marek 05:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not have any particular comment on the block here, but I intend to open a thread here about Coffee's use of the DS remedy "consensus required", when he returns from vacation. Kingsindian♝
WP:AC/DS is not policy and it does not have a "nature" that can't be altered. It is a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process. The idea that it should give admins the freedom to do anything they please is troubling. WP:ADMINACCT is still a thing. WP:AC/DS#guide.expect is clear that such sanctions should foster an environment of following policy and the purpose of Wikipedia, and preventing editors from gaming the system. That is not happening here. We have a broken editing restrictions slapped (sometimes preemptively) on multiple pages, by an admin who stays around long enough to block good faith contributors, and is then absent for weeks or months at a time. On top of that, the SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks that cause about 90% of the disruption use the editing restrictions to game the system.- MrX12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: I feel compelled to correct your misunderstanding of discretionary sanctions, if not for your sake then at least for the sake of anyone reading this in the future. AC/DS is authorised by the Arbitration Committee under its authority under the WP:Arbitration Policy, which enjoys very broad consensus among the community. Further, the procedure was reviewed and overhauled in a review a few years ago which saw wide participation from community members. It is used in topic areas plagued by disputes and partisan or disruptive editing, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and allows admins to take swift action to deal with disruptive editors or prevent disputes from getting out of hand. You may disagree with its application, but to say that it's a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process [to] give admins the freedom to do anything they please is simply not an accurate statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: It may be authorized by the Arbitration Policy, but that doesn't make it a policy itself, so I believe my statement was technically correct (see what I did there?). I was not aware of a review and overhaul a few years ago. Is this it: WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? If so, I'm not finding the wide participation. If not, would you mind linking the correct discussion?- MrX23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: It's not a policy in its own right, but it derives its authority from the ArbPol. Further, discretionary sanctions are authorised for individual topic areas as arbitration remedies. There's not really anywhere to go with questioning the legitimacy of discretionary sanctions. You'd have much more success starting a discussion about their application by admins. And yes, you got the right review (that was longer ago than I thought, I'm getting old!). It's a bit of a trail of breadcrumbs, I grant you, but the discussion took place on the talk page and is archived on subpages, starting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review/Archive 1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, if we had an RfC tomorrow to do away with discretionary sanctions all together I would strongly support. It's a backdoor way for ArbCom to unilaterally rewrite our policies on blocking and banning, it creates an ungodly complex bureaucratic labyrinth that's nearly completely indecipherable for new users, mostly seems to just send drama to AE instead of ANI, when AE is mostly just a more annoyingly formatted version of ANI anyway, mandates the use of BITEY templates that come off BITEY no matter how carefully they're used, and as often as not are used to stifle open discussion and bold editing as anything else. When they're used unilaterally (as everyone who is want to complain about AE is quick to wish for) it often comes off as daddy meting out spankings (as in this case), especially when it's admins handing out comparatively seemingly arbitrary sanctions to editors who are not seldom every bit as experienced on the project as they are. It's an open invitation for gratuitous public wiki-lawyering, because it's apparently the only place on the project where we collectively care much more about the letter rather than the spirit of "policy", even though, as pointed out above, it's not really policy at all, but rather a pronouncement from ArbCom, that has the effect of policy, despite coming from a body that is explicitly forbidden from unilaterally changing policy. To make matters worse, they rarely go away, even in instances where they haven't been used in several years, ensuring that when they eventually do get used, it will probably be from an admin who's never applied it, and a user who didn't even know it existed until they were given a nice BITEY template sure to do nothing but escalate the situation anyway.
This right here is exactly what you get when you turn sysops into authority figures rather than consensus enacters who mostly make unilateral decisions in cases where the action is so obviously warranted that a discussion would largely be a waste of time. We'd all be doing ourselves a favor if we collectively decided to ignore discretionary sanctions all together, and that goes for everyone, not just sysops. GMGtalk15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The discretionary sanctions in general are helpful. Only that one by Coffee is definitely not helpful. This is an entirely new type of editing restriction unilaterally invented by Coffee. I do not think that inventing new types of restrictions and modifying DS templates by individual admins has been intended and authorized by Arbcom. Making new template is not just an ordinary sanction to be applied to an individual contributor or a page. This is something a lot more significant. Template:Ds (linked to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) only lists templates authorized by Arbcom. I think every new template for DS (or any significan modification of such template) should be either approved by Arbcom or by consensus of WP:AE admins. That one was not, and everyone can see what had happen. This can be a matter of clarification. Here is link to latest AE discussion initiated by Kingsindian. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think its a positive sanction and that the other options are actually much more susceptible to gaming than it is, but that's neither here nor there for this thread. We've reached consensus to change that template to include parameters so it is not the default. We just need to implement that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this restriction, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This is not a helpful restriction for two reasons. First, it is frequently not obvious which consensus exists on the article talk page (a de facto consensus frequently exists even if this is not an officially closed discussion). Second, it may be not obvious if an edit represents insertion of new material challenged through reversion (the content could be included long time ago in the stable version of the page, removed some time ago, recently re-included, and then "challenged through reversion"). I do not think there are such concerns in the example leading to this complaint/thread. That was an obvious violation. However, many other cases previously discussed on WP:AE were not at all obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarize, I think one needs a confirmation by Arbcom or a consensus of admins on WP:AE to create new types of sanctions. They should not be unilaterally invented and implemented by individual admins. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't support Coffee's action as they seem to have created more disruption than they protected. I would just comment that the support in this thread for his action when he returns to editing will possibly strengthen his resolve to continue in the same vein, resulting in more disruption more threads of this kind in the future. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks were quite proper by the letter of the law, but poor blocks by the spirit. For a good-faith editor with no track record of disruption in the topic area, a stern warning would have been sufficient, followed by a block if the warning was not heeded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While this is not really the place for this as it is further discussing the merits of current policy I feel it is food for thought in the eventually RfC that I don't doubt will come about eventually. If we allow admins to go by the "spirit" of policy then it leads to uneven enforcement and confusion as to what would actually occur (if I get caught by admin A I'd be fine but admin B I won't). Uneven enforcement is much worse in my mind than what has currently occurred. As I said above, I expect admins to enforce our rules evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Failing that leads to stratification of editors. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. When we're dealing with good-faith editors who have slipped up or lost their temper, any admin action should be the minimum necessary to restore order. In some cases, a warning or a gentle reminder is enough; in others, blocks or topic bans might be necessary. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions. If they had been intended as system of fixed consequences for certain actions, ArbCom would have said as much. But such would be anathema to the idea that blocks etc are "preventative" rather than "punitive". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction. is as much the letter of the law as the letter of the law that allows these blocks. So is the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, @Galobtter:. Much of the disagreement in this thread reflects the incompleteness of that page. I see no definition of Discretionary Sanctions. I see no clear differentiation between "sanctions" placed on an editor, "sanctions" in the sense of editing restrictions per page/topic, and "sanctions" in the sense of the broad restrictions imposed via an Arbcom ruling. One of many resulting ambiguities is the unresolved question as to how the annual topic-wide DS notice on a user talk page would warn the editor as to which articles and which unique restrictions apply to a contemplated edit. But most importantly, to return, is there any place where a definition of Discretionary Sanctions is published on WP? Perhaps I just don't know where to look. SPECIFICOtalk14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I noticed when you endorsed the block Coffee gave me, you did not weigh in on the fact the block was given 29 hours after the violation. Given that the edit I performed was quickly reverted and then there was no further violations by anybody for over a day before Coffee then came in and swung his hammer, do you still think it was a good block? The long period between action and reaction is what troubles me here, because it was clearly a block of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I would not have made the block myself (I am not generally one for making behavioral blocks of experienced users, especially in that time frame), but like Mendaliv says, just because I wouldn't have done so doesn't make the block outside policy. I also think that Majora's statement above is worth considering: Coffee tries to apply the policy and sanctions consistently to all users, which I think is commendable, especially in a field as contentious as arbitration enforcement. Combined with the fact that the sanctions are expired now, there is no reason to alter the DS log. I do think Coffee should take some of the criticism on board, but I think the people who are all but claiming he has gone off the rails are making things out to be much worse than they actually are. There is a good faith way to read these sanctions, and Majora has provided it. When read that way and in light of policy and all the other factors, I see no case for amending the DS log. I also stress that I still think you and El Cid are valuable contributors and that these blocks do not change that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, when I opened this thread I did not mean it to be a "Coffee pile on" or anything like that. It just bugged me that the blocks had been issued for no apparent reason other than to punish two useful editors for minor transgressions that were already well into the past. I am not familiar with Coffee's work as an administrator, but if this is truly an example of him trying to be "consistent" with enforcement, then I think his general approach to this kind of thing is in dire need of scrutiny. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bad blocks. I didn't see this thread until just now, and I find it most distressing. Blocking two longterm good faith editors, without a warning immediately beforehand and/or a fair hearing at WP:AE, is distressing. I don't know why Coffee has seemingly become a "shoot first, ask questions later" administrator upon his return to Wikipedia, but this does make me question his current suitability for adminship unless he dials things way down and stops his aggression. Softlavender (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Review Request
I would also like to submit my block for review. I made this revert [4] after reading the edit summary about wikilinks but seeing the wholesale removal of material. I therefore reverted an logged off. User:coffee left this warning [5] and followed that up with [6] . I had logged off and did not see either warning before I was blocked [7] . He unblocked me after a request [8] . Casprings (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna be blunt, giving a user ten minutes to comply with an order is stupid to the point of being an abuse. I think Coffee needs to slow down or even stop. This is not the sort of judgement I like from an admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The block was lifted and he noted that he Fully trust Casprings will hold to their word. You honestly can't find a more gracious unblock than that. You were aware of the sanctions in the area, and clearly violated them. I think the 10 minute warning was what has raised the most controversy about that block, and I'd encourage Coffee not to give time-limited warnings in the future because I think there is a rough consensus among administrators that they aren't particularly effective, but if he had blocked you without giving a warning he would have been fully justified based on the page level sanctions. People might not like the consensus required sanction, but it has never been overturned at any of the appeals raised against it, and it still must be followed. I don't see anything to review here given that Coffee lifted the block and the block was for a clear sanctions violation closely following when the sanctions occurred. Tl;dr endorse the block, and there is nothing to review here since it has been lifted and that has been noted at the logs. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Casprings should be grateful he was blocked, so he could be unblocked with such cordiality. *insert eye roll*. I used to trust your judgment, Tony. I sincerely thought I could turn to you as a lowly IP if I ever got into a rub. Your inability to see what is at issue here really disturbs me. Please take your admin hat off for a second to try to understand where these editors are coming from, without defending another poor decision based on technicalities. If anything, the fact that Coffee wielded that 10 minute timer around should elucidate his punitive, not preventative mentality behind the block to you. Cliff notes version: it a'int so great. 24.96.130.81 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you still feel that you can come to me as an IP, because I would take your concerns seriously, just as I take your comments now. I try to judge all situations based on the evidence and the circumstances, and that includes if need be defending unpopular admin actions, just as I will stick up for IPs when I feel they are being mistreated. I do get the concerns, and if you look at what I have said in these threads, I acknowledge that people have concerns with Coffee's actions, and I think he should take them on board in the future. That does not mean that the blocks were bad: they were within discretion based on the policy. I think the 10 minute warning was a bad idea. He shouldn't use them again in the future. That doesn't mean that the sanctions weren't clearly within policy (they were as there was an unambiguous sanctions violation), nor change the fact that he quickly unblocked and made a comment reflecting positively shows that he did take the concerns of blocked individual into account. What I do not like seeing here is that we are asking for sanctions to be amended after the fact when they clearly were within policy, which seems to have been jumpstarted by one sanction being overturned against Volunteer Marek. Especially considering Coffee isn't here to defend explain his actions. There is a difference between expressing concerns that an admin might need to take it slower on AE actions and overturning valid actions that I might not have personally done. I think the latter makes the already difficult to manage discretionary sanctions system even more difficult to work in for administrators, and goes in line with SPECIFICO's comments above. Coffee should take into account valid criticism here, but that is not grounds for overturning an AE action. I hope that better explains my position: it is not saying that there are not things to look at, but that removing sanctions from the log that were validly imposed and have already lifted does not seem like a good standard to set, and would make DS more difficult to work in. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement administrator comment (aka Coffee - still on vacation) - I will take all of the above comments, criticisms and concerns into account as is my duty to do so. Enforcing Arbitration rulings is by far the most difficult task on this site for administrators, and indeed many admins won't even touch the area for fear of being taken to this board or any other stress inducing forum. However, I am always fully willing to explain my actions if need be. In this case the actions are exactly what they look like: 1. a 24 hour block on Scjessey for violating what is known as the "consensus required restriction". A process which is explained in detail on the talk page of the article, and which users are warned about in the editnotice prior to making their edit. 2. a 24 hour block on El cid, el campeador for violating the 1RR restriction, which is likewise warned about and explained. - I did not make these actions lightly. These are indeed long-standing users in our community, and it was not a move I took any enjoyment from as such. But, being long-standing in the community is not an exemption from our Arbitration Committee's decisions to reduce bad conduct on the site. And both editors had conducted themselves in a manner that was prohibited on the article by the discretionary sanctions system. So therefore they got the same blocks I would have placed on Jimbo if he had done the same thing. - What concerns me here however is that it appears that Scjessey (and this may just be pure coincidence, but it doesn't rub me that way) deliberately decided to make this noticeboard request when I was going to be offline. I'll explain how that makes sense right after I ping Jack, whom also was asking about my planned absence. @Jack Sebastian: While what you're talking about is likely the incident that I barely remember between myself and the former President of Wikimedia Australia and another sysop who used to be active (and who also regained their tools fairly quickly after the incident) I'm not sure it holds relevance here (I get how they can be seen as related as I was an administrator, but I don't believe my tools were ever used by the other editor in that incident). However, I will briefly explain that the decision made about 8 or so years ago by the way, way back ArbCom was done per the standard procedure which existed back then, wherein administrators could regain their tools - if stipulated as such by Committee ruling - after contacting ArbCom via email instead of requesting an RFA. As ArbCom felt another RFA was not required (due to my tools not ever being abused during the 24-48 hours the password was maintained), I simply asked for them back once I had been granted a high level clearance in the U.S. government, since I felt that showed I could be trusted to not act like an idiot again - which was verifiable (the clearance... not my idiocy of course, haha... that's still to be determined by the court of public opinion) - and ArbCom agreed, that since I knew I had been a complete idiot at the time and had given my word I wouldn't ever do something like that again, that I could have them back. - Back to the thread at hand: I asked Scjessey if they wanted the restriction lifted from their record entirely right here. This offer is what I commonly extend to first time offenses if the user states they are willing to adhere to the standards required going forward. This user simply ignored this offer, but said the block had expired and they didn't think they had done wrong, but they might have. Which is a worrying statement for anyone in my shoes, as such "gray area" replies makes it nearly impossible to tell if the user will continue the behavior. As such, I did not re-post my offer nor strike the action from their record (at WP:AC/DSL). They could have contacted me further... they did not. They also did not post a notification to my talk page when they opened this thread. Something I find hard to believe they were not aware is required. Perhaps others see what I see here: a blatant attempt to have a review of an administrator's actions without them being present. It's not that I hold issue with doing so, I just hold issue with not contacting me in any way to have the record changed before they came here... when there was literally ample opportunity to do so. I did all I could to make sure my absence would happen in such a way that continuity of administration would run smoothly in this area, which is why I had been watching both user's talkpages after the blocks (which were set to expire before my flight out of the country). El cid did not even make an unblock request (well Scjessey didn't either, but they at least commented after their block) nor express any concern that I can see before their block expired and did not contact me at any point to complain about the action. If they had, I would have gladly discussed it with them. I wouldn't have lifted the action however, as this was not their first edit-warring block (even though it was their first AE block for edit-warring). To the rest of the concerns, as I said, I intend to take them to heart. And I always welcome constructive criticism at my talk page. And I am always, always willing to change my action if someone can show me where my logic has failed (or even if an admin just truly trusts that the user won't commit a similar violation again - preventative > punishment). ArbCom has left us with a difficult task, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make difficult actions just because I'm about to make a trip. I didn't ignore the fact that I was about to leave nor not take the trip into account when making the blocks as I said above, but simply having a life outside of the site I volunteer for should not be cause for peeling back good, policy bound administrative actions that need to be done to maintain proper editing order. - I am willing to take any further questions you all might have, but be advised I will be offline again within the next few hours to travel and for more transiting tomorrow upon awaking. This trip had been in the works for the past year... I could not change the date of the wedding I was invited to participate in by the groom (especially when the Secretary of The Cabinet for the President of Indonesia was attending, among other dignitaries - and even more so, when the actual President is expected to be attending the second wedding I'm in transit to tomorrow). I truly wouldn't just go offline for just any trip when I'm working in these areas, I assure you. I fully hold myself to the standards expected by ArbCom, which is why I informed the Committee to expect my absence. Happy New Year to all! Please ping me if you reply. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Casprings block (which I just noticed is apparently also mentioned in a recent part of this jumbo thread) was perhaps hasty if viewed as some sort of punishment but I don't believe this can be seen as the case from a prevention stand-point (which is where all blocks should be made from in my understanding); I don't believe it was in error, as a clear violation actually occurred. The 10 minute requirement was simply an olive branch... not something I even needed to do (and apparently might have actually caught less flack if I had just blocked immediately, which is really confusing for any AE admin), as the Arbitration Committee has permitted immediate blocks if the user has been made aware of the active sanctions (which to my understanding they fully had been alerted per procedure on their talk page within the last year) and still violated page restrictions. However, I did indeed reverse my action once the user informed me that they would comply in the future, in exactly the manner as the offer I extended to Scjessey. I am more than willing to answer questions about this action as well (here or at my talkpage). But, I currently believe this action holds up to scrutiny as well. If not, I will gladly change how I enforce in like manner in the future (it is my understanding that an active ARCA is supposed to be clarifying this particular type of action for AE admins like myself at any rate, and I can assure you I will follow any motions decided upon exactly as they are decreed - as I have always striven to do). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the consensus required provision should have been lifted during the last discussion at AE. This had a lot of support but no one was eager to lift it until Coffee is persuaded as the imposing admin. I think DS are important to keep things cool in a contentious areas, but consensus required has usually cased more problems than its solved, like we are seeing in this discussion. Seraphim System(talk)11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Arbitration Committee can change that wording now as I will not be, since I have seen how well it works at Donald Trump (as almost every editor there has confirmed... even some who have gotten sanctions levied against them). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"since I have seen how well it works at Donald Trump (as almost every editor there has confirmed" <-- This is simply not true. Neither part. It has NOT worked well. All it has done is made a difficult situation worse and acerbated the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere in the area. Instead of discussing things and hashing out disagreements on talk, editors simply run to WP:AE and try to get their opponents sanctioned. Nobody understands what exactly the sanction entails - although in some cases it may be clear what is the "challenged" edit and what is the "challanger" edit, in many cases this is ambiguous. It has made article improvement difficult and has granted a veto-right to single editors, including fly-by-night, newly created account. It has been quite negative, if not a complete disaster.
It is also not true that "almost every editor there has confirmed". This is some wishful thinking on Coffee's part, at best (it even reads like a presidential tweet even). Who are these "almost every editors"? As has already been pointed out (by Seraphim System right above but also by others), whenever the matter has actually come up, among the content editors working in the topic area, as well as at least half the admins at WP:AE, there was significant support for removing the restriction - because everyone knows that it HASN'T worked. It's just that bureaucratic inertia and the institutional tendency of admins always supporting admins, even against content editors, that the restriction was left in place because no one wanted to step on Coffee's toes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask, who exactly created the exact parameters, strictures, and wording of the DS (seen, for example, here in the yellow box: [9]), and when, where and why was it done? (I'd also like to point out that Coffee was absent from Wikipedia for 8 months prior to December, and is therefore largely unaware of the current controversies and problems surrounding DS.) Softlavender (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: The template is here. Coffee filled it out to mirror the restrictions found on the talk page template. You can see the history of that template here, including the history of the rather confusing "firm consensus" provision. --NeilNtalk to me22:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: I absolutely did not know you were on vacation until another editor noted the fact in the thread above. Moreover, I simply forgot to notify you I had opened the thread, and even apologized for it as soon as someone mentioned it. You are completely off base with my motivation for opening the thread, and I would hope that going forward you would assume good faith. I had basically accepted the matter and moved on (as I indicated and then reiterated). Later, however, I was "pinged" by this edit from MrX and it got me thinking about the circumstances of my block, with the long delay before blocking in particular. I mentioned it here, and was told I should start a different discussion. It was only after I consulted the other editor involved that I decided to open this thread. And since you mentioned you consulted my block log and found an eight-year-old block to point at as additional justification for your action, but evidently didn't think my unblemished record since that time was relevant, I am entirely convinced I did the right thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: First, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here if you so ask. But, that brings up a totally different question: why didn't you make a single attempt to contact me before coming to this noticeboard (especially) if you thought I was active, when I had already offered to lift the action if you promised to comply in the future (which includes understanding what you have to comply with as I mentioned above). The block was preventative and always will be. Second, I'm not sure if you read what I wrote correctly, but I said there were no actions that I could find of yours that I took into account, which is why I extended the offer at all: it was a first time offense. I took El cid's block log into account (not yours), when deciding to not leave an offer for El cid, as it held a very relevant piece of data within about 3 or so years time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: First of all, I apologize for misreading "I wouldn't have lifted the action however, as this was not their first edit-warring block" - I thought you were referring to my block log. With that out of the way, let me ask you a few questions:
If the block was "preventative", why did you wait 29 hours until after my transgression before enacting it?
Why didn't you think to question my edit on my talk page before enforcing the block, as most administrators indicate they would've done?
Isn't offering to "lift the sanction" after it had already expired not really much of an offer at all? (Context: it has been explained to me above that it isn't possible to edit block logs, or advisable to delete entries from the DS log, and I interpreted "lift the sanction" as ending the block, rather than any other action).
If you determined El cid's previous block for edit warring was relevant when deciding to block again, but my log didn't show anything relevant, why did we both get the same block length?
Finally, you ask why I did not approach you directly, which is a fair question. My answer is that I was seeking a review of your actions (as indicated in the thread title), and seeking relief (if technically possible) from the sanction if a consensus formed that your action had been inappropriate. I think any sort of review must be independent, rather than any sort of "self review" process. I hope this makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: Before I delve into your other 4 points, I would like to table them while we hash out my first concern. Do you realize that I was offering to remove the sanction entirely at one point? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: No, I did not realize that. I thought you were offering to end the already-expired block. If I misunderstood, then I am sorry this review has caused you so much trouble. I'm still a bit miffed about the other stuff (the 29-hour delay in particular), but much of the air has gone out of my outrage balloon. I can see you have a few other things on your plate, so feel free to circle back when you have time. Hopefully, the thread won't be prematurely archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: Then it looks like this may be a large misunderstanding. I am happy to strike the record of your sanction if you can give me your word you will abide by the any discretionary sanctions you run into in the future - page restrictions and otherwise. The block was made at the time it was made due to (I believe my memory is serving me correct here... but I'm starting to cut it close to the time I need to head offline to ensure I make my next flight at 4am so my mind is a touched stressed, and might not have this right) you having already been in discussions with other editors about your edit but you hadn't reverted it yet. This is because the way Arbitration rulings are usually enforced is with a very hard stick, and once editors have been informed of sanctions existing in the topic-area administrators expect them to already be editing in a fashion that is proactively ensuring restrictions and whatnot are not being violated. It sadly always comes across as punitive, but I assure you such actions are meant to be preventative (including attempting to prevent a mass influx of the same types of edits, even from different users... as was the case all across the Trump topic area before the DS system currently in place was implemented [and continues to be the case every single time someone succeeds at a DS challenge, unfortunately lots of gaming is afoot due to the contentious nature of the topic - something which caused me to have to run to ARCA several times last year to ensure I was properly enforcing ArbCom's intent]). The reason for the 24 hour block is that it is the minimum for a 1st offense AE block. While El cid had indeed violated our edit-warring policy before, they had not been blocked for violating an AE restriction... so as I understand ArbCom's intent, such offenses still receive the standard 24, which escalates from there if further issues are identified. The reason for the 10 minutes was actually in my eyes to be nice... I didn't intend that warning to come off as assholic. The reason I saw it from this perspective was that you had (as far as I recall) already been in a discussion regarding the particular edit, so I considered that to have been a decent enough heads up prior to my 10 minute window. I hope that makes you somewhat less angry at this situation, although I know that being blocked isn't ever a fun experience. As I said, I did not make the call lightly or with haste. I thought it over for quite a bit before placing the 10-minute warning. If though, as I said, I can trust this won't be of issue in the future, I will strike the block in the AC/DSL record and notate your block log to disregard the block levied (so as to not sully your reputation). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: I think you might be confusing/conflating two of your enforcement actions here. The first part of your comment seems to refer to the issue you had with my edit. As I have already indicated, I have never knowingly violated discretionary sanctions and I have no intention of doing so in the future (I believe DS is an important tool). I did not realize my "transgression" was a violation until another editor pointed it out on my talk page, by which time it had already been reverted, so I left it alone and moved on. It was not until 29 hours later that you blocked me for it, an action which came as a complete surprise to me (and the chief reason for me asking the matter to be reviewed). I believe the "10-minute warning" thing you are talking about refers to an enforcement action you did concerning Volunteer Marek, which is a matter I am not really familiar with. Anyway, if you are still offering to perform the log alterations with respect to our interactions, I would be most grateful and would certainly promise to abide by the letter of discretionary sanctions going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 min warning thing didn't have anything to do with me. That was the bad block of Casprings I believe. Yes, I know it's easy to get lost of in all the bad blocks and sanctions Coffee has handed out shortly before going on his vacation. Sorta illustrates the problem, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the ridiculous Arab-Israel level of contentiousness the Trump topic area seems to carry with it, nor the large amount of actions that have to be taken regardless by administrators every day when we're active. It's all part of my devious plan to avoid scrutiny by attracting it and then having my vacation stressed out by constant emails regarding notifications (up to 40 by the time I got on today). Truly a sign of a WP:ROGUE. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are correct Facepalm. After properly looking back, it appears this is why I thought it would be preventative, since it appeared that you disregarded the issue with your edit. At this point however, since it seems I don't have reason to be concerned about any violation in the future, I will gladly take the actions stated above (which I had meant to be offered well before the block expired). This does not impact the expired block on El cid for blatantly violating 1RR after a prior history of edit-warring. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought I hadn't violated DS with my edit. Since it had already been reverted, I didn't take any action (but warned El cid about his breaking of 1RR). Anyway, I will happily accept your proposal and I thank you for giving this matter your attention, despite all the other crap you seem to be having to deal with. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: Done - To all others: I am going offline now. I hope to pop my head back in soon, just to close a few AE threads if no one else has grabbed them. Otherwise, I will not be very reachable until around the 13th or 14th. The Foundation should have my cell number, and the ArbCom knows how to reach out to me while I'm out here. As always: I am fully at the behest of ArbCom when it comes to AE actions. And, as such will never do anything they tell me not to and will reverse any action they deem necessary. I've only ever wanted to assist content creators to have a non-confrontational/smooth editing experience. If you find me not acting as a content creation facilitator, please let me know. That's something I will always immediately want to rectify. Happy 2018! (I'm going to try to get an hour or so of sleep before this next flight, cheers!) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As one last afterthought (which might have been expressed somewhere else above): Maybe it's not that good an idea to be very active, as an administrator, in controversial or high-profile areas when your current agenda forces you to be unavailable for periods longer than a week. Evidently, there is a strong likelihood of such actions causing questions which sometimes only you can answer. Currently, I think your own activity here would benefit from less operative hecticness. ---Sluzzelintalk17:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: might have either his 'Jack Sebatians' confused or events - since I have no idea what he was talking about in reference to Australians presidents and whatevs. The incident I noted in my "let's wait and give the editor a chance to respond" was where - in a content dispute wherein you jumped to the wrong conclusions and - inexplicably - stripped me (and only me) of my editing abilities (rollbacket, etc.). Even when it was pointed out by others that you screwed up, you remained silent until all the heavy lifting was done to solve the problem. I find it disturbing in the extreme that you confuse the incidents that happened less than a week ago with something that happened a year ago. I was only disappointed in your shoddy decision-making process before. Now, I am wondering if you have the adequate amount of memory or maturity to wield the admin tools. Your continued mistakes are a red flag that something is going wrong with your ability to handle situations correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your comment it seems. I thought you were talking about when I had lost *my* editing tools way back about 8-9 years ago and had perhaps received them back without proper explanation. I will gladly take your question at my user talk page if what you're looking for here is my explination of my reasoning when I believed your actions justified removal of editing tools, and why I decided to replace them on your account. I'm still in transit currently so I don't have all of the facts in front of me right now. However, this thread is about two particular blocks and the consensus required provision itself, and for the sake of clarity for reviewing administrators, I would prefer if that topic was able to stay focused. If you would like to discuss my medical history however, I'm going to have to tell you that is not acceptable ever. If the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation do not believe I am too incompetent to act as an administrator then any comments regarding otherwise need to be made to them, as they are fully aware of my health's status as far as I know. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IP edited two pages. One for an album and one for a song on the album. You say because of a "hoax" name. Yet, "the hoaxer" is sourced on Brice's previous albums and songs. So, how is it a hoax? While a site like AllMusic does not list him, for this particular album you would notice (if you have had the chance to listen to the album) that there are no female voices listed but there are numerous females heard on the album. How do we trust their information when you can plainly hear missing information?
Additionally, a Facebook page was mentioned on the previous discussion. Have you been to the Facebook page? There is a 7-figure royalty check posted. I sure wish I could "hoax" my way into that kind of money. post and image
Also, worth noting, is the fact that many non wiki/forum sites credit the "hoax" name. Where are they getting this information?
We'll soon be able to see IPs from failed login attempts. That will hopefully improve things. The functionaries have been getting hit with this issue lately. ~ Rob13Talk21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same question -- "we" meaning CUs, admin, or the users concerned by the failed logins? FWIW, I've also been getting hit, and have had reports of others as well. Ben · Salvidrim!✉09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that Lauder-Frost is not prepared to accept a biography that includes his criminal conviction. I am fine with a WP:NPOV biography that includes these, and his neo-Nazi sympathies, but consensus in 2008 was that notability was sufficiently marginal as not to be worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's still very much around, and editing. Any time I pop back here, it's clear that he's been sanitizing article around British conservatism, the far-Right, and BLPs that he's connected to - Alison❤02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the troglodyte Nazi-sympathizing embezzler? He certainly deserves an article now. Ping me and I'll be happy to help. EEng03:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale ban appeal
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale (talk·contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
one account restriction
topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.
There is a discussion on the talk page of Erica Garner regarding whether to merge the article with Death of Eric Garner. There is some edit-warring going on and although a couple of editors (including myself) have suggested the merge suggestion should be closed at no consensus, other editors disagree. Could a non-involved admin kindly take a look and advise. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the recent flurry of activity at First-move advantage in chess. There have been repeated attempts by two editors to insert an unreliable source (Stack Exchange) into the article, and repeated edit warring. I'm already on 2 reverts so I don't want to carry on with this this. 222.153.250.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page discussion is just running into a brick wall, and probably should be closed by a neutral party. IMO consensus has been established but one party refuses to acknowledge it, repeating their arguments ad nauseam. Classic IDHT. 222.153.250.135 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
this user has been making a large number of good faith edits, but most all of them are nonconstructive. This includes grammatical errors, factual errors, and adding information that doesn't follow guidelines. I am not sure what other approach to take than to post this here. Nikolaiho☎️📖00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried asking them abut it on their talk page? I see a comment they made in April expressing some frustration about being reverted (not by you) but never being told why. Given their comment about being in practice since the 1970s, I think we are probably dealing with an older person who is knowledgeable in the real world but hasn't necessarily grasped Wikipedia culture (which can be confusing and Byzantine for anyone). Reaching out in plain language might help bridge the gap. ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As a physician he may have of lot of knowledge to offer but seems to not fully grasp Wiki policy (and who can blame him?) I'd suggest reaching out and offering some reading material or advice. Justin15w (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion
The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Do minor one or two line verbatim WP:COPYPASTES need to be reported for speedy delete or rev-del? I will generally remove this as WP:PLAGIARISM/minor COPYVIO, but I don't think it would ever rise to the level of something that needs to be rev del'd. I don't think anything should be rev del'd unless there is a legitimate concern about protecting the encyclopedia from legal liability - I am asking because it came up in a draft I was reviewing Draft:United Nations Environment Assembly - I haven't reported it for speedy deletion, this is a free encyclopedia and I don't want to be overzealous about policing COPYVIOs - I was wondering what the usual practice is for this. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SeraphWiki, to answer your first question, yes. If there is a copyright violation, even if it's only a sentence of two, it should be removed and a revdel requested. In the draft you reference, it is definitely not enough for a G12 nomination but that entire opening paragraph is copied verbatim and thus entirely appropriate for redaction. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a clear-cut case (like this one), just remove the offending and use {{revdel}}. If you do not have the time (or inclination, as some reviewers claim) then you're welcome to report it using {{Copyvio}} and someone else will clean it up. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
After a long and admittedlytorturedhistory, I would like to requests that all the revisions of the aforementioned page that have been scrubbed due solely to the inclusion of the name "Jasmine" in the article, now be restored. While these administrative actions were likely done with the best intentions, I think in hindsight it has been established via the talk page that such actions were an improper exercise of the REVDEL functionality, and in any case with the name now finally restored to the article, I can see no reason to keep those revisions hidden. Note that any revisions which were deleted for reasons other than the inclusion of the aforementioned name, such as defamation or the insertion of additional personal information, I do not (I think wisely) include in this request.
Note that I have not notified the administrators who performed these actions on their talk pages of this discussion. The reason for this is because I believe this is purely a subspecies of content matters (I do not take issue with any of the administrators or the actions they performed), the list of admins who have performed these revision deletions is lengthy and stretches back over seven years, and I believe that our recent discussions on the talk page in any event provide sufficient notice of the direction the community has moved in. If you think I made this judgment in error, you may ask me to make those notifications anyway, or else create them yourself, for which I would be most appreciative of.
I don't recall how this page got on my watchlist; it isn't a matter that particularly interests me, although I have been involved in New Zealand-related articles where court orders suppress names. I have been aware that Ipatrol has been making sensible arguments on the talk page, and have not taken any action on the article since that started. I have no objection to the restoration of the edits in question.-gadfium05:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol New Year Backlog Drive
New Page Patrol New Year Backlog Drive
New Page Patrol is running a backlog drive with the intention to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles that currently stretches back to April of last year. The backlog drive began on January 1st and will run for 4 weeks.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users to join this project. If you don't have the NPR user-right, please review the granting conditions and APPLY TODAY.
I know one of you admins blocked a bunch of accounts marking them as "spambot" yesterday or the day before--the accounts were named along the lines of this new one, User:加群：①②①②①② 有惊喜寥荣 . Thanks, 209.51.172.145 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There’s about 20 accounts in that format, which I’ve blocked. They had stopped so perhaps they had been caught by another method. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. <grin> There were also about ten in the format: 加我①②③劳闷. These are blocked as well, perhaps the bot will get caught by the autoblock. All the accounts have been globally locked too though that wasn’t my doing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, from a different source. Next time please (pretty please) email OS or an OSer rather than placing it on one of the most-watched boards on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were also created between 8-10 years ago, and I very much doubt they're actually used. The important ones have been dealt with (except the WIT), but I figured I should list them all "for the record" as it were. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Appeal declined. Per WP:AC/DS, "for a[n appeal] request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails." Because it is obvious that there is not a consensus here to grant the appeal, let alone a clear and substantial one, the appeal is unsuccessful. Sandstein 09:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 12/1 I was Topic banned for 1 month under the BLP ArbCom case from editing articles on American Politicians. On 1/3, an AE filing was presented against me for edits regarding Erica Gardner. That complaint was baseless. However another editor listed an edit I made to Joe Scarborough removing a long standing conspiracy theory regarding the death of an employee. I certainly didn't consider this to be a violation nor was it raised as one when I made it. I was enforcing a longstanding BLP consensus.
Lo and behold, after the expiration, the original admin decided that I needed a new 30 day topic ban with a wider scope to include AP2. So the DS flipped to a new case, from an edit to an article that is not under any AP2 restriction. No rational person would presume to say that I waited 30 days into a 1 month tban to violate it. I made a good faith BLP edit to an article that has routinely had allegations regarding the death of an employee. Even WaPo denounced the conspiracy theory. It's punitive and arbitrary and does not serve the project. --DHeyward (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me noting that he may be involved: [10]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded.TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.
This is the last comment I will make here: I did not note that I was involved. I said that you were commenting on the MisterWiki case where I was the filing party, so I didn't think I should block. I did that out of an abundance of caution as previous blocks of editors commenting on Arb pages have been controversial, even if the block was related to another sanction. That does not make me involved. If that was the case then I would consider myself involved with literally every editor who commented there, which was well over 50 when counting the case request. I have also explained plenty of times in multiple forums why I saw this as different, even considering that AE action. Finally, please stop construing this as a unilateral action. Every admin who commented on that thread with the exception of Sandstein, who suggested that I be the one to close the thread, supported reseting the TBAN and several supported expanding it for clarity. I would never have imposed this otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Sandstein is the one that said it was poorly worded on December 9 and allowed the edits to Kris Paronto. You agreed that it was confusing. You didn't seem bothered by that? --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. An edit to an article about a former congressman is unambiguously a topic ban violation on editing articles about American politicians. ~ Rob13Talk22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think I would have made the edit on the 31st day of a 1 month topic ban? The edit removed the launching point of accusations listed here[11]? There is long-standing consensus that this theory is a BLP violation. I've removed it many times over 10 years. --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this kind of endorsement simply backs up the fact that some individuals are completely inflexible and see these kinds of things legalistically, in black and white, with no chance of any grey areas that can be discussed. It's far easier to just point at the ban, the date and say "yep, infraction!" and move on to the next topic. We should find individuals in whom we can place our trust to actively seek to resolve these issues rather than those who simply punish editors for doing what they think is right, even in purportedly risky circumstances. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is simply a continuation of the ongoing inability of certain admins and arbs who appear to be completely unable to communicate with individual editors without having to resort to kangaroo court proceedings where grudges are reintroduced time and again. Some common sense could have been applied here, but sadly was not. I'm no longer surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained this elsewhere, but this topic ban was only placed as the consensus of all uninvolved admins that commented on it agreed that DHeyward had violated his topic ban, and that it should be reset. I would not have done this without the consensus of other administrators and if I had not been specifically asked to be the one to close the thread by two of my colleagues. The edit DHeyward removed was not a BLP violation, and would not have been exempt from his topic ban. This was changed to AP2 because other administrators suggested that it would be helpful in avoiding any future confusion. I do not mind community review at all, but this was not a unilateral action. For reference this is the original thread. All administrators who commented on the merits of the case saw a topic ban violation and recommended a reset. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most cited an admin that mistook the edit and dates. I am being sanctioned based on a filing that was deemed insufficient with the filer being warned along with the fact that TBAN had already expired. Further, TonyBallioni had already brought me to AE on a violation that failed. He's involved. Admins should not be sanctioning editors after they lose a sanction request. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have only had administrative interactions with you. I was asked to be the one to deal with the report since I was the original sanctioning administrator by @Sandstein and EdJohnston: Sandstein being the admin who convinced me to withdraw the original filing. That was filed out of an abundance of caution since you were actively commenting (along with many other people) at the current ArbCom case and I didn't want to be the one to sanction because of that. I do not consider myself involved with every editor who has commented on the MisterWiki case, nor with any editor who has a disagreement with my admin actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVOLVED"This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to" broadly construed. You were a party that asked for AE sanctions. Why don't the "broadly construed" rules aplly to you while you seem to generously slap them on me? You apologized for the poorly worded original sanction and then doubled down with a new, boader sanction. Fix it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article is routinely vandalized with "details" trying to implicate Scarborough in the death. It's a consensus BLP violation to keep this info just as we don't list the death of Vince Foster in Hillary Clinton's bio. It doesn't matter how many CTs are out there, it's defamatory to keep it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's possible to argue that these edits didn't violate the topic ban. The ban forbids edits about "living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics". This is the edit to Joe Scarborough, who is an ex-congressman who is now a political commentator - easily falls into the scope. Furthermore the edit concerns what a politician (Donald Trump) said about him. If there are any BLP issues in that paragraph I don't think they're nearly bad enough to justify violating a topic ban. There were also edits to Erica Garner concerning what she said about Bill de Blasio - again definitely a politician. I think that's reasonable justification for resetting the topic ban. Hut 8.522:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the topic ban covers people who were "recently" politicians, Scarborough hasn't been one since 2001. I suppose every article at Wikipedia is "related" to every other article because they're all at Wikipedia, but such vague language in a topic ban is a recipe for abuse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [12]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Dandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded.TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that. It appears to me that TonyBallioni withdrew the request because it hadn't been made sufficiently clear that the topic ban was meant to cover those sorts of edits, and that it wasn't fair to sanction you for them as a result. That doesn't really help you here. Even if you're right and we accept Sandstein's interpretation (which is just Sandstein's interpretation), I don't see how you can say that an article about Joe Scarborough, a congressman, isn't a "politician-related article". (I think you had a much stronger case in that AE request than in this one.) Again, it seems like you're testing the boundaries of the topic ban, and using wikilawyering to justify it. That isn't how topic bans work. Hut 8.520:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, topic bans work per WP:TBAN, and this isn't one of those. And as for using "wikilawyering" to justify it, please see your own arguments. They are just as "wikilawyerish". There needs to be some COMMON SENSE applied here. And it's problematic that there isn't. You need to step back and realise we're all human. Just undo DHewyard's last supposed transgression(s) and ask them if they were aware that they were (perhaps) infringing their ban. Then give them two days, and allow them to make the very same edits unhindered. Talk about deliberating perpetuating a non-crisis, mountains and molehills etc. Get a grip you people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Scarborough is not a congressman just as he isn't a lawyer or college student. Tony had the opportunity to clarify what he meant but didn't implying that Sandstein's interpretation was correct. If they thought my edit to Scarborough was a violation, a request to revert would work. It was the last day of the sanction. I was not gaming it and have a long history of removing those springboards for slander. How can I divine what an admin intends when there is so much confusion andd no clarification. --DHeyward (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check the dates. The Erica Garner edits were not considered violations. Only Scarborough. And check the dates. If Trump tweeted about Hillary Clinton killing Vince Foster, do we add it to her bio? Don't think so. Scarborough isn't any more a politician than he is a college student. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. The topic ban was imposed on 2 December and lasted for 1 month. The Erica Garner edits were made on 31 December, which is before the topic ban expired. You don't stop being a politician just because you left office, and even if that wasn't the case the edits concerned Donald Trump. Topic bans apply to all editing, not just unconstructive editing. If you wanted to get the material removed then you could have posted on the article talk page, WP:BLP/N, or just asked someone else. It's hard to avoid the impression that you've been testing the edges of the topic ban here. Hut 8.507:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, she wasn't, but the edits exclusively concerned comments she'd made about Bill de Blasio, who is undoubtedly a politician. The sanction wasn't limited to biographies of politicians, it included "related topics" as well. Hut 8.519:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get the feeling that because this (among many) sanction has been so poorly worded, we will be forever at odds with "broadly construed" and "related topics". I think your point is completely bogus, you think your point is completely relevant. That, in my opinion, sums up the value of the wording of the sanction – INADEQUATE. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I might have missed something very obvious, but isn't the venue for an AE appeal, AE itself, not AN? (Note: I didn't comment on the original AE). Black Kite (talk)22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: It can be either. This is probably the most appropriate venue (well, this or ARCA) because the sanction was a result of consensus at AE. Doesn't make much sense to go immediately back there. ~ Rob13Talk22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm also going to weakly endorse this. If it had just been one edit that was on the edge of being a violation (i.e. the Scarborough one, where the BLP defence is not unreasonable), I wouldn't. But together with the Garner one and also those listed by Volunteer Marek at the AE case, suggest to me that DHeyward is deliberately skirting the extremes of their topic ban, and that isn't a good idea. As I say, it's a weak endorse, but is it really that difficult to just stay away from an area you're topic-banned on? No, it isn't. Black Kite (talk)22:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
all the other edits passed muster. Only the Scarborough edit was cited. You can read why. I wasn't banned from AP2, only articles about politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Scarborough one was the originally cited one - and as I say I would just about be prepared to give that one a pass on BLP terms if it was the only issue - but I don't see how the Garner one wasn't a violation, as DeBlasio is a current politician. Of the others, Flynn was a recent politician, and the Mandell diff references Obama. That's the way I'm looking at it. Black Kite (talk)23:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me because he presumed he might be involved: [13]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Dandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded.TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.
Black Kite, yes, that was my thinking as well. Scarborough was the unambigious violation in my mind, but as I said on DHeyward's talk when questioned, the totality of the diffs presented shows one unambigious violation (unlike you, I don't buy the BLP argument), and several potential violations where this rose to the point of reseting the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Black KiteHow was editing Garner a violation of his tban? TonyBallioni wrote a horrible piece of crap tban, that did not forbid editing articles that mentioned a politician, it only mentioned editing ARTICLES ABOUT politicians, such as Deblassio, etc. but editing an article about Erica Garner is not a violation. Sir Joseph(talk)02:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not the best worded sanction, but it does include "and related topics, broadly construed.". Hence my only weak endorse (and it is a really weak one). Black Kite (talk)12:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the diff? I'll presume you didn't. But even if the edit hadn't been about a current politician, Garner (a political activist) clearly comes under "related topics". Black Kite (talk)20:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite See the clarification one week into the sanction. I added it aove. December 9 AE action brought by Tony as the filing party. Edits in articles can be abought politicians as long as the article itself was not about a politician. Garner is not a politician. This was accepted by Tony as the interpretation on Dec 9 when he IARd all rules and closed the AE request. He noted the interpretation in the closing statement. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I followed, but didn't comment in this AE request. DHeyward unambiguously violated the topic ban (which included the words "and related topics, broadly construed") at least once and ambiguously violated it few more times. All the wikilawering in the world won't change that. The sanction was mild, proportionate to the offense, and well within the norms of admin discretion..- MrX23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm the admin that DHeyward is talking about in this, I did correct myself about the self-revert as soon as I could (but I did indicate that in that self-revert they did not spell out that it was due to a TBAN, and the next immediate edit was an editor restoring that content claiming that DHeyward's revert removed sources. I don't think failing to mention that one is self-reverting due to a TBAN is anything actionable but this is something a TBANed editor should be careful about). This leaves the Dec 31 Scarborough edit, which falls within the TBAN's 1 month period. I see one brief discussion on that article's talk page with no clear consensus if the paragraph should stay or go (with at least two editors saying if it stays, it should be carefully worded) and that was before the new bump in the accusation due to Trump's call out (making the situation different from when this material was previously added). I do note most sources that reported on this clearly established the rumor was debunked (using it as yet another sticking point in their issues with how Trump uses social media). It borders on a BLP violation to be included, but it is not 100% clear to qualify as an pure exception to a BLP violation given the lack of consensus discussion that it is one or not. Given that the TBAN was still "broadly construed" to politicians, I would think it be wise for such an editor on a TBAN to stay away from even former ones. That said, DHeyward's behavior towards the AE and myself is of questionable concern. I tried to get back ASAP to fix my comment on the self-revert (I was driving during the time some of this way going on), and I feel that that was somewhat poor behavior to demonstrate if one is already under a microscope. (I'm not going to take a stance whether this should be endorsed or not, I'm explaining what I saw). --Masem (t) 23:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Why are we sanctioning editors for upholding the BLP policy? Additionally there were issues with TonyBallioni’s poorly thought out original topic ban. Even he didn’t know what it meant as seen by Tony’s retracted AE filing. It makes no sense to be sanctioning editors for breaking bad sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Do you see anything wrong with the following chain of argument? The text was out of the article for two years, so there's an expectation that the "consensus version" is out of the article. A sock/troll, with total 3 edits (together with various IP editors, likely to be the same person) edit-warred against consensus and tried to include the text under various phrasings. There was no talk page discussion which found consensus for any phrasing, so WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a part of BLP policy. Therefore, using the literal definition of BLP violation, it is a BLP violation.
Both the letter and the spirit of the policy say that DHeyward thought that he was removing a BLP violation by a troll, one of countless attempts by many people over many years. Despite this fact, and the borderline case of Scarborough (who hasn't been a politician for 17 years), why would one believe the hypothesis that he was trying to game his sanction on the 30th day of his topic ban, rather than exactly what he says he was doing? Kingsindian♝♚14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two things that I found: First, while all previous additions of the rumor were simply about the rumor, the last addition specifically mentioned it was raised by Trump, and reviewing news sources, they used that to jump on Trump for propagating a disproven rumor. Unfortunately, there's enough noise about that that not to mention the situation (specifically making sure the claim was disproved) would make the article seem lacking, but that would need more discussion at that talk page. The only discussion on the talk page that I saw was a quickly closed malformed RFC from far earlier in 2017, but those that commented noted that addition of the claim would require careful wording. It was not outright ruled a BLP violation. I'm not a big fan of establishing a consensus by just edit summaries, particularly for something like this where there was a new facet to the story (Trump's involvement) that should have necessitated further discussion. --Masem (t) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: If there's no consensus either way, the material stays out, again per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. So nothing changes in my argument. The crucial point is that the IP/troll did not get any consensus for their edits prior to insertion (or afterwards, for that matter). The material remains out of the article, as of the time of my comment (i.e., nobody reverted DHeyward). Kingsindian♝♚15:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only written consensus I see is the closed RFC on the talk page which does not outright reject inclusion of the material, this is a problem. I realize the material was being added by IP, but seemingly very different IP. (If it were the same editor each time, I'd definitely be approving its removal) If I were a anon editor and believed this information should be on that page , and looked to the talk page to see only the RFC, there's nothing there to tell me consensus says to keep if off. Regulars are going to know this, new ones are not. --Masem (t) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: This point is irrelevant: the IP's edits are not at issue in this thread, DHeyward's is. I am not asking for the IP/troll to be banned; I am asking for the ban on DHeyward to be overturned. If you are extending this kind of good-faith towards throwaway IPs/trolls (all of them have only ever edited this page), why not extend the same good faith to DHeyward's edit? Or does having a "rap sheet" automatically remove the requirement to WP:AGF? As I showed above, if we take the literal definition of BLP violation, it was a BLP violation (you didn't point out any holes in my chain of argument in your two replies, so I'm going to assume that there isn't one). Both the letter and the spirit of BLP says that it was a violation. Kingsindian♝♚03:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - This !vote will probably surprise some folks, but viewing the issue in context, I feel like DHeyward has a good-faith argument that this was, indeed, a BLP issue, and that he did the minimum necessary to fix it. I'm sympathetic because I have previously been under a pretty broad topic ban and ran into issues figuring out where the limits were. I do find it interesting that two years ago, DHeyward argued exactly the opposite in attempting to have me sanctioned at AE, declaring that NBSB should know that GamerGate topics are off limits. It's exactly what his topic ban covers. NPP and BLP are specious reasons for creating the GG drama of an AFD started by a topic banned editor. Then, DHeyward sought to punish me for a good-faith effort to fix a BLP issue. Now he seeks the same mercy I was granted. Perhaps a lesson will be learned here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is not a safe harbor for TBANned editors. And the Scarborough article is full of text about American politicians, regardless of whether a politician is the topic of the article. The article is at least partly or even largely about American politicians. SPECIFICOtalk00:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should not entirely be a safe-harbor, but I would argue that we should, in good-faith BLP cases, give the benefit of the doubt. Contra DHeyward's argument from two years past, fixing BLP problems is not a "specious reason" for action, and I'm glad he now seems to agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our description of TBAN's -- if this is a sort of TBAN, states that only unambiguous incontrovertible vandalism, which nobody could possibly think other than vandalism, may be reverted. SPECIFICOtalk00:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Firstly a TBAN violation has to be an explicit violation of the TBAN and there was no violation. Secondly, Scarborough is not a politician, he was decade ago but to say that extends to now is ludicrous. Garner is not a politician either. Again, for those endorsing the ban, have you read the tban wording? Sir Joseph(talk)02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnas I believe only bright line violations should result in editor censorship and otherwise AGF is needed to put a stop to all this tit for tat sanctioning going on. We're all guilty of intolerance of each others views and completely closed minded when it comes to catching our breaths and seeking compromises. Seems truly incongruent with the editor I know that he would pick the last day of a month long topic ban to do something he would honestly believe might result in a longer ban. The benefit of the doubt is well deserved here.--MONGO03:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse finding of violation but overturn for failure to communicate - Admins need to be able to communicate clearly and effectively the terms of any sanction they impose. DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed is clear on duration and entirely unclear on boundaries or expectations. Joe Scarborough, for one example, is no longer an American politician and hasn't been one for 16 years now; he is a talk show host. So he does not fall under "living and recently deceased American politicians". Further, what the hell is a "related topic"? American politics? Former American politicians? Rando's who've ever made a comment about a current or former American politician? This is ambiguous on what it's meant to mean and what the scope of a related topic is. It shouldn't have been included in the original TBAN. Nothing in the sanction even suggests that Erica Garner's article, for another example, falls under the scope of the TBAN as she is not a politician nor is her article about American politicians. If AP2 was what was meant then this should have been done right the first time. That said, this edit removing material about Trump on Scarborough's article is an obvious TBAN violation. The reverted edit is well sourced, accurately to the sources, and neutral in POV. In no way could this be construed to be a BLP violation let alone a smear against Joe Scarborough and this makes DHeywards' edit an exceptionally clear violation of the TBAN regarding American politicians that was imposed by Tony Ballioni on December 2nd 2017. So I'm left in two minds here; there is a failure to properly formulate the terms of the sanction which put undue onus on DHeyward to understand what the conditions are exactly, but, there is also at least one obvious violation of the sanction that was put in place. On an aside, Andrew Davidson's report at AE is very clearly retaliation for DHeywards attempt to have an article he (AD) had created merged into another article and the report is entirely bunkum. A warning to avoid hyperbole does not seem sufficient for, nor does it address, such vindictive behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude I have been editing out the intern story on Scarborough for years. It is consensus for years that mentioning the conspiracy theory is a BLP violation. It's a 10 year, multiple discussion consensus. A number of editors flock to expand the CT and that's why it's deleted every time. You have to go talk page history for all the discussions. It goes back to where even Jimbo weighed in against it 10 years ago. Second, Scarborough was a college student many years ago. He is not one now. He was a politician many years ago. He is not one now. And 3rd, it takes a tremendous amount of bad faith to presume that I would violate my topic ban 30 days into a 1 month ban. I didn't blink at Scarborough because I've made the same deletions under BLP guidelines for years.[14]. What starts as a NPOV mention of a non-incident in his life gets additions like this[15]. I can find many very reliable sources discussing how the Vince Foster CT is a Hillary Clinton smear. That doesn't mean we put it in her bio. It's a smear. WaPo confirms it's a smear against Scarborough and that's exactly why we don't add it in any form. It's not new or unique or controversial to not include smears in BLPs especially when very reliable sources dismiss them. Adding it just keeps the smear alive. From Scarborough's perspective, the death of that aide is not part of his life and keeping it alive in his bio is tangential and defamatory. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't think the material is necessary to the article, and Trumps twitter doesn't belong on our encyclopaedia. This, however, doesn't equal a BLP violation and your previous removals (while free of a TBAN) does not make this particular action appropriate. 2. I searched through all three archives and failed to find any such consensus against including any mention of Lori but did find at least two consensi (?) supporting at least a mention of her death in Archives 1 (2005) and 2 (3O in 2007) and no mention of Jimbo "Jimmy" Wales despite three consecutive Ctrl+F searches. 3. Donald Trump is an American politician, you edited an article to remove something specifically discussing Donald Trump, ergo ipso facto, you violated the terms of the TBAN. As others have mentioned above and below, you could have submitted an edit request to have the material removed or just let someone else handle it. For that matter, Joe Scarborough isn't the issue here, you are free to edit Joe Scarborough's article provided you stick to the terms of the TBAN. 4. it takes a tremendous amount of bad faith to presume that I would violate my topic ban 30 days into a 1 month ban 4a) it takes neither bad nor good faith to state a fact. Fact is -by my reading- you violated the terms of the TBAN. And 4b) 29 days in not 30; 2nd Dec (date which the TBAN was enacted) + 29 days = 31st Dec (date when you made the edit). You still had 48 hours to your TBAN expiring at (presumably) midnight on the 2nd of January. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second review - I have to agree with the findings by others that this TBAN is a complete failure on clarity and that thereby DHeyward should not be punished [WP:PUNITIVE] for this failure of formulation and communication that is entirely out of their hands. In my opinion, the specific edit to Joe Scarborough relating to Trump is a violation of the TBAN. That said, the terms of the TBAN are so murky that about half the commentators here aren't even sure of what any of it means. On a side note: part of this is the repeated mentioning of the entirely irrelevant edits to Erica Garner which probably stems from a failure to read the AE enforcement request to its fullest extent (or any extent really). Erica Garner is NOT the reason the TBAN was extended, the sum total of all the edits (particularly those presented by VM as evidence) is the reason for the finding that the TBAN was violated. This finding also wasn't made by a bunch of noob admins either. Despite that, this was a badly written TBAN covering a poorly formulated topic (articles vs edits; politicians vs anyone involved in politics; and of course broadly construed) and, in this case, is effectively a moving set of goal posts. Such sanctions should not be enforced, let alone extended and further broadened. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: The text in question was inserted by an obvious sock/troll The-internminator (the woman in question was an intern), who edit-warred on the article without consensus. I'm pretty sure they used some throwaway IPs as well -- see this, this and this. The text has been fought over for more than a decade (please read the talk page archives, where even Joe Scarborough (allegedly) shows up and pleads his case), and the consensus was to keep it out of the article for years (it is still out, after DHeyward's correct removal). TonyBallioni, who claims elsewhere that they hold up WP:ONUS for BLPs and who supports the (ridiculous remedy) "consensus required", now deems that removing this text is a "clear-cut violation"? And, I'm pretty sure that they are trolling me by citing my comment -- where I cite WaPo as saying that these are all conspiracy theories -- as supporting the inclusion (this is not the first time that they have done this). This is disgraceful behaviour, frankly. Do you guys even think about BLP, or is this all just a game where you get your jollies by banning editors? Kingsindian♝♚07:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a massive material change in circumstances between an article reporting on a conspiracy theory and an article reporting on the President of the United States advancing a conspiracy theory against someone he disagrees with. The edit in question did th latter. I would encourage people to compare the text DHeyward removed this time with the text he has historically removed. They are two different topics all together. Claiming that the material removed has been the same contentious BLP material historically removed is simply false. The article you provided showed why. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please find me a discussion on the talk page where consensus for the text was established. Can't do it, can you? How does that square with WP:ONUS which you claim to uphold? Or WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE? I notice that you have a bad habit of ignoring relevant things: like the fact that the troll edit-warred against consensus (using various phrasings) till one of the participants (ScottSteiner) got fed up with the repeated insertions and tried to make the text as neutral as possible. But that still counts as polishing a turd, nothing more. Not everything which Trump says on Twitter has to be included on a BLP. Kingsindian♝♚07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would argue that literally nothing Trump says on Twitter should be included in anyone's biography except Trump's own. Whatever aspersions he casts on his political opponents from his smartphone while watching Fox News, they probably don't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post disagreed with you and decided it was significant enough to cover. It doesn’t matter if he was enforcing ONUS, the article feel squarely within the topic ban and was not a BLP vio. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No TonyBallioni, the WaPo specifically denounced it as an unfounded conspiracy theory. WaPo obit on Scarborough will not include this baseless aspersion. Here the WaPo covered the baseless conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Vince Foster prompted by a Trump tweet as welltweet[16]. We don't add this shit to BLPs and we remove it when it is added. If you don't understand that, you need to be very far away from BLPs or judging BLP editorial decisions. If WaPo is an impeccable source, add it to Clinton oer the Foster suicide. The community will give you a quick less that the fate of Foster has no bearing on Clinton's life as they did noting related to the suicide. Scarborough had nothing to do with the death of his employee and removing it is necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an argument that could go either way on a talk page. What you removed was coverage of Trump, not coverage of a conspiracy theory. There was no obvious BLP violation here, and the text was substantially different than that which had been previously discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the onus is on the addition, not removal. Consensus removed it. Trolls readd it and used it to disparage him. It was a tweet from Trump about an incident that the WaPo said had nothing to do with Scarborough. Trump has also tweeted CTs about Clinton and Ted Cruz involvement with the Kennedy assassination. This wasn't borderline that the tweet was unrelated to anything Scarborough did. Wikipedia is not a vessel for these blatant character assassinations and claiming that it was "neutral" when the very reliable source said it had nothing to do with Scarborough is bullshit reasoning on your part and indefensible. --DHeyward (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is exactly the sort of thing that is driving people away from the project. DHeyward is punished for an edit that at least 50% of editors think was fine (judging from responses) while Coffee, an admin, gets away scot-free for repeated egregious actions. 213.120.124.30 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Coffee's conduct has been...admittedly questionable...as of late, based on the broughahahs popping up around the noticeboards, this is one that has to be endorsed. Even if we don't count Scarborough as being covered under "recent politicans" (which given the standard definition of the "American Politics since..." DS region starts with 1932 seems a little...stretching to say it doesn't count), Trump is a current politician, and as Scarborough is involved in an imbroglio with POTUS, it's blatantly a "related topic". Do I think that, as the OP claims, they "waited 30 days into a 1 month tban to violate it"? No. But they made an lapse that violated it, and a violation is a violation. Good advice for all editors, regardless of their user rights: if you have to say "but" in order to explain why something you're about to do isn't a violation of an editing restriction, it's probably a better idea not to do it. - The BushrangerOne ping only10:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: It must still be late because WTF does this sanction have to do with "Post-1932" anything? This wasn't an AP2 sanction. But your endorsing it why exactly? You realize that I was allowed to edit articles and make edits about politicians as long as the article wasn't about A politician. This was clarified on December 9th as I finished work on Kris Paronto (yes, I was brouht to AE for that edit and it was deemed okay to edit it). --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do, entirely. That is simply my observing that arguing somebody who was a politican in 2001 "isn't a recent politician" seems pretty recent by the standard that is applied to the area in important matters. - The BushrangerOne ping only05:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Endorse: OP has failed to provide any argument that the conduct is not a TBAN violation. The edit was made within the one-month TBAN. Arguing "30 days" vs "1 month" is wikilawyering that we should not countenance. Arguing that the new TBAN was enacted after the old TBAN had expired is irrelevant: The prohibited act occurred, but was merely not discovered, until the expiration of the original TBAN. This is the equivalent of an admin arguing that because his sockpuppetry was not discovered prior to his RfA, he cannot be desysopped for it. The further argument, No rational person would presume to say that I waited 30 days into a 1 month tban to violate it. is nonsensical: If there is an intent component to a TBAN, it would, at most, be gross negligence, not deliberateness. The only argument here is that the content removed was BLP violating. However, OP fails to point out that this argument was brought up at AE and was rejected. An appeal is not "round 2"; we don't substitute our judgment for the original consensus without a damn good reason.In fact, OP is rather severely hiding the ball: The consensus at AE relied on more than the Joe Scarborough edit, and quite deliberately discarded the fact that there may have been BLP implications in that edit. OP had committed numerous "edge case" violations as described in the AE case (the Garner edit, for instance, was far more arguable than OP lets on). Rather than the decision at AE being based on the Scarborough edit entirely, the decision was made more on the grounds of OP's gaming of the original TBAN and keeping skin in the politics game.To be perfectly honest, I believe we should consider the manner in which this appeal is being presented to be deceptive, and in that way, should be considered sanctionable. At the very least this meritless, deceptive appeal should be presented as evidence if OP makes another trip to AE. I would, further, continue to caution my fellow responding editors that our purpose here is not to make a new determination as to whether OP merited a TBAN, but merely to judge the consensus at AE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv The AE group did not bother to review the clarifications. On Dec 9, my edits to Kris Paronto were expressly allowed by AE (yes, I was brought there for an edit and no, they didn't bother to review nor was Tony forthcoming about it. Now a new set of admins say such edits are "clear violations." If the scope was not clear, certainly Dec 9 was a good time to clarify. But if these were clear violations, how am I supposed to divine that when the clarification was that only articles about politicians were covered, not edits about politicians. That's what they said then. Now, though, every ignores that. --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It looks like the appeal arguments, article/edits and politician related/political commentator-former congressman, etc., is just too much hair-splitting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AlanscottwalkerThis is what I operated under. Note the scope was outlined here on December 9, a week after the sanction started. Any interpretation that it was broader that this was not stated or amended. When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [17]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. He didn't amend or clarify or correct the position stated by Sandstein if he thought it was wrong. Now, he doesn't even acknowledge this interpretation and claims to be uninvolved after filing this AE request. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Sure, which is why, on December 9th at AE where Tony alleged a violation, it was clarified that this sanction (which is not under the AP2 sanction) The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. How is it a wide swath when this is the guidance? Tony at the time said Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. No further clarification was given by Tony, the worrding wasn't changed. No sanction enforce. But spin the wheel and suddenly these are all abvious violations brought 3 days after the sanction expired. The original sanctioning administrator says that this is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. If he says its not clear, why is sanctioning me for violations after it expired on the basis of an edit that are still standing? Isn't the expectation that the sanction should be clear? It didn't get clearer after it expired. --DHeyward (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved opinion There seems to be two contraindicating bits of evidence here. First, the edit in question was so close to the end of the TBan that I'm tempted to say "let it go". Are we really going to sit here with a stopwatch and make sure that editors under a TBan don't edit in the topic area until the exact moment their TBan expires? That's pointlessly legalistic. The edit was made so close to the end of the sanction that punishing the editor for it seems petty.
On the other hand, I really don't see a BLP vio in that content. It says Trump tweeted something referencing a conspiracy theory. Is that a BLP vio against Trump or Scarborough? The CS was about Scarborough, but it was Trump who actually believed the stupid thing. And it was well-sourced. It looks like an edit pushing an agenda, to me.
The kicker here seems to be that others have commented that consensus was against including this text, which is a compelling argument that it wasn't an agenda push. If others had argued against inclusion on BLP grounds, I would completely disagree with them, but that would certainly explain why DHeyward believed he was removing a BLP vio.
Comment - the topic ban was for "articles about American politicians and related topics". Call me crazy but I think making edits about Donald Trump and Barrack Obama, or Joe Scarborough for that matter, even on articles which strictly speaking aren't about American politicians easily qualifies as "related topics". At best it's an attempt to violate the spirit of the restriction while pretending to observe the letter. Appropriate block (yes, I commented at original WP:AE).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did he edit the Trump or Obama article? The TBAN was on articles only not on edits. I don't get why people can't see that. If the admin had written the tban clearly we wouldn't be in this mess. Sir Joseph(talk)15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote again. Hell, I even bolded the relevant part for you already. Here, again: and related topics. A reasonable person acting in good faith should figure that making edits about Donald Trump and Barrack Obama and Joe Scarborough would qualify.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Related topics is one thing, but Garner is not a related topic. There is no violation of articles or related articles. There can't be a violation of edits, that is not what the tban specified. Sir Joseph(talk)15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss anything. How is Garner a politician or even related? She's not and it's ludicrous. Otherwise, we ought to put the entire Wikipedia under sanctions because broadly construed, every page is related to one form of sanction. Sir Joseph(talk)15:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was banned from articles about politicians and related topics. He can write about Donald Trump and Barack Obama all he wants, as long as it is on a talk page or an article about a different topic, like the national parks or something. That's why this topic ban was so bad and should never have been enforced. The confusion comes about because it's not clear whether "related topics" clarifies "articles" or "politicians." In the face of such confusion it's up to the sanctioning admin User:TonyBallioni to help clarify or add insight, but he has not done this and even confused himself (as seen in his retracted AE filing). Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"He can write about Donald Trump and Barack Obama all he wants, as long as it is on a talk page or an article about a different topic, like the national parks or something" - that's a very... creative, interpretation of the topic ban. Particularly given what led up to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)American politics logically includes political activists, lobbyists, policy think tanks (including nonpartisan ones), judicial nominees, and a great deal more topics that are not candidates and holders of political office. Yes, broad construction is a terrible idea in most cases in my opinion, but this is neither the time nor place for that discussion. The question is whether the consensus at AE was improper or so erroneous that it overcomes any deference this discussion owes it. This is not round two of the AE discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that logical? I am an activist, in that I speak at meetings and had ordinances changed based on my activism. Does that make me then a politician or broadly construed related to a politician? Sir Joseph(talk)16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per TRMs request above exact wording is: "DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed." - even if everyone accepts that Garner isnt a politician, she was an activist involved in politics and the edits to her article were about an American politician. That is easily a violation of 'related topic, broadly construed'. Had the edits been to her page about her pet cat, it clearly wouldnt be. Likewise with Scarborough, while he was not currently a politician, he was also heavily involved with current politicians and the edits were about Trump. While the ban may have not been worded the best way (in future if you want to ban someone from a topic, just 'Topic banned from US politicians broadly construed' is enough) the clear intent was that DHeyward not edit about US politicians on articles. If you have to get into semantically arguing over 'well the restriction didnt say he couldnt edit about US politicians on non-US-politician articles despite those articles containing lots of US politics' we are getting into disruptive wikilaywering territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so talk pages are not part of the topic ban, so that rules any talk pages out completely. As for who is and who is not a politician, this Erica Garner is not a politician by any stretch, so these unfortunate untimely edits (what, one/two days before none of this would have been an issue?) are falling into the "broadly construed" bullshit which is of course a complete excuse of a sanction wording, completely open to interpretation (as we see here), that someone who is not even a politician is actually under the sanction. I think this whole case is posited on "disruptive wikilawyering territory" and could have been resolved with a couple of talk page threads to DHeyward, rather than this complete overkill which has now lost Wikipedia another useful contributor. I'm sure that's not actually the real intention, but have you people never heard of "lessons learnt" or revisited what our admins and Arbs are "supposed" to be doing? Resolving things, not just dishing out further punishment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well 'related topics' rather than broadly construed. You cant really claim either of those two article pages are not related to US politicians as in both cases the edits were directly about US politicians in sections on the article that were primarily involving US politicians. 'Broadly construed' is what happens when some BLP has an opinion on Israel/Palestine and everyone gets ARBPIA ban-happy over completely arbpia-unrelated edits on their page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I operated under. Note the scope was outlined here on December 9, a week after the sanction started. Any interpretation that it was broader that this was not stated or amended. When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [18]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. He didn't amend or clarify or correct the position stated by Sandstein if he thought it was wrong. Now, he doesn't even acknowledge this interpretation and claims to be uninvolved after filing this AE request. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the wording of the TBAN that only articles about politicians are in the TBAN. Erica Garner is not a politician. Even editing about a politician on the Garner article is not a violation, the TBAN was explicitly clear that only ARTICLES, not EDITS are a tban violation. This should be a warning to admins that before they punish people, they need to make sure their punishment is crystal clear. Sir Joseph(talk)16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, if something isn't clear, we should not at all, punish people for violating a tban that is written piss-poor. The fact that many people here are confused about what is and what isn't in the tban and that many people want it overturned should speak volumes of the clarity of this tban and it should be overturned just on this fact alone. Sir Joseph(talk)16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a warning that the community should not continue to accept appallingly worded sanctions. Ones like this that are clearly so open to interpretation are not helpful in the slightest and not what we should expect from those who govern us. Precision and clarity is key, words like "broadly construed" just lead to trouble, dismay, disruption and retirement. This is not what admins or arbs should be doing, it's simply placing the responsibility back onto the regular community, therefore basically rendering themselves redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I have already stated that I can get any article on WP to be part of the Israel-Palestinian conflict if it's "broadly construed" and it just opens people up to the chilling effect of not knowing if their edit will result in a block. Sir Joseph(talk)16:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TBANs include talk pages and all other spaces in WP. If an editor is topic-banned from an article, and article talk pages are to discuss improvements to that article, how could one possibly participate on the talk page without violating their topic ban? It's WP:ABANs where the user may still be allowed to participate on the talk page, if the wording of the ban allows it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a TBAN is EXPLICIT. Only what is mentioned in the TBAN a TBAN. I had a TBAN and I edited a talk page and was erroneously blocked, the admin unblocked me and made note that the TBAN was written piss-poor and the TBAN was then clarified. Because we are dealing with sanctions, it needs to be explicit, and if not, we can't punish someone for that. Sir Joseph(talk)16:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph And on Dec 9, that very issue was clarified: Note the scope was outlined here when tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me noting that he may be involved: [19]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded.TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.
Overturn To quote Sir Joseph, "It's clear from the wording of the TBAN that only articles about politicians are in the TBAN. Erica Garner is not a politician. Even editing about a politician on the Garner article is not a violation, the TBAN was explicitly clear that only ARTICLES, not EDITS are a tban violation." Those !voting "Endorse" state it's important to stick to the letter of the law (i.e., the intent of TBAN). Alright, then -- walk your talk and do that: the badly written TBAN was adhered to by DHeyward, but now it's being re-interpreted to mean something else. That's unsat. If you're going to uphold the TBAN then do it as it was written, don't move the goalpost after the fact. How it was written did not include edits, but articles. That in mind, there was no TBAN vio by DHeyward. Stick to the letter if you must, but do it in all things at all times or don't do it at all. Or how about this? Do the right thing and admit a new, inexperienced admin made a stupid mistake -- don't hold an editor responsible for that error. -- ψλ ● ✉✓16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those stating what a TBAN does and does not contain, the wording of this TBAN clearly supersedes the definition provided at WP:TBAN. For it to mean precisely what those who believe it covers talk pages etc to mean, the wording should be "is banned from the topic "politics" per WP:TBAN" and nothing more, i.e. none of this "broadly construed" nonsense. Otherwise, we should be modifying the page which apparently defines what a TBAN is. In either case, DHeyward should not be penalised because the sanction wording has so many gargantuan holes in it. Erica Garner is not a politician, talk pages are allowable, BLP edits don't enter into it. This is another situation where communication would have trumped wikilawyering. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man They don't even have to read it. It was an WP:ABAN and was already outlined Note the scope was outlined here on December 9 When Tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me noting that he may be involved: [20]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded.TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.
Endorse - The ban was worded broadly, the violation clearly occurred on pages covered by the ban. "Broadly construed" is long-established wording that warns editors not to get even close the line where there could be doubt as to whether an edit violates the ban. The BLP thing is nonsense, as is some of the feeblest wikilawyering ever. SPECIFICOtalk17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the wikilawyering is coming from those defending the abject and feeble "long-established" (yet utterly hopeless) wording. TBAN has a specific definition, per WP:TBAN. This TBAN was reworded per the sanction wording. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What's even more important is the fact that we're reviewing this on appeal, not the first time around. The AE panel considered everything that's been brought up here. As far as I'm concerned the Friday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread is wholly irrelevant to the decision to be made here, and that's whether the AE panel's decision was one it could make, not whether we would have made the same decision. The decision as to what topics fall within the broad construction or related topics is one the AE panel already made. DHeyward failed to convince the AE panel on these issues. Unless there's some compelling reason to reject the AE panel's consensus, and I see none, substituting our judgment for theirs turns this "appeal" into forum shopping. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on that. Doesn't change the outcome of this review, which should defer to the AE panel. But I agree that TBANs should be written better. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The TBAN page is pretty clear that unless specified otherwise, how "broadly" a TBAN should be considered given a topic area. I do think it would be wise to update the example to specifically talk about the type of TBAN AP2 is usually around: this discussion and the previous AE show question that if a TBAN is about a politician, does it have to be current or former, and does it have to be a page about a politician , or a page about someone commenting on the politican, etc. The current weather-related example is fine, but this shows we need more clarity of what the standard definition of "broadly construed" should be taken as. --Masem (t) 18:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Masem The scope was outlined here on December 9: [21]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN. I've operated under that understanding of that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded.TonyBallioni the closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. How can I follow that moving target? It was decided at AAE what the scope was and notchanged. --DHeyward (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several experienced editors have mentioned the lack of clarity in the topic ban wording. See here where User:Sandstein expresses concern at the wording of the topic ban. User:SPECIFICO, you are very intelligent, so I find it hard to believe you support sanctioning editors with such poorly worded and implemented bans. Even the sanctioning administrator did not understand the topic ban he created! The edits in questioned undoubtedly improved the encyclopedia. How about we start the new year off with some compassion towards our fellow editors? We are all deserving of it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem, The topic ban was “DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed.” It’s very obvious that “broadly construed” does not extend “recently deceased” to “long deceased as well”, and so IMHO it’s just nuts to interpret “politician” to include not just recent politicians but also people who haven’t been politicians for more than 15 years. Article content is substantially affected by getting rid of editors, and that’s probably why these borderline wikilawyering complaints are often brought to AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as an odd stance, simply because it would lead to some counterintuitive results (at least for me). For instance, would we really say that Jimmy Carter doesn't count? Just a thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scarborough is an easier case to figure out than Carter, which is why you brought up Carter. Per the Former Presidents Act, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. Carter is known primarily for having been president, whereas Scarborough is not primarily know for having served in Congress a long time ago. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you know what, this would all be a whole lot easier if we just said that DHeyward perhaps made a mistake in some interpretation of the TBAN, but not in another interpretation of the TBAN, they are advised to go with caution, and that's the end of it. Why can't people just accept that behind each user name is (usually) a human being doing their best to Wikipedia's content better? You think DHeyward wanted another month's TBAN? Seriously? That's idiotic. And if not, a simple mistake. The vindictive and vitriolic nature of the "endorse" perspective is damaging to the core, and certainly damaging to the content contributors. You want to run this place like a prison or a public school (British version), fine, but you'll run yourself out of the people who are doing the actual work this project intended to do, i.e. create encyclopedic content. What a shameful, shambolic, vicious timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You think DHeyward wanted another month's TBAN? Seriously? That's idiotic. Not the standard here. First, we're reviewing the AE decision, and owe it deference. If the decision made was an abuse of AE's discretion, then that's different; but you're not arguing that. Secondly, even if we were deciding this from the beginning, the standard is not, as you appear to argue, that DHeyward intended to violate the TBAN by making the edit, it's that DHeyward intended to make the edit. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an appeal, not a second AE thread. DHeyward is not entitled to a second bite at the apple. Treating it as a new review of everything that was discussed at the AE thread, which honestly has already happened, is tantamount to authorizing forum shopping of any outcome at AE, which is preposterous. What matters is whether AE came to a reasonable conclusion within its discretion, not what you would have done. We might as well require arbitration enforcement to happen at AN instead of at AE. If you want that to happen, you are free to start a proposal to that effect. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an appeal against nonsense. So we now have two nonsense threads wasting time and assuming bad faith. There appears to be a determination to drive DHeyward from the project for such a "perceived" mild transgression. This kind of policing is becoming endemic and is utterly unhelpful. Perhaps those who approach Wikipedia this way will be satisfied once there are no content providers, just police. What is actually "preposterous" is this insinuation that DHeyward has gone out to deliberately extend their topic ban, or worse given the current hostile Arbcom climate, seek a block, or an indef ban. It would be bonkers to think that. The amount of time waste here is tragic and all the railing against common sense is a serious problem we need to address. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The diffs show a pretty clear-cut violation of the topic ban. And it's frankly sad that we're entertaining this level of wikilawyering. Again. Sorry but if you're topic banned you should know better than to be making edits about Scarborough or de Blasio, or discussingDonald Trump. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyddlestix: How about Kris Paronto? That was brought to AE on Dec 9 where they clarified that edits about politicians were okay as long as the article wasn't about a politician. This wasn't an AP2 topic ban. I guess getting "clarification" doesn't matter anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mr rnddude eloquently breaks it down here. If we accept that the edits were a violation of the ban, yet also accept that the ban was poorly worded, then the proper response is remove the poorly worded sanction, and not double down on enforcing it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this common sense approach, and seek to revise the abjectly poorly worded sanction. Admitting you were wrong is the first step, and that's something those who concocted this bizarrely worded piece of prose need to accept. And then we can all move on. Why are so many people trying to get DHeyward to leave the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are trying to do so as part of the long-standing ideological battles in AP2 edits. Other people are frustrated that DHeyward appears to have done nothing during his first sanction other than arguing about the sanction, and editing at the boundary of what was permitted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't see how your comment helps here at all. DHeyward has (possibly) made a mistake. So we all accept that and move on. What we don't do is spank someone unnecessarily for attempting to do the right thing. Well, some of us don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree that the sanction could be worded better, it is not so bad as to give DHeyward no notice of what is prohibited. The existence of edge cases, where reasonable minds might disagree as to whether a subject is covered, is not a sign that the sanction is so unfair as to be meaningless. I could support a new sanction, but the proposal here is to enact one and give it retroactive effect, which I cannot support. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal here is trying to appeal to the good faith of those who volunteer so much of their time to build the encyclopedia. What's the worst that could happen - any misconduct will be swiftly and eagerly handled. What's the best that could happen - editors are happy to edit where they want and we all move on. Seems like a no brainer to me. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I operated under. Note the scope was outlined here on December 9, a week after the sanction started. Any interpretation that it was broader that this was not stated or amended. When tony, the enforcing admin filed an AE request against me: [22]. See Sandstein's comment at the bottom before TonyBallioni hastily closed it himself. Tony didn't clarify the TBAN but accepted Sandstein's interpretation. I've operated under that understanding from that comment. Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni then closed his own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. He didn't amend or clarify or correct the position stated by Sandstein if he thought it was wrong. Now, he doesn't even acknowledge this interpretation and claims to be uninvolved after filing this AE request. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it is not so bad as to give DHeyward no notice of what is prohibited" hell YES! If someone gave DHeyward "notice of what is prohibited" then we wouldn't be here would we? Instead, someone has instigated the full-on death battle. Why can't any of you actually communicate with individuals rather than drag them endlessly through these pathetic kangaroo courts? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm trying to end the endless kangaroo court here. If a decision at AE is to have any effect, it must have some degree of finality. There can be an appeal, of course, but it is not a "round two" of the AE, or you might as well not have AE. This is essentially like the sort of analysis we do at DRV, and involves the same sort of deference we generally give to blocking admins. What matters is whether there was a consensus at AE, and whether that consensus was a permissible one.Rehashing perennial arguments that can apply equally to every "broadly construed" topic ban is a losing argument. The fact is that DHeyward had notice that he was topic banned and notice of what the topic ban subject area was. Whatever the reason, DHeyward violated it anyway. You draw a false dichotomy, arguing that DHeyward must not have had notice of the topic area, or else he would not have violated it. As I said above, the violation need not be deliberate; DHeyward probably didn't intend to violate the topic ban, but he certainly intended the edits that were later found to be violations. And frankly, this analysis is far more consistent with topic bans being a nonpunitive measure; what protective purpose would a topic ban have if a banned editor could disrupt a topic area so long as his or her primary purpose wasn't violating the topic ban?And this takes us back to the AE. Where reasonable minds might disagree as to whether the topic ban was violated—whether particular edits fell within the topic area—that's where consensus comes in. There was a consensus at AE that the topic ban was violated. In the absence of a compelling reason that the AE panel abused its discretion, the analysis stops there. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm inclined to just say we call a mulligan on the whole thing and move on with our lives. There's already been enough time wasted on this lengthy saga so as to well outweigh any supposed benefit. GMGtalk23:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a clear violation of a legitimately imposed topic ban. If you have to go into the sort of rhetorical and semantic contortions that some are going into to argue this is not a breach that some are doing here, that's pretty much the same as a guilty plea. If you're genuinely not sure as to whether an edit is permitted, seek advice before making it, or better yet, leave the job to someone else. Lankiveil(speak to me)09:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I invite anyone who is interested in looking at this to conclude that the IP editor concerned has, from the outset, been concerned to shoot the messenger, taken an article ownership attitude and failed to engage in a reasoned discourse. As for encouragement or otherwise to the creating editor, clear, cogent reasons have been given all along for the nomination so as to guide the creating editor to see the critical fundamentals of our encyclopaedia. Subsequent activity by that editor (clearly, the editor has not been so disencouraged as to disengage from his/her endeavours) shows a positive improvement, i.e. better concern for sourcing in particular, so the suggestions made by this request for review are not well founded. I would add that the activities of this IP editor (not the creator, it must be noted) in editing the subject page since nomination for deletion have included a good deal of exaggeration and departure from the sources provided, in an attempt to rise a smokescreen over the original material objected to by me so stridently. There were very good grounds for my concern about having such material on our encyclopaedia. There is another view, I accept, that we can just have WP look like IMDB or other friendly social sites; that is not my view. sirlanz08:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that you should try to be nicer to people. Your attitude is bringing down the project. That was also mentioned in the last ANI incident. Finally, I made zero incorrect or leading edits. (Also, could someone move this to AN-I? I posted it here by mistake.)104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident that this IP editor, who has been active in that capacity for less than a month, is well-versed with the mechanics of WP. It is fundamentally unfair that he/she should initiate attacks of this kind under a deliberate veil of anonymity. This is a factor to be taken into account in dealing with the matter. sirlanz08:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I haven't even clicked a single link, but I need to comment on something I've been seeing pop up everywhere the last couple months - IPs are not second-class citizens. It's not "unfair" for an IP to make a complaint about a user, and it's not "unfair" for an IP to know how to edit Wikipedia (nor is it unusual). We are all acting under "deliberate veil of anonymity" (with the exception of people who for some reason or another post their full names everywhere). If I were making this complaint you'd be arguing the substance, not me. So can the "it's just an IP bitching" line and actually argue their point. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing the point is precisely the problem here. Read my material (here and in edit summaries): the IP editor, like Primefac, has no interest in the substance of the matter under consideration but merely on the style of communication. The IP editor has not made any effort to address the specific question, in specific terms. I still await someone taking the time and showing the depth of genuine interest in our encyclopaedia to make an argument, grounded in fact not generality, for notability of this subject. sirlanz01:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have been brought into the discussion, I thought I should state the truth, that I was indeed demotivated and discouraged by some of the unfair and pointed remarks regarding the AfD and that it made me stay clear, until I received encouragement from this editor on my talk page. Nevertheless, I did learn quite a few lessons from some of the edits made by the veteran editor and I am thankful this difficult experience made me a more responsible WP editor and respect the opinions (whether positive or negative) of more senior editors. However, I am not happy about the non-convincing manner of removal of some relevant content (e.g. valid filmography entries) that was carried out over several edits in the last day(s), and I hope these shall be reverted back soon. I think I will not comment any further on this here. Thank you for your concerns and wish you all a wonderful and successful 2018! Sahrudayan (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rely on hope; rely on reliable, independent sources (I've not found any) and go make the edits as you wish. sirlanz01:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had an idle Saturday afternoon, so I would look at Compostela, Cebu where I had been living for a few months. I looked for the paragraphs about World War II. I was surprised that the whole section for Guila-Guila was missing. There was hardly any edit summary – all it said was "World War II: fantasy". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compostela,_Cebu&oldid=795235903
It was then I found that the original editor was an administrator Nick-D. I was surprised that administrators couldn't write edit summaries. I was even more surprised to find that I was given a 7-day block. What for? User talk:49.145.129.105 As usually, judge and jury were made too soon to make any fairness. Nick-D – kangaroo court – how appropriate! (I see in his page he says he wants users to be named.)
Since 2008 one or more IP editors who often come from an address similar to this one (and various others) have been adding a mix of totally made up World War II battles to articles on Philipino locations, or information with grossly exaggerates the scale of battles which did occur to these articles and articles on the battles. For a while a few years ago they were operating as User:Randelearcilla - the sockpuppet category includes some of the subsequent accounts [23]. The material here is a classic case of the genre - no large battles took place in the Philippines during 1943, and that described would have been one of the largest battles of the entire Pacific War (the entire Japanese garrison in the Philippines was not this large in 1943). All the details appear to have been made up. I watchlist articles the vandal hits as they have a habit of returning months later to re-add it. As they tend to hit multiple articles over a few days when doing so, I block the accounts. As such, when this material was re-added, I blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your edit claimed that this single minor skirmish (in which around 200 Filipino troops and irregulars inflicted an estimated 232 casualties on the Japanese) involved "80,000 Filipino troops, 14,400 Cebuano Guerrillas and 210,000 Japanese troops" and resulted in Japanese casualties of "2,610 killed, 8,533 wounded, 3,400 captured". This is an extremely obvious hoax—to put things in perspective, that's considerably more troops than took part in the Normandy landings. ‑ Iridescent11:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that declined their unblock request then and the one blocking the IP for block evasion now. Based on behavioral evidence, I believe that this is a blocked sockmaster but I didn't relate them to the one indicated by Nick-D above. I can see similarities to a different one that can be gleaned from this history. It may be possible that the two sockmasters/cases are the same but that may need more analysis. I feel comfortable blocking based on the one. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done by TechnoSquirrel69. SilverLocust 💬 04:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm. After properly looking back, it appears this is why I thought it would be preventative, since it appeared that you disregarded the issue with your edit. At this point however, since it seems I don't have reason to be concerned about any violation in the future, I will gladly take the actions stated above (which I had meant to be offered well before the block expired). This does not impact the expired block on El cid for blatantly violating 1RR after a prior history of edit-warring. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Muboshgu
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
None
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Due to phab:T182541/phab:T178842, any contact role accounts need to have an edit or logged action for Special:EmailUser to function for those that are not Bureaucrats, Stewards, Global renamers, or WMF Support and Safety. Making a dummy edit will re-enable emails from all users. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)