Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	17	16	33
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	10	52	62
AfD	0	0	0	8	8

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 58 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 15 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?

(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 118 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 112 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 98 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 23 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 7768 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Gaza floating pier 2024-05-20 17:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Science Bee 2024-05-20 15:26 2027-05-20 15:26 create Repeatedly recreated Rosguill Wikipedia:Golden Diamond Timeless Watch 2024-05-20 06:54 2024-05-23 06:54 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Screams Before Silence 2024-05-20 04:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2024-05-20 03:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Atom Eve 2024-05-20 02:53 2024-08-20 02:53 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Ebrahim Raisi 2024-05-19 22:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIRP; upgrade to WP:ECP, 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash-related; aiming for the short term (remind me) El C 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash 2024-05-19 21:15 2024-06-19 21:15 edit Contentious topic restriction Ymblanter Koli rebellion and piracy 2024-05-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Spicy Khirbet Zanuta 2024-05-19 12:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree Poppay Ki Wedding 2024-05-18 20:42 2025-05-18 20:42 create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Joseph Sam Williams 2024-05-18 11:59 2024-05-22 11:59 move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky 2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-18 06:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Edcel Greco Lagman 2024-05-18 03:31 2024-07-18 03:31 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Removal of sourced content, per a complaint at WP:ANI EdJohnston User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run 2024-05-17 21:34 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s 2024-05-17 16:17 2024-05-24 16:17 move Don't move your User talk page except by a Renamer Liz User:MayNard Keith Batiste, Jr 2024-05-17 15:29 2024-05-31 15:29 create Repeatedly recreated Liz

Site ban proposal for User:NadirAli

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

Last month,[1] NadirAli's mass sockpuppetry was discovered. Consequently, Ivanvector blocked NadirAli but only for 3 months contrary to the actual standards for such violations.

After I objected the duration,[2] Ivanvector started an ARCA clarification request.[3] The outcome of the request was that NadirAli should be "treated like we'd treat anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry".[4] I proposed siteban by motion, to which Worm That Turned responded, "you make a strong argument for a site ban... If you still strongly feel that the site ban should be put in place, why not suggest it at AN with your explanation. There's no reason that the community cannot pass a ban based on past behaviour."[5] No arbitrators disagreed with that.

ARCA request has been archived but the outcome is still pending. Some significant points regarding the misconduct are as follow:

• NadirAli was evading his siteban before he was unbanned.[6]
• After getting unblocked he abused IPs and created Boxman88 (talk · contribs)[7] to evade the Arbcom topic ban. The topic ban was later overturned.
• He was blocked indefinitely for copyright violation.[8]
• He was topic banned from uploading any images.[9]
• He was blocked indefinitely for violating that topic ban.[10]
• Violated his ban on image uploading by creating a new sock, Posuydon (talk · contribs).[11]
• Indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict.[12]
• Violated topic ban on India-Pakistan conflict last month,[13] however, he denied any topic ban violation,[14] just like he used to deny copyright violations.[15]

It can be safely said that NadirAli is the most disruptive editor in the South Asia topic area. Had the sockpuppetry been discovered early, the damage that his actions have done to the project could have been avoided. In these twelve years, NadirAli has engaged in a very large degree of disruption and displayed clear inability to act collegially, and this was on display even in his last edit. A siteban is probably overdue for someone who is currently topic banned from several areas for an indefinite period and has been socking this rigorously for such a long period. --RaviC (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. Apparently I don't understand the new rule, because I would have imagined that he qualified for automatic siteban. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• PS, note that NadirAli has three indefinite blocks in his main account's history. Some of us have gotten multiple non-problematic indefs, due to mistakes or testing or rogue admins (I have one mistake and two testing; Jimbo Wales has one mistake, two rogue admin, and two I-don't-know-what), but all of NadirAli's appear to be deserved. It's rare for an active editor to have more than one, and truly exceptional for an active editor with three indefs to get a deserved definite block for violating an Arbcom injunction. I'm thankful that Ivanvector is willing to be gracious, but I don't think it's the wisest choice. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Overall net negative. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. His trolling (I have no better word) [16] has been just out of hands. Orientls (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Orientls, how about you not call it "trolling" at all? The comment is a bit verbose (" judged by the fact that your opinion is a minority view as per these sources"), but I don't see what else is wrong with it. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • He was misrepresenting the author who said Pakistan is not a regional power to be claiming that he says Pakistan is a regional power. As well as "all" provided sources say Pakistan is a regional power, when they didn't. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and reject, the user is already sanctioned and serving out a block as methodically prescribed in this and previous such cases. Sanctions are designed to be preventative, not punitive. The filer has presented no tangible argument why the already-existing sanction needs to be replaced. I have known NadirAli for a few years, and his contributions to Pakistan articles have generally been thoughtful, constructive, and overall positive. Right up until his block (which was both sad, unnecessary, and a serious lack of acumen on his part), his behaviour was cooperative, normal, and not something that would qualify as sabotaging or disrupting the project en masse. The two (the filer and NadirAli) and others here undoubtedly have had past beef, hence the reason why I would read between the lines and take things with a pinch of salt IMO. Also waiting for comments from Ivanvector, who obviously would've had good reasons of his own to extend the block for 3 months rather than the usual line of action; he would be in a better position to explain why that was decided. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Have you even read what has been already said above? Arbcom has already clarified to Ivanvector that NadirAli's sock puppetry should be dealt like "anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry", i.e. indef block or a indef ban. Orientls (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, the line of action for such cases is to enforce a block, which I'm already seeing. The user is blocked. The enforcing admin would've had reasons to determine why this length was appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector certainly had his explanation in ARCA and Arbcom has clarified the misunderstanding. I can just hope that he would agree with what we went over at ARCA. Furthermore Mar4d, you may not know, but NadirAli has edit-warred with you as well [17][18] by evading his ban with IPs. Interestingly, this is the same article where he was caught socking last month.[19] --RaviC (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support WP:CBAN. Should have been done a while back. Agree with Nyttend that NadirAli got away with a number of violations for which he deserved an indefinite block. When it comes to disruptive editing, NadirAli has done it all - Sock puppetry , Edit warring , factional editing, misrepresentation of sources, and the list goes on. His presence in the ARBIPA area is what can be defined as long term disruptive editing with having the dubious distinction of being banned in first and only Arbcom case concerning this area. Looking at the most recent edit of NadirAli, we get the idea that his motive is further disruption. I think as a community we have wasted enough time on him and he has been given enough rope, hundreds of chances over a decade. It is time to take a binding decision on this matter. Razer(talk) 11:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As per Nyttend. NadirAli's editing is mostly shady and the non-shady part is mostly worthless. I don't see why the community needs to keep wasting its time on this editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note This comment was struck by the commenter ([20]) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you elaborate what you mean by "worthless". I saw his contributions over the years, and before the block occurred, and they were mostly positive in terms of content creation and expansion. No one is free from mistakes, including you. I disagree with your unnecessary aspersion. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments: When a a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli was brought to WP:ANI in July 2017, I was one of the people that opposed it. Even though it was hard work to battle NadirAli's POV, I thought his presence was still beneficial for the project. Little did I know that NadirAli had just begun doing proxy edits for a banned editor. I believe his first post as a proxy was this one 3 June 2017. The polished, westernised English of that post is easily distinguishable from NadirAli's broken English a month earlier. The reference to "shady" above was my filing at ARE bringing it to the admin attention. Since there was no admin action, NadirAli and his puppet master were emboldened and, since then, made hundreds of edits across dozens of page. Two other editors were recently blocked/banned by Abecedare for doing exactly this. I really think we need to get rid of the scourge of proxy editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(responding to the ping) I haven't taken a look at NadirAli's case-history in any depth, and therefore haven't !voted in this discussion. As for proxy editing: on a quick glance the case is not as obvious as it was for the three instances in which I blocked, topic-banned and warned recently. This comment, for example, has some grammatical and punctuation errors, but of the sort that are par for the course for talkpage discussions. If there is a stronger case for proxy-editing to be made, I think it would be best to marshal evidence independent of this immediate discussion; the account is blocked for 2 more month, so there is no real rush. Abecedare (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The limited blocks and bans had been tried enough number of times. The Arb case should have been the final whistle for Nadir to stop such activity. The Kind admins like Ivan have already given the user enough WP:Rope to improve but by multiple violations as pointed above the user himself has decided to hang himself. The assumption that this editor will improve his behavior to avoid the ban would have been valid for earlier cases, Nadir by choosing to edit in conflict with the bans has already made the good faith assumption void. Proxy editors and the handlers need to be sent a strong message that indulging in such activity will not get any benefits and will only lead to strong administrative actions. --DBigXray 14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support--The length of the rope, provided thus far, was not meant to approach infinity.....Thanks for your services, Good bye.∯WBG^converse 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose-Per V93.And, this partisan noise......∯WBG^converse 12:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support this editor has a history of getting indefinitely blocked for many different kinds of disruptive editing, only to be unblocked with a topic ban, editing restriction or "last" chance. People like that should be shown the door. A three month block is very generous for socking by an experienced editor, especially one who has been ordered not to use multiple accounts by ArbCom. Hut 8.5 17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's an unfortunate fact that nationalist disputes in South Asia bring out the worst in many of our otherwise capable editors. Nadir Ali has at various points demonstrated that he has the ability to edit constructively, but has chosen not to make use of it. I recommended a t-ban for him a few months ago, but that was before evidence of further sockpuppetry was brought forward. His edits have been a net negative, and this ban is necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Moving to weak oppose after reading Zzuuzz's comment about when logged out editing took place. I spent some time examining NadirAli's editing history, and their interactions with several other editors. I still think NadirAli's behavior is far from ideal, and they need to take a hard look at how they respond to conflict. However, the fact that much of logged out editing occurred a long while ago, and the substantial probability that some of the logged-out editing was done with the intent of avoiding harassment rather than evading scrutiny, I now feel a siteban would be an over-reach. @Kautilya3 and Winged Blades of Godric: I suspect you may be interested in that comment, though it may or may not change your minds. Vanamonde (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• What CU detected as logged out editing was sure "recent" as CU can only detect what happened in last 3 months. If there was no recent logged out editing then CU would not convict the user of logged out editing. CU won't reveal those new IPs which they discovered per privacy policy. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Nadir Ali definitely was a disruptive editor in both South Asia and science fiction subjects. There was an ANI against him last year,[21] and thus, we can't say that he didn't have enough chances since he actually received far too many. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have reason to believe that this request is not in good faith, but yet another example of the factionalized editing identified in the AE topic ban thread from a few months ago in which many of the previous commenters here were named and (temporarily) topic-banned. I should have noted more clearly at the time, but I have doubts that the accounts named in the most recent of the SPI filings against NadirAli were actually NadirAli's accounts, versus a sophisticated attempt at joejobbing - the checkuser result was inconclusive, and the two accounts are blocked for being sockpuppets of each other, not for being sockpuppets of NadirAli. Of course, NadirAli is hardly an innocent party in this ongoing dispute as evidenced by his long block log, including several indefinite blocks as Nyttend noted, but note also that indef != permanent, and all of those blocks served their purpose and were eventually replaced with appropriate limiting sanctions, which NadirAli has largely abided by since appealing to BASC in 2014. He's slipped up a couple times, but who hasn't in this group? It's a literal disaster, none of these editors don't have notations in their block log and/or their names repeatedly mentioned at AE or the various admin boards. The recent SPI hinged on IP edits from a huge (/11) subnet in Brampton, Ontario, a large Canadian city with a very significant Pakistani population, most of which were more than a year old at the time of the report. NadirAli is only currently blocked because of what appears to have been an oversight that his Arbcom topic ban was rescinded but his parallel no-logged-out-editing restriction was not rescinded at the same time (why I asked about it at ARCA), and had that restriction not been in place, I would not have blocked him but treated the situation as time served with a warning. It's only because that restriction remained in place, and admins do not have latitude to admin in conflict with Arbcom, that he is blocked at all. Sitebanning him for that is an incredible overreach. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you but that was unnecessary. NadirAli is the only serial sock puppeteer here. In place of righting great wrongs why don't you just try following what Arbcom told you after you specifically asked them. You are acting like an apologist. You are degrading your own credibility by encouraging his disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Orientls It's one thing to argue that IvanVector is wrong; it's quite another to suggest that by exercising due diligence, he is an apologist for sockpuppetry. This is precisely the sort of us-vs-them nonsense that earned nine others topic-bans along with Nadir Ali, and I suggest you refrain from attacking anyone else's motives. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • You are right that I need to use better words. My comments were directed on Ivanvector who is exactly attacking others motives and derailing this thread by making vague claims about others who are nowhere near the disruption of NadirAli. Not to ignore the apparent falsification of the sockpuppetry about NadiAli. Orientls (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Doubling down by accusing Ivanvector of lying isn't exactly a great idea either. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
          • He claims that NadirAli didn't deserved block for sockpuppetry even after having CU confirmed the intentional logged out editing and also found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions. "3 months block" for long term socking and putting the blame of someone's disruption onto others is absolutely a bad idea. Orientls (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Can you provide evidence for where a CU 'found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions'. Because Ivanvector seems to be correct that in the case of Boxman88 and Posuydon, the evidence was unclear. "The checkuser data for Boxman88 is extremely limited and doesn't provide a direct connection to NadirAli. However there are some other things to consider. There are some technical similarities which makes it possible". Note that I had no intention to take part in this discussion but happened to notice this diversion. Your comments cause me to look into the case and am I am likely to be !voting oppose unless you can provide evidence for your claims because it's looking to me like IvanVector is correct. Nil Einne (talk)
              • @Nil Einne: CU said "the CU result between the two accounts is somewhere between possible and inconclusive".[22] But Ivanvector misrepresented that as "the checkuser result was inconclusive". Ivanvector was also aware of that discussion. Not to forget WP:DUCK evidence floating in entire SPI. Orientls (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Thank you for confirming my thoughts. Ivanvector's summary is far more accurate than your highly misleading claim "found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions" since no such connection was found. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Do you really see no difference between "possible and inconclusive" and "inconclusive", what about the WP:DUCK evidence? NadirAli was evading CU, but shared same behavior. That is what it is all about. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • This is probably the last comment I will make on the matter. Read my comments carefully. I never said there was no difference. All I said was that Ivanvector's comment was far closer to being accurate than yours. Your comment was highly misleading and you seem unable or unwilling to accept that instead you're just trying to throw fault elsewhere. I do think it would have been better if Ivanvector had been slightly clearer but it's not something major enough that I'd even bother calling them out on it. As I said below, I don't care to debate the DUCK evidence. I've looked into to it and I'm not convinced enough. And note this is beside my main point which is that your misleading claim combined with your refusal to even acknowledge this leads me to believe there is something off with your !vote. The fact that others have evidently violated their topic ban gives me more reason to think it isn't only you. These aren't reasons to !vote no. But my evaluation of the evidence is that it's too weak to conclude anything other than some probably minor violations by NadirAli with logged out editing and a lot of that is a while ago I am !voting even though I probably would have just ignored this case otherwise without these concerns. As mention by Ivanvector and others, it's quite difficult to conclude how much logged out editing has happened especially when done over a wide range where it's likely there are several people with similar views, and in it's in the distant past. NadirAli is definitely far from perfect, but I don't think a siteban is needed yet. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons given by Ivanvector. Nadir's past policy violations resulted in sanctions being placed and time served. Those violations can't be held up against him. We should be viewing Nadir's current conduct, which in my opinion is productive and a net positive. Son of Kolachi (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• You didn't even registered your account when NadirAli was editing. Lorstaking (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per IvanVector. He's quite right - a siteban is a massive overreach here, considering the behaviour of other actors in this mess of an editing area. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you name anyone else who has been sitebanned and indeffed multiple times after coming off from a siteban? Except NadirAli obviously. How can we afford to have an editor who is editing for 12 years and still dont know what is a topic ban violation? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe he has been an extremely concerned constructive editor who has been working to build a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. His contributions to the platform are such that the encyclopedia would see a great loss in his absence. I see nothing that warrants a site ban. I don't want to see it not do I think it is proportionate.KA$HMIR (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• And you logged in after 35 days for making your first edit in this noticeboard.[23] Why? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Ivanvector and other editors opposing this unnecessary site ban. Sanctions are supposed to be preventive and not punitive. NadirAli has served time for his past violations and currently under a ban and according to Ivanvector, no current sockpuppetry allegations were proven. We should not be extending a ban without a solid recent violation. It will be definitely a massive overreach as Ivanvector has rightly put it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Competence is required and NadirAli has none. Agree with Kautilya3 that NadirAli's edits were either shady or simply useless. According to the CheckUser: "The first obvious thing to say is that User:NadirAli has clearly been editing while logged out. This is to an extent you couldn't describe as accidental, and includes subjects such as the Kashmir dispute along with the Star Wars stuff.... There is also extensive logged-out editing from this set, which again includes Pakistan-India along with the Star Wars stuff."[24] This is a clear abuse and deception in addition to socking with two accounts for evading the topic bans after being blocked for violating them. Siteban after handing out multiple topic bans to a previously sitebanned user was itself unbelievable. Siteban looks like a delayed formality now. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Five of the above users in support were very recently defending a blocked sockpuppet, who caused a lot of disruption. Many are certainly not here for charity. The vast majority of the above have also been involved in content disputes over the past 12 months. In my eyes, the credibility of this proposal and the intentions of the filer can't be taken seriously. NadirAli did some commendable work on content creation, and has been doing so for several years. Sure, he slipped up, but he got sanctioned for it and remained cooperative. I'm seeing nothing which would warrant replacing his existing sanctions with a punitive ban. This is an extremely weak case and not in good faith, as admin Ivanvector pointed out. Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mar4d:-Well, I'm one of those five users and you might wish to go through this thread.I defended him precisely because the SPI investigation failed to satisfy me and that has got nothing to do with your snide generalized personal attack, (at your second line).∯WBG^converse 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support due to abuse of multiple accounts to evade scrutiny and edit in defiance of his restriction, even after a lengthy block. This is someone who does not respect the restriction or our policies. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. I may change my mind if Orientls is able to provide evidence for their claim as I mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nil Einne. Clearer evidence needed. Agathoclea (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Agathoclea and Nil Einne: Do you need evidence of NadirAli's confirmed "extensive logged-out editing"[25] in violation of Arbcom's restriction that he can't "edit from any Wikipedia account other than "Nadirali", nor edit anonymously,"[26] or do you need evidence for Ivanvector's own words that NadirAli "has evidently created sockpuppet accounts"[27]? NadirAli's socks quack loud,(example 1: [28][29], example 2:[30][31][32], example 3:[33][34]) because they were operated by himself. Ivanvector himself tagged the accounts as suspected socks of NadirAli.[35][36] Evidence is already here. Lorstaking (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the evidence and agree with Ivanvector. The fact that other editors like Orientls make such misleading claims and then provide no explanation when called out for it really tells me all I need to know about this case anyway. Note that my specific point was that Orientls made a highly misleading claim. I don't care to get into a dispute over the evidence for other stuff. Neither Orientls nor you have provided any evidence for the claim "CU confirmed the intentional logged out editing and also found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions" as that was about the CU finding based on CU evidence not any behavioral evidence. If editor A says I am editor B and editor B says I am editor A and they edit all the same articles with the exact same edits, that doesn't mean it's okay to claim CU found a connection with two socks when they did not. P.S. To be clear, I'm not saying most people supporting the tban are doing it for the wrong reasons simply that there are clear problems with at least one of the supporters which gives me great concern when combined with what I've seen of the evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • CU is not a magic pixie dust. NadirAli clearly attempted to evade CU but totally failed at it. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • That sort of thing is possible in principle, but it seems not to have happened here. Above, you are claiming that the editor trolled by misrepresenting something. That is exactly what you're doing here, except that in this case it's plain to see. You seem to turn "between possible and inconclusive" into "confirmed", attacking Ivanvector in the process (as noted by Nil Einne, Black Kite, Vanamonde93), which is silly. "Between possible and inconclusive" is, for SPI and other purposes, basically "inconclusive". No one should block or decide on bans or whatever based on such CU evidence, and I hope no one does; it's not even "possilikely", which already demands admins look for other evidence to help base a decision on. So yeah, CU is not magic pixie dust--and yet you take the CU results as if they are, which is just completely wrong. So whatever may be wrong with the editor's contributions, you simply cannot base anything on those CU results. But hey, what do people like Vanamonde and Ivanvector and me know about CU and adminning, right? Drmies (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you Drmies for clarifying that. Orientls (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Nyttend sums it up perfectly: When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. It should also be noted that issues are not limited to just deceptive sock puppetry and time has shown that this user is unable to reform himself. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure where the claim of denial is coming from, I have not seen it. Here are some of the user's last edits [37] [38] [39] where he is acknowledging his sanction before the block and SPI closure. He had no other edits prior to these relating to his block. I certainly haven't seen any denial, unlike this case whom several above defended. This is misleading in my view. Mar4d (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, the claim and its proof come from near the end of the initial statement. In this edit from 2 July 2018, NadirAli edits India-Pakistan relations, including bits about their conflict. And in this edit from 6 July 2018, NadirAli says I have not violated the topic ban and have not edited any India-Pakistan conflict pages. NadirAli was subjected to a ban on "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" on 15 May 2018, and clearly India-Pakistan relations is a page related to conflict between India and Pakistan, so unless the ban were repealed in the month-and-a-half between imposition and edits, we have an easily proven violation of the ban. He edited the page in question just four days before making this statement; it's too soon to give him leeway for possibly forgetting, and since he remembered the ban on 6 July, it's going a bit far to say that he may have forgotten it on 2 July. This is what I meant by you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Lean oppose. As the checkuser who checked the SPI, I think I'm entitled to say that I'm satisfied with Ivanvector's actions and drawing the line there. I think I'll also comment a bit more on the SPI. The SPI is stuffed full of IP addresses - many were added after I commented at the SPI - some are from over 7 or 8 years ago - most are from years ago - some of which are credibly disputed - and none of which were recently (if at all) confirmed by checkuser. Most of it is distinctly historical. What I've seen of recent activity, from my privileged position, in my view does not warrant an indefinite ban. For the record, I am sure about the logged-out editing (which has not been disclosed in detail anywhere), and "somewhere between possible and inconclusive" is not a strong proof. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Though extensive logged out editing is itself enough of the evidence of sock puppetry in addition to further disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You've again misrepresented the checkuser's comments: zzuuzz said "I am sure about the logged-out editing" but did not say "extensive", and confirmation (for all intents and purposes) of logged-out editing, a violation of an Arbcom sanction, is the entire rationale for NadirAli's current block, not any "further disruption" as you seem insistent on describing edits nearly a decade old. Your repeated misrepresentation of facts from the sockpuppet investigation is one of the reasons why I don't think you're here in the spirit of what's best for the encyclopedia at all, but rather just trying to pick off your opponents by any means necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

He said "extensive"[40] on the SPI, to which I was referring. NadirAli was the one picking up fight by filing bogus AREs[41][42] against me by misrepresenting my comments and supporting a suspicious account,[43] which was deemed to be a sock of an indeffed user who's edits have been frequently restored by NadirAli per the SPI.[44] For all that disruption I am supporting the siteban so that we will never have to waste anymore time on him. Is that clearer now? Orientls (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This 'suspicious account' in question is not blocked. Can you be more clear what you mean by "deemed to be a sock"? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. This group of editors has no business at all calling out frivolous use of admin noticeboards, not one editor on either side of WP:ARBIPA. On that very page you linked to (twice) we have four incredibly obviously retaliatory enforcement requests, all from seemingly random uninvolved accounts, all accusing some opponent editor of being a sockpuppet of some other editor. The first supposed "bogus ARE" you link to is one filed against NadirAli, in which he makes just as convincing a case for you being a sockpuppet as anyone has made for him, and the second is just making his observation formal. Shall we indefinitely block you based on these flimsy reports?

• When I said in the mass-topic-ban ARE thread from those few months ago that "these editors have turned this subject away from collaboration and have made it their own personal battleground, and at this point the only way we're going to come back from that is to remove them from the topic" this is exactly what I'm referring to. I've become convinced in the months since that the lot of them should just be indefinitely banned for even after all that still continuing to perpetuate this ridiculous feud. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, they're just here to push their point of view and to fight with anyone who isn't on "their side", and to harass their opponents with "bogus" reports like this one and the many ridiculous reports at SPI and ARE this year. That's all that this entire proposal is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is interesting that NadirAli had two indefinite blocks since vacation of siteban for copyrights issues. That is something an editor who is editing for a decade would better know about but that's completely missing in the case of NadirAli. There is no denial that sock-puppetry for evading scrutiny and editing in defiance of topic bans was continuously carried out. The recent topic ban violations and zero acknowledgement of problems with own conduct makes siteban as the only suitable option. GenuineArt (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Per my comment to MBlaze Lightning, the "zero acknowledgement" comment is not accurate. Here are the user's most recent edits, and the only one which relate to his block. He is clearly acknowledging his sanction. [45] [46] [47]. He definitely has not denied it anywhere. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - He was sitebanned before for same behavior. In this case the ban is clearly long overdue because he is frequently violating copyrights, attacks on ethnicity[48][49] even after warning,[50] filing spurious reports, breaching topic bans, exhibiting inability to contribute constructively, and engaging in each of these violations using socks for over so many years. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Because of the long list of sanctions and horrible block log. There seems to be a lack of productive editing and continued engagement in battle ground mentality even after being sitebanned for it earlier. The sock puppetry (including logged out editing) was probably last straw but he had to walk carefully since the ban in place of becoming subject to multiple topic bans. Onkuchia (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And strangely enough, this is your second edit ever on WP:AN after this one. No prizes for guessing what transpired there also! Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - To ALL partisan editors, please chill out. Blocking your opposition from Wikipedia will only reduce the quality of the entire platform. Focus on generating a healthy competition over coming up with reliable sources to support your own POVs which you all clearly hold, and dont turn this into personal disputes. Enough with this constant crying to the moderators over account/topic bans etc. Take the actual issues over content to arbitration, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, leave personal attacks out of it. Code16 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - Last year, I had started an ANI against NadirAli, and proposed a topic ban because of his recurring CIR issues. [51] That topic ban could've helped NadirAli, but now it seems like only a siteban can help him. Knox490 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Time and energy get spent into undoing willfull damage to articles in deliberate manner. Said editor is apparently guilty of doing such things for significant period of time, thereby leaving no other option at all. Devopam (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban as a) overkill (far too rapid an escalation for what is not an on-going problem) and b) unhelpful (would not address the underlyiing issues at all). I agree with Ivanvextor's (slightly) more nuanced approach. This very discussion proves the old adage, "a plague on both your houses" somewhat. The sheer amount of bad faith—on both sides—not only illustrates plainly that more than one editor is at fault, it also shows, equally plainly, that removing said individual from the theatre will make not a jot of difference to the toxic atmosphere. And on that, winding back on the various insinuations of sock / meatpuppetry would be a start. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that you spelled my name wrong. You might say I'm ... Ivanvexed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ooops! Apologies, Ivanvector  :) That was me (slightly!) more nuancing your name... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial, you may have made this comment in Good faith, but your rant above, makes me to conclude that your oppose !vote is a "drive by comment" citing "Everyone is fault" and Whataboutery, and I feel it is made without due diligence, just by reading some of the comments here. Well everyone is free to make his opinion in whatever way he feels like, one should understand that these comments of "blaming everyone" not only allows the problem to escape and get away but also encourages him and other similar actors that this is escapable. Knox490 above raised some more valid points. Volunteers are here to improve Wikipedia, not to indefinitely coach a tendentious editor who has no regard or respect for policies of WP:NPOV and Blocks/Bans. Do you really believe that Nadir was not given enough chance ? Countless warnings and even blocks were handed out and yet, he continued doing the exact thing he was sanctioned for. Admins dont want to get into content disputes and understandably so, but then the problems continues and editors working on the articles are left to tolerate the tendentious and WP:BATTLE behavior, and when they raise the problem here, Whataboutery is thrown at them. I feel the topic of the discussion is genuine and needs a serious thought based on its own merit, you may not be affected by it, doesn't mean nobody is affected. Yes "Give the person more rope", sounds good, but this has to have an end somewhere. Nadir, is only to blame for this situation by his own actions. --DBigXray 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• • @DBigXray: I wouldn't usually template a regular, but when you accuse editors that are making a good-faith assessment of ranting, that's all ya get. Make sure you archive it as quickly as possible. Good luck. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I am well within my rights of personal opinion to consider your "good faith assessment" that accuses the nom and others of "sheer amount of bad faith" as a "rant". Lets agree to disagree. Thank you. --DBigXray 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: You are very much mistaken. The fact is that your remarks verge upon being personal attacks, and mine did not. That you cannot understand the difference is—worrying. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support The editor has clearly been warned of his infractions. The blocking history reflects him to be an incorrigible sock puppet. This creates extremely unhealthy editing atmosphere in the improvement of articles on South Asian subjects. The repeated long term sock puppetry and large block log shows that siteban is necessary. Previous record of contributions can never be an excuse to let off a defaulting experienced editor, especially a repeat offender and one whose contribution history is so tainted. Let us remember that letting off NadirAli would set a precedent which would help future sockpuppeteers to wikilawyer their way from getting appropriate sanctions. AshLin (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - an interesting phenomenon occurring here is the number of experienced and active accounts commenting in this discussion who have either never edited this page before, or have not done so for very long periods of time. I don't have a hypothesis to suppose, but for example the comment above this one was made by an editor who last contributed at this noticeboard in 2012. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My edits are severely reduced due to my being diagnosed with a blood disorder and complications since some years, I spend less time on WP nowadays and generally prefer to edit constructively and argue less on issues and on noticeboards, though they are on watchlists. Once in a while I visit and comment occasionally. Check out my contribs. AshLin (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a catching thread. Using "evidence" that actually did not prove the point as an argument, caught my eye. AN and BN is a must read even in periods of "inactivity" or at least latest when returning to duty. Agathoclea (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - this user's sockpuppeteering and other abuses outweigh any positive contributions he's made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. -- Begoon 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose too many partisan editors for this forum to impose a community ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we're seeing the familiar pattern: editors from the Indian faction are joining to vehemently support the proposal, and the ones from the Pakistan side are fiercely opposing it. But it's easy to see who's who, so it shouldn't be too difficult for the closer to filter out the partisan "noise", should it? – Uanfala (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Ivanvector, funnily enough you had enough time for saying all of this at WP:ARCA but you didn't. Your own actions contradict your current attempts to change goalposts. You had blocked both sock accounts of NadirAli as his suspected socks and now you are saying something that not even NadirAli has said. CU has informed us that NadirAli deliberately engaged in logged out editing in violation of his Arbcom restriction.[52] CU also said that he was doing logged out editing in Kashmir-related subjects. He is currently topic banned from that subject. You can just say that NadirAli tried a little to evade CU but couldn't really evade it or avoid an impression of WP:DUCK.[53][54] The list of IPs and accounts including the ones that I had provided are not joejobbing because no one has time to replicate behavior of NadirAli. Each of those IPs and accounts  have made the same edits as NadirAli. NadirAli was not editing with his main account around that time and he is the only person who has claimed that Tarek Fateh was born in India,[55] and he enforced that outrageous BLP violation with his IPs too.[56] The high multitude of same distinctive POV pushing with those IPs is evident only in the history of NadirAli. Finally, if you really have problems with any other editors then you should consider opening separate threads about them. At this thread we are only discussing NadirAli and not anybody else. -RaviC (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaviC: ARCA is a forum for seeking clarifications of existing Arbcom rulings, and nothing more. I had a specific question about NadirAli's sanctions, I asked it, I got an answer, end of. You're the one who showed up with an off topic site ban proposal, clearly forumshopping your disagreement with the result at the NadirAli SPI. In much the same way that your ally My Lord did after Bbb23 told them we don't sanction for alleged violations of topic bans which occurred years in the past. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe, if I am not mistaken, it is not forumshopping when Arbcom themselves recommended RaviC to propose siteban on WP:AN. 3 months block is not much for sockpuppetry; and more so when it is still going on for this long. People keep getting site banned for exactly the same offense. NadirAli seems to display multitude of issues such as sock puppetry, attacks on ethnicity, copyright violations, topic ban violations, edit warring, several topic bans, WP:OR problem like Tarek Fateh etc. Thank you! Sdmarathe (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It was forumshopping for RaviC to have tried to effect a different result from the sockpuppet investigation by hijacking an ARCA thread to which they were not a party. Worm That Turned did suggest they should take it up here instead, which I have no issue with as far as forumshopping is concerned. As I explained in my closing comment on the SPI, I felt that Arbcom had already directed the appropriate sanction for NadirAli's logged-out editing, I merely enacted their sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. But people get indeffed for first or at least second instance of logged out editing and NadirAli appears to have done it with intent to mislead people and appears to be doing it for years. "Logged out editing" is not the only issue because NadirAli socked as Boxman88 and Posuydon to violate the topic bans. NadirAli appears to have done this even after promising several times that they won't engage in sock puppetry. That to me seems wrong that they are willing to show remorse and continue with same violation in future! That leads me to support that siteban is still necessary given the large amount of disruption and repeat violations. I certainly understand wikipedia should be a constructive, lively forum, but we need to hold users accountable for repeated disruptions. Of course, I do not wish to stretch this any further, but those were my additional 2 cents on this discussion :) Thank you! Sdmarathe (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the evidence for Boxman88 and Posuydon being NadirAli's sockpuppets is highly circumstantial. Those two accounts are blocked because the technical data showed that they were socks of each other, not of NadirAli. The tags on the accounts note the suspicion and refer to the page with details, because that's how the tags work - we don't have an {{obviously somebody's sockpuppet}} tag. Since the close of the investigation it came up elsewhere (in an unrelated case) that it's possible to adjust these tags to more accurately reflect the situation, and I will do so at the conclusion of this discussion but not before, for reasons that I hope are obvious. As for other users being indeffed for socking, yes that happens, rarely on a first offence not involving other misconduct (usually a term block in that case, a week or two) but sometimes when a user is socking but also disruptive or spamming or whatever, we indef them on the first go. When a user has been a contributor for as long as NadirAli has, and when there are many other circumstances to consider such as the divisive nature of the topics they often edit and the sometimes combative nature of others they're frequently in disputes with, when they have a more recent history of improved behaviour with respect to actions they were previously sanctioned for, when the supposed offence is unclear and/or isolated, and when (as I've alluded to in this discussion with admittedly less civil discourse) hardly any editor seeking sanctions for conduct in this topic area does so with clean hands, it's not so simple as "sockpuppetry == ban". I felt at the time and still do that indefinitely blocking NadirAli would cause Wikipedia to lose a prolific contributor while doing next to nothing to improve the WP:ARBIPA topic area (and noting that NadirAli is already banned from that topic), and thus on the balance it would be harmful to Wikipedia overall and particularly so to the other niche topics to which NadirAli contributes entirely free of conflict. Free, that is, except for the occasional score-settling revert from some other IPA editor from a past dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You had blocked NadirAli because he was "editing from alternate accounts and while logged out".[57] Block log entry made by you says "using multiple accounts and editing while logged out".[58]

• Boxman88 added a WP:SPAM link on Hindu on 6 January 2016[59] and 11 months later NadirAli edit warred on 11 December 2016[60][61] to restore that spam link.
• Boxman88 on 20 June 2015 added wikilinks like "*[[Languages of Nepal]]" on Languages of the Indian subcontinent[62] and NadirAli on 23 November 2016 added categories like "[[Category:Languages of Nepal]]" there.[63]
• What about these two 100% same edits[64][65] made on Dari language?
• NadirAli has a history of censoring the article "Partition of India" from Pakistan article. He censored it throughout 2007,[66][67] while Boxman88 censored it in 2015,[68] because NadirAli was topic banned at that time that's why he used Boxman88. Once NadirAli could edit this subject again he censored the article using his main account.[69]
• NadirAli censored the word "India" from Pakistan article in 2007,[70] and Boxman88 censored the same word in 2015,[71] when NadirAli was topic banned.
• Boxman88 censored the word "India" on Vedic period [72] in 2015 as NadirAli was topic banned from this subject, unlike in 2007 when NadirAli account was used to censor the word "India"[73] on this article.

Can you find same edits in the whole history of these articles outside these two accounts or anybody supporting those edits? Either NadirAli could imitate Boxman88 or Boxman88 could imitate NadirAli, but they imitated each other because these accounts are operated by the same person.

NadirAli has edited every single month since his return in May 2014 except entire April 2015 - 28 June 2015.[74] Boxman88 was mostly active from April 2015 - 28 June 2015.[75][76] NadirAli edited on 29 June 2015 and Boxman88 didn't edited that day but Boxman88 edited on 30 June 2015 and NadirAli made no edits that day.[77][78] Lorstaking (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained my rationale at SPI, and my later concerns with some of the findings of that SPI at least twice in this thread. Other editors reviewing can search for my username further up the page for my response to what Lorstaking has repeated. I am considering making myself a template for responses so that when the next editor in the line pretends to ignore what I wrote and drops the "but he's a sockpuppet!" comment, I can just type out {{NadirAli SPI reply}}, but it's not going to be today. I should note here that RaviC's edition of "but he's a sockpuppet!" appears below, and was written a few days before this comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Apart from making same changes in matter of days or months, these accounts have edit warred in tandem. See this one: Boxman88 makes a very dinstictive edit on History of Pakistan [79] and after 1 day NadirAli edit wars for restoring it.[80] That's complete WP:DUCK. According to your "rationale at SPI", NadirAli "evidently created sockpuppet accounts in violation of an Arbcom-imposed unblock condition".[81] One account (Boxman88) was created for editing Indian subcontinent and other account (Posuydon) was created for Science fiction - the only two subjects of NadirAli. Those two accounts have no overlap with each other,[82] and they can be construed as socks only if NadirAli's editing has been taken into consideration. Lorstaking (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:NadirAli SPI reply Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have prepared the following table after reviewing some diffs above as well as some recalled from my own experience for summarizing numerous severe issues with NadirAli, which are more than just sockpuppetry.

Issue	Evidence
Mass copyright violations	Large number of warnings have been posted on his talk page regarding copyvio and apparently he never heard any. He was blocked indefinitely in 2016.[83] after uploading images in violation of copyrights even after this warning. Later topic banned from uploading any images as unblock condition.[84] Violation continued and NadirAli was indeffed again in December 2016.[85] None of the above incidents helped him. He copy pasted most of the 32k bytes in May 2018.[86] He was warned for this mass copyright violation,[87] but he restored the copyright violation again,[88] by falsely claiming that he "trimmed quotes". Upon investigation he rejected any copyright violation[89] and abused proxy IP to support himself.[90][91] Later he blamed the copyright violation on User:Kautilya3 claiming that he learned it from him.[92]
Reports in WP:AE and WP:ANI	July 2017: "Warned not to edit war." July 2017: Closed as no consensus November 2017: "Warned to focus on content, not nationality". May 2018: "Indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan... warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block." Even after these reports, NadirAli continued to engage in edit warring and he has never stopped making personal attacks on other editors by speculating their nationalities. He has also violated this topic ban on various occasions.
Edit warring	He has engaged in mass edit warring. He was even blocked in May 2017[93] for that. Since examples of edit warring are too numerous, let us look at the two recent ones:- 31 May 2018: Margot Kidder - 3 reverts in 24 hours.[94][95][96] 12 May 2018: Princely state - 3 reverts in less than 40 minutes.[97][98][99]
Personal attacks on other editors by targeting their race or nationality	His attacks on other editors by referring his opposition as "Indian", "Hindu" for which he was sitebanned by ARBCOM in 2007[100] have continued to this day. I would not count each of them since there are too many. Let us have a look at those that came after numerous recent warnings from November 2017, given to him by multiple admins for attacking editors by speculating their nationality or ethnicity.[101][102] "after the POV pushing Indian editors... usual Indian nationalist occupation of Pakistani articles"[103] "constant disruptive editing by certain Indian users.. fourth by Indian POV pushers"[104] "case here that Indian editors have taken to harass"[105] "am referring to the Indians involved"[106] "whose value Hindu POV pushers want"[107]
General WP:CIR issues	NadirAli's large range of disruption shows that he still doesn't understand the basics of Wikipedia. Assumes bad faith in edit summaries:- "Do not attempt to intimate me by trailing my edits. i'll report you (or anyone else) accordingly if it reoccurs. Team-tag hounding will also be reported if required" [108] "POV my foot. I've cited the edits and you have been trailing me for this kind of purpose"[109] "continuous attempted harassment by same user. You better behave yourself" [110] ^^In all three examples you can only see him edit warring to restore his content but he never joined the talk page[111][112][113] to discuss his edits. Has violated his topic ban on various occasions in last 2 months[114][115] but claims he never did it.[116][117] Tried to WP:GAME the system by edit warring on WP:ARCA to remove his name from the topic ban appeal,[118][119] after adding his username by himself.[120] He has no idea what a vandalism is contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[121][122] Makes a page move by misspelling the "Bangladeshis" as "Bengladeshis"[123] and claims that Bengalis are Bangladeshis, despite large amount of population found in India and elsewhere. Claims "sources agree and are calling Pakistan a regional power",[124] when source exactly contradicts it by saying "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power".[125] Makes senseless votes on AfDs, such as "Keep as supported by WP:GNG"[126]. Only person to vote against "Keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike. This shows he has no idea about AfD either.

To make it very simple, NadirAli has many issues like language problems, edit warring, frequent assumption of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, copyright violations, sock puppetry, topic ban violations, battleground mentality, casting aspersions, ethnic POV pushing, proxy editing and so on.

He is exactly doing what resulted in the ARBCOM siteban in 2007 and his behavior has never improved but only deteriorated and retrogressed. We have enough evidence to establish that he is, in overall, disruptive. RaviC (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good research. Interestingly, just a few months ago, NadirAli was alleging others of "IP socking"[127], "using IP socks",[128][129] and I find that very ironic; since he himself engages in mass "IP socking". Bharatiya29 15:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are 18 blocks in his main account and many more in his IPs and socks. Even if he had never socked, the continued attacks by speculating nationality of users, several topic bans and complete failure to understand the policies are enough grounds for a siteban. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 09:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. As I had pointed out in this user's topic ban appeal at WP:ARCA; this is someone who has been intentionally and recklessly causing disruption to our project for a very long time now, be it through WP:CIR issues or sockpuppetry or copyright violations. He has been given so many "last chances", yet instead of compensating he has only caused more disruption. I believe the recent topic-ban violations, sockpuppetry, among other violations as noted in the table above are the last straw--and as a community we should not hesitate to show him the door. Bharatiya29 12:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the very persuasive evidence posted above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Given the gravity of the sanction being considered, may I ask you to actually read through the "evidence" above? As Ivanvector has said below, there's a lot of misbehavior listed there, but much of it is multi-partisan in nature, while a lot of the rest represents a genuine content dispute as evidence of incompetence. Maybe you will still believe a site-ban is necessary; but, at the very least, you would be supporting it with a more complete picture of what's going on. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Nice observation VNM, the editors here should simply disregard the loads of evidence that has been presented and instead think about the Illuminati and !vote accordingly. No picture is complete without mentioning the omnipresent Illuminati. I reckon, Nadir Ali had done all these above violations under the influence of Illuminati, so no one should blame Nadir. All Hail blame the Illuminati. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Don't be silly: all I'm doing is asking BMK to read the evidence for themselves. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Do you think that I had someone else read the evidence and then tell me how to !vote? I said explicitly above that my comment was based on the mass of evidence presented. I feel no need to go through it again, nor do I think that doing so will expunge NadirAli's block log, which remains one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I got a weird email today asking about NadirAli, followed up on the emailer's talk page], and from there discovered this whole magnificent thread. (I did not see a notice about this discussion at NadirAli's talk page, though I'm happy to drop one in.) Anyway, I'm reluctant to say support because Wikipedia isn't as much my community any more -- unless a wealth of time and energy kick me back into gear, I won't really be affected by this decision, and "the wiki belongs to the living." It also doesn't help when I only recognize ~two user names in this whole mess, both of whom I respect, and there's Black Kite (talk · contribs) saying a site ban too much and JzG (talk · contribs) is for it. All this hemming and hawing aside, though, I will share that when NadirAli and I bumped heads a couple of years ago, his underlying "I don't hear you" reminded me very much of User:A Nobody, nee Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Take that as you will. Miss you all. --EEMIV (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody thinks Nadir Ali is A Nobody. Collapsing as a digression--regentspark (comment) 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

43 article overlaps between A Nobody and NadirAli. [130] A lot of Star Wars stuff, but a lot of other things mixed in, making the overlap appear pretty unlikely to be random. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ...and 47 between me and you - [131], which surprised me somewhat. I'm not saying the theory is right or wrong, just offering a comparison, or "control" test, if you like. -- Begoon 05:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC) True, but one of the things I look for is the combination of a common subject area and unique articles which are not in any way connected to the subject area. Any two Star Wars fans are going to edit a lot of the same articles in the subject area, but if two of them do that and they both edit, say, the article on Anton Solomoukha, a "Ukrainian-born French artist and photographer", then you have a different matter, as it would be an unlikely overlap for two Star Wars fans. I don't see that kind of combination in the overlaps between you and I, whereas I do, to at least some extent, in the overlaps between A Nobody and Nadir Ali. In any case, EEMIV says that they didn't mean their remarks to be taken that way, so... Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I think it would likely not surprise anyone that Star Wars is a topic of interest to many people. As an SPI clerk, if I were reviewing a case where the evidence presented was that several accounts were all interested in Star Wars, I would consider it no better than noise. I'm generalizing: there's of course more complexity to this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Nononononono. I don't think it's him. The behavior is similar. Similar mindset. That's it. Turn off the klaxons. Stop taking it as you will, and take is I intended for you to take it because you can obviously read my mind. --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I would be very surprised if Nadir Ali was A Nobody. Their writing styles are very different. Assuming no one will object, I'll collapse this as a digression. --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Prolonged display of incompetence as adaquately evidenced above. Failure to understand massive violations in defiance of dozens of sanctions including blocks and topic bans shows another siteban is the only option we have. Excelse (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If an editor shows a constant trend of violating Wikipedia's policies, such as been presented in NadirAli's case, then a ban is necessary I think. I am always for second and third chances, but apparently NadirAli has continued with the pattern presented despite being given another shot. I have personally had only one run-in with NadirAli a few months ago, but on that one occasion he displayed a battleground and POV-pushing attitude and at one point I even suspected he was possibly using sockpuppets to influence a voting regarding the deletion/merging/keeping of an article. I voiced my concern and in that specific case it turned out he wasn't (despite another sockpuppet being discovered) but I now guess my intuition wasn't far off regarding him. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  @EkoGraf:. Re this diff, were you canvassed for this !vote? Please do make a declaration here if that was the case. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark:. Nope, that was a completely different matter, see my next edit here [132]. What happened was Lorstaking accidentally saw my personal email when I mentioned it in a discussion and wanted to advise me to remove it with the help of oversighters so others wouldn't see it. But you could say him contacting me on this matter (the email) lead to me coming here, because while I was waiting for his reply I checked his contribution history and saw he made a comment on this noticeboard about NadirAli. I remembered NadirAli from my previous encounter with him (see my above comments) and decided to state my own opinion on the matter of this editor. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: Between, here's where I first voiced my suspicions of NadirAli being a sockpuppeteer several months ago [133]. I hope this all clears it up? :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As per WP:EW and bringing a sense of confrontation to already sensitive and edit warring pages, also had to go through lot of arguments with a sock ! ? , have also noticed has misused wiki in all possible manner creating kind of menace, unfortunately see no other way Shrikanthv (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I have encountered with this user before on some Iran-related articles, including on the articles of Iranian cuisine and Iranian peoples, where I undid his edits per WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV. It appears that he has for long been violating WP:POINT and is WP:NOTHERE.
  —Rye-96 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Rye-96 is another user who has just suddenly remembered a two-year-old beef with NadirAli, having just today apparently randomly stumbled across a file NadirAli uploaded that was in use on a page Rye-96 has never edited, and that hasn't been in use on any page on the project since the end of 2016. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• A few notes on RaviC's table:

• The supposed copyright violation discovered in May 2018 was subsequently discovered to have been uploaded by a different user almost a year earlier. RaviC is the latest in a long line of editors who have misattributed this violation to NadirAli, clearly trying to draw sanctions inappropriately.
• The topic ban in May 2018 was applied to ten users simultaneously, in what was very much an end-of-the-rope "let's ban everyone and see if it helps" solution. Obviously it did not, but it is highly inappropriate to attribute this ban solely to NadirAli without mentioning the other nine users who were also banned. Some of their comments have already been struck in this thread.
• That edit wars in South Asian topics are "too numerous" should hardly be news to anyone here, but again, NadirAli is hardly the sole source of this problem. Same goes for personal attacks.
• As for CIR, these are content issues not competence issues. I just picked this one out because RaviC provided the source. As far as Pakistan's status as regional power is concerned, the quote provided is pulled from an introduction to a section discussing the query, "how do we understand Pakistan as a regional power?", a query which to me appears to be phrased as though the author is arguing the affirmative. It does open the discussion saying "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power." It then immediately qualifies this with "This alone requires additional clarification." The source then discusses interpretations of regional power for a few lines, and near the end of the source's preview we can find this statement: "Pakistan is clearly a significant power from a simple materialist perspective." It then goes on to discuss that argument up to the end of the preview; I don't have the offline source and cannot see what the author actually concluded. Regardless, I find it highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to assert that Pakistan is factually not a regional power based on this source. RaviC's insistence on one interpretation is a matter of fair editorial disagreement, not one of competence.

As I've asserted previously in this thread, the cherrypicking and misrepresentation of evidence on the part of the original proposer should be considered in context of the partisan nature of these editors and disputes. RaviC did not prepare this proposal to address a pressing issue (at the time, NadirAli had not edited in a month and is blocked for another two), chose a time when NadirAli could not reply directly, misrepresented my conclusions from SPI and continues to misrepresent them having had that misrepresentation clarified in this thread several times, has misrepresented a copyright investigation, and has misrepresented at least one source, in making the argument for NadirAli to be site banned. Not to mention EEMIV clearly being canvassed by GenuineArt, my comment above about Rye-96, other editors appearing here who never edited AN before, RaviC's arguments having been pulled from other editors who have tried the same arguments before - it feels like there is more to this than what we are seeing on the page. I don't suspect that whoever is behind it has the project's best interests in mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. NadirAli has major competence and temperament issues. He has been a time sink and numerous topic bans and blocks have proven that nothing has helped him enough to reform.  Second site ban is simply overdue at this situation. desmay (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support a Site-Ban. The block log is one of the longest I have seen. Enough is enough. This is an editor who obviously is not here to improve the encyclopedia, even if we don't know what they are here for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Call for close

I suggest that an uninvolved admin evaluate this thread and close it appropriately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang for Orientls

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

---

Going through this thread, it does not look like NadirAli is a problem anymore but continuous battleground behavior, misrepresenting the CU results, and attacking admins unnecessarily on Orientls part are a problem so why not turn it around against them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but I would like to note this is a wider problem involving others as noted in my comments regarding this case. The entire premise of this mess is axe-grinding and one-upmanship. Sigh. Mar4d (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reason I oppose the ban on NadirAli... Please stop involving admins over personal disputes, it wastes their time. Focus on the content and take content disputes to arbitration committees, and/or find more reliable sources. Code16 (talk)
  • The Arbitration Committee does not handle content disputes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • For disputes where the locus of conflict is a particular content issue, avenues for resolution are available in the guide at WP:DR (there's a thread somewhere up this page about exactly that). The disputes here are all bad blood and entrenchment, and admins should handle them with that in mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (probably moot given the subthread directly below) - while I'm disappointed and frustrated by yet more deliberate cherrypicking of sockpuppet investigation results to support a conclusion presupposed by the original filer of the ban request, the subsequent bad behaviour in this thread is not on Orientls. At least, it's hardly solely their doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violations in this thread

I've just blocked four different editors for violating their topic bans by participating in this thread. If you are topic banned from this topic area, the sniping is over for you. Further topic ban violations will result in further blocks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose the closer can ignore those contributions (both opposing and supporting, ironically) per WP:G5. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • They most certainly can and should. It wouldn't hurt to evaluate whether the topic bans in this area should be expanded as well. I'll leave that to someone else. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13, to make things easier for everyone, would you mind striking what these four have said? I don't think the closing admin should have to check everyone's block log when evaluating votes and statements. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13 and Nyttend: I went ahead just now and struck the topic-banned users' bolded !votes, but left the other comments intact since other users have already responded, and also noted where Kautilya3 struck their own comment. Feel free to check my work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Ivanvector, thank you for the help; it's nice and clear and neutral. And yes, thank you for noting that Kautilya's was self-striken, lest someone think that he'd been penalised for something. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: speaking of expanding sanctions, I noticed yesterday that you warned Kautilya3 to drop the stick (my paraphrasing) after a comment on Mar4d's talk page. Did you happen to notice that Kautilya3's next edit after your warning was to use the revert button on two year-old wikiproject assessments NadirAli made on an article he created two years ago, outside the India-Pakistan conflict, in a topic which Kautilya3 had never edited before? Maybe it's nothing, or maybe it's reflective of a series of NadirAli's edits that MBlaze Lightning swung by to revert, outside IPA and on topics they'd never edited before, after NadirAli was most recently blocked? Especially these two which were also messing around with NadirAli's WikiProject banners, but also all of these reverts. Given this discussion and everything else going on here, Kautilya3's revert hardly seems in good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. That was completely accidental. I have just reverted it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So, you just happened to be scrolling through NadirAli's edits, went back over a year, accidentally picked out one that was a most recent revision on an extremely niche topic you have no apparent interest in, accidentally clicked on Twinkle's big red vandalism button, accidentally accepted the resulting popup confirming you wanted to revert all of NadirAli's 2 preceding edits, accidentally closed the new tab that opened to NadirAli's talk page, and accidentally didn't undo your "accident" until eleven hours later and only after someone else pointed it out? That's one hell of an accident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, that's actually an easy mistake to make. If Kautilya3 was investigating past overlap between MBlazeLightning and NadirAli, it's unsurprising that he ended up there; and clicking rollback or twinkle rollback accidentally is something we've all done. I am however seriously concerned by all of this reverting outside the topic, and I'm wondering if an interaction ban may also be necessary in addition to the t-bans. Vanamonde (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I accept that clicking on one of the rollback buttons occurs by accident, we've all done it, I've done it several times I'm sure. But this is not that. Kautilya3 reverted on a page where the last two edits were made by NadirAli, and the edit summary indicates it was done with Twinkle. Unlike WP:ROLLBACK, Twinkle always reverts all contributions by a user back to the revision prior to that user's edits, and when reverting more than one edit it generates a browser message asking you to confirm that you intend to revert all of the user's past # of contributions; you then have to click "ok" to confirm. It would have been at that time, had Kautilya3 clicked the rollback button by mistake, where he could have cancelled the action, but chose not to. That's assuming he clicked the "vandalism" button; had he clicked "rollback" then Twinkle would have prompted him for an edit summary, and he would have realized the error at that time. But the edit was reverted, it's right there in the revision history, meaning Kautilya3 saw the dialog and accepted the action, and was aware that he was doing so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that my apology and self-revert haven't been accepted. I was indeed researching into NadirAli's edits around June-July 2017 late in the night. I was either half-sleepy or had dozed off in front of the computer. So I have no consciousness of what I did to achieve the result that occurred. All I can say is that it was completely unintentional, and I self-reverted as soon as you pointed it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Close review

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

---

So we have this nonadministrative close by User:The Gnome.

This closes a side discussion of an actual RfC that I opened on June 5, about whether to include a list in the page. This side discussion was opened on June 11, and the actual advertised RfC attracted only 2 new people after that date. The side discussion was about how elaborate the list should be.

Only 7 people participated; 4 of them favored an elaborate list; 3 favored a modest list. One of those three nodded a bit toward the "elaborate" stance, but never changed their fundamental 'simple and modest list" stance. (an 8th person placed their RfC !vote in the subsection, as often happens).

The close did a "headcount", counting the 8th person as a !vote in the side discussion, and counting the nodder as "elaborate", so found a 6 to 2 headcount as opposed to 4+ / 3-. Also not regarding the extent to which !votes were based on policy considerations.

The outcome will have a large effect on the page content.

The discussion was not well advertised and it is clear to me that we have no actual consensus; there should be no "close" at all, or if there is, it should be "no consensus". We should have a full RfC to obtain one.

I asked Gnome to withdraw it (the section is (here) and they are standing by their close.

So I am asking that this nonadministrative close of a sparsely attended non-RfC be withdrawn, clearing the way for an in-process actual RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose I will copy here what I wrote on The Gnome's talk page around the same time Jytdog was opening this thread:

Determining whether to call something an RfC is very much a technical matter. The RfC system is formalized and intended to bring outside participants into the discussion. It's with that basis that a consensus determined by RfC tends to carry more weight than consensus determined more informally. So something needs to be tagged as an RfC to qualify as such. However, it was a subsection of the RfC section, started a few days into it. In my experience, subtopics of an RfC may or may not be considered part of the RfC but when they are, they're typically closed at the same time as the RfC or specifically acknowledged in the close. I would want to ping Winged Blades of Godric about that, since it looks like he closed the top part of the RfC but left the section in question open. It's a hard call, from a procedural standpoint.

That said, an RfC is not required to have a discussion or find consensus. The Gnome felt there was a clear consensus to present the table in a certain way, and it's certainly hard to read that thread as a consensus not to (i.e. no consensus would be the alternative). IMO it is hard to justify removing the content at this point, but I also think it should be uncontroversial for Jytdog to immediately open a second RfC focused on presentation since, at very least, that subsection did not receive the participation of the original RfC thread and was seemingly not included in WBG's close thereof. In other words, I don't think AN is necessary. Default to including based on a weak consensus on the talk page and use RfC, if desired, to find a stronger consensus one way or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with withdrawing this and doing an actual RfC if that will be perceived as in-process. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, I did explicitly ask for both parts of the RfC to be closed at RfCl, and I did ping Winged Blades of Godric when they only closed the first part, with no response. And I did ping all participants in the main RfC to alert them to the subsequent one.

I'd also like to note that in the case of WP:NOCONSENSUS, the result would be that the table would stay anyway as that was the state of the article prior to these discussions. The list was in the article from its first edit until Jytdog unilaterally removed it without discussion. I did not immediately revert this removal as a courtesy given the heatedness of the discussion, but that does not change what the status quo is if there is a finding of no consensus.

Lastly, when I restored the table after the close, which explicitly said "The consensus is to Keep the draft version", User:Jytdog immediately reverted my edits implementing the close twice [134] [135]. Even if Jytdog was going to appeal the close, they should not have reverted it immediately. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth nothing that Antony-22 is literally a paid nanotech advocate on Wikipedia, as has been brought up in talk page discussion on the page in question - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

David Gerard's accusations are demonstrably false. I am not paid to advocate for nanotechnology. My Wikipedian-in-Residence position with NIOSH is in fact to contribute information about hazards found in the workplace, including of nanomaterials. My work on the Feynman Prize article is strictly in my volunteer capacity, and I have been editing it since 2011, long before my Wikipedian-in-Residence position started. I have warned him before multiple times about making false accusations, and he is WP:HOUNDING me by casting aspersions for which he has provided no evidence and are easily disproven. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Having seen this accusation and response a couple times now, this should really be addressed. David and Jytdog have both (see below) accused Antony-22 of being a paid advocate, and Jytdog specifically said it was the reason for their edits to the article in question (see below). I see this was also raised at COIN recently, where the only other voice was Doc James, who said it was not a COI issue. Either Antony-22 has a COI with regard to nanotechnology in general and should be aware of that (it seems he is not under that impression) or the accusations of promotional editing due to COI should stop. I'm not sure where the best forum is, as the COIN thread failed to attract much of a response. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that COI and paid advocacy are different. The latter is a substantive statement that money is being exchanged for edits that are against Wikipedia's policies, and is a bannable offense. Unless I have misunderstood, this is what David Gerard is accusing me of. Users may still contribute with COIs as long as they disclose them and follow Wikipedia's policies. I've disclosed my activity in nanotechnology research literally since I started on Wikipedia, and I believe I've been following the rules, both in my volunteer and WiR capacities. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites what you have written is incorrect. David Gerard and I have different takes on what is going on with Antony. David has said, as they say here, it is paid advocacy; I have said only advocacy (as in "fan"). Please redact your comments. Thanks.

But the purpose of this thread, is the close review, so we can establish a framework the article can exist and grow within. If you want to open a different thread on behavior, please do that separately. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, my mistake. Struck part of the comment above. Here is the statement that led me to conflate your comments and David's. On the talk page you said that Antony-22 is "under some intense advocacy pressure that I do not understand", which sounds to me like an accusation of COI (i.e. "under advocacy pressure" does not sound like saying he is a fan). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the term "advocacy" specifically means that policies are being broken, while COI does not make that assumption. According to WP:Advocacy, "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies", emphasis mine. It's important not to mix up the terms. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Kinda; people with a COI often edit with advocacy which is what leads us to ask about it. Advocacy is the drive itself and man you are driving on this prize article. Editing with that kind of drive often leads to badly sourced, over elaborate content and aggressive behavior, and those are where the policy violations (behavior and content) come in. People do it because of financial COI and because of passion; it looks the same.

I get it that nanotechnology is a big deal to you. But this is not the Nobels. There is not a single place in this whole discussion where you have agreed to treat this proportionally to its relative importance. You haven't listened to what people said in the RfC at all. Anybody reading through that thread, will see your unbending, straight line in the discussion, and it is there in article this, before, is basically the same as this, after. And yes that is a problem, but I have not taken that to the drama boards. The reason why, is that you have followed DR pretty well, at least in letter. Not in spirit. (the unbending line) Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say I haven't listened to the RfC at all, when I'm exactly following what the RfC closes said. Look, honestly, we're both involved and it's not for us to determine what consensus is. That's what the RfC closes are for. I'm happy to wait for the result of this closure review and if we have to do yet another RfC based on that, so be it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - I see nothing unusual about the close, and not everything has to be advertised in order for it to be a valid consensus (especially with regard to a single page where the discussion took place on its talk page). Nihlus 19:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment looks like "no consensus" to me, and using nose-counting for an interim result seems fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Was this an actual WP:RFC? (I don't see the term "RFC" in the title, and I'm not going to try to figure out if it ever had an RfC template.) If not, then there's no stricture about creating an actual official RfC on the matter, which will get site-wide input. Hopefully the wording of the RfC can be clearer (perhaps with options "1, 2, or 3" or some such). Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• There was an RfC, which is the second-level heading on the talk page. A third-level heading was created under it a few days later to discuss some specifics. When the RfC was closed, only the top section (the originally created RfC section) was closed. The subsection was closed later. The subsection did not have a separate RfC tag as it was opened a few days after the initial RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not really kosher to add a subsection poll(s) into an existing RfC a week after the RfC was opened and the usertalk-notified uninvolved people have already !voted but won't see the new polls. So if there was any objection to any part of that entire "RfC", I suggest starting an actual WP:RFC with only one subject, not several, to resolve whatever is still disputed or still in question. And repeat with separate RfCs for each disputed matter. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : I believe that decisions should be self-explanatory, be they about an RfC, an AfD, or anything else in Wikipedia. If a decision must be explained and it only then gets approval, then it was a poor decision in the first place. So, as the closer of that RfC I will only elaborate some more on the technical side of the decision, i.e. whether or not this was a "bona fide" RfC or some other animal. I will stay out of the discussion about the substance of the decision, which in my view stands on its own. That includes issues such as the clarity of the offered choices, and the like, which have been addressed in the decision.

As it happens, the specific discussion came to my attention while checking out the Admin Board where closures of formal discussions are requested, i.e. here. So, there was an open request to close an RfC, called exactly that, by name, a request which was up for weeks, under the "RfC" section of the board. What's even more telling, however, is the fact that we had at the tail end of the very discussion an explicit notice ("Close request") about closing down "this RfC" ("Is it time to request a close of the RfC?" etc). Never a doubt was expressed by anyone about this being a legitimate RfC, not until the decision came in.

A general remark: RfC formats are far from rigid. (I'd prefer them more rigid, myself, actually, but this is how Wikipedia rolls.) The site provides examples in the relevant page where it is stated that there are multiple formats for Requests for comment. Some options are shown here. All of these formats are optional and voluntary. (Emphasis in the original.)

WP:RFC itself states that there are many acceptable ways to format an RfC. In my view, the one chosen for the contested RfC might not have been the best (I would not format it like that, anyway) but it was nevertheless an acceptable format, an RfC for all intents and purposes. So, I'd have no quarrel with anyone who'd prove that the decision in the RfC was wrong, I made mistakes, policy was violated, etc. But I see no objection that can be raised based on the claim that "this was not a proper RfC." Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My objections are specific; editors have taken it to be a definitive expression of community consensus (of an RfC) (which your close leads them to believe) and the close does not reflect what people actually said in the subdiscussion nor in the discussion above, where the topic of how to present the list was mentioned by several people prior to the subdiscussion being opened. So - the close is both overplayed and not accurate. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure interested contributors will examine what went down and come to their own conclusions. I very much disagree with your point of view, and especially the way you have framed the whole process, including the counting of !votes, but this is now a matter for the community to decide. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• A non admin closing anything that is disputed should simply revert his closure and allow a more authoritative closure by an admin, I thought that is the guideline. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Govindaharihari. On which guideline exactly is what you claim based? Perhaps it'd pay to revisit the policy on non-admin closures. Looking up WP:BADNAC, I pay particular attention to the note stating administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's only the policy for WP:AFD (and possibly other deletion discussions). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It comes up pretty regularly. Admin not required for an RfC. Regardless.. This thread should just be closed at this point. Whether an RfC with consensus, an RfC without consensus, etc. there was not consensus to remove a bunch of the detail based on either of the RfC/non-RfC discussions, and a new RfC can address that. The material has been restored (albeit with tags). Other stuff regarding David, Jytdog, and Antony-22 that's apart from this can be dealt with in a separate thread as noted above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• this is classic being a jerk that just creates friction that gets in the way. I keep checking to see if any of the other folks there have answered and keep seeing that trolling. Gr. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, Jytdog, and it would not be the first time, but did you just call me "a jerk"? I hope there's some mistake here. Otherwise - just wow. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, you don't need anyone's permission to start an RfC on material or discussions that were never part of the originally posted RfC to begin with. If you dispute or dislike the results of anything that was not part of the originally posted RfC set-up, then create an RfC. You would even be within your rights to re-do the original RfC question if you dispute that outcome as well, since the RfC was constantly tinkered with to add new questions, which is not allowed -- those questions should have been outside the scope of the original RfC discussion, and they may have even muddied the overall close of the original RfC. In terms of will people "accept" an actual RfC on the list format: That's what RfCs are for-- to be official consensuses, with outside input, rather than informal non-binding conversations. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I hear that, but given the promotional pressure I am going in small steps and would like to get buy-in. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I personally feel like a new RfC would be a lot of work for little benefit. Either a consensus to retain the table as-is or a no consensus finding would have the same result, since the article contained the table before all this began. I suppose it's possible that actually there's a consensus that these types of lists should not have photos, but given that most FLs of this type do contain photos, my take is that that's a remote possibility. The other benefit would be to clear up the technical process questions that have been raised, but I don't see the point of doing this "on principle" in the case that the actual article content doesn't change. Honestly, we've been discussing this article nearly continuously since the beginning of May, and we're now above 100k of discussion on a 25k article. If this forum supports having a new RfC, I will respect that, but I'd really rather spend my time improving other articles at this point. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your perspective on this Antony. Other folks here, this is what I mentioned above, about the usefulness of small steps. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the smallest step one would expect from you, Jytdog, is to strike off the personal insult above. Calling other editors "jerks" creates the opposite of usefulness. -The Gnome (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I described your behavior. Throwing snark in response to a question that was not asked of you, especially when you are explicitly taking a stance of someone uninvolved in the underlying dispute, is jerk behavior, adding friction where it was both unnecessary and unhelpful. Just bad judgement. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a pity, Jytdog. It's obvious you cannot understand when you have crossed the link into boorishness. There was no sarcasm at all from my part, simply an attempt at humor in a situation you were making unnecessarily tense. I thought the 'smiley' would help but we're beyhond that now. From the "jerk" then, only this: Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw the smiley. You suggested that I will only settle for an outcome that gives me what I want. That is not correct -- anybody reading the actual RfC can see that I saw the trend toward "keep a list" and adapted to that developing consensus, and this is what I do generally. For you to write that particular response to me at the article talk page when I am questioning your close, was bad judgement. I have no more to say about this. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Restored removed {{Do not archive until}} notice. Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Move review discussions are all closed. Wikipedia:Close review discussions also should all be closed. A close of this close review would answer whether the RfC close should be endorsed or overturned. It would also answer whether a new RfC is supported. Even though as Softlavender said permission is not required, from Jytdog above, "I hear that, but given the promotional pressure I am going in small steps and would like to get buy-in." Cunard (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Just a heads up

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

---

Resulting from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301#Block review for Clockback, Peter Hitchings has published a rather critical piece on Wikipedia's handling of the case.I don't know or have an opinion whether it warrants review of the previous discussion, but I suspect this may lead to some off-site activity related to the issues (both on the original matter around Bell, and on this ban). --Masem (t) 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The piece is fairly typical of the kind of hyperbole that we hear from banned users. He may have a wider audience than most but I don’t see anything of substance that would merit re-opening the closed discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably not (and I also do not see why, since he pledged to never return), but he is right that there are content areas in Wikipedia where a dissenter can not do anything does not matter what quality sources they bring and what arguments they make.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that audience overlaps quite a bit with Daily Mail readership, who I don't believe have the capacity to accomplish anything meaningful or lasting (otherwise they wouldn't be reading the Daily Mail). There might be a handful of new users or inactive ones crawling out of the woodwork to try to "fix" this (the ban, the topic that got him banned, whatever) with about half of them pretending that they aren't Hitchens-fans (just "concerned about the neutrality of it all") but they won't be aware enough of how anything works to accomplish anything beyond temporary annoyance and disruption. A couple of users blocked in the immediate future could possibly cite Hitchens in their sour grapes complaints disguised as unblock requests. I will (buy a hat and) eat my hat if this gets so bad that Arbcom has to get involved. Five years from now, the site regulars are probably not even going to remember this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• There’s nothing to reconsider here. He was already given special treatment in an attempt to prevent this very article. I specifically closed his community unblock request early so that it wouldn’t unnecessarily escalate into becoming a CBAN. I explained to him clearly and specifically that he had the right to appeal to a new administrator ad infinitum, that an indefinite block is very easily lifted with a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request, and I all but guaranteed him an unblock if he only read and followed the GAB. I also clearly explained to him that the situation would change if he insisted on a community appeal, and that he would likely end up CBANned with no options on the table. Apparently, according to his article, the sticking point was his generational inability to “surrender”, so, I’m spite of my warnings, he insisted that he be given the “due process” of a community appeal. As I forewarned, the discussion resulted in a community ban, and now he wants to act like he was kicked off of Wikipedia with no second thought. He’s omitted the full story in his article, and while I feel bad that his situation ended badly, nobody but himself tried to bring about that result. Swarm ♠ 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is nothing the admins or the community can do about it unfortunately. He is already CBANned, and the only thing higher than that is a global ban or WMF ban. But I don't think he qualifies for any of those. Afootpluto (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t think there is anything to be gained by even discussing this. He’s banned. He got the due process he asked for, and it didn’t go his way. He says he doesn’t care but he’s clearly very bitter about it.(this isn’t the first blog like this he’s written elsewhere) Sounds like a lot of not my problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor point - I wouldn’t call his treatment due process. He immediately received an indefinite block, which then required him to explain why he was innocent. Quite backwards from the real way it is done. It’s no surprise the community failed Hitchens; he had already been judged guilty by a quite powerful admin.Mr Ernie (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the dearly departed

No, he did not receive "Due process", since he wasn't blocked foe a long time for his obvious COI/POV editing, and after he was blocked he received a block review that was incredibly more extensive than is normal, by at least an order of magnitude. That's not "due process" that's "extraordinary special treatment". He's got nothing to complain about, since he brought it on himself, and then refused to even attempt to understand what was required by way of a response that might get him unblocked. His current article was to be expected, and there's nothing that could have been done to stop it, except perhaps to have immediately unblocked him, chopped off the head of the blocking admin, apologize profusely, collectively tug at our forelocks and offer Hitchens the keys to the city and a Wiki-knighthood. He's a partisan "reporter", for crying out loud!

Now, would someone please close this? Enough innocent electrons have already died because of this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Electrons do not die, the lepton number is conserved. They can recombine with positrons, but this typically does not happen at low energies because we do not have any positrons around.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You can see for yourself that they do die, since I've provided an image of one just above -- so who are you going to believe, those darned over-qualified government-grant-guzzling sub-atomic physicists or your own eyes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : As an uninvolved editor I must say I find some of the comments above quite disturbing. Irrespective of the exact core issue (articles, COI, ban, etc), this strong-arm discouragement of dissent is anything but welcome. An admin above even drew a portrait of any editors that would dare in the future question the course taken by Wikipedia, i.e. by its administrators: Such editors would be ignorant ("they won't be aware enough of how anything works to accomplish anything") Daily Mail readers who seek "annoyance and disruption" motivated of "sour grapes"! And just to pre-empt such "attempts," the prediction is that "five years from now," no regular user will remember the issue!

Another administrator, writing in rather angry prose, wants to see this discussion terminated a.s.a.p. even when the issue has gone beyond a mere ban of a user to become a public matter concerning Wikipedia's inner workings. Don't we at the very least owe to the public at large a stronger response to Hitchens/Clockback's claims? Because I fail to see such unanimity against dissent improving Wikipedia in any sense of the word. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (1) I am not an admin. Never have been, never will be. (2) No, we don't "owe the public" anything except to build the best encyclopedia we can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suppose part of the process of building the "best encyclopedia" would also be avoiding such incidents. But if everyone feels this has been handled as best as it could've been, then there's little more one can say. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you'd suppose wrong. The internal behavioral processes are almost completely irrelevant to whether the articles in the encyclopedia are neutral, well-sourced, well-written, and well-presented. That is what makes up a good encyclopedia, not whether some biased editor is pissed off that he got kicked off the team because he refused to follow the rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think I'm wrong here. The process of creating something cannot but affect that something. And this applies to everything from edibles to encyclopaedias. I'm actually pretty certain about this! And part of the process, of course, here in Wikipedia, is the regime of interaction among the multiple creators of content, i.e. what you call "internal behavior." For instance, an authoritarian regime in Wikipedia would most probably produce a very different work than what the current, quite open and free regime has produced. But, like I said, if everyone feels this has all been hunky dory, then fine. -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Exhibit B: So good... but sometimes best not to inquire what's inside

Exhibit C: Many died, many lived tortured lives in the building, but it's still one of the Wonders of the World, because the process doesn't necessarily determine the outcome, materials do

Unfortunately for your surety, I happen to know that you're more wrong then you are right. I've been involved with the creation of many, many works of performing art, and I can tell you from personal experience that some of the ones which were undeniably great were absolute hell to live through the creation of. The general angst of the creative process was not reflected in the finished product. A creation can be in some way affected by the process of creating it, but it is not necessarily determined by that process. Alternately, I've been involved with productions that were a dream to put together, but which were not artistically successful -- and every conceivable combination in between, because the process and the product simply don't have the one-to-one relationship you posit.

And if you don't want to rely on my personal experience, I offer as Exhibit B every sausage ever made by mankind: you really don't want to know what goes into them, but they can be delicious anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about Exhibit C: The Pyramids. Built by slave labor, in a process that was undoubtedly cruel and unfair to the workers, yet they remain one of the Wonders of the World -- because the process of building it had little or nothing to do with the majesty of the work.

We ain't building the Pyramids here, but building an encyclopedia is still creative work (something that some editors tend to forget as they try to force it into the mold of an assembly line). It's the materials used which are most important, in our case good research, good writing, good layout makes good articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The pyramids were not built by slaves, as stated by various sources and repeated on here. (But if the pyramids are a product of slave labor, who are the slaves hauling the stones around in this analogy? I hope Jimbo will not lash me if I refuse to create content. ) Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That section of the article is reporting a theory by one man "Dr. Zahi Hawass / Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments". I can think of many reasons why an Egyptian politician, even assuming they are scientifically qualified, would want to think that the pyramids were not built by slaves. The section is supported by a NatGeo article, a Harvard Alumni Magazine article (!), an Associated Press news report, an article by Zahi Hawass and an archived article by Zahi Hawass: in other words, they are all essentially regurgitations of the same thing. I'm about to go back to the article and remove that section per WP:WEIGHT, as there appears to be little independent evidence to support Hawass' theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

NB: That section of the article has now been re-written and re-sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• To sum things up: "Talk shit, get hit." --Tarage (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the place to air unrelated grievances, thank you. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh please, this isn't a "public matter concerning Wikipedia's inner workings". This is an editor with a newspaper column who got banned from Wikipedia by the community via a public forum, in spite of our best efforts to afford him special treatment and all the "due process" in the world, even in spite of direct attempts to shield him from a community ban so that he could quietly negotiate an unblock. He insisted on making a big spectacle over his block, insisted the community review it, and then when that tactic backfired spectacularly and the community endorsed the block, he goes running to his audience (either in an attempt to save face or simply garner sympathy) with these bizarre claims that he was shadowbanned by some sort of faceless and soulless bureaucratic establishment or something. I assure you "the public" at large does not actually care about Hitchens' ban and Wikipedia will go on in spite of his whinging. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the specific person's "audience" is by definition the people who read his column. And there is no other audience available to him, is there? As to what others will make of the episode, I cannot tell and thus cannot share your confidence that "the public at large does not actually care." After all, The Spectator has a circulation of around seventy thousand print copies. But I agree, of course, that Wikipedia will go on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens attempted to recruit his Twitter followers to argue his case and did not receive much support, so the project likely will not lose many editors over this. But I imagine it has not been a great few months in terms of British public confidence in Wikipedia, with the Philip Cross case alienating some Corbyn fans and this now possibly alienating some Rees-Mogg (or whoever Hitchens is aligned with) fans. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Copyvios on main page

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

---

The article Atal Bihari Vajpayee is currently posted to WP:ITN. As with a regrettable number of articles on South Asian politics, it is attracting a lot of clueless attention, including the frequent addition of text in violation of copyright. I have, despite being WP:INVOLVED, revdel'd some of the egregious violations per WP:IAR. I would ideally like another administrator to look over my actions, but more urgently, some other admins to keep an eye on the page and delete further revisions/perform blocks as necessary. Some other less egregious copyvios were removed yesterday, too. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it was requested, I have reviewed the revdels and the material being added was unambiguous copyvio and appropriately deleted from the page history. Have the page watchlisted and will keep an eye, but given the length of my watchlist and editing-pace on the page, will appreciate a ping if deletions/blocks are needed. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers: I'll let you know if anything is needed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also watchlisted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

About Toshi12345

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

---

I think this account may be used to edit semi-protected pages. If you look at the history of protected pages Category:Environment of Tibet & Battle of the Barrier Forts,we find that the editors(IPs) are highly consistent from the editing history of these pages.

Also I want @Toshi12345: and @Samweithe4: to explain the reason for deleon on Category:Environment of Tibet.--Tr56tr (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m not at all sure what it is that you want an admin to do here, but fr the record Toshi12345 has been blocked as a sock, and Samweithe4 hasn’t edited in a month. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Inversion of redirect

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

---

Please some administrator can help me for this inversion 2018 European Athletics Championships – Men's Marathon Cup (right) with 2018 European Athletics Championships – Men's Marathon Team (wrong), because The European Marathon Cup stil exist as European Marathon Cup incorporating in European Championships (not dispute in Olympic year) see here and the references of this artcile: European Marathon Cup. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 12:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Default sunset periods for community-authorised sanctions

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

---

At Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions are six community-authorised sanctions, of durations noted as "indefinite". There is something unsatisfying about this. The indefinite period of duration of the sanctions was not formally proposed, considered, discussed and decided. If general sanctions are no longer needed in a topic area, they may be revoked through discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. By default, this leaves them active forever, based on one relatively brief discussion.

I propose that for all, in the absence of a community consensus on the duration, that a default duration period should apply in place of indefinite. I propose the period, dating from the close of the discussion authorising the sanction, should be five years. After five years, the sanction will expire. The sanction may be renewed at any time by a fresh proposal agreed by consensus at WP:AN. An alternative period may be applied if formally proposed and agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be less bureaucratic to leave them as indefinite, until revoked by proposal agreed by consensus at AN. Fish+Karate 08:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"When no longer needed", who is going to come here to to propose that? If it is needed, and no one at the time discussed the duration, surely it is worth a review after five years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, is there an example of where the existing setup (indefinite + opportunity to request) has not worked, and where this alternative proposal (5 year + automatic non-renewal) would have likely solved things? —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s about the trend of these things. A week of AN discussion, and people think they have authorisation for arbitrary deletion, unreviewable. The current setup, it’s written in stone, unrevokable except by a stone mason. Does it require a consensus to uphold the largely unbridled power, or does it require a consensus to overturn it? That one week AN discussion, did the participants really consider the five years plus possibilities? You were almost asking a good question, but “5 year + automatic non-renewal” is not how things work, as continuation motions are very easily put and supported. As a matter of principle, powers should be periodically reviewed, and five-yearly is a pretty generous period. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a specific example where this is a problem and/or what you propose is some sort of solution to an actual problem, this isn't going to go anywhere. The "matter of principle" you mention is mere question-begging: what "principle" is this a matter of? --Calton | Talk 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The principle is whether AN is an autonomous regulating board, separate from the community, and specifically whether AN ruling are indefinitely applying even for short term problems where duration of the sanction was not even mentioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In other words, no, you don't have an actual applicable principle nor a problem you're looking to solve. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a parliament and does not have a parliament. If you want to repeal any of these, I'm sure we'll figure out how it works then. The only one that might get repealed is the one related to The Zeitgeist Movement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• • On the parliamentary analogy, these are not parliamentary devices, but executive regulations granting police powers. The Adminstrators Noticeboard is granting itself the power to give wider policing powers to admins to take unilateral actions, affecting content. With no sunset or review periods, the arbitrary power is quite a lot. Noting that the discussions didn’t consider duration, a default of consensus applies until overturned by consensus is a bit rich. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• If they aren’t needed, they won’t be used. If they are needed, they will be. Either way, a sunset clause doesn’t add much value. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The value is in clarifying that the role of WP:AN is in administrating, not legislating, and forcing AN to be explicit when they do decide to make rules that are permanent. Is this a community-run project, or an administrator-run project? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Indefinite does not mean infinite". Any editor can start a discussion on AN to end any of these sanctions if they see good reason to do so, so a "sunset" provision would only have the effect of potentially harming the project by allowing what could be necessary sanctions to lapse at some arbitrary date, instead of being closed out when no longer needed. If they are no longer necessary, start a discussion. If you object to some particular sanction, start a discussion. The same mechanism which brought a sanction into existence can be used to get rid of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite does not mean infinite" is a WP:BLOCK policy cliche. This is not editors blocked under discretionary sanctions being indefinitely blocked. An indefinitely blocked account must submit an unblock request, even if the discretionary sanction expired. Is that there concern? No, this is about admins being given very broad latitude to block users & protect pages under a specific discretionary sanction. If the discretionary sanction was implemented without discussion of duration, and the trouble was short term, it should not stay on the books indefinitely. --02:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)

• Oppose per the above and largely per Beyond My Ken who's said it better than I ever could - In short indef doesn't mean forever and if any of those parties listed wants to end the sanction(s) they know where AN/ANI is, Suggest someone closes this non-starter. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose These are rarely a "one size fits all" situation. Discussion is always an option. While WP:CLEANSTART is usually about blocks any editor who is sanctioned can use it as a way to explain to the community that they understand who they were sanctioned. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This sounds a lot like a solution looking for a problem. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suggestion that AN decisions are set in stone is false, as they can always be appealed at AN again later. And no, cliché or not, indefinite doesn't mean permanent. I think the current system of leaving an indefinite sanction in place until someone sees no further need for it and seeks a new consensus (eg below) is working fine and I see no need to change it. (And that's really just saying "per Beyond My Ken", I guess.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Blackmane said it best. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Blackmane said. Even the so-called principle at stake makes little sense. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

case by case

RE Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_to_revoke_General_Sanctions_regarding_the_Zeitgeist_Movement. I guess case-by-case is preferred. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal to revoke General Sanctions regarding the Zeitgeist Movement

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

---

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement

In 2015, the community authorized General Sanctions on the topic of The Zeitgeist Movement, an organization related to filmmaker Peter Joseph and his films the Zeitgeist (film series). This is not a high-profile organization or topic. No sanctions have been imposed under this sanction since 2016, and the one block issued expired in 2017. A new merge proposal (which was the original impetus for the ANI thread leading to the sanctions) has languished unnoticed since March, and both Earl King Jr. and Sfarney have not edited since 2016.

The authority for admins to impose general sanctions on this topic is no longer necessary, and I move to revoke it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per why not and BURO. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• support. It served its purpose and is no longer needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unless someone can present a good reason to keep it live. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Doug Weller - if disruption picks up again, reinstatement should be the immediate result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support since it is no longer necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, it can always be reinstated if issues re-arise. Fish+Karate 10:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can't really add more than has already been said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Don't see the reason to keep it at this point, and if needed it can always be reinstated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sure no reason to keep it, but I also find voting on these things to not be the most productive use of time since they aren’t actually used. In other words: this really isn’t changing much. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the understanding it can be reinstated if its removal results in disruption. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Removing the GS looks fine to me but pinging Salvidrim! and Ian.thomson for their input since they have admin-ed in the area and are currently active. (I think it would be good practice to invite concerned admins to any future discussions over lifting of community authorized general sanctions.) Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• No objections - I closed the original discussion authorizing the GS and have issued a few notifications but I haven't stuck around the topic area and couldn't say whether it's calmed down enough to remove to GS or whether it's only calm because of the existing GS. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above me, No point in keeping it if it's not been applied to anyone for over 3 years. –Davey2010^Talk 01:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Accidental addition of rollback flag

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

---

It seems that some admin has added the rollback flag to me since the rollback links [rollback][vandalism] appear when I look at the contributions sub-page of any other user. However there is no log entry specifying which admin has given me the flag. Please remove rollback since I am not experienced/eligible enough to use it. Regards. — fr ⁺ 12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

FR30799386 those links are from twinkle Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter You mean nothing will happen if I accidentally press them FR30799386 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

See TW rollback; clicking on them will do a rollback similar to rollback from a rollbacker but slower as it isn't server side Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe Twinkle also asks you before performing the rollback, but I use it so infrequently.... --Izno (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Temporary Interface Editors Nominated

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Stop-gap_users_nominated. This process is completely ad-hoc and I've proposed it as a temporary measure due to the looming software change next week. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock question

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

---

I posted the following to WT:SPI a few days ago, and am yet to to get an answer. Maybe someone here as some thoughts on the matter.

I've been looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aggiefan47, and would like a second opinion on whether or not a range block is potentially appropriate here. The range in question is 98.200.12.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There is a very prolific editor on this range, interested only in baseball, and who may very well be Aggiefan47. Best I can tell there have been two other editors on the same range in the past three weeks, who have engaged in unrelated, but also problematic editing: Unexplained removal of content at Mile 22 and POV editing at Did Six Million Really Die? and Sudetenland. On one hand, there is clear risk of collateral damage; on the other, preventing the unrelated edits might actually be beneficial. I'm leaning towards saying no, simply because the behaviour of these other editors has not reached blockworthy levels of disruption, but I'm unsure enough that I'd like a second opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I've taken action at the SPI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

SPA has COI

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

---

Moved to WP:ANI § SPA has COI

So this SPA Balochworld (talk · contribs) from the day first has been trying to write this BLP Nabil Gabol in a promotional and biased manner using unreliable sources. I fixed this BLP earlier this month, but this SPA is back again and for the past couple of days has been trying to revert the BLP back to his own version which is poorly sourced and promotional. For the past couple of hours, SPA has been edit warring using this account and an IP despite several warnings on their talk page from several different editors. --Saqib (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Comment the user Balochworld (talk · contribs) appears to be "not very familiar" with the policies. Saqib you being the more experienced one, did you try and engage BW for a discussion on this content dispute on the talk page ? I dont see any thread on the talk page, Please do and inform him that Edit summary is not considered a discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User Indici, uploading copyrighted images, automated creation of gastropod articles.

There is a user Indici, which appears to be either some sort of bot, or a user using automated scripts. The user has recently created a very large number of articles on gastropods. There is a concern that all of the images being used on these articles are copyright violations, some of which clearly have a watermark which indicates so. The user has also taken to overwriting articles with thier script's output, with dubious increased usefulness (See: Calliotropis_philippei). The user has not responded to the numerous comment and complaints about their behaviour on their talk page. The issue gets bigger with every new article they publish and I fear that what I have seen is just the tip of the iceberg. I cant spend time investigating myself at the moment, as I am at work. Could someone please look into this user's contributions and decide if action needs to be taken? The copyright images issue seems to be a pretty big problem. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, They claimed to be the owner of the images here=, but that is pretty much the only interaction they have had with other editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is user Indici here. I'm only trying to contribute our information that we have of the new described species of shells by citizen scientist and book author Guido Poppe. Many of the species do not have a page on wikipedia or have outdated information that has been pulled out automatically out of WoRMS many years ago. Also many of the species do NOT have an image. So a few days ago I took it on myself to start uploading all the missing information and images of all species that we described and discovered. I read that some people think these images are not mine. They can always contact me for more clarifications. There is no BOT, it is me who is entering and uploading all this information to wikipedia. ....added at 02:26, 23 August 2018 by Indici

Yes, you have been contacted for more clarifications. Make them here and now. These images that you are uploading: Do you own the copyright to all of them? -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

More urgently, please respond at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Indici. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be moving along at a snail's pace. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, apart from the image issue, it is extremely bad practice to completely overwrite existing articles with new material of doubtful quality. Taking as an example Conus beatrix, over which you edit-warred (as in a lot of cases) with Plantdrew: your version erases the reference to the original species description, distribution and size information, a number of useful external links, and the synonyms list. This amounts to a net loss of information, not an improvement. You cannot wade into articles like that and expect everyone to cheer you on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Understoond: I'll review this, it seems I misunderstood some of the workings of the system. I'll check and revert where needed and add the new information where suitable. --Indici (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, you have said "I've ownership of all the images uploaded." Unless you explain this persuasively at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Indici, I fear that they'll all be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And the image ownership claim implies an additional concern with WP:COI, besides the mass rapid-fire unexplained reverts and problematic changes; an advance discussion of game plan at WT:GAST might have saved some trouble. Dl2000 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the final version (1 Feb 2011) of the soon deleted page Conchology, Inc. read:

[...] In cooperation with other companies and museums, we aim to provide the best services worldwide and to enrich the malacological world with new informatic tools of significant purposes in the taxonomical/nomenclatoral fields. [...] The secondary function of our company is, as a consequence of the above, to promote the study of the systematics of the Mollusca. [...]

(my emphases). This was after seven edits by Indici; the only other edit was Zachlipton's request for speedy deletion (G11). -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici may have dropped out. See this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Topic ban removal

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

---

I was banned from making religion related edits in the beginning of 2016 for 6 months. I abided by the rule for rest of the year. Since than I have been mostly inactive. I have had previously made a request but lost the tract of ANI & now can't find the thread. Yesterday I made an edit on religion related topic when I was reminded that I am topic banned. Therefore, I request that my topic ban should be removed. Regards Septate (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I have found the link to previous thread [|here]. Septate (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers should note that this topic ban resulted from this 2014 ANI discussion, and was unsuccessfully appealed in 2016. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. It seems that after the user made some edits pushing the edges of this ban and unsuccessfully appealed in July 2016, they went away for a bit. I was going to just say that this fails to demonstrate the pattern of constructive editing normally required by the standard offer and reject on that basis. But they have made 10 article edits since the previous appeal, 5 in 2016 (all topic ban violations) and 5 yesterday (3 of which are clear violations, such as adding a large section at female genital mutilation emphasizing the practice among Muslims). And so on that basis I think this user should be indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But they've also already been warned about that edit and are here on that basis, so I'm not endorsing a block here. But the next violation will surely be the last edit this user makes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the last request, they pulled the exact same thing that time. The discussion is still on their talk page so it stretches credibility tht they just didn’t know any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Ivanvector. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose You need to abide by the topic ban before asking for it to be lifted. This request is basically DOA, I suggest you withdraw it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Beeblebrox. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. No benefit in a block right now, but if they once again disappear for a year and then start editing religious topics they should be indef-blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Closing comment @Septate: I would caution against repeating what you have done here in disappearing after 10 edits and coming back here to appeal. Please demonstrate a history of constructive editing in other areas (abiding by this topic ban) before appealing again. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC close review

The RfC Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance? was recently closed by Winged Blades of Godric (WBG). Given the controversial nature of the topic, and the "close call" in opinions expressed by editors, I had requested a closure by an uninvolved admin.[136] Accordingly, I asked WBG to revert and let an admin process the close. (See User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Admin close?) However, shortly after our dialogue started, WBG failed to reply further, probably busy in real life. Meanwhile, the closure asserted by WBG has been implemented in the article, but editors are already disputing it the wording in a new section. For all these reasons, I believe that fresh eyes on the RfC are needed. I'm not sure of the procedural details, but I was advised to post here. — JFG ^talk 20:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: There was prior consensus, established in February 2018, to omit accusations of racism from the lead section. Obviously, we all know that WP:CCC, but the question becomes: is there enough new information about Trump's "racially charged comments" since February, and does this new RfC express sufficient support to override the consensus from six months ago? — JFG ^talk 21:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve just read through the RFC and I’m finding it difficult to understand how the closer found consensus. This needs to be revisited. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of academic, because the RfC has effectively been superseded by a more recent discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That discussion was predicated on the disputed close and was started 21 minutes before the close was disputed on the closer's TP. Few if any editors knew it was disputed, including me. Perhaps JFG should have posted a comment to the effect that the "specific-wording" discussions were premature until the dispute about the more general question was resolved; I'm guessing he failed to anticipate an argument like yours above. But the shortest path to article content, if any, was, rather than suspend the issue for a week or two while the close dispute was processed, to allow the "specific-wording" discussions to proceed with the understanding that they were contingent on the close holding. That reasoning is just as valid without a "premature" comment from JFG. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was puzzled to see this "weak consensus" quickly added to the current consensus list, which traditionally has been reserved for strong and undisputed consensus adjudications. Then, reading the reasoning of the closer, I was even more puzzled. In particular, I wonder how he could assess consensus from "a rough weight-based re-count of heads" (his words), which, not knowing how he did his weighting, and seeing 8 support and 10 oppose unweighted !votes, brought me to doubt the outcome and request fresh eyes here. If we don't count heads and just look at the closer's reasoning about discussants' arguments, he seemed to dismiss the voices of opposing people because he was "not much impressed" with their arguments, but he did not comment on the voices of supporters, except for one person who wrote what he called an "excellent rebuttal". The conclusion of consensus to include looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE to me. — JFG ^talk 23:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: As I understand it, a supervote is where the closer expresses a position on the issue and allows their position to affect their close. Consensus is about strength of arguments, and who should judge strength of arguments if not the uninvolved closer? I grant you that this is susceptible to the closer's natural bias, but this is the best we can do until we eliminate humans from the close process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I can't read the closer's mind, and I wish he could clarify his reasoning if he comes back online. I am only disputing his reading of the discussion. Some experience at WP:Move review has rendered me sensitive to the possibility of supervoting, even unconsciously. We are all humans, equipped with an intuitive pattern-recognition engine that we must actively silence when processing contentious discussions. — JFG ^talk 00:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I support any call for admin review from an established editor in good standing who lacks a reputation for wikilawyering abuse of process. This qualifies. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Blush) (There must be an emoji for that but I'm on an old-skool physical keyboard.) — JFG ^talk 00:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

{{blush}} › Mortee _talk 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It's not exactly "academic" because the topics are different. The new discussion is about using the "racially charged" euphemism or directly reporting allegations of "racism". The main topic of the RfC was whether to include something about "racially-charged comments and actions" in the lede section at all. Prior consensus was a clear "no", but the recent RfC was more evenly divided. The new discussion started developing while the RfC closer was off-wiki, hence the overlap now. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

JFG, this statement of yours is inaccurate: the closure asserted by WBG has been implemented in the article, but editors are already disputing it in a new section. That “new section” you linked is not a dispute of the close. It is a discussion of the exact wording to be used, implying an acceptance of the close. Exactly as anticipated by the closer, who said But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. I honestly don’t see any dispute of the close on that talk page. (Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED at that page.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree; I have amended my statement accordingly. It does not change the fact that this RfC was a very close call on a sensitive topic, so that a review of this NAC is warranted. I have not participated in the discussion about wording because I think the close should be revisited first. The fact that the same arguments are coming back in the discussion indicates that consensus is hard to find. Note that even though I opposed the inclusion in the RfC, at the end of my long discussion with Snow Rise, I suggested that perhaps there was a way forward with writing the text from a different angle. — JFG ^talk 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree it was a "close call" at all. The weight of argument was clearly on one side, even if the number of !votes was less persuasive. I didn't even bother !voting, since it seemed so clear cut. Frankly, I'm weary of the number of RfCs at that talk page. In the good old days, RfCs were only necessary when there was some kind of a deadlock that needed to attract more editors, but now their only real purpose is to get an uninvolved editor to perform a close and stop the squabbling. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure why Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) hasn't submitted to the RfA gauntlet yet ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You're seeing the reason right here. ansh666 03:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Isnt it expected that a closing editor (admin or non admin whatever) is expected to explain in detail (if asked) his judgement for the closing statement ? There has been a request at [137] Winged Blades of Godric could have explained his closure but I dont find that explanation anywhere. While we are debating it here, can someone point me to it, if I missed that explanation from Winged Blades of Godric. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of explanation:

I am not much impressed by the arguments from some of the opposers (MONGO, JFG, GW) all of whom has been excellently rebutted by Snow.I similarly fail to parse PackMeceng's last line, in light of the abundance of reliable sourcing on the issue and some arguments by the last !voter, which can be assigned as OR. That leaves us with WP:LABEL (which does make an exception in cases of abundance of reporting by reliable sources) and WP:WEIGHT. A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion. But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. ∯WBG^converse 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

-- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi  Scjessey You have simply copy pasted the Closing statement from the RFC. Clearly this statement was not sufficient for the folks invovled in the RfC which is why they approached WBG on his talk page here [138]. And since then I have not seen any statement from WBG explaining the consensus. What I am trying to say here is that the Closing editor should be ready to explain his closure to the people who ask for it. If the Closing editor is unable or unwilling to further discuss his closure with the involved editors, then I believe he should not proceed with the closure in the first place. All this debating/drama/time on this thread at AN above could have been prevented if WBG could provide a suitable answer for his actions. That is missing and that is all I am trying to point here. cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Godric has been offline for the last four days. He made a couple of edits today so maybe he is back, but he can't be blamed for not replying when he hasn't been here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

May be, but WBG did reply to the involved editor here and he chose to ignore the Elephant in the room, which is the "further discussion" of his closure statement. WP:AN/RFC clearly states that Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. The whole point of writing these policy lines on the RFC page, was to avoid threads such as this one on the AN pages. hope WBG returns back soon and explains his closure. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WBG made two edits today and not a peep from them about this, despite the multiple pings here. Not even a "hey real busy IRL but I'll get to this soon". This thread amounts to a non-admin review of the close, by editors including three involved. There is no such process in policy. We are not here to debate the close, we are here to debate the legitimacy of the request for admin review of the close. That's the process. There is zero evidence that the request was brought in incompetence or bad faith, nothing more should be required, and I suggest an admin accept the request for review. If Scjessey is correct, it will be an easy review and JFG will no doubt accept the result. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been quite busy in IRL and have not received any ping or notification, as to the existence of this thread aprior to Pac's t/p message.I'll try to address the issues, sometime later in the day.Best,∯WBG^converse 03:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected to post this notice. Glad you're back. — JFG ^talk 03:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviews at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE are undertaken by the community, not by a single admin; if a consensus exists here to overturn the close it will be overturned. There is no especial process for reviews of non-admin RfC closures whereby one admin can review it (and overturn it if it is bad) that I know of Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

and this makes sense, because involved parties whose opinion did not match with the (non-admin closure) will follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and misuse this option to request an Admin as a new closer with some possibility of a favourable close. It is ok to ask for a review but lets first wait for WBG to explain his closure. the community can then comment if it is supported or needs to be overturned. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

and this makes sense, because involved parties whose opinion did not match with the (non-admin closure) will follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and misuse this option to request an Admin as a new closer with some possibility of a favourable close. Not so much. The same potential for abuse exists whether it's one admin or multiple non-admins. Either way is another roll of the dice.
I stand corrected then, Galobtter. I got it wrong partly because a single-admin review would make more sense to me than a "consensus about a consensus" discussion—who assesses that consensus? (I have to keep reminding myself that the words "logical reasoning" do not occur at WP:5P.) At the very least involved editors should be excluded from the review for obvious reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is basically like a WP:DRV or WP:MRV Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I know it was a copy/paste. My point is that the rationale provided at closing was more than sufficient explanation. I'm uncomfortable with close reviews being sought by editors who aren't happy with the result of a close, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A "close challenge" is meant to be made when there is some sort of obvious problem with the closer's reading of consensus that should invalidate it, not simply because you disagreed with the closer's reading or because another person might have closed differently. You are correct that WP:NACD advises that "close" or "controversial" discussions are "better left to admins", though as a general rule, WP:CLOSE is clear that being an admin isn't a prerequisite. The non-admin close was, procedurally, poor form, but not necessarily a breach of policy. That aside, it looks like a valid close to me. I'm not sure how anyone can claim there was no explanation, there was a clear explanation of how weight was assigned in determining the consensus, with specific arguments and rebuttals specified. A non-admin doing the closure is not a sufficient reason to overturn, given that the closer is a highly established editor in good standing, and the only other reason I'm seeing for even disputing the close is this comment, which directly prompted this close review and was essentially echoed above with the SUPERVOTE allegation. Let me be extremely clear: accusing a closer of making a bad faith close based on personal bias, without evidence, is a personal attack and an aspersion. It needs to be directly substantiated with evidence, or it is in itself an offense. So, if the concern is strictly an NAC, I will endorse the closure, problem solved. If the concern is bias, evidence is required, or the claims need to not be repeated again. If there are other valid reasons for overturning this close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, let's hear them. Swarm ♠ 22:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm The !votes were 8 support and 10 oppose, with the closer somehow finding consensus in the clear minority. That is not consensus. If RFAs are closed no consensus at 70% then I’m simply baffled how an RFC finds consensus at 44%. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Surely this is a textbook example of WP:!VOTE at work, is it not? The closer found the "majority" did not present a solid enough argument, despite accumulating more !votes. What's more, the discussion about the specific wording in the more recent discussion, and the strong consensus it appears to be achieving, backs up the closer's reasoning (albeit after the fact). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly right. It is entirely possible to have a minority consensus. It's unusual, but fundamental. The theory behind this is that when a minority viewpoint demonstrates that it's more in line with overarching consensus (i.e. policies and guidelines) than a majority viewpoint, the overriding community consensuses supporting that minority view are factored in. Not only is that allowed, but it's the fundamental principal behind the system by which this whole project is governed. Consensus is judged by adherence to policy above all else. If the closer felt that multiple !voters were refuted with policy-based counterarguments, then that very realistically tilts the reading of consensus away from the typical "majority rule" we're used to. The key here is that such readings are not meant to be arbitrary. They need to be rooted in hard policy. That's why the first thing I checked when I saw "excellent refutations" was whether these refutations were rooted in policy or whether the closer simply "liked" them better. They were indeed rooted in policy, so it seems procedurally valid to do what the closer did here. Swarm ♠ 01:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, I hear you saying that, while "'close' or 'controversial' discussions are 'better left to admins'" per NACD, a non-admin closer is free to ignore that guidance—even if an admin has previously been requested per that guidance. Per Wikipedia tradition, it's guidance that means nothing in the end, is unnecessarily complicated, and serves only to send even experienced editors in several different directions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, it's guidance that's there for a reason, of course. But that's not a firm rule, even relative to the rest of Wikipedia rules, which are supposed to be considered flexible and ignored when needed. I understand the frustration, and certainly think WBG should learn from this (it's usually best to avoid actions that result in avoidable drama). However, it's not a valid objection to overrule an otherwise-valid close. Swarm ♠ 01:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The lack of inclusion of recent consensus into the close makes this a bad close and one that should be overturned. Consensus can change, but a minority vote should not be able to change a firmly held decision made by previous consensus. It reeks of a "you quoted policy but I interpret it differently" supervote. I personally think the line should be included, but there is no way I would ever try to pull a support consensus out of that discussion, especially with something similar reaching a different consensus just six months prior. Nihlus 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The guidance from consensus policy appears to be the opposite of what you're saying. See WP:CONLEVEL. The previous discussion was a local consensus, whereas this was a formal RfC, which is a higher level of consensus that inherently overrides any previous local consensuses. And there's WP:CCC, but I think that point is moot, because the two discussions didn't ask the same question. The "previous discussion" was a direct proposal to include the phrase "criticized as racist". The RfC was a general question to include a sentence about Trump's racial stance, with a tentative proposed wording that was entirely different than the previous discussion. No, I think you're grasping at straws here. You were the one who actually prompted this challenge, and in the same comment you directly claimed that the close was influenced by personal bias. Do you have any evidence of that? Swarm ♠ 03:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Where did you read that it is a "higher level" of consensus because I don't see that on that page anywhere? There is no global consensus on it so your point is irrelevant. And obviously consensus can change, that was very clearly not the point I was trying to make. The topics are so close to being the same that the small difference doesn't matter at all. Even without the prior discussion, I would not have closed it the same as it is obvious there is no consensus there. Further, please point me to where I said that the close was influenced by "personal bias," because I assure you I have made no such comment. I'll actually ask you to retract that statement. Thanks. Nihlus 04:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, I think Swarm is talking about this quote from User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Admin close?: No, it's a terrible close by WBG and one in which your perception is biased. I think it's reasonable to interpret your comment that way, although I suppose you may try to distinguish between "perception" and "personal"; in either case, it would be helpful to have evidence of perception bias to move things along. Alex Shih (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL is a very fundamental aspect of consensus, and it's not complicated. A community consensus is a higher level of consensus than a local consensus. An RfC is a community consensus, as opposed to a local consensus. I find it hard to believe you're not yet familiar with this concept. And, yes, I don't see any other way of interpreting the phrase "your perception is biased". That's an allegation of bias. Now, I'm not going to pedantically argue about what you intended to say, I will gladly retract my comment as soon as you clarify what you meant by "bias". Swarm ♠ 04:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You both realize that my comment was directed towards MrX and his bias in saying that the close was appropriate as he had participated in the discussion, right? Further, there is no local consensus trying to override an RfC, which is why I was confused by your seemingly misplaced comments. The “local” discussion came first where there was strong opposition to include. The RfC followed and reached a no consensus but was closed incorrectly. Your train of thought is hard to follow as I am struggling to see the relevance to the discussion at hand. Nihlus 05:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no, I misunderstood your comment as being directed at WBG. Sorry, that's my mistake. I've struck that out. I'm sorry you find my "train of thought" hard to follow, I'm just trying to cite the relevant policies in the most simple way possible; if you need clarification on anything, I'm happy to provide it. The point of contention here is obviously that you think WBG misread a "no consensus" as a "weak consensus". That's simply not sufficient reason to overturn, or even challenge, a closure. The prior "local" discussion that you're claiming should have influenced the reading of consensus in the RfC, in short, would have no bearing on the RfC, even if it was the same discussion, which it wasn't. Swarm ♠ 05:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling a sitting president a racist in the lead, whether or not it is true, is something that needs to be done carefully and a "weak consensus" to do so is problematic. Failing to take into consideration a pattern of consensus, regardless of whether or not you think it is local or not, is problematic. As it is the basis of almost everyone's argument here, I'll ask that everyone read the second line of their WP:CCC argument: On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. What may be recent to some may not be recent to others, so your mileage may vary. With that being said, I don't need clarification on your interpretation of a policy; we'll just agree to disagree, as we are wont to do. Nihlus 12:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Holding a political office does not afford a subject any special treatment on Wikipedia, for very good reason. I honestly don't know what a pattern of consensus is supposed to be.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep citing WP:NACD. That is a shortcut to the deletion process. We're not talking about a deletion discussion, so it's not really fair to say that it was e.g. "poor form" for a non-admin to make this close as WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE (which has separate sections for challenging deletion discussions and "other closures" like RfC) are clear that any uninvolved editor can do the close. Might as well say it was improper because WP:RFA says discussions should be closed by bureaucrats. I also don't get emphasizing numeric majority. If we're going by numbers then it's a vote, not a !vote. The reason we call it the latter is because consensus isn't necessarily reflected in the numbers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I only brought it up because JFG cited a WP:BADNAC criterion as being the original reason for his complaint, and I remembered NACD it to be the actual policy behind WP:NAC, which is merely an information page. As both redirect to specific sections, I completely overlooked the fact that neither of them are even applicable as they refer to deletion policy. Thank you for pointing this out. Winged Blades of Godric, I apologize for saying your closure was in poor form—that was purely an oversight on my part. Agree with the rest of the above sentiments. Swarm ♠ 03:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: An apology is non-necessary and I agree with your comments, in the entirety except as to the point of non-admins not closing controversial RFCs.Thanks,∯WBG^converse 05:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--
  • I will start off by apologizing to to JFG for not tending to the t/p thread due to RL issues.
  • I will largely border on an overall analysis of the !vote(s), (along with their corresponding rebuttals) and how I weighed them.
  • Thus,
    • To start off, it is beyond dispute that the host of sources do mention Trump to be indulging in some form of racism with varying words and forms.
      • Caspring's argument
        • OK
      • Snow Rise's argument has been excellent (Vide something of this sort is WP:DUE for the lead).
      • GW
        • Snow's rebuttal has been again superb, in my eyes. (Vide and thus has no weight when measured against an inclusion issue that needs be judged under WP:V and WP:NPOV......we evaluate the sources on their face value without filtering them through our own meaning making and assumptions about what the sources "really meant"....)
        • I will say that I was convinced that given the volume of reliable-sourcing, the inclusion can't be countered on grounds of word-style, alone.But, I will also concede that there were scopes for improvement which led to my scopes for tweaking.
      • MrX.
        • Initiator.Brought a host of sources.Good enough:-)
      • MONGO's argument, is in my opinion, worthless.
        • Read Snow Rise's rebuttal, for my classification.
      • MarkBasset's argument was good.Also, goes for PacEng's arguments
        • Except that I'm hazy about how it violates WP:LEAD (Please point to specific lines, when you are pointing to page-long guidelines....) and also that WP:RACIST does not offer a blanket prohibition on the usage of racist et al.
      • HunterM267's argument might have been been far more valuable if the sources did not pertain to Fox News.Umm........But, it was good, as a direct rebuttal.
      • JFG's argument
        • It was a pleasure to read his discourse with SnowRise.But, once again Snow's arguments have been superb.I also do not like JFG's last reply which sought to indulge in original research to discover about Trump's racist stances.What matters and what solely matters is how reliable sources perceive Trump's actions/statements/policies.We don't have to rake our brains to double-check the media.
      • Wumbolo's argument was Okay-ish.
      • OID
        • Hyperbolic but well-grounded enough in light of previous arguments and evidence.
      • MarieParadox
        • Was seemingly just a vote but ought be counted in light of Caspring's reasoning.
      • Fleischman
        • Quite potent argumentation. (Vide tremendous amount of RS coverage)
      • Fyunck
        • Supports the theme but not the wording.
      • Coretheapple
        • Logical and good enough.Placement's a matter of editorial discretion and no weighintg can be done.
      • Aquillion
        • A very-well-crafted succinctly-put argument.Agree in entirety.
      • Dankster
        • Good enough.Thinks the statement to be prudent enough to deserve a lead mention, unlike Coretheapple.
      • LiteratureGeek
        • A host of original research.Media might be sensationalist but when a host of highly reputed media sources choose that path, umm.......we have to go down that line.Also, read Snow Rise's reply to MONGO.

In my opinion, the above discussion leads to a policy-based consensus for inclusion of the broader theme of perceivement of trump's comments and actions as racist/racially charged, though there is a bone of contention as to the precise wording of the sentence.

Further discussions at a subsequent thread for fine-tuning the wording seems to be moving quite productively.

I will also like to invoke the fact that closing discussions aren't executed by a count of heads and that an argument which has been countered well-enough is quite less weigh-able, in the eyes of the closer.

I also agree with Mandruss that whilst I try to evaluate arguments, as neutrally as possible (and I am not editorially involved, either in APOL in any form or manner), this (the closure) is susceptible to the closer's natural bias, but this is the best we can do until we eliminate humans from the close process.

Nihlus, consensus can change and the poser(s) are not same.

Thank you.∯WBG^converse 05:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for that full explanation, which I think fully backs up your close rationale, and will surely satisfy JFG. As I mentioned before, I did not participate in this discussion but I would've supported the inclusion of the material, of which the wording is now being discussed in the subsequent thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hilarious spambot text merge

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

---

Ran into the funniest text merge from those spambots: User:ThaddeusEstrella "The name of creator is Vanda Marlowe. My wife fuel tank live in Virgin Group of islands. The thing I really like most playing crochet and I'll be starting something else along from it. I used in order to become unemployed nowadays I am a software developer." No further action needed. It was just so funny that I had to share it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right Gogo Dodo, that is pretty good --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of English As She Is Spoke. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Incorrect info on the Silybum marianum page.

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

---

The Scotch Thistle and Milk Thistle are not the same plant. The picture is of a Scotch Thistle. The leaves are remarkably similar however the flowers are very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.118.152 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not an issue for admins to deal with - admins deal with user behaviour, policy violations, etc, but have no power to judge article content issues. If you wish to question the correctness of the photo (which is labeled "Milk Thistle flowerhead" and looks remarkably similar to the illustration of Silybum marianum from Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz and really quite different to the flower photo at Onopordum acanthium), then please raise it on the article's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Review of Leaderboard's block

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

---

Wotcha editors - I received a message from Leaderboard regarding their block here from 2013 by Admrboltz. It was, at the time, a good block - Leaderboard believes it is now no longer needed to prevent disruption, and I agree.

• Leaderboard was blocked for a username policy violation, which related to a web browser called "Leaderboard" (admin only link).

• As I mentioned above, this was a good block at the time

• In their recent block appeals they state Leaderboard is just my pseudonym. It is NOT a company. and that the browser was defunct since 2014

• I believe this makes the violation of the username policy moot

• "Leaderboard" is a generic username without the context of the above defunct web browser

• Leaderboard has made good edits to other projects, and is an administrator on the English Wikibooks

I would have unblocked based on my above belief that the block is no longer needed to prevent disruption, but decided not to, as there had been recent block appeals which had been declined and I did not want to override any of my colleagues decisions on the matter.

I've asked some other admins for opinions regarding this, and most agree an unblock without a rename should be possible. Some have said that the user should be renamed. I'd like your opinions please - TNT ^💖 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @331dot and PhilKnight: as the last two reviewing administrators - TNT ^💖 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock I've reviewed a small random sample of contributions to wiki books and see no problems. Given their number of edits to that project and the fact that they are an admin there, it would be awkward to insist on a rename. In fact, I was close to pulling the trigger on doing the unblock but want to give the last two reviewing admins a chance to comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock The username is no longer promoting anything, and I reviewed recent Wikibooks edits too. No reason to force a rename here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that if the user writes about their web browser, they may be blocked again. The block was justifiable; the deleted user page was definitely promoting this web browser, and the username policy is pretty clear that we disallow usernames that represent a product or service. However, the browser doesn't really exist anymore, and the word "leaderboard" is such a generic name that no one is going to look at it and think of a web browser unless they were already aware of the deleted user page to start with. This, combined with the fact that the user has no intention of continuing to write about their web browser, is enough for me to conclude that there is no risk of disruption if we unblock this user without forcing a rename. Especially considering their tenure on other Wikimedia projects. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Meh, I don’t find the sysop on Wikibooks argument particularly compelling: it’s not a major project and I don’t even know if they have a UPOL. I don’t think current policy allows for this name on en.wikipedia. That being said, I think UPOL should be marked as historical and replaced with one sentence: Accounts with disruptive usernames may be blocked. this username is clearly not disruptive, which makes this a perfect example of how UPOL and the blocking policy don’t line up. I’d be fine unblocking if there is consensus, but it’s worth noting that it’d be an IAR block and the solution is to vastly simplify the username policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, unified login became active in April 2015 so the editor cannot have a different name here and on wiki books.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but his activity on Wikibooks has absolutely no impact on local username policy on the English Wikipedia, and it should not be taken into account. de.wiki allows corporate names, and we block accounts here that are active there with no qualms, and it is a significantly larger project than en.wikibooks. I support an unblock, but only because I think keeping blocked for a generic name that happens to be shared by a company is in violation of the blocking policy as it isn’t disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That being said, I think UPOL should be marked as historical and replaced with one sentence: Accounts with disruptive usernames may be blocked. this username is clearly not disruptive, which makes this a perfect example of how UPOL and the blocking policy don’t line up. Hear hear. I note that we don't have a global username policy, that this isn't the first time we've seen conflicts about usernames that are acceptable in one place but forbidden in another, and the last proposal for a global username policy I can find was pretty much SNOW-declined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the subject has global edits to 13 projects, not just WikiBooks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't want to stand in the way of an unblock if any administrator feels one is warranted. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Unblocked I went ahead and performed the unblock. I think it's quite warranted; if someone feels it requires IAR, so be it. I had initially wanted to give Phil Knight a chance to chime in but while that editor is reasonably active they haven't edited in 48 hours so I don't see any point in waiting longer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock The conditions since the block have changed. Lets give the editor a chance, if the editor violates the policies he can then be re-blocked. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Would this be paid editing?

See this page for details of the research and other issues.∯WBG^converse 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Around a year ago, a WMF staff member reached out to me about participating in some external research to understand how experienced closers on Wikipedia go about closing an RfC or other similar discussion. At the time, I received compensation for participating in the interview, but no on-wiki contributions were made, so no paid editing disclosure was needed. Now, I've been contacted for a follow-up. The researcher has developed a tool that attempts to assist editors in analyzing and closing RfCs. They're looking for editors on Wikipedia to use the tool to close an RfC and then provide feedback on it in a follow-up interview. It's unclear to me whether this would require a paid contribution disclosure. While I would be compensated partially for making an edit, the actual contents of the edit are entirely up to me; I choose which RfC to close, and I close it exactly how I would normally with no input from any outside party. I simply test out their tool while doing it.

Could I get some opinions on whether this counts as "paid editing" that would require a disclosure? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the same position as Rob.So, comments are equally welcome from my end:-)∯WBG^converse 06:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you've disclosed it, so whether or not it counts, you're safe :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: While I've quite literally disclosed it here, this disclosure wouldn't meet the requirements of a paid-contribution disclosure per WP:PAID. For a variety of reasons, I wouldn't be willing to disclose in the manner demanded there. If I put a disclosure on my user page, I'm worried it will be taken the wrong way (e.g. to mean I'm paid for my contributions generally) or used by abusive paid editors as "proof" there are paid administrators. If I disclose in the edit summary/talk page related to whatever RfC I decide to close, I'm worried it will be used by any participants who are unhappy with the result to challenge my close, even though I would (of course) perform it neutrally and without any outside influence. Worst case, if the community isn't clear that this doesn't require a disclosure, I'll participate in the study while requesting the researcher take what compensation would come my way and donate it to the WMF instead. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth disclosing (as you have), but no, that's not paid editing. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's clearly paid editing and it is fine to undertake with the required disclosure. Btw, in my experience most university ethic boards overseeing such research would advice that that the compensation structure for such research be based not upon the number of RFCs the participant closes (since that would create a perverse incentive) but on a fair estimate of time/effort devoted to giving feedback on how well the tool worked.

(It hopefully doesn't need to be said, but my comment is about the principles involved, and not the persons. BU Rob13 IMO is taking exactly the right approach by being open about the project and inviting feedback here.) Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't see this as any different than (say) editing while at work (where you are allowed to "browse the web" if you have no other tasks to do). Could you explain your reasoning? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The compensation is technically for the feedback, not the act of closing an RfC. Of course, closing a single RfC is necessary in order to evaluate the tool. Does that change anything for you, Abecedare? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The fact that you are getting paid for the feedback, and not the close(s) themselves addresses exactly the issue I had raised in my post above, and increases my confidence that this is a thoughtfully-designed research project. But IMO the requirement for disclosure remains since the payment still creates a secondary incentive for you to close RFCs (I am ignoring the possibility of using the tool in the sandbox). Now, I realize that in your case that inducement is essentially a hypothetical concern, but the very point of having universal ethical and disclosure guidelines is to avoid such case-by-case considerations. Consider the thought experiments:

• Lets say the researchers had put up an ad on Mechanical Turk: "Use this tool to close an RFC on wikipedia, and you'll get paid for your feedback". Would we not call that paid editing?
• Or lets say, instead of of being open in your original post, you had logged out and posted as an IP, "Hi all. I have an account on wikipedia and around a year ago..." Would we then not have asked that the activity be disclosed?

Now both the above scenarios, and especially the first one, raise concerns other than the simple question of whether the activity is paid or not. But my aim in presenting them is to (hopefully) show that if we anonymize the scenario (ie. remove you and and your established on-wiki reputation from consideration), it becomes clear that the activity does qualify as (ethical) paid editing. Does that make sense to you/others? Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In both of the scenarios you listed, no one would be required to disclose. Payment for use of a tool and providing feedback on it is not payment for contributions.

Also, I’ll repeat my objections to saying that our standards are the same for research conducted on Wikipedia as a topic vs. commercial editing, and note how much I hate the use of “paid editing” as a term. The TOU and our guidelines were intended to target commercial editors and make it harder for them to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. In an attempt to make it seem like we aren’t discriminating against spammers, we sometimes take ridiculous stances like the community appears to be taking in this case by forcing an arbitrator who is well known for his privacy concerns (I think this is a fair description of Rob) to disclose more than is required under the TOU, breaching his personal privacy for a minimal sum just because a blind reading of the TOU without looking at the context can be read as “money must be disclosed.” That’s not the intent here, nor is it required, and forcing disclosure in these circumstances only increases the legitimacy of parties who use the disclosure as a weapon to ignore local policies on advertising for their clients. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the key phrase from the terms of service, "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation", RFC closures are encompassed as a contribution. As the FAQ says, "...you must disclose your employment, client, and affiliation when making any type of paid contribution to any Wikimedia project. This includes edits on talk pages and edits on projects other than Wikipedia." isaacl (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I suppose that may actually be the key here. I'm not actually required to make a contribution to Wikipedia in order to receive this compensation, technically. I have an option to "close" an already closed RfC. The compensation is for the feedback on the tool, not the edit I would be making. Does that change your thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: are you saying it is sufficient for you to use the tool to figure out how you might have closed an RfC, and then report this to the study in a way other than editing Wikipedia? If no contributions to Wikipedia are involved, then the terms of service do not come into effect. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be sufficient to complete the feedback phase and receive compensation, yes. Obviously, if I spent time closing a difficult RfC, though, I'd like that close to be implemented. Otherwise, I'm wasting some other volunteer's time to repeat my close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t think this falls under WP:PAID, and don’t think the mandatory disclosure applies (for full disclosure, Rob asked me about this before, and I told him the same thing, but agreed it would be best to get community feedback in the interest of transparency.) Rob would be paid for providing feedback on a tool, not paid for any specific action taken on-wiki. Classifying this as paid editing is equivalent to the strawman argument that getting an $8 coupon to buy a sandwich at a university cafe during an editathon counts as paid editing: it doesn’t, it clearly isn’t the intent of the terms of use or the local guidelines, and people need to stop pretending that the TOU disclosure requirement is broader than it actually is. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree this isn't the same as conventional paid editing. For better or worse, the terms of usage are broadly drawn to minimize gaming, and it's too easy to see how non-neutral interests can influence editing through compensation of supporting tools. Think of how the soft-drink industry funds studies on the value of hydration; it could fund edit-a-thons where it didn't direct you to edit any specific pages, but provided you with tools to help find hydration-related information. Or... it could fund a study much like this one, to see if RfCs for hydration-related topics are closed differently based on the tool. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
    • And it wouldn’t be paid editing or covered by the terms of use, which cover only paid contributions to Wikimedia projects. Not analysis of contributions to Wikimedia projects or being a test subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, agreed, as I said above, the terms of usage only take effect for contributions. But if the test subject is making edits as direct part of the study, even if it's the tool that's being evaluated, then the edit is a consequence of the compensation. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Responding to the post at COIN...

If you decide to do this, it is paid editing. The payment is for behavior, not content (which is indeed unusual), but it is still pay.

Because the pay is for behavior not content, there is no need for "prior review" so there is no issue with actually doing the close directly.

With regard to the reputational/mischief risks around "paid editing" you mention, the simplest way to avoid them would be to not accept the money. So perhaps ask yourself if the money is worth those risks. Only you can judge that for yourself. But not disclosing at your userpage and locally, is not the correct way to manage those risks. Doing that ~looks~ like avoiding scrutiny which is actually more opportunity for drama.

In my view if you choose to do this, of course you should disclose this clearly on your userpage, as well as when you do a relevant close. The disclosure should be simple: "I am receiving compensation as part of a WMF university research project into a software tool I am testing that is meant to help closers evaluate the discussion, and my feedback on the use of this tool. The judgement expressed in the close is my own". The disclosure on your userpage should provide the start and end date of the consulting gig.

Since the pay is for behavior and since the research project involves your behavior and judgement, it would be interesting when you are done to see if participating changed your behavior:

• for example you might close more discussions than you usually would. (The fact that you are testing a tool, which is interesting in itself, also could change whether you close more or less, of course). I don't think you closing more or fewer discussions is a bad thing; there is no real risk here.
• Use of the tool will effect your closes. It would be like closing a discussion with a 2nd closer, where you have some other opinion you have to consider while writing the close. That's kind of interesting, but risks to the project would seem minimal. The final judgement will be your own.
• I wonder if your approach to challenges of any given close made using the tool would be different (maybe influence you to be less open to a challenge since the tool might give you a sense of higher objectivity or something). Again this seems like a minimal risk.

Those are my thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (initial redaction based on further information provided here. I may change further based on other clarifications... Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)) (again redacting, the gig is to do one close, not a bunch of them. This is really small potatoes. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is creating a false equivalency when none exists, and is dangerous. Rob would be getting paid for external research related to Wikipedia, not his contributions here. If consensus is that this falls under PAID, I’ll be proposing an RfC to exempt external research from the disclosure requirements, because I feel very strongly that such a reading of the current policy is harmful to the purposes of Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I understood from the OP that the pay is for doing closings using the tool. The pay is connected to the editing; not the content but the behavior. No closings, no pay. This pay-for-behavior thing is something we haven't thought much about as a community. I haven't thought much about it, at least. I will think about other sorts of behavior people might be interested in paying for that doesn't involve getting some certain kind of content into WP or about swaying some community decision. It's interesting. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically, I do not need to perform a close to receive the pay. I was explicitly offered the option of "closing" an already closed discussion (e.g. evaluating how I would close it, using the tool, ignoring the existing close). What they're after is the feedback, and that's what I would be compensated for. I think this whole thing highlights how poor our definition of paid editing is, though. I think it's rather clear everyone agrees this shouldn't be covered, but several think it is due to an overly broad definition. We could do with some further exemptions or refinements of the paid editing definition, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree this shouldn't be covered. Lots of research is funded by special interests, and so it's unclear to me that avoiding a disclosure is desirable for this scenario. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would only close a single RfC with this tool to provide feedback, so most of that wouldn't be relevant. I will not be making a full disclosure, for sure, since I do think the risks outweigh the benefits. If the consensus is that this is paid editing, then I'll instead have the researcher donate the compensation to the WMF on my behalf. That way, I'm receiving no compensation and am not a "paid editor", but it's going to a good cause. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you not be closing, were you not paid? I take it the answer is, you will be closing just as you would normally, except using a tool, and you will get paid if you report on the tool's use. Well, I think there are multiple ways one could handle this to ally any issue, but my suggestion is that in the edit summary, you put 'closed with '[ToolClose]', as that is the way our system often discloses similar things, like when I and others edit with Provelt [139]. And I guess I would also put on my talk page "I am testing '[ToolClose]' and the WMF will provide some compensation for my report on its use", and when you're done, then that can just archive. See also WP:ADMIN where it discusses paid by WMF. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not the WMF providing compensation, but rather a researcher at a major research university. I likely would not close an RfC in the absence of this research merely because I'm fairly busy these days with my role on the Arbitration Committee, but I'm receiving absolutely no influence in which RfC to close. I plan to just pick something complicated-looking at WP:ANRFC - probably whatever's been there the longest - and close that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you mention WMF up-top, so this research is in conjunction with WMF? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The researcher is working with the WMF, as external researchers usually do, but I don't know that it's in conjunction with them. A WMF staffer reached out to me initially along with other closers for a round of interviews, but since then, all contact has been with the researcher. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I would amend what was on your talk page to trace the connections, but you would first have to clarify the WMF connection, which you can probably clarify by contacting the WMF person. You might also want to think about if you have not closed in a while closing without the tool, so you have the experience fresh. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I see above, you say you could do dry re-run of closes, not actually doing anything for the pedia, if you did do just that, no extra anything is needed (You could also try to know as little about what the close was and later compare, by eg. having someone else transfer the pre-closed RfC to your sandbox - just have them follow copying in Wikipedia). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, ditto, but I would not take any money so all good here :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

(1)In my opinion, this not paid editing. To think it is, is to misunderstand the basis for our rules about paid editing and COI. The reason we have these rules is because of their effect on writing NPOV encyclopedic articles--NPOV is the fundamental principle upon which these guidelines rest. There is no reason to expect that someone given money for writing or editing or reviewing anything they might choose to do will cause a violation of NPOV, and this goes for routine administrative actions also.

(2)However, the enWP is reasonably concerned to keep its contents and decisions about content independent of the WMF. This is based upon the basic principle that we are a volunteer organization where everyone can edit. Professionalizing our decisions goes against the very reason that WP was founded in the first place. As WP has become complex, there has been need for a certain involvement by the WMGF in some aspects--but we have never accepted any involvement in content (except to make sure its legal & help us keep it free from external influences).

(3)That goes for research into WP also. It's desirable and necessary there be research, but it cannot be allowed to affect content or other decisions at the encyclopedia. This prohibits breaching experiments--it also prohibits editing or adminsitrative actions which are done for some purpose that might even potentially conflict with the true purposes of the encyclopedia. We are I think rightly particularly sensitive of this for actions by admins, or similar decision-makers, even when they do not directly invovle content. Therefore I think this sort of activity must be explicitly declared. This is the same whether or not there is money involved. (There are indeed certain types of otherwise desirable research which this might prohibit, but it's like any rule on ethical research.) DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:BU Rob13 would you please clarify what activity this involves? In the OP you wrote use the tool to close an RfC then here you said you could just go through the motions and not actually do a close. This matters, since the first involves actually saving an edit, while the second does not. Also I just noticed that the OP says do this once and this is what you have said a few other times. Are they really just looking for you to do this once? This is also relevant... Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  I have just seen a similar email in my inbox, which I suppose makes me "involved" enough to join the conversation and reply to your query. The researcher in question has developed a new tool to help close RFCs. They want users like Rob and myself to use their tool to close 1 RfC, give feedback, and we will be paid for our efforts.

  I am in the same line of thinking of TonyBallioni and others on this matter, in that we are not being paid to close a specific RfC (there is even the caveat given of or a previously closed one), but rather that we are being asked to use the tool. To me this does not sound like a "paid contribution"; it's saying "hey, here's this thing, how well do you think it works?" The caveat mentioned basically means that it doesn't have to be a "real" RfC that's being closed, so it could be used on a "fake" RfC but something tells me the point is to look at a convoluted RfC and see if this tool makes it easier to edit.

  In other words, I do not think disclosure is required. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, what Primefac said. A single RfC, and technically, we don't even need to make the closing edit to be paid. They want the feedback, and that's what the compensation is for. Having said that, from my perspective, I want to improve the encyclopedia, and if I'm going to the effort of working out a close, the thing that most improves the encyclopedia is for me to implement that close. It's a waste of effort for me to "close" a discussion off-wiki but make another closer duplicate my work for an on-wiki close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  As one of the editors, approached in a follow-up to test their tool, I pretty much agree with PFac.∯WBG^converse 16:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Two things. If you are saving an edit and will be paid for that, it is "paid editing". We get all kinds of sophistry from people around what "editing" is (e.g. talk page discussion is not "editing"; editing policy or discussion about policy is not "editing"). Second, people considering doing this, should not be evaluating themselves how the community should classify this. See Bias blind spot. I can't tell you how many discussions I have had with editors with an WP:APPARENTCOI who start out insisting "I have no COI here" and when I finally draw a disclosure of the relationship from them, they are in the PR department or are friends with the person or the like. Most everybody who has a COI thinks they are "doing just fine, thanks". The thing to do is disclose, and let others evaluate. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Jytdog, whilst I'm obviously not the one to evaluate the aspects of PAID declaration, I think your equivalence is grossly hyperbolic.Neither I nor PFac nor Rob are liaisoning with any PR department.All that we will do, is to choose a random RFC, and execute a closure via the help of the tool and later provide feedback about our experience et al.∯WBG^converse 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Too much emotion. Bias blind spot is a very, very human thing. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  I have no interest in participating, so I'm not really sure how knowing the specifics/answering your question/giving my thoughts mean that I'm biased, but whatever. I can see where you're coming from, and while I'm not quite as firm in my belief that it doesn't require disclosure as I was before, I still think this doesn't fall under the definition of a "paid contribution" (since the close would have happened regardless of whether the pay is coming). Primefac (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  the thing about "blind spot bias" is about a person who is involved with it, judging how to consider it and what to do about it. It's just a human thing. That's all. I hear you, that you don't intend to take them up on their offer. It's unhappy to me that there is drama around this; nobody here has said "wow this could really damage the project". If there is one clear consensus in the discussion, it is that. I have acknowledged that this is pay-for-behavior not pay-for-content and that is some different kind of animal. But it would be better just to disclose it since money is involved and edits are being made, exactly to avoid stupid drama later. The not-disclosing would become the point of drama, and it would have a "hook". Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)A third thing - since they are really are looking for just one close from each person (which I find a bit strange from an experimental design perspective, but whatever) the effect on the project is really minimal and again there is no big deal here. But everybody doing this for pay (or even if they refuse pay and as part of the research, as aptly noted by User:DGG above) should disclose it at their userpage and when they do the close. It is not complicated. Paid editing is paid editing. This is very GLAM like and benign. I hope the researchers doing this have a page somewhere in WP where they describe the project; they should link everybody doing this there (and the disclosure each person makes should link there). Disclosure is good. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Disclosure is good, but in re-reading Rob's original post it sounds more like he's concerned about the outcome of such a disclosure. Is "I tested a thing for a person" (hyperbolic shortening intentional) acceptable, or would he have to use {{paid}} and give specific details, which could then potentially be used to track him down? Primefac (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  The disclosure does not have to use {{paid}}, look for example what I have on my user page. I would not call myself a paid editor, and in fact I oppose paid editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  The {{paid}} tag is never required; the main thing is the disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to focus on improving the encyclopedia, then why don't you just forgo the payment and help without it? I find the payment for stuff like this to be highly inappropriate and the secrecy surrounding the "tool" to be problematic. In light of the community discussion and Arbcom's decision, closing an RfC as an administrator while being paid to close it could be viewed as a violation of this restriction. I highly recommend that no one move forward with this if they wish to avoid the obvious trouble that it will carry. Nihlus 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

But they're not being paid to close an RfC, they're being paid to use a tool to close an RfC. Also it is not a use (or abuse) of admin tools because there are no admin tools being used. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like the same thing to me. If editing the wiki is a requirement for using a tool, then they are being paid to edit the wiki. It's that simple. As to whether or not it is a violation, it could very easily be viewed as one and desysop requests could be made (with merit) if someone found them to be troublesome or a violation of the rules surrounding it. Closing it as an administrator while being paid can easily be seen as leveraging the sysop bit while being paid as it has implied authority that comes with it. As I said, if you want to focus on improving the encyclopedia, then all of this can easily be done without being paid. However, the questions will linger as this bell can't really be unrung. Nihlus 17:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt seriously those alleged desysop claims would find merit, if they were made at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

if they were made at all I assure you that someone will make a formal complaint. Nihlus 17:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

So? Sometimes like 75% of the project is complaints (no biggie). :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think allot of discussion is just unneeded. It costs nothing to do some kind of disclosure here, no-one is wanting anything "private" or you all would not be here right now disclosing this stuff, just follow the spirit of nothing wrong with some disclosure and minimally do something like in the edit summary, and on your talk page etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• BU Rob13, someone is paying you to make a contribution to Wikipedia. That falls under "paid editing". But you don't have to add anything to your user page. It would be enough to say on the talk pages when you close the RfCs that you've been paid by [name of researcher, university or whatever's appropriate] to test a new tool. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That sort of works but if there is a choice between local or central (at the user page), then local is better. The purpose of the local disclosure is that people who are "affected" are made of aware of it at the time; in my experience people who have had some interaction with someone editing for pay or with a COI, learning after the fact about that (say by going to the person's userpage at some later point in time after the interaction has been underway), have a negative reaction, in great part due to the lack of local disclosure. Again the only problem I see with this, is someone coming across it later and thinking they have found some scandal. That is all avoidable with clear disclosure. So normal disclosure (user page + local) Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Definitely not disclosing. The risks of an admin having to publicly disclose as a paid editor outweigh the benefits of this research, in my opinion. I guarantee if I made such a formal disclosure, abusive paid editing groups would be impersonating me by the end of the week, backed up by a convenient paid editing disclosure they could link to on-wiki to "prove" they have an admin willing to pull strings for the highest bidder. Further, I'm now worried that even participating in this study at all will cause harm, as paid editors could point to this discussion to show admins do engage in "paid editing" if I go through with it, even if I do some gymnastics to avoid having to disclose (e.g. declining compensation). I'll certainly respect the community's decision on this one, but it's the wrong decision. The community has deprived a researcher attempting to benefit Wikipedia of useful data. It's unfortunate I will not be able to participate in the development of a potentially useful tool. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_blanking_of_talkpage_or_deletion_debates

This AfD discussion contains libelous assertions by User:M. A. Bruhn. That user says that certain professors, at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere, are

"co-opt[ing] mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

and that

"The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discour[s]e. No publications in journals outside their own", no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations."

Johns Hopkins University's Medical School is not a place where a physician becomes a professor without publishing a lot in respected scholarly journals.

The Ancestral Health Society's on their history says the founding members are Brent Pottenger, Aaron Blaisdell, and Chris Owens.

• Here is Brent Pottenger's web page identifying him as a physician at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and as a winner of the Samuel Novey Prize in Psychological Medicine conferred at the Convocation Ceremony for JSU's School of Medicine, and listing some of his works including publications in scientific journals, poster sessions, and other articles. Are we to think that this publication or this one are (quoting from the Wikipedia page whose courtesy blanking I am requesting) "entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discour[s]e" and that their author has done "no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations" and that he has published in "no [ . . . ] journals outside their own (i.e. that of the Ancestral Health Society)? This and other lists of his publications show his collaborations with other professionals, yet User:M. A. Bruhn asserts that there are none.

All this information is so easy to find instantly by googling that one must conclude that User:M. A. Bruhn did not attempt that simple task before making these false allegations.

• Here is the university web page of Prof. Aaron Blaisdell of UCLA's Department of Psychology, about whom User:M. A. Bruhn makes the same allegations.

These and other professors who publish in respected journals and have co-authors who are similarly situated professionals are those of whom User:M. A. Bruhn says they are "co-opt[ing] mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

I suspect that the doctors who were libeled will find that the page does no harm to their reputation, but if they did sue, I suspect their suit would fail because a Wikipedia AfD page is such a contemptible source that it could not harm their reputation, i.e. it's libel but not efficacious libel. However, the cleanliness of Wikipedia's soul makes it in Wikipedia's interest not to engage in libel. (oh .... Except that at least one of the doctors is in England, where the libel laws are stricter than in the U.S.)

I am requesting suppression or courtesy blanking of the page with the libelous assertions. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It's normal to discuss the reliability of sources and how mainstream their authors/publishers are in a deletion debate. That's all I see M. A. Bruhn doing there. Note that the AfD in question is two years old and was part of the dispute that led to Michael Hardy being reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee. – Joe (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussing reliability of sources does not mean lying about them, saying they've never published in respected journals when they have, saying they have not collaborated with others in research and publication when they have, saying they are "co-opting" the standard terminology of the fields in which they are professors at prestigious universities in order to create a false appearance of respectability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And observe that legitimacy of an organization, not just the reliability of sources, and the honesty of individual professors, not just the reliability of sources, was not merely questioned but denied. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any significant behavioral issues here, or anything "libelous" either, so I would oppose blanking the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: : So there is nothing libelous in saying that a professor who publishes in respected journals has never done so, that a professor who jointly authors papers with others in his field has not done so, that a respected professor is trying to "embroider" his "efforts with an appearance of legitimacy" simply because he uses the standard terminology of his field?
Where I use quotation marks, I am quoting someone. Why do you use them with the word libelous? Indeed, do M. A. Bruhn's remarks not clearly imply that such a professor's efforts are not legitimate? Do you condone the statement that they are not legitimate? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose blanking. There is no libelous material in that discussion; there are only the standard strongly worded opinions and debates and assertions made at any number of WP:AfDs. The place to counter anyone's opinions or assertions would have been the AfD, which has been closed now for over two years. In my opinion Michael Hardy is massively wasting the community's time here, and considering his former related reprimand by the Arbitration Committee may warrant a WP:BOOMERANG for this time-sink, or even a WP:CIR block/ban for just not getting it. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • An addendum here: This is not his first stop. He also raised this at WP:VPP prior to coming here, so WP:FORUMSHOPPING also seems to apply. John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any serious issues that will warrant blanking much less suppression here, although M. A. Bruhn may have expressed himself using softer approach. Also seeing that this AfD is over two years old and ensuing ArbCase, it seems Michael Hardy still has unsettled issue with M. A. Bruhn even though they're no longer editing. I hope MH will understand how resuscitating this resolved, two-year old issue will not be of benefit to either him or the community, so it is better to forget this and move forward. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

TBAN request: User:Kbog and Machine Intelligence Research Institute

• Kbog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Machine Intelligence Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We've experienced aggressive advocacy from Kbog on this page. In general I have found Kbog to edit this way on things related to Exciting Possibilities About the Future (transhumanist, effective altruism stuff) but this has gone over the top. There is a combination of a) not understanding the mission of WP and the basic P&G through which we realize it; and b) aggressive editing and responses, instead of learning what we do, and how we do it.

This is not helped by

• Kbog's overall fierce inclusionism and sense of WP:OWN with respect to their own edits, as they state by the words and images on their userpage. The machine gun imagery disturbs me every time I look at it; they view this as "satire".
• their view of what we do here as something like what goes on in social media like vbulletin boards, on Reddit boards, on Facebook, and so on, as they wrote here.

Keep your dirty liberal hands off of my content!

Anyway, to the MIRI page.

It has been fancruft since the day it was created in 2004. User:Zubin12 came along in July and started cleaning it up and got it to this point, and clearly pointed out the PROMO aspects of the page on the talk page.

This opened some fierce engagement to clean it up further. Kbog and I overlapped, and I yielded to them; they brought it to this state, and came to the talk page and wrote: I finished the article to my current satisfaction. That is quite a strong statement, on a page that is being contested. It invites scrutiny of their work, and that scrutiny finds their work deficient in the basics of scholarship as well as our policies and guidelines.

In response, for starters I pointed out the overwhelming reliance on primary or SPS sources when they were done. In response they trimmed some, and made a dog's breakfast of a response on Talk, completely confusing the concepts of "independent source" and "primary sources" and "SPS" and failing to understand that having big swaths of content driven by SPS or primary sources is not good. Indeed they wrote: If an article can be made longer with appropriate use of primary sources, without being too long, then it's an improvement. Because more, accurate, information is simply a good thing.

This basic orientation that "more is better", even if it is driven by shitty sources that don't actually support the content, is just not what we do here. The combative attitude along with misunderstanding the mission and basic P&G makes it almost impossible to help them think clearly about sourcing and content, much less reach consensus.

I went on to look at just a couple of passages, and you can see the pile of errors in this section on Talk. They then replied, interspersing their comments with mine, which i fixed; you can see that discussion here. Their response to problems with the page as they left it - with unverified content, etc -- the content that was, again in their own words, to my current satisfaction -- was to blame other people, say "I didn't have the source", and just more or less knee-jerk rejection. (diff).

Something to point out in that small example paragraph was this sentence they had left in the content: "In early 2015, MIRI's research was cited in a research priorities document accompanying an open letter on AI that called for "expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial"(source)."

That passage typifies their editing -- MIRI is not mentioned in that important document. Some of their researchers are cited - maybe five citations out of the 70 or so references there. The content is pure commentary/OR. They actually believe that this is just fine - No, that is a straightforward statement of fact, which is different from commentary. (same diff as above) and not at all OR/commentary on a source that is not about MIRI, where the content gives outsize importance to MIRI's role in the document. Pretty typical advocacy-driven editing.

Elsewhere on the talk page and in the article, others have been addressing OFFTOPIC and SYN content added by Kbog. Kbog has responded by edit warring ( just yesterday, 1) two reverts in one diff series; 2) again; 3) again, and later 4) reverting the "primary" tag, and 5) again). They responded to my edit war warning with this: silly, removing it from their page.

On talk they have been writing things like:

• this favorite of machine-gun toting OWNers Anyway, you cannot remove material without building a talk page consensus first. Merely saying "let's take this to the talk page" doesn't give you a right to continue edit warring. The material stands until there is a decision to change it. and
• this What bizarre theatrics are these, where the very defenses that exist to ward off deletionist gadflies are used as a pretext for their further persistence. It seems that literally everything, to you, is a reason to be combative, and
• misrepresenting my stance as being somehow OK with the page three times, (diff, especially egregious diff, diff (bottommost)), even though as I noted above, I stopped working on the page and yielded to them. They have no idea what the page would like if I were to take my run through it.
• this - Sure, there are three editors who have axes to grind here, with thoroughly unconvincing objections. I haven't seen any level-headed, independent person to side against me.. The key words there are I haven't seen, and the sense is wrong -- this is really about not hearing.

The fan-driven, bad-quality editing related to MIRI extends to other pages and edits like this, removing content sourced from the New York Times about Vernor Vinge coining the phrase the "singularity" about AI catastrophe, with an edit note not really x-risk as part of this sweep through a section about AI, and leaving a description of the views of MIRI person Eliezer Yudkowsky very prominently displayed in its own paragraph, sourced only to a primary source by Yudkowsky. Classic advocacy editing, promoting MIRI or its people, using weak/primary sources.

This person is very clearly a committed advocate, both to MIRI and to their vision of Wikipedia as some sort of blog where the goal is to build as much content as possible, based more or less loosely (sometimes not at all) on seemingly any old source, with no discernment between high quality independent sources and a press release or blog, and no distinction between summarizing what a source says and commenting on that source, no sense of edits that are strongly grounded in P&G or extremely weak. What matters to them, apparently, is making the article longer.

Before filing this, I tried to reach out to them on their talk page, and we had the exchange that you can see here. I have tried as much as I am willing, but my patience is exhausted.

The strife on this page will be endless as long as they remain involved, since they are not aiming at the mission, don't follow basics of scholarship, ignore P&G except as it suits them, and are unteachable due to their aggressive hold on content they add. Again -- Keep your dirty liberal hands off of my content!

Please topic ban this person from editing about MIRI. Perhaps AI more broadly. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a hefty dose of material that most editors won't want to read above. Fortunately, I do have time. A brief summary:

• Kbog has editing in this content area (roughly, topics related to Eliezer Yudkowsky, including MIRI, Effective altruism, and LessWrong) since 2015.
• Most recently, he was edit-warring with Jytdog (the filer) at Machine Intelligence Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about whether to include the {{primary}} maintenance tag. Neither looks good in that.
• There has been extensive discussion at the talk page since mid-July. It seems unlikely that all editors will ever agree on the content of the article. There are extensive discussions of what references can be used. Kbog opened an RFC yesterday, it appears that David Gerard, Jytdog, Gbear605 and Zubin12 (the other editors active on the talk page since July) all disagree with him.

Overall, I think a TBAN would be pre-mature; if the RFC confirms that there is a consensus against Kbog's views of what the content on the page should be and he continues to disagree voluminously, a TBAN might be called for then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Power, when you say "That's a hefty dose of WP:IDHT", do you mean the acronym to be "I don't have time" (to read everything presented above), or do you mean (per the link) that I am guilty of "failure or refusal to 'get the point'"? In the context of your sentence, it's not clear. K.Bog 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant that most of the people reading this noticeboard will not have time to read Jytdog's entire post (and look at the relevant diffs/talk pages). I've removed the link as I thought it pointed elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think your summary is accurate, except I believe Gbear is neutral (we haven't substantially disagreed, just a bit about template etiquette). K.Bog 06:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've certainly made some errors and oversights about content: human errors, which I did not press after being shown them. In addition, I reacted aggressively in some of the arguments about this page. I also edit warred once, one fourth-revert which I didn't realize was past the limit. This is because I was frustrated by Jytdog and others' behavior towards me. Things that I have written or kept in the article have been repeatedly characterized by Jytdog as "fan-driven", "bad quality", "fancruft with shitty, bloggy sources", and so on; whenever I attempt to dispute such labelings with reference to WikiPolicy, I am rebuffed with wholly authoritative assertions that I don't understand what we do here, that I never learn, that it's simply "too much" primary sourcing, that the sources are simply "bad"; reasons for these assertions are lacking, and they are supported not with specific Wiki Policies, but with the insistence that I'm not listening and therefore really am proving his point, with the insistence that I'm fan editing and therefore aiming at the wrong thing, and similar non-answers. I meet every proposed change with valid arguments, but I get evasion and stonewalling in response. Jytdog is right that he hasn't convinced me of many things regarding about how to write a Wikipedia article. But this isn't a matter of my willingness to learn, it's a consequence of the fact that I haven't been given good reasons or references to WikiPolicy. I can't be reasonably expected to learn from someone who doesn't do an adequate job of teaching. Therefore, to the extent that I'm wrong about anything, presumably the right thing to do here is for someone else to explain things in a more compelling fashion, instead of assuming that we have to TBAN me just because Jytdog here has failed to change my mind. Please don't accept Jytdog's spin that I am refusing to listen: if you look through the specific arguments, you'll see that I'm fundamentally, honestly disagreeing on the basis of regular reasons, and I don't believe that Jytdog's views are representative of the broader Wikipedia community. In some cases, you will also find, I have been okay with other people's changes.

Beyond adhering to what I believe to be WikiPolicy, my own idea of what a Wikipedia article should look like is driven by what I have seen counted as good examples of Wikipedia work, such as (I have used this example before, and not received any response) the "good article" Kantian ethics page, which has extensive detail from published primary sources (I'm not fighting for blogs, press releases and so on; I used to, but I think Jytdog will have to admit that I did learn better than that). In academic articles more broadly, you can find similar examples. I do not mean this as an "otherstuff" assertion, I am impressed by such articles and I mean to show how it is that I have arrived at this perception about how Wikipedia articles ought to be written, contra the insistence by Jytdog that it is fan editing and advocacy, and how it is that I am skeptical about Jytdog's assertions about how things are typically run around here.

I have focused on these topics, AI and EA (though not exclusively). They are of interest to me, and I care about having good articles for them. I am also focusing on them in reaction to the phenomenon displayed here, where I find that a select small group of editors is unfortunately prone to attempting to cut them apart. I think that they are more in need of being watched than many other articles, because I have not encountered this sort of behavior in other topics that I have worked on, and it seems to me that Jytdog is on a bit of a crusade against advocacy, which he is overly prone to suspecting. That is why I've been rather stubborn: I think that he's being overzealous, and that warrants some pushback. I would not be so stubborn if I were working with editors who I trusted to have no preexisting biases about me or the subject at hand. That's why I opened the rfc.

If you look through my edits on other articles you will find that I have also made reductions of unpublished primary sourcing, reduction in weight given to groups like MIRI, adding opposing viewpoints and secondary sources, as well as very ordinary improvements (style etc). Please judge on the basis of looking seriously through edits, rather than making up your mind on the basis of cherrypicked examples. I believe that Jytdog's assumption about the appropriateness of talking about the singularity in an AI catastrophe article constitutes WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but I think most people here would rather not see us bicker about such examples, so just look through my history and judge for yourself. I certainly have left up a lot of problematic content, but I don't have time to fix everything, and I believe that it's better to leave up over-weighted or imperfectly-sourced content until I or someone else adjusts it further, rather than taking a hatchet to it.

By the way, that is not a machine gun. It is an AR-15, a civilian semiauto rifle. From my background, I see it as a regular rifle that can be used for many things. This is just a convenient representation of the kind of problem here: Jytdog insists that his perspective is right, and he refuses to acknowledge the possibility that I may have an honestly different view, which is the primary cause of my stubbornness. Is this the right place to judge Jytdog? No, it's not. My point is simply that my behavior has not been demonstrated to be a sufficiently severe problem here to warrant a TBAN. K.Bog 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, answering a very long complaint with a very long response is not a terribly effective strategy. At least Jytdog gave us bullet points to latch onto.

On the issue of the photo and "Keep your liberal hands off my content" caption, I think that clearly violates WP:POLEMIC,

• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
• Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors [in this case "liberal" editors]

so I'd ask you to remove it before I nominate it for deletion at MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise into bullet points, and remove the picture. K.Bog 05:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing my long statement into bullet point form:

• I have made oversights and errors, but when I see these, I do not fight over keeping them in the article. I will try to make higher quality edits in the future.
• I have been too aggressive in the arguments about this page, but only as a reaction to the hostile way that these particular people have been consistently behaving on these articles; I don't treat true third parties (like people from rfc) the same way, and will generally try to do better in the future.
• Jytdog is misrepresenting me as refusing to listen, when in reality I fundamentally disagree with his interpretation of WikiPolicy and he is failing to make serious arguments about it.
• Jytdog is generally misrepresenting my edits and behavior as being worse than they are, largely on the basis of his overzealous suspicion that I'm an "advocate", when in reality I simply care and know more about a particular topic than I do about others. K.Bog 05:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Block review

Just blocked User:Evansjack1, who appears to have been a problematic editor more or less since the start. He hasn't edited in a while, but has gone right back to the behavior that led to two other blocks before. It appears he's only here to edit the article about himself to remove controversial information (despite having been advised to only edit the talk page due to COI). As you can see on User talk:Evansjack1 he seems to lack the basic competency to interact productively with the editing community, and he seems to be here mostly to scrub his Wikipedia article. Bringing this for review because of the potentially high-profile subject (although I'm not sure his identity was ever actually confirmed). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I remember this editor well. This is long term (even if sporadic) disruptive editing, and I endorse your block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to help this user a few days ago and opened a discussion on the talk page about a reasonable complaint they had regarding inappropriate text in their article. And there was clear agreement from the local editors with his viewpoint that the text in question was inappropriate and should be trimmed (save for the user who wrote the content). Jack then immediately proceeded to derail the discussion with a laundry list of edits he wanted made to the article. The local editors, without blinking, began discussing his issues point-by-point and at length, as you can see on the talk page. So, while I sympathize with someone having an article and feeling that they're treated unfairly in it, Jack was receiving a high degree of hands-on assistance from people who were genuinely trying to help improve the quality of his article while listening to his input and attempting to address his concerns, in spite of the fact that he was obviously attempting to be way too controlling over his own article. Given that, there's really no excuse for him snapping like that and edit warring over the removal of content. I very recently told him not to edit the article, and he should be well aware of the COI standards we have by now. It's a reasonable block, and he will definitely need to accept a topic ban from editing his article as part of any unblock. Swarm ♠ 07:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)