Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | 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. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
(Initiated 11 days ago on 10 October 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 3 days ago on 17 October 2024) There's a number of proposals made as part of the discussion that require closing as a number of editors have expressed a desire that the whole discussion be closed. Can a admin please close all proposals and then the whole discussion itself. TarnishedPathtalk 03:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Closed by editor Daniel. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 72 days ago on 9 August 2024)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 65 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 do you still plan on closing this? Nemov (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. The outcome of the Commons DR and subsequent discussions have raised more difficult questions than they answered that I'm struggling a bit to sort through. I've requested input at WP:DfD; depending on the feedback I receive, I may settle on an outcome or punt the whole thing to someone more experienced with images. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If Commons has decided to keep the image I think we're good on this and this discussion can be closed. This came up after the RFC was created the original topic seems to be simple. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Commons has a lot of problems, especially with its... lax attitude toward copyright. I don't think we can safely consider Commons' decision as authoritative.In any case, I have decided to vote here, so I won't be closing this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- If Commons has decided to keep the image I think we're good on this and this discussion can be closed. This came up after the RFC was created the original topic seems to be simple. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. The outcome of the Commons DR and subsequent discussions have raised more difficult questions than they answered that I'm struggling a bit to sort through. I've requested input at WP:DfD; depending on the feedback I receive, I may settle on an outcome or punt the whole thing to someone more experienced with images. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 do you still plan on closing this? Nemov (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 5 September 2024) An RfC about adding a short summary to a section. Last addition/comment was 8 October. All those involved with previous discussion have been notified of RfC (although not all have responded).--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 September 2024) RFC tag has been removed by the bot. Last comments over a week ago. TarnishedPathtalk 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 57 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 25 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 27 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 2 October 2024) Cremastra (u — c) 20:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 146 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 65 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 44 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor asilvering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 27 September 2024) The discussion has passed the seven-day mark. I kindly request an uninvolved editor to review and close it at their earliest convenience. Thank you! Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Luis Bracamontes
As a precaution, I've semi-proected the redirect Luis Bracamontes and the page 2014 shooting of Sacramento police officers for 10 days, due to it being in the news. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46055215 Please feel free to reverse if this seems over-cautious. (And please watchlist) Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't that a bit inappropriate? Something being in the news is precisely when we don't want an article protected if it's at all possible, since that's when potential new editors are most likely to want to update the article, and hopefully decide to stay around. The guy's currently been sentenced to death, so any BLP issues are presumably fairly minimal given that nothing we can throw at him is worse than he's already facing. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that articles should not be protected preemptively in most circumstances. There needs to be evidence of a problem to warrant protection. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Removed per the above. Anyone should feel free to restore protection in the future if disruption increases to the point where it is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that articles should not be protected preemptively in most circumstances. There needs to be evidence of a problem to warrant protection. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, I was wrong. All looks good. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Appeal to lift topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So back in January, I was topic-banned from XFD as a whole. In August, it was agreed to loosen that and allow me to comment on XFDs but not initiate any, as a means of gauging my behavior in this setting.
I think that one of the biggest issues that drove me over the edge last time was an attempt to plow through the {{cleanup}} backlog, which drove me to some deep dark obscure corners where I was finding poorly-maintained articles. Far too often I was using AFD as cleanup, and getting overly argumentative and aggressive.
In the time of my topic ban, I have focused more on article creation. I have seen both Lansing Mall and Meridian Mall, articles that I created many years ago, get promoted to GA. So far I have not had any noticeable issues in XFD interactions. I have also been putting articles on my watch list if I feel that they do not meet notability guidelines, in hopes of getting them nominated in good faith. One such article, Waycross (band), was nominated by someone else (without my input).
It takes a long stream of serious fuckups to get to a topic-ban, which I think I deserved, but I feel that I am not beyond at least making an appeal. I would like to have my XFD initiation ban lifted on a trial basis to see if I am fit to get back into making nominations again. I have a couple AFD nominations drafted up fo possible consideration. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I assume the list of AFD nominations you've drafted is here: User:TenPoundHammer/AFD? Any chance we could persuade you not to call people "dumbass" in edit summaries? 28bytes (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I like you and respect your contributions to the encyclopedia, and remember when your signature mentioned otters and a clue bat. On the other hand, you tend to lose control at deletion debates. During your successful attempt to loosen your topic ban, decided in August of this year, I asked you a series of questions about your conduct at 01:16, 27 July 2018, which you never answered. Can you please answer my questions now? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: this edit? zchrykng (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Correct. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I honestly didn't notice those questions come up last time. Adding sources found by someone else shouldn't be hard, as I've added ProveIt to my edit bar which makes such edits a snap -- and which also gives a useful edit summary, since it automatically indicates that I'm adding a source to the article. Most of my vulgar edit summaries come from frustrations unrelated to AFD, such as a particular editor who is extremely overzealous in tagging and refuses to listen to my suggestions, combined with clueless noobs who seem to think that Wikipedia is a blog and that "This is incorrect because blah blah blah" is a proper thing to put in the article itself. That doesn't justify those edits, but that doesn't mean there something I should continue to watch out for. As for better google-fu, I've been ensuring that I dig deeper into the search results. If it's some obscure early 20th century biography, then the hits are likely historical websites or old books that are beyond my knowledge so I should assume good faith there unless I have major doubts (like, if the only results seem to be WP mirrors). My draft list here shows a few attempts I've made at searching for notability assertations on a few selected topics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: this edit? zchrykng (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I like you and respect your contributions to the encyclopedia, and remember when your signature mentioned otters and a clue bat. On the other hand, you tend to lose control at deletion debates. During your successful attempt to loosen your topic ban, decided in August of this year, I asked you a series of questions about your conduct at 01:16, 27 July 2018, which you never answered. Can you please answer my questions now? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support lifting topic ban for time served. Deletion is an unfortunately required maintenace task. It is thankless and we need good editors willing to undertake the work of identifying crud. Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support, topic bans or any other kinda bans, are preventative measures, not punitive. If the guy says he's cured? then give him a chance to prove it. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support- ban is no longer serving any useful purpose. Reyk YO! 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The last ANI thread about your aggressive and incivil language was just on September 11: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive992#Grossly offensive language. Your topic ban had to do with getting riled over someone disagreeing with your concerted deletion campaign and directing incivil language towards them. Thus, it seems you have not improved on your behauvior. --Pudeo (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I also also see TPH as one of the good guys (and I also remember the otters), but I want to be sure that aggressive temper will be kept in check. So I'm waiting to hear responses to Cullen's questions too, and I'll decide after I see them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any good reason to decline this request, other than potential civility issues. You did leave an edit summary with "dumbass" in it here, but I think it's safe to assume that was not directed at anyone in particular since the cleanup tag you removed was added by an IP almost a year earlier. I'm also reserving opinion pending your response to Cullen's inquiry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I also would like to see some acknowledgement of TPH moving past the issues Cullen notes in his post above from July. There seems to be a "win or lose" battleground mentality when going in to AFD discussions, as though finding sources to save an article from deletion somehow makes TPH "lose" the discussion. I'd like to see some assurances that TPH intends to change that behavior, and that he really does understand that the goal of AFD is to improve Wikipedia, including sometimes discovering ways to keep a nominated article by making it better. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While you acknowledge that you were "getting overly argumentative and aggressive"; you're overall pattern of getting uncivil, attacking other editors, or being aggressive has not changed in other areas, per This ANI, "not what the tag's for, dumbass", or "learn to fucking edit, noob". Per Afd stats, you have only participated in ~20 afds since the topic ban was loosened. That there has only been a relatively small amount of participation (in which there was this pretty aggressive comment "And as I said, these guys don't even pass freaking WP:V, as there is LITERALLY NOTHING OUT THERE saying who was even IN THE GROUP" - and in these 20 Afds where TPH has participated, he can be presumed to be on his best behaviour to try to convince people to remove his topic ban) and that your issues were mainly with nominations, gives no indication of better behaviour at Afds.
- While I could wait for TenPoundHammer's response to Cullen's question, actions speak louder than words here, and there is absolutely no indication from his actions that he will be less riled up about bad articles (cf. their reaction to a bad edit: "learn to fucking edit, noob"). Because disagreement in deletion areas appears to cause aggressiveness and incivility from TPH, I think it is better for us and for TPH that he stays away from it, even if people are needed for nominate things for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support on the condition the Ten Pound Hammer promises to be a velvet hammer in edit summaries. We all know there are plenty of willfully clueless people on this project, but edit summaries are not the place to call people idiots and variations on the word "fuck" should almost never be used. Jonathunder (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Given how recent this was, the only discussion we should be having with regards to TPH is whether he's allowed to remain on Wikipedia in any capacity, not on whether he can return to disrupting an area where he caused so many problems for virtually no benefit. (If someone genuinely doesn't know how to carry out a Google search—which was TPH's defence when it was pointed out he was falsely claiming topics to be unsourceable—why do we want them involved in Wikipedia's deletion processes?) If TPH feels he has something useful to add to Wikipedia he can do it in an area where his incompetence isn't repeatedly damaging other people's work. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if anyone's keeping track TPH is still using his favorite trick of using intentionally misleading edit summaries when removing content. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. Oppose per Iridescent. There is no excuse for treating good-faith "noobs" like that. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Iri. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Iri - I was originally going to Support but seeing that edit summary has made me think otherwise, If you're the subject of a topicban then you should expect constant montiroing of your contributions and as such your contributions should realistically be squeeky-clean. Anyway oppose. –Davey2010Talk 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Iri. Come on, TPH. I know you can do better. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support giving TPH the opportunity to demonstrate improvement. AGF, people. -FASTILY 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer. At what point do you feel we should stop assuming good faith? ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- If we lift the topic ban, then best case we get a valuable contributor, and worst case WP:ROPE. Right now, we're somewhere in between, such that neither TPH nor the community stands to benefit. Upholding the ban defers any real resolution on this matter, and is akin to kicking the can down the road indefinitely. -FASTILY 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer. At what point do you feel we should stop assuming good faith? ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've had conflicts with you in the distant past I believe. That said, I hold you in pretty high regard and have found you to be a stellar resource and hard worker. Your list of things you've done since the ban is quite solid. I don't think AfD is the best place for you to work--you seem to get riled up more their than anywhere else. And frankly you seem to make a few very poor decisions wrt editing in general (e.g. Iridescent's diff). You clearly add a lot to this place and I'm glad you're here doing the work you do. I really want to support this, but you've got to avoid doing things like that. I hope that sounds as encouraging as I mean it to be. Fix the occasional "going off the rails" and Wikipedia is your oyster. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Personally, being grumpy and leaving uncivil edit summaries to presumed newbies is not a reason for me to oppose lifting this XfD topic ban; that's a discussion for another day. For this I am only looking at AfD participation since August 8, and there is nothing in particular (not even the diff provided by Galobtter) that I would flag as requiring immediate concern. Alex Shih (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Iridescent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I was jocularly in favour of TPH's request earlier, only holding off to await the answers to Cullen's questions. However, Iridescent and Galobterr's links would be pretty poor behaviour for any established editor; but for one who is not only already under a behavioural restriction but even at the time they left that edit summary must presumably have been planning on launching this appeal in the nearish future? Absolutely no(f*cking)way. Not just the fact that it's effectively the same behaviour they were restricted for, but it seems to demonstrate absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what the community expects from them, or deems acceptable. ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I was semi supportive but wasn't planning to !vote since I couldn't be bothered to look at the evidence. Then I saw Iridescent's diff and it was enough to make me change my mind on all counts. While some may feel it's a different issue, the level of participation in XfD makes it difficult to gauge if they be okay there. I suggest TPH also takes Jayron32's comment on board. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. We're busy enough at AfD as it is. --Michig (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it's not simply about the language. Adding comments to articles is clearly wrong, but the IP did highlight a possible problem with our content [2] Now if the info was backed by a source, that would be one thing, but the only source in that article doesn't seem to give a date for when the two singers met. That means the IP could easily be completely right and our article is just plain wrong. I'm not trying to argue over content but rather point out there were lots of better ways that could have been handled e.g. moving the comment to the talk page and frankly in my opinion TPH chose close to the worst option. Initiating an XfD requires you to consider lots of issues remembering that your ultimate goal is to improve wikipedia, even if yes by deleting stuff and I'm simply not convinced TPH is there yet. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Galobtter. Will support if 3 months elapsed without any problems. Excelse (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Iridescent's diff. The "dumbass" edit summary wasn't obviously directed at a specific editor, but "learn to fucking edit" certainly was. I also suggest that if TPH can't control his impulse to attack editors over poor editing, especially noobs, admins should control it for him. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not only for the edit summaries pointed out by Iri and Galo, but because if you're only participated in 20 some AfDs since that ban was lifted, we can't begin to judge if you've really reformed. And given the edit summaries, etc. elsewhere, I'm not seeing that it's likely. Its going to take a LOT more participation in AfDs without issues before I'd be comfortable with the whole ban being lifted. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I appreciate TPH trying to answer the questions I asked back in July, but I consider their reply inadequate. Additionally, describing one editor as "extremely overzealous" and a whole class of new editors as "clueless noobs" is evidence of an ongoing battleground mentality that I find quite unsettling. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- TPH, the "learn to fucking edit" also shuts this down for me. I understand frustration, believe me I do, but if you're already under scrutiny for such behavior, the optics are just terrible. Fastily, "AGF people" is fine, but it's hard to assume good faith in that one. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - (leaving in place) a ban from nominating articles for deletion seems like an odd reaction to a lack of civility, but the initial TBAN was placed largely due to civility issues in that forum. As a result, I agree that leaving the TBAN in place for at least 3 more months is the correct response to the continuing civility issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Iridescent. Nihlus 21:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, per this, this, and this just in the last few weeks. I want TPH to be able to edit, and to be able to freely nominate articles for deletion, but if he can't control himself then I'm disinclined to acquiesce to this request. TPH please try harder to maintain civility, and then perhaps this could be revisited in 2019. Fish+Karate 09:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Before being allowed back into an area that has previously brought out the worst in him, TPH needs to learn how to stop being so chronically obnoxious to other people - and then be able to show a reasonable period of having put that learning into practice. The examples shown here are far too recent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose TPH is still not able to control their temper and this doesn’t give me any confidence that lifting the XFD restriction will not lead to more disruption again.Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Speaking from experience, this place can bring out the worst in people. But you need to learn to let things go, calm down, and move on. I'm sure your editing is good, but don't get sucked down with the bad edit summaries. TIP: Don't leave edit summaries. Come back in 6 months to show how you have improved, and you should be OK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
Technical news
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Proposal to modify Template:American politics AE
The following has been copy-pasted from Template_talk:American_politics_AE#Proposal_to_remove_the_"Civility_restriction"
This template currently includes a "Civility" restriction that was added in January 2018 by User:Coffee a couple months before his retirement. It reads:
Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
I don't recall the extent to which Coffee enforced this sanction, but to my knowledge it has not been enforced since he retired. Searches I did of WP:AE archives didn't pull up anything except this in which one of the commenting users cited the Civility restriction, and where administrator User:NeilN (the primary admin patrolling the AP area at the time) commented with this: "many of these pages are already under a tightened civility restriction: [quotes the restriction] Doesn't seem to do much."
The AE report was closed with a reminder/warning.
I believe this restriction should be removed for the following reasons:
- It is redundant with our current civility policy. Administrators can already block uncivil users for personal attacks, etc., without the need to cite discretionary sanctions. (The other sanctions in this template (1RR and Consensus Required) are in addition to, not restatements of, current policy.)
- The longer a template is the less likely users are to read it. Also WP:CREEP
- The template is for sanctions, not reminders. If we want to make it a template for reminders I can think of better policies to remind users about (NPOV for instance)
- The other sanctions are fairly "bright-line" sanctions with violations that can be easily and uniformly identified and enforced. It's not clear what constitutes a violation of "proper decorum during discussions and edits".
Pinging the last few administrators who have logged discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2: @EdJohnston: @Bishonen: @Drmies: @Swarm: @Seraphimblade: @Ad Orientem: ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm with you. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have problems with the whole thing, and never place it on Am Pol pages, for my part. But getting rid of the civility restriction makes it a little better, so go ahead, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC).
- Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators, removing the civility restriction would require a consensus at AN, AE, or an ARCA motion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ugh bureaucracy. We really need a reasonable way to modify sanctions after a sanctioning admin becomes permanently unreachable. Any objections to me copying/pasting this section (with comments) over to WP:AN? ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- WP:AE would also work. As a way to solve the problem in the future, does any admin want to step forward as Coffee's successor? Then that person would 'own' the discretionary sanctions that Coffee imposed and could agree to any changes. The new owner could be confirmed by consensus at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC
- You're right, AE would have been a better venue. Unfortunately I already started a thread at WP:AN and my attempt to undo that got garbled somehow, and now that it's been commented on there as well I'm going to give up on trying to move it again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- WP:AE would also work. As a way to solve the problem in the future, does any admin want to step forward as Coffee's successor? Then that person would 'own' the discretionary sanctions that Coffee imposed and could agree to any changes. The new owner could be confirmed by consensus at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC
- Ugh bureaucracy. We really need a reasonable way to modify sanctions after a sanctioning admin becomes permanently unreachable. Any objections to me copying/pasting this section (with comments) over to WP:AN? ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
End of copy-pasted material
- Support removal of civility restrictions yeah, they don't work and are virtually unenforceable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support removal - I don't see them as necessary. On the other hand, I'm unhappy that DS alerts dropped "edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies." and now only mentions policies, and might bring that up at WP:AE at some point. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, Doug--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doug, I'm not familiar with the dropping that you referenced. But I do notice that this template includes the sentence "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" near the end of the collapsed portion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, Doug--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support removal of that text from this template. Discretionary sanctions already can be applied for poor behavior in an area subject to DS, and that's noted on the original alert an editor receives for DS. This seems rather redundant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: the DS alert simply says "Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. " Doug Weller talk 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support – Civility is a general requirement for remaining in good standing. It is my understanding that admins have general discretion to call out editors who are repeatedly failing to abide by a modicum of decorum. Articles about politics are nothing special in that respect. — JFG talk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've made the change. Thank you for the input! ~Awilley (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
While we're at it
In the spirit of making the template more readable I'd also propose the following changes:
- The first sentence currently says:
"The article [article name], [extra mumbo jumbo], is currently subject to discretionary sanctions..."
with [extra mumbo jumbo] ="along with other pages perceived at the discretion of an administrator to have a high potential for continuous disruption and which relate to topic of post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people"
. [Extra mumbo jumbo] is mostly redundant with stuff in the last bullet point and last paragraph of the template, and I propose removing it from the first paragraph. - The last bullet point beginning "This article and its editors" is not a sanction, it's another general statement about what sanctions are, and is redundant with stuff in the first and last paragraph. In fact the template uses the phrase "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" three times, and the sentence
"All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions."
in the last bullet point is reproduced word for word in the last paragraph. I propose that the last bullet point be merged into the last paragraph.
Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since this isn’t actually a sanction, you’re free to modify those to be clearer without consensus. What needs consensus is modification of any specific DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support – The simpler the better. — JFG talk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll go ahead and make those changes. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Updating this template has been on my to-do list for eons now.. thanks for doing this, very appreciated
Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've also mildly tweaked the wording (without changing the sanction) to clarify as well as bring into compliance with MOS:COMMA. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Updating this template has been on my to-do list for eons now.. thanks for doing this, very appreciated
Winkelvi - Proposal for a site ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier today, Black Kite closed the above discussion to keep Ritchie333's block in place. Although I agree there was a consensus for an indefinite block, I believe a community site ban is a more appropriate sanction. Floquenbeam first raised and supported a site ban. There was significant support for it, but it was a bit confusing because some people supported a site ban or the original violation block as if they didn't care which and some supported an indefinite block without saying whether it should be an interaction ban block or a site ban block.
For those reasons I am proposing a site ban that is not appealable for 12 months. Winkelvi has been around a long time. They have a long block log. They have a history of disruption, wikilawyering, making promises they don't keep, and battleground editing. If such an editor were to be given another chance, it would be because they have been improving. In my view, their history shows quite the opposite: they are getting worse.
I also don't trust them anymore. I used to see their pattern as unfortunate but believed their contrition and their promises to do better. Contrition is no longer part of their pattern. They are innocent and everyone else is guilty (unless of course an editor agrees with them). Ritchie mentioned in his original post that, at least in his view, Winkelvi "does a lot of good work". Even assuming that to be true, we are not talking about site-banning a vandal. I am proposing a site ban because Winkelvi, at a minimum, is a net debit to the project, uncollaborative, and unreasonably aggressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, he is already community banned per WP:CBAN:
Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".
I supported the block but don't have an opinion yet on the minimum amount of time before he can appeal. Nihlus 21:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)- As far as I can tell, Black Kite did not log it as a community ban. At a minimum, the closure should be clarified, as well as the appeal length.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Black Kite should fix the closure and log it correctly according to policy. Nihlus 22:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Black Kite did not log it as a community ban. At a minimum, the closure should be clarified, as well as the appeal length.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not comment on that discussion, but I assume that an appeal to the community would be necessary to lift the block after that discussion, and that the standard 6 month delay would apply before an appeal to the community would be considered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not participate, but I read that close as a CBAN (aka, community "indefinite block"), which would be subject to a community WP:SO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I thought it already became a community ban. He again violated the IBAN he was blocked for directly here [3] by specifically mentioning the other party MF by name. And arguably again [4] by discussing that editors GA nomination again. Then he insulted the Admin that told him to stop it. [5] 6 months is too short. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Guess it just a wording issue since it already is a defacto community ban. I oppose a year though of course. I wouldn't have blocked him anyway. Instead...I would have forced him and MaranoFan to work collaborative together by ultimatum. Think that wouldn't have worked? Guess again. This website goes about these sorts of things the opposite how they could be handled....especially when dealing with long term editors.--MONGO (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting question is, whether WV would violate the IBAN by removing MF's barnstar from his userpage. wumbolo ^^^ 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a bad idea on the face it of it, but given I've noticed that Winkelvi has been trying to throw MaranoFan under a bus for some time, I suspect I would end up banging their heads together and just finishing the work myself. I am prepared to give MaranoFan a bit more slack because they're young and their disruption can be explained to some extent by a lack of maturity, but when Winkelvi goes off the rails and accuses me of being "full of crap" when I don't comply exactly to his demands to the letter, I've pretty much lost all hope of being able to mediate anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Winkelvi's behavior has not changed after multiple months-long blocks, and there is no sign that a longer temporary ban would further our goal of writing an encyclopedia. These comments [6] [7] [8] seal the deal and may justify removal of talk page access. –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - MONGO offered up an excellent idea - that way we don't lose 2 good editors. Another thought - assign them to NPP or AfC duty for 6 mos. instead of site banning or blocking, especially considering both violated the iBan and both have excuses for doing so - belief of the excuses being dependent upon one's interpretation and as Bbb23 said, "trust". If either steps out of line, out they go. That way the project benefits, and nobody loses. The bottomline is supposed to stop disruption and we can do so by benefitting the project, it can't be all bad. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- MF did not violate the IBAN - he followed WP:BANEX. Also why would we want someone who plays so poorly with others at AfC dealing with new editors? He would never be approved for AfC. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: He's already blocked/banned and that's not changing, so I am failing to see the relevance of your comment. Nihlus 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I know, Nihlus...both are blocked - one indef and the other a month...my only purpose here is to try to save editors whose talents the Project may be able to utilize in a positive way by simply redirecting their contributions to areas where there are shortages, and the help is very much needed. Why toss out good editors if we can simply redirect them? Isn't the primary purpose here to stop disruption? Why does a block, t-ban or site ban always have to be the only remedy? If a quarterback sucks at that position, but excels at kicking field goals, why not simply change his position instead of kicking him off the team? If they screw-up again, they're out. Put them on potato peeling duty, don't throw them overboard. That's all I'm saying. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- General comment Whatever we decide here needs to take precedence over the previous discussion. Barring something truly ludicrous (e.g. "Please unblock Grawp, or he'll begin socking even more!"), an unblock discussion with banning as a possible result shouldn't end within 48 hours of being opened. I don't pay attention to Winkelvi, and if I've ever had interactions with him I've forgotten them, but we shouldn't treat a longstanding active user as having been banned by the community when the discussion went so quickly. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Huh? WP:CBAN says 24 hours, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: Policy disagrees with you on all counts. We are not superseding the previous discussion by any means. Nihlus 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- 24 hours? That's ridiculous: people complained because PROD and XFD only ran for five days, yet we can ban a user in 24 hours? I can't complain at you two, since you're quoting the policy, but there's no way any discussion should be deemed to have the community's consensus in such a short time. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- This latest is only the last installment of a discussion that has been going on as long as I've been around. We don't have to copy the entire history into each new installment in the series; it's well-established in the community consciousness and manifests in all the ill will evident in the comments. I don't know of an editor who has been more thoroughly discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the RfC which lead to the 24 hour minimum requirement (linked on that page) is less than a year old [9]. Prior to that 24 hour minimum was recommended but not required. It was changed, IMO at least in strong part because of a specific case where a discussion was snow closed with a sanction after less than 24 hours but this was then undone after concerns were expressed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#Little fast there. More people did oppose the sanction after the early closure was reverted although it received consensus anyway, but people were less concerned it didn't receive sufficient discussion. In both discussions, some did suggest 48 hour but I presume it didn't have clear support. Actually in the case which cause the change, I think a number did feel it ended up being left open too long primarily because the early closure and reversal meant people were reluctant to close it 'too soon'. It took or is taking a while for admins to get used to the 24 hour minimum requirement as I recall either one or two instances which were closed after less than 24 hours which had to be reopened. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- 24 hours? That's ridiculous: people complained because PROD and XFD only ran for five days, yet we can ban a user in 24 hours? I can't complain at you two, since you're quoting the policy, but there's no way any discussion should be deemed to have the community's consensus in such a short time. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just put the template on the user page. WP:CBAN is clear on this point, so we don’t need another discussion. Really all that a ban means is that an unblock requires community consensus, which after the last discussion is clear would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this thread is going to be another timesink, and gives everyone on either side of the discussion an opportunity to say the same things all over again. In fact I see a couple of people are now proposing things that are even dumber than what was proposed in the previous thread. I may have used the words "site ban" first, but I'm satisfied with BK's close. Just put this to bed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support as the official solution to prevent the endless cycles of harassment and disruption of recurring yet again. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support site ban per Floq, Snooganssnoogans, Legacypac, Cullen328, Mandruss, and others in the previous discussion, and per Bbb23 in this discussion. Winkelvi has engaged in a years-long saga of harassment of numerous editors like MaranoFan, Snooganssnoogans, Gage Skidmore, and even myself. I was subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment earlier this year (more than 20 transgressions documented here: [10]). About a year ago, Winkelvi decided to join the small group of editors who think that Wikipedia is overrun by liberals and controlled by a cabal of liberal admins. That's why a couple of like-minded editors think he should be given special projects. In truth, Winkelvi has had way too many last chances. He has proven repeatedly that he regards the project as a battleground, and is incapable of working cooperatively with far too many other editors. See, for example, his recent user page polemics, and bad faith commentary that has spilled onto article talk pages. It's time for him to accept that this project is not well-suited to his unique qualities and for him to find another hobby. He is incorrigible. If the alternative is to let the indef stand AND require community consensus to unblock, I can live with that as well. - MrX 🖋 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. WV was blocked in June 2014 for edit warring. January 2015 for edit warring over multiple pages. Twice in March 2015 for edit warring and disruptive editing. July 2015 for edit warring (overturned on a technicality). November 2015 for edit warring (ditto). January 2016 for edit warring. May 2016 for feuding with multiple editors. September 2016 for harassment. March 2017 for edit warring. September of 2018 for harassment. Then this latest block. It's clear this behavior has not stopped and I don't see any positives to outweigh the many negatives other editors have described above. There were at least 16 other reports at WP:AN3 concerning Winkelvi where either the page was protected, he was warned or no action was taken without explanation. Here they are:July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, September 2014, October 2014,October 2014, January 2015,January 2015,January 2015,February 2015,March 2015,May 2015,May 2015,November 2015,June 2016 and September 2016. (He's also filed a number of reports himself, but I didn't take time to sort through many of them). Calidum 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Procedural Close As I suggested earlier, I don't find the Black Kite close confusing, but the usual, common sense, and generally kind, procedure is if you think Black Kite was unclear or did something wrong in the close, go talk to him first, and surely it can wait until Black Kite responds, and clears up any confusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)(Struck - CBAN seems clear to me, that close is exactly CBAN compliant, it recites the hours (CBAN requires those hours), it says the community upholds indef, and that is what CBAN says is CBAN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC))- Whatever it takes for the block to require a community discussion to overturn, no disrespect to Black Kite intended. If that means a formal CBAN vote, fine. If the current indef is automatically considered a CBAN, fine. The important thing is that WV's status is such that community must vote to reinstate him, and that it cannot be done by a single admin's decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close as per Floq - I used "site ban" but either way the way I see it is they're blocked, no disruption can occur ... and maybe just maybe they can appeal in 6 months or however long it is, I know this was done in good faith (and I respect Bbb for starting this) but like Floq I feel this is just going to be another timesink, Let the dust settle and maybe we can all revisit this in 6 months to a years time. –Davey2010Talk 00:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close The guy was just indefed a day ago. There was no reason for this. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - One month, then two months, then three months. The reason for this is the editor’s refusal to accept any responsibility in the ongoing discussion on their talk page for long-term problems. It’s still everyone else’s behavior. I didn’t !vote in the recent discussion. But, this is taking up too much community time. Indef with appeal to the community in 12 months. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Closer's comment. As far as I could see, this wasn't a discussion on a community ban; it was a posting by Ritchie333 asking for feedback on his indefinite block ("As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it.") The feedback was that the indefinite ban was correct. At no point did I see a formal request for a CBAN; therefore I didn't close it as one. There were some people that !voted for a site ban during the discussion, but there were nowhere near enough for me to close it as such. If a CBAN is to be imposed, I think it must go through a formal discussion. I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it. However TonyBallioni is probably correct in that there would need to be a community discussion to unblock, so perhaps the difference is only semantic anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I'm not sure why so many admins get this wrong. It is made explicitly clear in policy at WP:CBAN:
Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".
Where does the confusion lie? Nihlus 00:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I'm not sure why so many admins get this wrong. It is made explicitly clear in policy at WP:CBAN:
- Well, yes and no. I'm quite aware of what WP:CBAN says, but there's a big difference between a discussion that says "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think they should be CBANNED?" and "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think my block was correct, or should be shortened or even vacated"? I think, as I said above, this is semantic; Winkelvi isn't getting unblocked without a community discussion, and is therefore technically CBANNED anyway because the method for removing a CBAN would be the same community discussion. As I always have on my userpage, if any other admin thinks I've f***ed this up, feel free to fix the problem without informing me. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Black Kite - CBAN states (my bold underline): In some cases the community may 'review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction. From what I gathered from some comments in the 1st discussion, this hasn't been exclusively about the iBan; rather, it has included allegations by a few editors who have interacted on the opposing side of debates with Winkelvi, so how many editors actually fit the bill of "uninvolved", and we already know MF contributed despite her iBan so how can we say that is an uninvolved editor? Atsme✍🏻📧 01:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point. The only one blatantly violating policy at this point are those ignoring WP:CBAN. I'm still at a loss to where there is confusion. @Black Kite: Semantics are important as it is important to explicitly tell the user what restrictions they are under. You've not done that. And trying to pawn it off to another admin to fix your error is pretty low. Nihlus 01:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. As I said, if another admin thinks this extends to WP:CBAN territory, they are welcome to make that formal. That's not "passing it off", that's called "doing what you think is correct, but being prepared to defer to someone who thinks you haven't". Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- So you are selectively applying policies? That's poor accountability. Nihlus 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- You appear to be confusing me with someone who cares what you think. I've made my position clear. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nihlus, if you were referring to me when you said "Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point." Excuse me, but where did I say I didn't like MF? I don't even know MF and I've never interacted with MF to my knowledge. My comments about both editors have always been based on factual information and expectations of fair treatment without favoritism being shown to either editor. If you were addressing me, then based on your assumption that I dislike MF, wouldn't the same apply to you disliking Winkelvi? It appears to me that you may not be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding Ritchie333's indef or why he brought it here. He notified Winkelvi on his TP about bringing the block to AN. He made the following statement after starting the original discussion here: "I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it." This being AN and not AN/I, I expected uninvolved admins and some uninvolved editors to weigh-in but it also attracted editors who have consistently been on the opposing side of arguments with Winkelvi, not saying either side was right or wrong, but it's hardly what I'd call uninvolved editors as what our policy prescribes. Ritchie also made the following comments on Winkelvi's TP: [11], and this comment in particular. Perhaps changing things in mid-stream here, after an editor has been indef blocked by an admin (not the community), and placed at the mercy of several editors who dislike him may explain some of the confusion. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- That wall of silliness from someone who "likes" Winklevi only because they share a similar POV about American politics is not helpful. Winkelvi's sneaky, combative history is very well documented. Hell, anyone can just look at his user page and talk page, and see that he is more interested in conflict than in editing the encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: Wow. Just wow. Nihlus 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nihlus, if you were referring to me when you said "Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point." Excuse me, but where did I say I didn't like MF? I don't even know MF and I've never interacted with MF to my knowledge. My comments about both editors have always been based on factual information and expectations of fair treatment without favoritism being shown to either editor. If you were addressing me, then based on your assumption that I dislike MF, wouldn't the same apply to you disliking Winkelvi? It appears to me that you may not be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding Ritchie333's indef or why he brought it here. He notified Winkelvi on his TP about bringing the block to AN. He made the following statement after starting the original discussion here: "I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it." This being AN and not AN/I, I expected uninvolved admins and some uninvolved editors to weigh-in but it also attracted editors who have consistently been on the opposing side of arguments with Winkelvi, not saying either side was right or wrong, but it's hardly what I'd call uninvolved editors as what our policy prescribes. Ritchie also made the following comments on Winkelvi's TP: [11], and this comment in particular. Perhaps changing things in mid-stream here, after an editor has been indef blocked by an admin (not the community), and placed at the mercy of several editors who dislike him may explain some of the confusion. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- All a ban banner does is let the reviewing admin know they can’t unilaterally unblock because of community consensus, which I think is the reason CBAN reads the way it does. Declining to unblock at a community noticeboard means the community needs to be consulted before taking action, which is all a ban is in practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose site ban. Close this and move on. Black Kite’s original close appears correct.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I suspected BK's original closure was not a site ban. I also agree with what BK said above. Given all the comments here, the thing that seems clear to me is how unclear Winkelvi's sanction is or should be. Why argue about it 6 or 12 months from now when Winkelvi appeals? Why not resolve it now and clarify the sanction? Some think this is another timesink. Better to spend the time now when so much of this is fresh in people's minds than slog through it later. Regardless of what CBAN says and editors' interpretations of what it says, I personally prefer as much clarity as possible when an editor is sanctioned. Putting a banner on Winkelvi's Talk page, in my view, is hardly clarity. Like BK, I'll say good night and do try to keep things civil and constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Does anyone remember Kumioko/Reguyla?- MrX 🖋 11:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support site ban. Contrary to statements Winkelvi has made at various times, he is not an "outsider" by any stretch of the imagination. He has been skilled at manipulating administrators to get second, third, fourth and fifth chances. A site ban appears necessary so that the community must make an unblock determination. Coretheapple (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Site ban I called for an unblock, much as for Atsme's 'potato peeling' comment. But their talk: comments since, their unrelatedness to the issue at hand, and the sheer readiness to blame the Giant Conspiracy Against Them for everything that has happened, rather than accepting the slightest blame themselves (they did flagrantly breach an IBAN, which even if accidental did happen) – that's turned into a pit of time sink for everyone, and no-one needs that. Ring the bell, close the book, blow out the candle. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Andy, how did you get into the church? Was it, like, collect twelve crisp packets and become a priest? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Site ban I was on the fence in the previous discussion and in the end didn't express an opinion, although privately I leaning towards a short block. Partly like Andy Dingley, I've changed my mind now with the post blocking comments, especially the claim about off-Wiki gathering and conspiracies surrounding the blocking admin. I can understand blocked or banned editors are often angry and may make ill-advised comments. But when you start jumping to wacky conspiracy theories, I can only assume you must often be thinking these sort of things and so you're the sort of editor who really needs to earn back the trust of the community before coming back. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close It's time to move on at this point, this is becoming more heat than light. The original close is plenty clear and the discussion fits with WP:CBAN. They would have to appeal to the community no sooner than 6 months subject to WP:SO. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as I see no need to impose a 12-month minimum wait before he can appeal. WV's post-block responses have not been ideal, but he's frustrated and is just venting a little - and I really don't like the idea of kicking him when he's down. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to close
Policy is straightforward, a consensus for an indef block is already a CBAN, a second discussion to reinforce this is not necessary, and actually creates confusion in an area where there is straightforward policy guidance rendering the issue moot. Please close so we can all move on. Swarm talk 06:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close --Tarage (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Objection your honor - It needs to be made clear and recorded somewhere that Winkelvi cannot get unblocked unless there is community consensus. It should be recorded in his block log, a CBAN log, or at least in a template on his talk page that cannot be removed.- MrX 🖋 11:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- MrX, there is no CBAN log. Our process for it is adding a banner to their userpage with a parameter linking to the discussion, which is why I’m pretty confused by this whole 2nd discussion: policy is already clear here and someone just needs to add Template:Banned user and link to the original discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, yes Category:Banned Wikipedia users serves a similar purpose. It seems that Black Kite has read the consensus in the previous discussion differently than others. The discussion above should not be closed until this is resolved unambiguously. We're not there yet.- MrX 🖋 17:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself.--MONGO (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- MrX, there is no CBAN log. Our process for it is adding a banner to their userpage with a parameter linking to the discussion, which is why I’m pretty confused by this whole 2nd discussion: policy is already clear here and someone just needs to add Template:Banned user and link to the original discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
A number users are correct here that CBAN discussion requires a separate discussion, which is more than just endorsement of an indefinite block. If that is wrong, then we are going to see people indeffing any user for sensible reason then asking here, "am I correct?" and the block will become CBAN after endorsement. There have been many "block review" threads of an indefinite block here, where the block was endorsed but it was never turned into CBAN. Now that there is enough consensus to siteban per above discussion, I would say we need to wait at least till 21:33 4 November 2018 (UTC). After that we can implement the CBAN per above section and log it into block log as well as userpage that the user is now site-banned. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- In retrospect it was probably a mistake to have added
Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"
to the banning policy. Bans and blocks used to have a very clear distinction, but now the waters are muddied, and every time an admin takes an indef block to a block review the explicit question "was this block correct?" has the implicit question "is the editor now community-banned?" piggybacking along with it, and editors who agree that the block was sound are now also agreeing to a community ban, whether they intend to or not. And it's unclear what effect a statement like "I support the indefinite block but I don't support a siteban" would have, given the policy equivalence of those two things. So now we have to have these post-block discussion discussions, which have to be short-circuited lest a "consensus for the indef but against a siteban" result occur, causing a "does not compute" regarding the banning policy. 28bytes (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The policy acknowledgement
Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"
actually seems like common sense, given that an indef block approved by the community is the same, in effect as the community cban -- as others said above the difference could at most be "symantic", not real, the user is blocked from participating indefinitely (until the community decides otherwise). And part of the policy's very purpose seems to be to prevent a single user from having to endure practically the same discussion twice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)- And yet here we are, having a second discussion. 28bytes (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is bizarre, or perhaps bureaucratic (which can be the same thing), cruelty. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- And yet here we are, having a second discussion. 28bytes (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The policy acknowledgement
- Comment. So, can we be clear about this? I'd especially like to know.
- if you're indefinitely blocked you can appeal after six months. So, you can be racist, misogynist, attack people however you like, you get indeffed with no controversy, you can come back in six months and say "Hey folks, I was an idiot, unblock me please".
- However, if the admin who blocked you suspects that the block is a controversial one, they can (and should) initiate a discussion about it at WP:AN which, if the community agrees that the block was OK, results in you being community banned rather than indeffed.
- Does no-one acknowledge how ridiculous that is? Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Only your portrayal sounds ridiculous, perhaps because it is reductio ad absurdum. The point remains in either case the indefinitely blocked and the banned can't edit until the community says so. Sure, at some point earlier for some, the direction will be never appeal, and then never appeal again (when the troll try to appeal, perhaps a global lock, etc) but 'never appeal' is expressly not the "standard" for blocks or bans, and there is no reason it would be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's hardly reductio ad absurdum when the second bullet point is exactly what happened here. I'm not arguing against the block - indeed I closed it as consensus to retain - but there's obviously something wrong when you can end up community banned because your blocking admin really wasn't sure about your block. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- All the community block means is, 'you, me, he, she, they, us, we' are the block endorsers (term indef) - so, come back to US should there be an appeal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- And the reductio ad absurdum I was referring to was the Hitlerum kind and that your argument seems based on the assertion that the community somehow can do something to those people when all it can do is say, 'no, don't edit this website, until we give the go ahead'. An administrator is not suppose to be blocking for themselves in the first place, they are to be blocking for us all, and of course the administrator may be right or wrong, sure or unsure (omniscience is not one of the tools handed out), which is precisely one of the reasons why the rest of us get to say, right or wrong, sure or unsure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's hardly reductio ad absurdum when the second bullet point is exactly what happened here. I'm not arguing against the block - indeed I closed it as consensus to retain - but there's obviously something wrong when you can end up community banned because your blocking admin really wasn't sure about your block. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Only your portrayal sounds ridiculous, perhaps because it is reductio ad absurdum. The point remains in either case the indefinitely blocked and the banned can't edit until the community says so. Sure, at some point earlier for some, the direction will be never appeal, and then never appeal again (when the troll try to appeal, perhaps a global lock, etc) but 'never appeal' is expressly not the "standard" for blocks or bans, and there is no reason it would be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Is the scenario you describe ridiculous? Yes. Is it current policy? Yes, unfortunately. Do with that info what you will. 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Black Kite is right. This seems like anyone can turn indef block into community ban only by seeking a review of a block. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why is that ridiculous? Someone can ask the community, "hey, do you guys think this is a good block?" and the community says "hells yeah", then it's only sensible that the community should have to be asked again before the block is lifted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The community should only really be asked if it was a bad block. Site banning after being indef'd feels like someone who's serving a life sentence is then told an extra 150 years has been added to their time inside. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- How would you know it is a bad block before you ask? Anyway in this case his breach of the IBAN again post block and general hostility toward other editors warrent a stronger sanction that requires community approval to lift. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- A good point. I guess this whole thing is moot, as the chances of Winkelvi successfully appealing anything are slim to none. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- How would you know it is a bad block before you ask? Anyway in this case his breach of the IBAN again post block and general hostility toward other editors warrent a stronger sanction that requires community approval to lift. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The community should only really be asked if it was a bad block. Site banning after being indef'd feels like someone who's serving a life sentence is then told an extra 150 years has been added to their time inside. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why is that ridiculous? Someone can ask the community, "hey, do you guys think this is a good block?" and the community says "hells yeah", then it's only sensible that the community should have to be asked again before the block is lifted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- My understanding was that a discussion about an indef block was just that, a discussion about an indef block that the community either endorsed or not. If an indef-blocked editor appealed their block, and that appeal was turned down by the community, at that point the indef block became a community ban, as the indef block has been considered by the community and the appeal of it rejected. Does anyone else recall it working that way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I imagine its just a case of it not coming up before and the banning policy being worded badly. Usually what happens when someone is indeffed is they appeal, its rejected (or accepted) and they are thus banned or not. When an admin asks for a 2nd opinion on an indef block, it usually just results in 'yes' or 'no'. Sometimes it prompts a discussion to outright ban them, but that is usually stated explicitly by the closer. The reason why community bans have to be explicit is that it means the editor requires a discussion via the community to lift it. Rather than any admin just taking their word for it and lifting the indef. But frankly this is the fault of the "We dont need to have this (CBAN) discussion no one is going to unblock them" complainers everytime a discussion to ban was opened on blocked editors - some things need to be explicitly discussed rather than just tidied up into a speedy process - this is the end result - bad wording in policy pages because people cant be arsed to actually put some thought into if someone really needs to be banned vs blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close – The subtleties of policy are way over my pay grade, but the sanction against Winkelvi is strong enough as is. Any appeal will need to be accepted by the community, so that adding a formal site ban or a longer appeal delay could be construed as acharnement thérapeutique… — JFG talk 22:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close: The editor is already indef blocked. That does allow appeals but I don't foresee people accepting that appeal any time soon. Anyone who considers the appeal is going to review these previous discussions and be wary of a casual unblock regardless of a full community review. But, if we believe the rules are to protect vs punish (and they say as much) then what is the harm if an appeal is granted in a 6, 12 or more months? The best case is they have reformed and contribute productively to articles. Anyone who is opposed to this outcome is opposed to the idea that blocks are protective not punitive. But if the problematic behavior comes back, just block them again. People will be less likely to believe them next time. In that case what have we really lost? It's not like an ANI is that much effort and given their history they aren't going to be allowed to get away with basically anything. Sure, their recent comments don't look good but I would be willing to attribute some of that to heat of the moment. Assuming no sock/talk page issues, a standard offer should be fine in this case. Springee (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:Springee there was nothing "heat of the moment" about the discussion at AN. He has frustrated a lot of editors over many years with a pattern of behavior. Just look at his own words on his own talkpage Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Heat of the moment refers to WV's talk page comments not the discussion here. Springee (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:Springee there was nothing "heat of the moment" about the discussion at AN. He has frustrated a lot of editors over many years with a pattern of behavior. Just look at his own words on his own talkpage Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse close per Swarm above as long as the closer makes clear that a site ban is in effect. Let's put an end to this time suck while possibly forestalling another one down the pike. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Close Regardless of the intricacies of policy (and I still maintain that it's ridiculous that you can be banned because your blocking admin was unsure about the block in the first place), no-one is going to unblock Winkelvi without a discussion anyway, so the whole thing is moot. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, this is the policy
I'm seeing a lot of opinions or interpretations or "understandings" being expressed above, but I'm just talking about objective policy here. This wasn't meant to be a vote or a call for opinions, I was just pointing out what the policy is. Seriously, we're not dealing with some complex "intricacies" or "subtleties" in policy that require some sort of nuanced interpretation and are up for debate. We're dealing with unambiguous policy. This is the community's mandate. 'Editors who ... remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".'
This isn't a difficult-to-understand concept, and was specifically implemented by the community to avoid these kinds of unclear and confusing situations. There was an indefinite block, a community review was requested, and there was an "obvious consensus" to endorse the indefinite block, thus the user remained indefinitely blocked, and is, according to policy, "considered 'banned'". A closer not thinking the user deserves to be banned and thus not explicitly labeling the user as "banned" does not unilaterally override the policy. WV is, as a matter of policy, banned, per that discussion. Trying to wikilawyer away from a straightforward policy, or trying to neutralize the policy guidance by calling the situation "moot" distracts from the original point, which is that the wording of Black Kite's close already confirms the CBAN. Again, I'm not asking for reinforcement here, this is just objective policy. It doesn't matter whether WV's userpage is tagged or not, or if the close is explicitly labelled with the term "banned", WV is banned as a matter of policy, and will remain so until there is a consensus to overturn the indefinite block. Swarm talk 23:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appeal against TBAN
Dear Admins, Kindly lift TBAN please see the discussion Here Thanks..JogiAsad Talk 22:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please update your appeal with answers to these questions. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, DBigXray is correct here. The TBAN is still in force, however you may now appeal it. The link provided above contains the questions you need to answer, and you may do that in this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also, it appears you were told this over a month ago but never appealed it. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JogiAsad: You need 1) (Re)Open a post here formally appealing your TBAN, 2) State clearly what your TBAN was for, 3) Provide a convincing argument why the TBAN is no longer necessary. --Blackmane (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Notification of deletion discussion
In light of how many high-profile pages related to Wikipedia's administration currently link to it, a neutral notification of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Leadership opportunities. ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Naked Man
Would an administrator mind changing the redirect target for The Naked Man (How I Met Your Mother) to Season 4 (2008–09), please. It's permanently administrator-protected so I can't edit. Matt14451 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- ✓ Done ‑ Iridescent 12:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, Matt14451, be aware that using "2008–09" instead of "2008–2009" is a violation of Wikipedia's house style which is to write the years in full, so someone will almost certainly change it back fairly soon, particularly if there's any intention of taking the list to WP:FLC in future. ‑ Iridescent 12:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW the guideline also says the consecutive years may be "2008-09". MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Not sure when changes were made to the sub-headings, just noticed when the redirect didn't work properly. That MoS says that consecutive date ranges are allowed to be in this format. Matt14451 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, Matt14451, be aware that using "2008–09" instead of "2008–2009" is a violation of Wikipedia's house style which is to write the years in full, so someone will almost certainly change it back fairly soon, particularly if there's any intention of taking the list to WP:FLC in future. ‑ Iridescent 12:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that MOS:DATE treats two-digit years at the end of two-year range ("1997–98") as sometimes permissible does not mean it requires them or that they are always permissible. A central point in virtually every discussion of this matter to date is that forms like "2008-09" (anything ending in "01" through "12") should be avoided, because it looks like a YYYY-MM date (especially in any typeface in which the en dash and the hyphen are not very distinct or, sometimes, not distinct at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Self-nominations for the 2018 ArbCom elections are now open
Self-nominations for the 2018 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 4 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. SQLQuery me! 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Dealing with the R/D troll
Thanks to all for your work on the ref desks. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 131#Protection suggestion. There wasn't any response there so I'm adding the link here for wider input. During one attack last month There'sNoTime did change the protections so that the desks couldn't be hit at the same time. Thanks for your consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 14:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Appeal topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. I was topic banned from cryptocurrency topics today by user MER-C. Their reason for banning me was that I allegedly posted "unreliable sources".
This ban is unfair for the following reasons:
1. I have only ever edited one cryptocurrency page, the Skycoin page.
2. I used the existing Cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia as a guide, and used sources of similar or better quality. Sources included Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC.
3. Almost all these sources were added to the page while in draft, before it was approved. These sources were effectively approved by the administrator who subsequently approved the page for creation.
4. There was no edit war on the page. I was basically the only person working on it. So none of my edits were disruptive. I did not revert any changes made to the page by administrators or others.
5. I was not given any warning of a possible ban beforehand.
Thanks for reviewing this decision! Peak Debt (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TBAN I think there's no doubt this is a WP:SPA (substantially all their edits this year are about Skycoin, after 3 years of inactivity) and that they are trying to promote Skycoin (this diff is fairly clearly bad). The article has been tag-bombed to demonstrate the problems with the article; passing AFC (after MULTIPLE rejections) is not an endorsement of crap sourcing. I will concede that poor sourcing may be more a symptom of writing about a non-notable coin than anything else; but the topic ban was well-applied. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- A topic ban is supposed to be for disruptive edits, edit wars etc. That is not the case here. Also, while the early version of the page that you linked to above may have been 'bad', the final version was much improved under the guidance of several administrators until the page was finally approved. An administrator approved almost all the references in the article, so to subsequently ban me for those same references is unfair, and you should at least try to justify how/why my edits were "disruptive" before endorsing this ban. Cheers. Peak Debt (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki, you need to specify what you are endorsing. Right now bolding the single word "Endorse" seems to indicate you endorse his appeal of the topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I endorse the TBAN power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki, you need to specify what you are endorsing. Right now bolding the single word "Endorse" seems to indicate you endorse his appeal of the topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Suggestion. Wait and see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skycoin turns out? If the article is deleted (which seems likely so far as the "Delete" comments appear to be evaluating the lack of suitable sources accurately and the "Keep" comments are not offering policy-based reasoning). If the article is deleted then the topic ban is presumably moot (unless there are other cryptocurrencies you want to write about?) And if it's kept, that would form a strong argument for lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. But the admins on that page are now telling me I'm not even allowed to contribute to the deletion discussion, which seems pretty harsh... they mark my page for deletion and then ban me so I can't object to the deletion proposal. This contradicts the proposed deletion notice which said I'm welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Peak Debt, I left a message on your talk page as well. As long as your topic ban is in place, you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD. Only if the ban is lifted can you comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies?
- Peak Debt, I left a message on your talk page as well. As long as your topic ban is in place, you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD. Only if the ban is lifted can you comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. But the admins on that page are now telling me I'm not even allowed to contribute to the deletion discussion, which seems pretty harsh... they mark my page for deletion and then ban me so I can't object to the deletion proposal. This contradicts the proposed deletion notice which said I'm welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- When the page I created was proposed for deletion, I was told that I was welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion:
- QUOTE "until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion".
- Now I'm being told I can't contribute to a discussion about the deletion of the page I created? This is contradictory and goes against Wikipedia policy.
- In any case, I should not have been topic banned in the first place. Topic bans are supposed to be a response to disruptive behaviour and edit wars, which I was not engaged in.
- I was topic banned, without warning, for allegedly using "unreliable sources" even though those same sources had previously been approved by the administrator who approved the page for creation. This is not a valid reason for a topic ban.
- There appears to be a coordinated agenda here, to propose the page for deletion and then silence me so I can't oppose that deletion, even though Wikipedia policy states that I am welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Peak Debt:
...you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD.
Nothing against policy there. Nihlus 04:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Peak Debt:
- There appears to be a coordinated agenda here, to propose the page for deletion and then silence me so I can't oppose that deletion, even though Wikipedia policy states that I am welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the topic ban was enacted after the AfD started and you continued to comment on a cryptocurrency at the AfD. Your comments post topic ban should be struck. Also a bunch of keep voters there should be check for SPA and tagged as such. These articles are a big promotion effort - anyone with some of the "currency" wamts to legitimize the "currency" to save their "investment". . Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies? Peak Debt (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Peak Debt, no. Nihlus 04:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) The AFD page is about a cryptocurrency, so no. A WP:CIR block may be in your near future. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Peak Debt, I left some rather long commentary on your page. In a nutshell, you are not allowed to talk about cryptocurrencies on any page in any space. You are also not allowed to edit pages concerning cryptocurrencies, that includes articles, article talk pages, any deletion discussions or any RFC's. About the only allowance for talking about cryptocurrencies is to appeal, or clarify the terms of, your topic ban. --Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies? Peak Debt (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban. This is clearly a promotional SPA; all of their edits this year have been on Skycoin. Not only that, they are are either socking or canvassing off-wiki on WP:Articles for deletion/Skycoin. After Peak Debt received his topic ban, the following SPA accounts with no previous edits curiously showed up to !vote "KEEP" at the AfD:
- Joelcuthriell (talk · contribs)
- LexMccarty (talk · contribs)
- 1.129.110.55 (talk · contribs)
- 96.250.36.215 (talk · contribs)
- KonfuciousK (talk · contribs)
- Vundamere (talk · contribs)
- Also curious that the first IP geolocates to Australia, and Peak Debt (talk · contribs)'s first six edits were to Australian property bubble, and half of his edits in 2013 were to Negative gearing (Australia) and Australia. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
From the AfD we have "No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)". so he is setting up meatpuppets. Lovely. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's if we take his word for it; there is no actual guarantee that none of them are socks or that he doesn't personally know any of them or that he didn't specifically direct them to come and !vote in the AfD. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I checked some of those accounts last night (I'll have to check my notes on which when I'm not on mobile) and they were all
Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I checked some of those accounts last night (I'll have to check my notes on which when I'm not on mobile) and they were all
- Life topic ban. Yes, Cryptospam is so frustrating that the practice of shoot from the hip with prejudice is accepted, but give the benefit of the doubt to an old account that engages in conversation. The editor is entirely plausible, and is behaving like any editor with a similar number of edits, i.e. still coming to terms with Wikipedia:Notability and the Wikipedian culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I assume you mean "Lift", not "Life". Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, “lift”. Per WP:ROPE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think this discussion and the AFD turned out to be all the rope that was necessary. MER-C 12:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, “lift”. Per WP:ROPE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I assume you mean "Lift", not "Life". Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse this is essentially an SPA who wrote a promotional, badly sourced article about a cryptocurrency and is now canvassing for meatpuppets in an AfD on that article. The OP was given multiple notices about the applicability of general sanctions to this topic area. They also appear to be under the impression that disruptive editing only includes edit warring, which isn't the case. Hut 8.5 07:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
110% clear this editor is not here to improve Wikipedia, they want to promote their favorite CC. Given the continued posting at the AfD after having the IBAN explained over and over, block time? Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits are indistinguishable from touting of Skycoin. I should have topic banned you when you were tendentiously resubmitting the draft, which should have been sent to MFD instead of being accepted. Edits like these [12][13] (in mainspace, this week) are exactly the reason why general sanctions were imposed in this topic area. Moreover, has anyone checked the new accounts yet? {{checkuser needed}} MER-C 08:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- All of the accounts are Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's only Softlavender who thinks that they are related: This Twitter account tracks changes to Wikipedia articles on Bitcoinage; it has 775 followers. That's 775 potentially "new" accounts who will always be unrelated :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- All of the accounts are
A topic ban is supposed to be imposed for disruptive edits. Yet nobody seems able to justify how/why my edits were "disruptive". This ban was incorrectly applied in this case. Peak Debt (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Check the notifications on your talkpage this year: [14], and all the arguing you have done on various talkpages this year: [15]. This year you have been nothing but a promotional WP:SPA (see also WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), plus afterwards you blatantly socked/canvassed/meatpuppeted to retain your promotional article. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, then demonstrate that by editing in good faith on other topics. If you do that, after six months of steady productive editing you might be able to successfully appeal your topic ban. (Although frankly I doubt it given the egregious canvassing/socking.) Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- None of what you've said relates to 'disruptive editing' and does not justify the topic ban. You seem to be saying I was actually banned for having discussions with admins while working on the draft of the page which was subsequently approved. You describe these discussions as 'arguments' but I have always been polite in my discussions with admins. Even when admins called me names, accused me of being a shill, accused me of sockpuppetry etc, I have always remained polite in response. Peak Debt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. Editors whose sole reason to be here is promotion of a CC are not welcome. We are not here to help promote your favorite CC. Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- None of what you've said relates to 'disruptive editing' and does not justify the topic ban. You seem to be saying I was actually banned for having discussions with admins while working on the draft of the page which was subsequently approved. You describe these discussions as 'arguments' but I have always been polite in my discussions with admins. Even when admins called me names, accused me of being a shill, accused me of sockpuppetry etc, I have always remained polite in response. Peak Debt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it does; it's all disruptive editing. You do not get to have your own exclusive idiosyncratic definition of disruptive editing. Right now you are skating pretty close to an indef block, for continuing to nonsensically waste everyone's time in addition to already grossly abusing the AfD process with meat/sockpuppeting. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse topic ban, oppose lifting - The evidence seems clear of COI/POV activity by this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Clear COI? Does User:Peak_Debt deny that? If not, he should declare the WP:COI prominently on his userpage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that if an editor hasn't declared their COI on their userpage, then it's not possible that they have a COI? That it's not possible to determine that a COI exists from the available evidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, no. I am saying that if the user has a COI, and they intend to continue to edit with a COI, then they must declare their COI. Alternatively, they can post a denial of COI. I found, considering the history and this appeal, the user's bland userpage to be not OK. Next time I should check the user's userpage before commenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that if an editor hasn't declared their COI on their userpage, then it's not possible that they have a COI? That it's not possible to determine that a COI exists from the available evidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Clear COI? Does User:Peak_Debt deny that? If not, he should declare the WP:COI prominently on his userpage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TBAN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Legacypac and AfC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Legacypac from the AfC process. They were previously topic banned during Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac: "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace." I can't find the place were this topic ban was lifted, if this didn't happen they have been violating that topic ban quite extensively; but it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this.
I came across Mt Washington Fire Protection District, which was rejected 4 times, by three different editors, as not acceptable, before being accepted by Legacypac. Not only is the notability of that page very dubious, it turned out to be a copyright violation. I deleted it as such, but this was challenged by Legacypac at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 6. There, they claimed "I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig", which shows a thorough misunderstanding of copyvio checks.
I then noted on their talk page that multiple editors had raised concerns about copyright violations with them, and I started User talk:Legacypac#Accepting copyvio's and plagiarism. One issue I raised there was Everglades Wilderness Waterway: another editor incorrectly tagged it as a copyvio in draftspace, Legacypac correctly stated that it was a copy of a PD source, not a copyrighted source, and moved it to the mainspace. I pointed out that such text needs attribution: " this needs proper attribution, not copying without acknowledging this. Please check Wikipedia:Plagiarism and provide the proper attribution for this article". Their first reply totally missed the mark, but when I again stated that this one example was indeed not about copyright but about plagiarism, they maintained that they had done all that was needed, which shows a lack of understanding of what attribution is, even after it was pointed out to them. Not knowing how to handle plagiarism is concerning in one of our most prolific AfC accepters; not understanding or caring about what needs to be done after this has been pointed out to them is truly alarming.
Upon seeing all this, I did a spotcheck of their most recent AfC accepted articles, and came across Clancy Osei Konadu, accepted yesterday evening. This article had o claim to notability which passed the accepted guidelines (WP:NFOOTY). Worse though, none of the sources in the article even mention the person, and no sources confirming anything in the article seem to exist, making this a probable hoax. I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clancy Osei Konadu, and again the answers by Legacypac were completely missing the point and/or attacking the messenger instead.
All this, coupled with the previous topic ban (which may or may not still be in place) gives me no confidence that Legacypac should be allowed to judge and promote AfC articles, and I propose to reinstate (or confirm) the AfC topic ban indefinitely. Fram (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am concerned that the first thing Legacypac did when Fram raised a second concern - a legitimate concern - was not a considered response to the concern, instead being an accusation of WP:STALKING. It is absolutely not stalking for an administrator to review a user's edits when there appears to be an issue around copyright and plagiarism. If Legacypac has as good an AFC approval rate as he claims then why was he topic banned from AFC just over a year ago? I see this ban was rescinded, and I don't know if a full re-implementation of the ban is needed at this point, perhaps just a warning to a) stop being so defensive when met with legitimate, polite concerns, and b) to brush up on Wikipedia's fundamental requirement for all content we use to be correctly attributed, even if public domain. Fish+Karate 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: if you wish to change the sense of what you have written as you did here, please strike it out rather than delete it. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 12:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how fixing a double signature changed the sense of what I had written, striking it through would have been really confusing. Anyway, I wanted to add to my concern about Legacypac's first impulse to be defensive, and lash out with accusations of stalking and harassment when his actions are queried, as I just found this. As above, what Fram has done is neither stalking nor harassment, he raised concerns, which were and are reasonable concerns, and were raised politely and appropriately, and escalated them here when a constructive response was not received. If I had legitimate concerns with a user's comprehension of copyright I'd be checking their edits, too. Fish+Karate 14:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please do not pretend. You completely rewrote and revised your statement, which is misleading and puts other posts out of context. ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely, but we'll leave it for the reader to decide. Fish+Karate 09:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please do not pretend. You completely rewrote and revised your statement, which is misleading and puts other posts out of context. ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how fixing a double signature changed the sense of what I had written, striking it through would have been really confusing. Anyway, I wanted to add to my concern about Legacypac's first impulse to be defensive, and lash out with accusations of stalking and harassment when his actions are queried, as I just found this. As above, what Fram has done is neither stalking nor harassment, he raised concerns, which were and are reasonable concerns, and were raised politely and appropriately, and escalated them here when a constructive response was not received. If I had legitimate concerns with a user's comprehension of copyright I'd be checking their edits, too. Fish+Karate 14:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: if you wish to change the sense of what you have written as you did here, please strike it out rather than delete it. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 12:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fram: Info—Legacypac's TB from AfC was lifted by community consensus here earlier this year. ——SerialNumber54129 11:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. For some reason I didn't find this when searching in the AN(I) archives. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It would help if a search didn't bring up three or four different archives all on one page, and then, randomly jumbled them up with no chronological method at all. Madness. ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
(Ec) I have never been topic banned from AfC. I was incorrectly without evidence banned from moves and when I served that miscarrage of justice the ban was lifted. I continued as a valuable member if AfC even while prevented from doing moves to mainspace. I surfaced dozens of good userpages and recommended promotion of many good Drafts. I also continued CSDing and declining junk.
I am happy to discuss any effort to clean up at Wikipedia but Fram has a history of hostility toward me. Both on my talk and here Fram is starting from a false premise. They don't understand that when you work in the murky area of Draft space across every topic possible that some pages handled at AfC will not survive when exposed to specialized editors in mainspace. That is perfectly fine - that is why we work collaboratively. If you check my move log [16] you will see very little red. If you check User:Legacypac/CSD_log you will see a sea of red and many G12 accepts. I catch a ton of copyvio but even the best checks don't catch it all. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Fram has a history of hostility toward me."??? Fram (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac:, either give evidence of my "history of hostility" towards you, or strike that personal attack. Fram (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Look at the unsubstantiated attacks just today where you misrepresent my editing and topic ban history. How about striking your mistatements please. Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You can't claim a "history of hostility" by pointing to my edits from today, obviously (never mind that I didn't misrepresent anything). Once again, either provide some evidence of my "history of hostility" towards you, or stop poisoning the well by insinuating that I have some prejudice or longstanding grudge against you.
- Look at the unsubstantiated attacks just today where you misrepresent my editing and topic ban history. How about striking your mistatements please. Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you were specifically topic banned from AfC here: [17], and then unbanned from it here: [18]. The fact that you are still misrepresenting matters leads me to Support Fram's proposal for a renewed topic ban on AfC. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No read the close again more carefully. You are misrepresenting things. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months" [19]. That's a topic ban on AfC. And after nine months, per that close, there was a successful appeal of the TBan here by Tony Ballioni: [20] "I propose rescinding Legacypac's topic ban on page moves from draft space and AfC". -- Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No read the close again more carefully. You are misrepresenting things. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The recinding proposal may be poorly worded as he means I can again move pages out of AfC to mainspace - being forced to use AfC is hardly a topic ban FROM AfC. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The part you quote is was not a ban from AFC; it was a ban from moving his own drafts into mainspace, except by submitting them to AFC (and thus having someone else move them). The ban as a whole wasn't a topic ban from AFC per se either, though by preventing him from accepting drafts it might as well have been. —Cryptic 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fram, how complete of a topic ban from AfC are you proposing? A total ban on participating at all (aside from submitting his own new-article creations – that he himself created and wrote)? A ban on accepting submissions? A ban on moving AfC drafts to mainspace? Or all three? Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a problem with him declining submissions, or otherwise suggesting possible improvements (at least, I'm not aware of any such problems). So a topic ban from accepting submissions and moving submissions to the mainspace seems sufficient. Fram (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose- Waving through copyright violations is "annoying at times"? Fish+Karate 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- What? did not see that. Mostly I see the one's they've tagged.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
- Did you read anything Fram wrote above? Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- What? did not see that. Mostly I see the one's they've tagged.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
- You still have not corrected your false statements above - you doubled down User:Softlavender. I know you to be better than that. Legacypac (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - - It's not the first time, Legacypac has been cautioned for his irresponsible handling of copyvio stuff and mainspacing them without due diligence. The DRV which is still running, my thread on his t/p (a day back) wherein he failed to spot a copyvio, (despite my leaving a hint that something was wrong with his accept) and other examples inOP's statement indicate that this is a longstanding problem and he ain't learning from his mistakes. He does a lot of good stuff but umm...... copyvio is an extremely sensitive area. ∯WBGconverse 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, accepting BLP hoaxes is a clear prohibited territory and his responses are wildly off the mark. Support a ban from AfC and moves from mainspace. ∯WBGconverse 14:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose ban but Legacypac's hostility and assumptions of bad faith directed at others is a problem. I've been on the receiving end of their vitriol and I think the community should consider issues with the editor's hostility towards others. Legacypac does not come here with clean hands. However, I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence that they are abusing AFC or that their efforts related to AfC are on the whole a problem. It is reasonable for Fram to ask why an article made it through AfC and I suspect if LP handled the interaction with Fram in a more cordial way this wouldn't have ever been an issue. The reply [[User::Fish and karate|:Fish and karate]] ([[User talk::Fish and karate|talk]] · contribs) noted above [[21]], is a perfect example of something that could have been handled diplomatically vs with open hostility and an assumption of bad faith. Anyway, oppose ban but would support something that results in LP acting more cordially to other editors. The hostility is harmful to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with missing copyvios. Happens all the time. I don't see anything wrong with this edit (the one cited at DRV), either; contra Fram's portrayal of it at DRV, it was marked as an attempt to clean up the content, not the copyvio.What I take issue with - extreme issue - is the last two sentences of Legacypac's DRV listing. Earwig's and similar tools have a high false negative rate; they're designed to have few false positives. You can't "know [something] is not a copyvio because [you] checked it with Earwig", you can only know something is.The real problem here, though, is the last sentence of the same edit. You cannot fix a copyright issue by simple rewording. All that accomplishes is to make the copyright infringement more difficult to detect, which in turn makes it more likely that it won't be detected until years' worth of unintentional derivative work has to be deleted along with it. Knowingly moving words around to lower the percentage report on an automatic plagiarism checker - and that's very much what it looks like you're advocating for, please tell me I'm misreading it - is worse than the original copyvio. —Cryptic 14:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Of course you can avoid copyvio by rewording and rearranging info into your own words. That is how we write pages here. Anything else is OR. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)≈
- You can avoid copyvio by rewording and rearranging the info into your own words PRIOR to entering it into the editor. What Cryptic is referring to is you cant just reword an existing copyvio and leave it at that because it exists in the article edit history. See WP:DCV and WP:CV101. This is *basic* copyvio knowledge. Its not required for every editor to know, its certainly mandataory for anyone who is claiming they are performing a check for COPYVIO material! Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like AfC, which seems to repeat previous mistakes like Nupedia and the Incubator. But if Legacypac is promoting articles from AfC in good faith, that's fine and he should not be punished for the occasional mishap, which is bound to happen. We are not paid for our work and so it's a wonder that anything gets done at all. It's our clear policy that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." and that editors should be bold rather than timorous and risk-averse. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
There, we have done the best we could.
If there is any mistake we will make it right.
The fear of it shall not deter us from doing our duty.
The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.- "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" Copyvios and hoaxes are never welcome, and your IMPERFECT quote doesn't deal with those. Fram (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Facts [22] I checked my last 1000 page moves and found 3 that were deleted in mainspace as copyvio (going back to June 2018) One of those was previously moved by Admin WBG from mainspace to Draft without catching the copyvio either so none of us have a perfect record. I hate copy vio and I hunt it down relentlessly so it is particularly annoying to be falsely accused of being careless about it. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: WBG is not an admin (and neither am I). Iffy★Chat -- 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose only because I think this particular sanction doesn't address the problem, which is Legacypac's assumption of bad faith leading to serious incivility. Fram's initial comment on the issue here is a tad leading, it kind of does read as an accusation and presumption of intent. We all know that AfC is not easy, if it was there would not be a weeks-long backlog, and detecting copyvios is not always straightforward and sometimes they do make it into the encyclopedia. User:Legacypac/CSD log and its archives show numerous redlinks beside G12 nominations, I don't think that Legacypac recognizing copyvios is an issue. Nobody can be expected to have a 100% accuracy rate on this, and I don't see evidence of a pattern of mistakes. However, when someone (admin or not) observes that you've accepted some articles which turned out to be copyvios, an appropriate response is to acknowledge the issue and take immediate steps to mitigate (i.e. remove the copyvios, request deletion if necessary, etc.). What is definitely not an appropriate response is this, lashing out and accusing the other editor of a campaign of harassment against you. Frankly, if a pattern of errors has been observed in your recent actions then you should welcome someone else reviewing your work, not insist that you're right and everyone is out to get you. But a topic ban from AfC does not address that problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank-you for your comments. I will try to be more polite when dealing with an Admin who posts as facts things that are false. For example, the first two sentences from Fram in this thread are false. The idea I am violating any topic ban is false (I have no topic bans) The idea that I have any pattern of accepting copyvio is false. Fram made other false accusations around the Mt Washington page notability. Of course there will be no boomerang because they are an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Legacypac, you haven't retracted your previous personal attacks yet, and instead are making new ones. You claim "the first two sentences from Fram in this thread are false". These sentences are "I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Legacypac from the AfC process. They were previously topic banned during Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac: "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace." I can't find the place were this topic ban was lifted, if this didn't happen they have been violating that topic ban quite extensively; but it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this. " Can you (or anyone else for that matter) please indicate in what way these sentences are "false"? The first sentence is a proposal. The second sentence is a quote from the closure of a previous ANI discussion, with link to that discussion. And in the third sentence I raise a question, which hsa since been answered; yes, you were topic banned, but no, that topic ban is no longer active. Fram (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank-you for your comments. I will try to be more polite when dealing with an Admin who posts as facts things that are false. For example, the first two sentences from Fram in this thread are false. The idea I am violating any topic ban is false (I have no topic bans) The idea that I have any pattern of accepting copyvio is false. Fram made other false accusations around the Mt Washington page notability. Of course there will be no boomerang because they are an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac:, please stop lashing out.
- At no point did Fram say you were violating a topic ban - he even said " it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this".
- At no point did Fram say you have a pattern of accepting copyvios. What he did say was "I then noted on their talk page that multiple editors had raised concerns about copyright violations with them". This is true; see User_talk:Legacypac#You_need_to and User_talk:Legacypac#Bandesha.
- I don't know what the false accusations around the Mt Washington page notability are, you will need to explain what they are rather than just asserting it as being so.
- What you seem to have done is to refuse to accept any responsibility for your actions, and instead are windmilling around calling Fram a liar for raising these concerns. It's not a good look. Fish+Karate 15:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac:, please stop lashing out.
- Any reasonable read of the first two sentences suggests I was topic bannned from AfD, just like Fram wants to do again. The closing sentence of Fram's post very clearly says I was AfC topic banned before. This false statement was repeated further down.
- Fram said "Not only is the notability of that page very dubious" referring to Mt Washington Fire District which is an defined inhabited place with taxing authority which is autonotable just like a school district.
- The suggestion I should be topic banned for accepting copyvio can only be correctly based on a pattern of doing that. I proved that 3/1000 last pages moved have turned out to be deleted copyvio. I'm pretty proud of that record given the large amount of copyvio in AfC submissions I deal with.
- Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, the suggestion is that you should be topic banned for a multitude of reasons, including believing that Earwig is the be all and end all of copyvio detection, not knowing what to do with text that needs attribution even when it is given to you on a platter, and worst of all promoting a probable hoax page, where none of the sources even mentioned the subject of the article, to the mainpage. You did this just yesterday, and you haven't given any indication (here, on your talk page, or at the AfD) what made you decide to move this page to the main space.
- If all you do is run Earwig and see if the basic claim in the article is enough to avoid AfD in your opinion, without even checking if the article is in any way verifiable, then you are not fit to review articles for AfC. Your defense so far exists of personal attacks against me, which don't seem to convince anyone, probably because there is no evidence that they are based on anything. It would be nice if someone would actually enforce our PA policy, but I'm not holding my breath for that. Fram (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I follow the AfC instructions and I do a very good job at it. You have failed to prove your allegations with any data and your treatment of me is abusive. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are not being abused. You are being asked to explain why you moved a probable hoax into article space. Please answer. 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- For anyone else, the reviewing workflow/instructions are here. I am not sure how reading that, someone can with a straight face claim they do a very good job of following the instructions while accepting obvious copyvios and probably hoaxes. Clancy Konadu should have failed at at least 3 points in the content review. Which indicates Legacypac either didnt do a content review at all, doesnt understand any of the criteria, or does understand and ignored it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are not being abused. You are being asked to explain why you moved a probable hoax into article space. Please answer. 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I follow the AfC instructions and I do a very good job at it. You have failed to prove your allegations with any data and your treatment of me is abusive. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- oppose per my original rationale with the caveat that Legacypak exercise greater caution in moving articles to main space. And not DRV when they mistakenly promote G12's.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose a topic-ban on Legacypac from AFC. It is true that Legacypac has a problem with hostility toward some editors, and that some of the hostility seems to be unprovoked, and some seems to be provoked but excessive (and the course of wisdom often is to ignore provocation). It is also true that Legacypac is one of the more productive AFC reviewers, and often rejects crud that needs rejecting, and often accepts useful drafts that need accepting. (It is also true that it is very much the Wikipedia way to select certain editors or groups of editors and dump on them for not being perfect volunteers. That is neither here nor there.) Legacypac should be warned about hostility and anger, and cautioned about being more alert to copyvio. In my opinion, a good approach to possible copyvio, on reviewing something that looks like it was written in a non-WP style, is to comment that it looks like it was copied, but leave it to another reviewer (or decline it for notability or tone if it needs declining for notability or tone). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- (non-admin) Oppose This whole thing has snowballed badly, but a topic ban isn't the right result. I have nothing to add not already covered by Ivanvector, though. SportingFlyer talk 10:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Springee. This case is just a clash of egos, Legac's contributions are clearly net positive and sometimes he makes mistakes but everyone makes mistakes and his issues with copyvio can be fixed as time passes by. Flooded with them hundreds 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm seeing a few errors among a lot of good work, with bad faith being needlessly inflamed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not really clear what or who you mean with "bad faith being needlessly inflamed here". If it is adressed to me: I don't think believing that someone who promotes an article from the AfC queue where none of the sources even mention the subject, and who then refuses to answer any questions about why they accepted this article (but instead post one baseless personal attack after another here), is not someone I can trust to perform due diligence at AfC (certainly not when you take into account that they were already topic banned from accepting AfC articles in the past, showing that this is not a one-off incident). You are free to give more weight to the correctly accepted articles and to oppose this topic ban suggestion of course, but it's hardly "bad faith" to point out rather major issues with some of their AfC actions. Fram (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support ban from reviewing/accepting pages and moving to mainspace. The above comments, the comments at their talkpage, the AFD on Konadu etc. It clearly indicates there is a problem with their judgement on what is acceptable. And it is not a one-off mistake, this is a problem that was identified previously and despite a ban has not been resolved. The lack of understanding on attribution as well as their obvious deficiencies in reviewing content - a number of the opposes above seem to take the view that because its not a large portion of their reviews, its not a big issue. If they have accepted 10 cases and 3 turn out to have problems, that doesnt mean they reviewed 7 correctly as some of the commentors above seem to think, absent any documented proof-of-work it just means that the original article creator did *their* job properly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Copyvio is obviously the most important thing here, but, yes, it's easy to miss sometimes and Earwig is not infallible; need to be more careful there. The one I am concerned about is Clancy Osei Konadu, though. That was moved into articlespace without a single reference; two of the sources don't mention him at all, and the two others mention a football coach called Maxwell Konadu. If he exists, he's non-notable ... but it's probably a hoax. The arguing at the AfD was less than ideal as well; Legacypac should simply have held their hands up and admitted they made an error there. I'm not going to support a topic-ban just yet because Legacypac does a lot of good work as well, but I definitely would if such errors - which are very easy to avoid - are repeated. (And the easiest way is - if you're not sure, leave it for someone else). Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose- Legacypac does make the occasional blunder, but I've seen little evidence of lasting harm or that the mistakes would outweigh the large amount of good work. Reyk YO! 12:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please tell Legacypac to stop posting personal attacks? They posted this after the close of this discussion, and despite being told repeatedly in the above discussion that their objections were baseless, they continue with "You deliberately or incompetently misrepresented my editing", "You flat out lied", "If you were not an Admin, you might have been hit with a boomerang", and "your behavior toward me has been deceitful, hostile and inappropriate". I get that they don't like my posts, but it doesn't look as if they have really understood the message of this section and its close, nor the meaning of our WP:NPA policy. Fram (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
They don't seem to like my post here[23]. Fram (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would offer to tell him, but as he's been lashing out at me across a variety of talk pages this week, perhaps an admin he has not been berating could do so, assuming there are any. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Ouch. This section is closed at 17.41, and at 19.27 Legacypac accepts another blatant copyvio at Warner Vincent Slack. Fram (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac and AFD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Legacypac from the AFD and AFC process in relation to cryptocurrency topics. Legacypac is clearly biased against cryptocurrency pages given his previous comments below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=842448517#General_sanctions_proposal
"what about imposing a templated paragraph on all crypto currency pages that says roughly "Leading financial press and finance experts have described all cryptocurrenies as a fraud, worthless, and holding no inherient value. Major advertising platforms have banned all ads connected to cryptocurrency. Cryptrocurrencies are subject to aggressive promotional activities, often by people with undisclosed conlicts of interest, in a nearly unregulated environment."
Legacypac was previously topic banned as per Fram's comments above. Legacypac's bias, coupled with his previous topic ban, gives me no confidence that Legacypac should be allowed to judge AFD or AFC discussions in relation to cryptocurrencies. Peak Debt (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- A damn lie by Peak Debt, partly repeating a misstatement by Fram that needs to be removed Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: Indef block of Peak Debt
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At this point, he has moved from WP:DE/WP:COI/WP:SPA/WP:PROMO and then rampant sock/meatpupetting at AfD, and now he is outright trolling. Time to put a swift end to this. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support They're clearly absolutely elsewhere; my Nac of this thread (reason=trolling and more) edit-conflicted with SLavender, but this is the correct procedure. ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- they just violated their topic ban again. Good grief. Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You have a clear conflict of interest. Peak Debt (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The irony is duly noted. ——SerialNumber54129 12:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You have a clear conflict of interest. Peak Debt (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. The topic ban had nothing to do with cryptocurrency, and trying to piggyback as if the two issues are somehow related is indeed simply trolling. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have blocked for 24 hours for the further topic ban violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Regardless of the 24-hour block, this editor still needs an indef to relieve us of all the constant trolling and nonsense. Definitely NOTHERE/DE indef. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, it was meant to be simply provisional, pending the decision here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Regardless of the 24-hour block, this editor still needs an indef to relieve us of all the constant trolling and nonsense. Definitely NOTHERE/DE indef. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support per above, including the cryptocurrency topic ban appeal. A spam-only block can also be justified. We've wasted enough time on this editor. MER-C 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support As I've warned them earlier to stop but they clearly don't get it. Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Supportt total indef block and perma ban from project Clearly user hates our efforts to keep cryptospam and its spawn out of the pedia.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support, user has descended into trolling. Fish+Karate 13:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129, this (Peak Debt's troll thread) was not and is not a subthread of Fram's thread; please do not make it one -- it makes Fram's thread all that much harder to participate in. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Softlavender. Have you sued your optician. Yours, etc. ——SerialNumber54129 13:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support This is getting ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that Peak Debt is WP:NOTHERE Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support indef block and site ban Per above. They should've been WP:NOTHERE'd already. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support indef per clear topic ban violations.--NØ 14:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comments - CU results came back "unrelated", that of course does not rule out meatpuppetry and it seems quite obvious that enthusiasts have been recruited to comment on the AfD, but not all of those accounts are new and it's hard to say who did the canvassing. The situation with Peak Debt seems to have spiralled rather quickly and I endorse Boing!'s very conservative block, but I think we ought to see how the user responds when the block expires and they've had a chance to calm down. But note that this comment is not an "oppose". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Repeating my comment above: This Twitter account tracks changes to Wikipedia articles on Bitcoinage; it has 775 followers. That's 775 potentially "new" accounts who will always be unrelated; and I'm not sure even MEAT applies. It's an example of where socio-technological changes have outsripped our guidelines, which of course were written before Twitter even existed—let alone bot accounts. ——SerialNumber54129 14:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Didn't see that comment, but thanks. I agree it's probably not quite MEAT in that case, it's kind of like a noticeboard except that it's going to be skewed towards attracting cryptocurrency enthusiasts. If they come here, learn our guidelines, and make neutral comments with respect to notability in a deletion discussion, then that's great. But of course they don't, they come here to promote their favourite coins, probably in good faith because it's relevant to them and they don't know how things work here. AfD closers ought to watch for this, and continue closing discussions with respect to the weight of policy-based arguments, as it always has been. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Ironically it is mentioned (by one of them) at the AfD itself, so hopefully it will not pass by the eye of the closer :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Different from the bot twitter acct, this was posted by this user at the AfD. Shades of MEAT or at least canvassing. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- "No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)"
- Comment I saw Peak Debt's comment in the AfD [24], and yes it looked to me like an admission of recruiting for their position. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - The retaliatory filing above is just the cherry on top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - IMO, every SPA that engages in WP:IDHT should be blocked for a while, and if they come back doing the same, Indeff'd without much question. The level of IDHT here is enough for an indeff in and of itself, but sure, let's give him a chance to speak in his defense. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support (non-admin) clearly WP:NOTHERE and an interesting boomerang to boot! SportingFlyer talk 10:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support seems to be a clear-cut WP:NOTHERE now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Deletion of orphaned talk pages please?
88.106.10.74 has created about a dozen talk pages (no articles attached) of the type "Talk:National Flower of Pakistan", with the sole purpose of having somewhere to plaster a doomed proposal to merge into this the article on whatever the lucky flower happens to be. Could a friendly admin please sweep up the lot?
They have now also supplemented that with another half dozen drafts along the same lines, with (I suppose) equally nonexistent chances of a successful mainspace life. I'd suggest removing these as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CSD G8 should apply to those. Natureium (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like what they are probably after here is to create redirects from the equivalent article names, but they can't do that as an IP and don't know how to ask. --RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've deleted all the ones that just had merge proposals in them, leaving a couple of real drafts. I see they have created several of these several times over the course of a month, so this could be a continuing problem. But I don't see any attempts to explain what they're doing wrong on their talk page, just templated warnings that really don't help! Rather than just reporting them, how about someone, you know, tries to help them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I left them a detailed explanation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I left them a detailed explanation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm. Thryduulf might be interested in this, it reminds me of something we were talking about a few weeks ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Require WP:ADMINACCT from Fram
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On an earlier thread User:Fram said "...I propose to reinstate (or confirm) the AfC topic ban indefinitely. Fram (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)" and made other statements along the same line. As an Admin, Fram should have a good understanding of topic bans. Because they are an Admin, other editors assume Fram has done their due diligence and that they are telling the truth. Fram has refused to clarify where this "AfC topic ban" occurred, never discussed it with me, and sought to have me sanctioned at AN for violating it. Therefore I require WP:ADMINACCT. If Fram is found to have mislead the community, what sanction is appropriate? Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am not a fan of Fram, but this will not take us anywhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously?
- 1) You know perfectly well where you were (effectively) topic-banned from AfC. It was here - (quote "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving "any type of draft content into the mainspace". This would be broadly interpreted as moving articles that were created by anyone, including themselves, from Draft:, User: or any other space, to main space. Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months"). That is effectively an AfC topic ban.
- 2) You also know damn well that Fram said "I can't find the place were this topic ban was lifted, if this didn't happen they have been violating that topic ban quite extensively; but it is quite possible that it was lifted and I just haven't found this."
- I commented against any sanction for you at the discussion but if this is the type of WP:IDHT that's going to occur going forward then I may well re-consider that. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- In a forum rife with poor judgment and hyperbole, this particular demand for a pound of flesh stands out. That's not an easy feat.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
A move to mainspace ban that was later lifted is not an "AfC topic ban". I performed thousands of AfC actions as an approved AfC Reviewer during that ill considered move ban. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bah per Ponyo. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
- Close this silliness before it gets sillier. Reyk YO! 22:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles". Fairly straightforward. And (unbelievably) you posted this a couple of hours after accepting yet another blatant copyvio at AfC - Warner Vincent Slack. That one wasn't even dubious - a complete copy-paste from a copyrighted website. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Legacypac, he defined what he meant in the exact same sentence:
They were previously topic banned during Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac: "The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace."
- This ridiculously inaccurate retaliatory thread is not going to end well for you. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Legacypac, you'll note I closed the above thread with the observation that there isn't support for a topic ban at this time, but that people very much did have concerns about what you were doing. A subtle warning doesn't seem to have done the trick, so more explicitly, if you keep doing this kind of thing, you are very likely to see yourself either topic banned or otherwise sanctioned. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Open proxies?
One of our LTA firends left here and at ANI a collection of IP addresses at least some of which are open proxies. We need to block all of them (I so far blocked two), since they will continue vandalising other pages. However, I usually block IP adresses short-ter if there was no previous abuse history. Could a more technically skilled admin inspect them and block open proxies long term? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I believe all of them have been currently blocked by DrKay and myself, but open proxy investigation is still needed. Some of the addresses have been previously blocked by Proxybot, and those I blocked for 6 months, but others I only blocked for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks NinjaRobotPirate--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think I got them all. There's a helpful guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I added the "Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll" to the LTA list, btw. funplussmart (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think I got them all. There's a helpful guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks NinjaRobotPirate--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)