Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
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 |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss
(Initiated 23 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox
(Initiated 139 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan
(Initiated 136 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case
(Initiated 119 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Tasnim News Agency
(Initiated 86 days ago on 12 February 2024)
Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions
(Initiated 69 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus
(Initiated 54 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3
(Initiated 49 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism
(Initiated 40 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike
(Initiated 40 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 32 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 31 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 31 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)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 40 | 2 | 42 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 52 | 30 | 82 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean
(Initiated 49 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States
(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires
(Initiated 15 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#Category:Video games
(Initiated 0 days' time on 9 May 2024) |done=yes
Requesting a closure for the following discussion. Thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ganbare_Goemon_Kirakira_Dōchū:_Boku_ga_Dancer_ni_Natta_Wake_(2nd_nomination) Oz346 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)
(Initiated 124 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.
(Initiated 124 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal
(Initiated 118 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024
(Initiated 115 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal
(Initiated 106 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)
Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season
(Initiated 100 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season
(Initiated 100 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 93 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive
(Initiated 86 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:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024
(Initiated 73 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024
(Initiated 66 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024
(Initiated 60 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion
(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 22 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)
Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list
(Initiated 12 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Self-nominations for the 2017 ArbCom elections are now open
Self-nominations for the 2017 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 12 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Interwiki vandals/spammers?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm sometimes minimally active on the German Wikipedia, and I happened to notice an IP that is spamming semi-legible opinions both there and here. Apparently, it's a sock of a well-known and blocked user on the German Wikipedia. I've slapped a 36 hour block on the IP to stop further disruption, but do we have a general policy on such cases? How independent are the different language editions with respect to administrative action and/or user behaviour evaluation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- One of the typical ways we respond to cross-wiki abuse is to ask the stewards for a global lock, which prevents a user from logging into a particular account on all Wikimedia wikis, or a global block, which only affects IP addresses. Aside from these, I believe local administrators on a specific wiki can and do take into consideration actions of a user on a different wiki when considering whether to take administrative action against a user, as such actions have the potential to also affect the local wiki. However, just because a user is blocked on one wiki does not automatically mean they should be blocked on another wiki. I would look at it case-by-case. (In this case, the IP hasn't edited the German Wikipedia for several hours, so it's probably a stale matter at this point.) Mz7 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, that matches my expectation with a bit of useful extra info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Per Mz7, my understanding is that cross-wiki behavior is supplementary evidence; it is not by itself enough to enact a local sanction, but when a user is creating problems locally, then it can be brought in as evidence to support a necessary block. If someone is blocked on another Wiki, and has done nothing wrong here, however, we don't block them locally. The key is nothing wrong here. If they're doing the same behavior, ban away... --Jayron32 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, that matches my expectation with a bit of useful extra info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If an user was an admin on an non-English WP but is no longer, may he or she present the info here on ENWP as if he or she is an non-English WP admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsquare (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your question. We don't care who anyone is at all. Anyone can discuss anything at anytime for any reason here. We don't care if you are or are not an admin. If you've got something to bring up, do so. You could be an admin, you could be anyone. Just say what you need to say. --Jayron32 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- If someone is not admin but at the talk page states they are admin, we usually edit the talk page. I think the question is whether we would similarly edit the talk page if someone incorrectly states they are admin on a different project. (My guess is we do not care).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Did you not ask this question at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_12#If_an_user_is_no_longer_an_administrative_user_--_bureaucrat.2C_steward.2C_administrator_et_cetera_--_on_project_not_English_Wikipedia.2C_shall_description_on_user_pages_be_editing_accordingly.? Either way you are an admin here and that is the main thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd concur with Ymblanter that we don't care. We remove it when non-admins claim to be en-wiki admins because that could potentially be disruptive (if people waste their time asking them to perform admin actions), but other than that we don't care whether the claims people make about their off-wiki activity are true or not unless they're claiming their off-wiki experiences give them a particular authority (cf. Essjay). (I suppose there's a theoretical case we'd take action, if someone were claiming to be a Commons admin and giving people erroneous advice about copyright which other editors were following in good faith on the assumption that a Commons admin would understand image policies, but that's a very niche case.) ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving me a definitive answer than at last time when I asked. I value Iridescent's idea that off-wiki experiences gives a non-admin a particular authority. A non-ENWP user can claim to be non ENWP admin on ENWP user page as many wikimedia projects have flourished in more than a decade of this online phenomenon called wikipedia. As a user is now difficult to be a WP admin, does carrying the stigma of an admin earn the user an image that readers can look upon? Although JW on a mailing list post claimed that
- I'd concur with Ymblanter that we don't care. We remove it when non-admins claim to be en-wiki admins because that could potentially be disruptive (if people waste their time asking them to perform admin actions), but other than that we don't care whether the claims people make about their off-wiki activity are true or not unless they're claiming their off-wiki experiences give them a particular authority (cf. Essjay). (I suppose there's a theoretical case we'd take action, if someone were claiming to be a Commons admin and giving people erroneous advice about copyright which other editors were following in good faith on the assumption that a Commons admin would understand image policies, but that's a very niche case.) ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.[1]
Comment on contributions, not contributors; re-displaying these personal attacks will result in a block.
|
|---|
|
References
- ^ Wales, Jimmy. "[WikiEN-l] Sysop status". [WikiEN-l]. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TfD issue
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 15#Template:Authority control has been closed; please would an uninvolved admin now review and close the discussion that has been stared below the closed section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Working Primefac (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Done by Primefac.Winged Blades Godric 06:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gsfelipe94 on my talk page.
- User has claimed I "fell from the sky declaring my opinion superior to others" (a fabrication).
- User has claimed I am "messing around."
- User's post on my talk page is incredibly aggressive.
I have no intention of humoring it with a reply (knowing myself, I would misbehave as well, admittedly). I merely request an administrator or other authority to step in and give him a proper warning template on his page to let him know that his behavior isn't assuming good faith and is quite abhorrent. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here. Good faith reverting edits over and over again does not fit. "Incredibly agressive" is way overreacted btw. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- (ec)@JohnnyFiveHole:, you are a relatively new user and you got involved into a content dispute. This dispute has to be resolved somehow, and trying to resolve it in edit summaries is usually not the best idea. Gsfelipe94 went to your talk page to resolve it, and might have not chosen the best approach, but you need to discuss with them anyway. The article talk page seems to be the best venue for such discussion, and I strongly recommend you to go there, open a new topic, and discuss the changes, at the same time trying to stay cool.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not disputing that much. My case in point is as follows *points to the tone and tenor of the above message by gsfelipe*. "you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This is a long-time user. He knows that personal attacks are a violation of WP policy, yet he's attacked me personally several times. I never have and never will type messages like what he's typed to me. As an aside, a quick perusal of his talk page reveals he's crossed others similarly, often biting the newbie. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- "You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This, coupled with the attacks against me on my page (instead of on *what I did*) such as "You've never updated mma articles before, so you can't just fall from the sky saying that your opinions are the ones that matter" and "I'm not going to engage in a worthless edit war because of you." (both unprovoked) are inarguably personal attacks. I appreciate your biased perspective (I'm not a "new user" - I've been around since 2010), but I implore you to see things through a clearer lens. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Great, but have in mind that a non-biased perspective can srtraightforwardly lead to your block for edit-warring and the absence of minimal good faith. Especially since you have already got a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also not seeing personal attacks here. That's not the best way to phrase it, to be sure, but the second of those is unquestionably not a personal attack and the first is hyperbole, not a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Um, really? A sentence that amounts to "You'll probably fail, because you always do everything wrong" is pretty much a textbook example of an abusive comment. The actual NPA policy (which everyone should probably re-read periodically, so we can get away from the telephone game and actually agree on what the policy says) says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in the original). The policy does not say "You can say anything mean, disparaging, and insulting you want, as long as it's not formulated in the pattern of <You> are a <bad word> and doesn't make us read a bunch of overtly racist garbage". It's obvious to me that Gsfelipe94's comment here would be identified by most people as "insulting or disparaging" if they heard it in the real world, and, as it was directed specifically and personally to a particular person, that makes it a personal attack under the actual definition given in the actual policy.
- Perhaps more importantly, there's nothing WP:CIVIL about any of those comments, and that's a policy, too. Johnny still has less than 100 edits. He's exactly the kind of person that WP:BITE was written about. We screwed up. We can and should treat him, and other new good-faith editors, better than this. Let's try to do better next time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- "You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This, coupled with the attacks against me on my page (instead of on *what I did*) such as "You've never updated mma articles before, so you can't just fall from the sky saying that your opinions are the ones that matter" and "I'm not going to engage in a worthless edit war because of you." (both unprovoked) are inarguably personal attacks. I appreciate your biased perspective (I'm not a "new user" - I've been around since 2010), but I implore you to see things through a clearer lens. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not disputing that much. My case in point is as follows *points to the tone and tenor of the above message by gsfelipe*. "you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This is a long-time user. He knows that personal attacks are a violation of WP policy, yet he's attacked me personally several times. I never have and never will type messages like what he's typed to me. As an aside, a quick perusal of his talk page reveals he's crossed others similarly, often biting the newbie. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Nominations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How to I submit a page for my mother. She was a famous female Opera Conductor and Educator. Her obit was a feature in The NY Times and several other large papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredericContino (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The first thing you should do is read WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG to learn what our notability guidelines are for musicians and generally, and then -- being as unbiased and neutral as possible about your mother -- determine that she qualifies under those guidelines. If you think she does, then read WP:Your first article for tips on how to create an article in Draftspace, which, when it is finished, you would submit to be "published" in Mainspace. But do, please, make sure she is actually notable according to our guidelines, because if she's not, after all the work you will put into writing an article, it's likely to not be accepted or be deleted for lack of notability. You might also want to ask your question on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Music and see what they say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- BMK, it appears she has an entry in Grove's. I expect we can fit her in. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then, there you go! Write away! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- News obituaries in major papers like the NYT are a very solid indicator of notability, in my opinion: only people who are actually of a good deal of long-term importance get news obituaries, if nothing else because the size of the newspaper and of its reader base doesn't admit them to spend space on staff-written obituaries except for the most important people, and flash-in-the-pan people, e.g. victims of a crime, will have their deaths mentioned but won't get an obituary. Plus, the obituary itself (unlike a news report about the person) is a secondary source, since it covers the life from a detached perspective rather than reporting what's going on or what's just gone on as an ordinary news report does. SarekOfVulcan, how did you figure out who this was? Is there only one female opera conductor and educator in Grove who was named Contino? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty much, yeah. :) I figured if it wasn't her, we should be writing the article anyway. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- News obituaries in major papers like the NYT are a very solid indicator of notability, in my opinion: only people who are actually of a good deal of long-term importance get news obituaries, if nothing else because the size of the newspaper and of its reader base doesn't admit them to spend space on staff-written obituaries except for the most important people, and flash-in-the-pan people, e.g. victims of a crime, will have their deaths mentioned but won't get an obituary. Plus, the obituary itself (unlike a news report about the person) is a secondary source, since it covers the life from a detached perspective rather than reporting what's going on or what's just gone on as an ordinary news report does. SarekOfVulcan, how did you figure out who this was? Is there only one female opera conductor and educator in Grove who was named Contino? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then, there you go! Write away! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- BMK, it appears she has an entry in Grove's. I expect we can fit her in. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've made a start - see Fiora Contino. fish&karate 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état move discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Please can an uninvolved admin take a look at the move discussion, ideally to close it as soon as? As this is a high-profile news story linked from the main page, I don't think readers should be drawn away from the topic to a move request. IMO, I think it's a snow close, and for transparency, I did vote/comment in said move request. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How can I discuss the way administrators mishandle copyright on this site?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have watched in horror the way people are bullied and targeted here on wikipedia if they speak out.
But I think this is an important enough issue to bring up.
I am interested in the best way to discuss how administrators mishandle copyright, particularly fair use?
Where can this be done? Thank you in advance. Moscowamerican (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- You could start by giving examples in the form of Diffs. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- hi. Roxy the dog. thanks for responding. please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to focus on one person or persons at all. I was recommended this page by someone before and I saw that this page is very very popular. I just would like to discuss the issues and get all peoples opinions, etc. I saw a page like this once, but I don't recall what it was called. Moscowamerican (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is it to do with application of WP:NFCC? If you are not comfortable, you can mention a few general examples, but it will be helpful to be ready with diffs (as Roxy have mentioned) to present if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Without diffs as examples, we wont be able to assess your issue. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I know quite a bit about copyright and I think we generally get it right on enwiki. Lately, we've been doing a better job than Commons, in my opinion. Examples would be helpful. If individual files have been mishandled, we should correct that. ~ Rob13Talk 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am fairly sure this relates to User_talk:Moscowamerican#October 2017 given the follow up here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the info posted above is correct, and this is the issue MA is worried about, I'd say that Diannaa is right on point. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- See also this discussion, started by an openly declared sockpuppet of Moscowamerican. --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The entire discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- See also this discussion, started by an openly declared sockpuppet of Moscowamerican. --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the info posted above is correct, and this is the issue MA is worried about, I'd say that Diannaa is right on point. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- In practice we are very strict on text copyright (probably moreso than we are on files to be honest.) This is because while Wikipedia is an educational project that can reasonably claim fair use for text, our license allows people to reuse the text for commercial purposes (and we want to keep it that way.) Our mission is to be the free encyclopedia, and copyrighted text goes against that. I endorse Diannaa's actions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- thank you User:TonyBallioni for your comments, again, this is not about any editor, this is about policy in general. I think I need Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Moscowamerican (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment- how would I search for fair use discussions before? Moscowamerican (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, because you'd be wasting everyone's time as nothing would change (at best you'd get a no consensus to change result. Likely it'd snow close against you), and our copyright policy has legal implications, so it's really best not voted on without consulting legal counsel. If you want to create a wiki that has a more liberal view on allowing copyrighted text under the claim of fair use than we do, and want to do so without the de facto protection against being sued that the WMF and volunteers like Diannaa provide, you are free to fork Wikipedia into a new wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There's an extensive searchable archive at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. And you don't need a request for comment to simply ask about this. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Draft:Zwinky
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an Admin please delete Draft:Zwinky, which has been tagged since 12 November. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
...which is less than a week ago. G13 deletions, while "speedy", require some discretion on the part of the reviewing admin, asdrafts that could potentially be kept should be delayed instead of deleted. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)- Pardon the snark. I don't think G13 speedies are necessarily the most vital speedy to be concerned about, even if it has been sitting around for six days. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and deleted the page; it might have been salvageable but this REFUND indicates that no one is likely to ever work on the page. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request (Winkelvi's request for editing restriction to be lifted)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am requesting my 0RR restriction be lifted based on the 25 March 2017 decision found here [2]. Thank you for your consideration. -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your signature is baffling and difficult to navigate. Please change it so that other editors know that you are Winkelvi. Please tell us how your behavior and approach to editing have changed since the incidents that led to your three month block and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Overall, my behavior and approach to editing has changed in that I now rarely edit for fear of being blocked should an administrator view a change I have made to existing content in an article in such a way that it constitutes a violation of the 0RR restriction. Other than that, I go to article talk pages more frequently than I have before, and often first, to get the opinions of others before making changes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- It seems, then, that the 0RR restriction is accomplishing its goal of motivating you to edit carefully, so I see no reason to lift that restriction at this time. What about your baffling signature, which I consider somewhat deceptive? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not meant to be deceptive. And I guess I strongly resent the implication that I intended it that way. My previous signature was 'WV' for quite a while. This is just a more creative looking version of exactly that, nothing more.
- Back to my request: would you mind if other admins were to comment? I was thinking of others
such as Drmies, Floquenbeam, Bbb23, NeilN, Nyttend, Diannaa, Black Kite, Boing! said Zebedee, Bishonen, BethNaught, Ritchie333who were all admins when the restriction was put into place, had a hand in the decision, and commented re: the lift of the block. Further, something I would like to point out in regard to your comments, Cullen, is that the restriction has accomplished its goal to cause me to edit more carefully, however, it is also causing me to pretty much not edit at all (the reason why stated above). I thought the idea is for editors to edit, not be afraid to edit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)- I note that you have made 282 edits in recent months, so you remain an active editor. When you were editing at a higher volume, you repeatedly got into trouble, and ended up blocked several times and sanctioned. I believe that the current restrictions are best for you and for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you look at my editing statistics, the overwhelming majority of those "edits" have been to article talk pages, not editing articles. Is that truly considered improving the encyclopedia? -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I note that you have made 282 edits in recent months, so you remain an active editor. When you were editing at a higher volume, you repeatedly got into trouble, and ended up blocked several times and sanctioned. I believe that the current restrictions are best for you and for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- It seems, then, that the 0RR restriction is accomplishing its goal of motivating you to edit carefully, so I see no reason to lift that restriction at this time. What about your baffling signature, which I consider somewhat deceptive? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Overall, my behavior and approach to editing has changed in that I now rarely edit for fear of being blocked should an administrator view a change I have made to existing content in an article in such a way that it constitutes a violation of the 0RR restriction. Other than that, I go to article talk pages more frequently than I have before, and often first, to get the opinions of others before making changes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not seeing much reason for lifting the ban. 0RR being too onerous might be grounds for downgrading to 1RR. Emphasis on "might". The fear of some roving admin interpreting an innocent edit as technically being a revert and blocking for it is not persuasive to me, and strikes me as more a generalized claim of persecution... which is not generally a positive sign. That is not to say claims of persecution are grounds for upholding a restriction, but groundless or nonspecific ones tend to be associated with poor outcomes in my experience. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, I'm not feeling persecuted nor do I have some irrational fear of being indeffed. That said, please see my talk page and the discussion under "Admins only, please" - I'm not fabricating anything to gain sympathy, I was told an indefinite block for changing content could happen. In that discussion, it was established by an admin that there could be some admins who would see a replacement of content with different wording to be a reversion of content. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that discussion is correct in what is generally considered to be a revert. As I said, you might have a case for requesting 1RR instead of 0RR on that basis. Or a clarification that for 0RR purposes "revert" does not include edits that happen to restore content that was removed more than a week ago; or edits that would normally be counted as the initial step in the BRD cycle instead of the revert.My take on the expansive definition of "revert" is that it exists to prevent gaming of 3RR (or similar restrictions) by combining reverts with other edits, or by making partial reverts. So maybe this is an issue that ought to be talked about more in the context of a policy discussion, if 0RR really does make editing impossible in practice when combined with that expansive definition. But I don't see it as a freestanding reason to eliminate your restriction. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, I'm perfectly fine with a 1RR restriction for six months, a year, indefinite. Several other editors were as well, including a decent number of administrators at the time the restriction was imposed. Except in the case of blatant vandalism, I don't see myself using even 1RR because of what I've learned since the block, the discussion, and then the restriction was imposed. 0RR, however, is pretty ridiculously restrictive without any change to the 0RR policy (which is vague, at best). This was also noted in the discussion at my talk page (which I linked to above). I really would like to get back to editing without living in fear that one move seen by one admin (or an editing complaining to an admin) could end my editing career in Wikipedia forever. It's not enjoyable or in anyway enticing to edit when you can't edit without that fear. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that discussion is correct in what is generally considered to be a revert. As I said, you might have a case for requesting 1RR instead of 0RR on that basis. Or a clarification that for 0RR purposes "revert" does not include edits that happen to restore content that was removed more than a week ago; or edits that would normally be counted as the initial step in the BRD cycle instead of the revert.My take on the expansive definition of "revert" is that it exists to prevent gaming of 3RR (or similar restrictions) by combining reverts with other edits, or by making partial reverts. So maybe this is an issue that ought to be talked about more in the context of a policy discussion, if 0RR really does make editing impossible in practice when combined with that expansive definition. But I don't see it as a freestanding reason to eliminate your restriction. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, I'm not feeling persecuted nor do I have some irrational fear of being indeffed. That said, please see my talk page and the discussion under "Admins only, please" - I'm not fabricating anything to gain sympathy, I was told an indefinite block for changing content could happen. In that discussion, it was established by an admin that there could be some admins who would see a replacement of content with different wording to be a reversion of content. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I see my name has been mentioned, but my only comment at this time is that you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question: If the lambda is changed to a 'v', would that suffice. As I've already stated, my signature was 'WV' for quite some time and no one ever complained. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, just make the whole thing link to your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. I didn't realize it wasn't. That must have happened when I updated the appearance of the signature. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- For the record: I'm working on fixing my signature. Like I said just above, I didn't realize until it was just pointed out to me that hoving over my signature wasn't showing who I am. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it does show when one manages to micro-hover over the tiny envelope, but why not just sign with Winkelvi? Do your friends call you Psi Lambda, or Trident Wavelength or why can't it be your actual user name? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with Sluzzelin. I pointed out your signature problems twice and you blew off my concerns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it does show when one manages to micro-hover over the tiny envelope, but why not just sign with Winkelvi? Do your friends call you Psi Lambda, or Trident Wavelength or why can't it be your actual user name? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I have changed it back to the same similar signature from months ago, with everything intact as it should be coding-wise, just with the greek letters as they have been since I changed them a while back. Again, I had no intention of being deceptive and did not realize that one could not hover over my signature and see who I am. Hovering over my own signature is not something I do and it never occurred to me that I should check to make sure that capability was intact. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Cullen, having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia. Many have done it for a long time and continue to do so without complaint or any kind of suspicion directed toward them. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- No suspicions or complaints expressed from my side (whom, admittedly, you haven't addressed). Just was curious about why you would wish to do it. The answer appears to be that others are doing it too. That's fine. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, no slight toward you intended. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I said that your signature was "baffling and difficult to navigate" and that was completely true at the time I wrote it. Signature idiosyncrasies can easily be ignored if editors are not otherwise disruptive. You have been consistently disruptive in the past, although I hope that you have changed. Time will tell. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
"You have been consistently disruptive in the past"
This subjective comment from you is evidence of what I suspected from your first response to my request. And all of it is exactly why I would like other admins, who were admins at the time of my three month block by Coffee and the accompanying 0RR restriction was implemented - who also commented on same, to offer their opinions now. It would seem that even though I thought you and I had let bygones be bygones (according to your comment at my talk page found here [3]), you are allowing our negative interactions of long ago cloud your administrative judgement now. That's hardly fair or objective with the encyclopedia in mind first -- something administrators are supposed to be. At least, that's how it's coming off from my perspective. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I said that your signature was "baffling and difficult to navigate" and that was completely true at the time I wrote it. Signature idiosyncrasies can easily be ignored if editors are not otherwise disruptive. You have been consistently disruptive in the past, although I hope that you have changed. Time will tell. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, no slight toward you intended. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- No suspicions or complaints expressed from my side (whom, admittedly, you haven't addressed). Just was curious about why you would wish to do it. The answer appears to be that others are doing it too. That's fine. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Cullen, having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia. Many have done it for a long time and continue to do so without complaint or any kind of suspicion directed toward them. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, just make the whole thing link to your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question: If the lambda is changed to a 'v', would that suffice. As I've already stated, my signature was 'WV' for quite some time and no one ever complained. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I will allow other editors to comment on your request, and if anyone else thinks I have been unfair in describing your past behavior, then I will listen carefully to what they have to say. To repeat: I hope that you have changed, by which I mean your editing behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's occurred three of four times recently that editors posting on AN and AN/I have sought to have a specific audience -- and preferably only a specific audience -- comment on their requests, something which I find exceedingly odd. Everyone here is a volunteer, everyone edits when they can or want to edit, and they check whatever pages they want to check. That means that the response to a noticeboard request is always going to be semi-random, and vary greatly from moment to moment. The attempt to skew that response, presumably in favor of the editor filing the request, feels to me like a version of WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, that's not what I'm looking for at all. But, because I had a feeling from the tone of Cullen's initial response that he was not going to be objective, that's why I stated I would like to hear from admins who are actually familiar with the history and had more than a couple months of experience as an administrator. I have no problem with striking the admin names above, as I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to canvass here (I'm not - if I really were, I would have pinged them). My point was that these are the admins who were "there" - and if you take the time to look into the responses to each one during the AN/I as well as the discussion(s) about the block/restriction on my talk page, there was a mixed bag of what they all felt about the situation. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: (ec) I would note the part of Winkelvi's editing restriction which states:
In looking at Winkelvi's edits to talk pages ([4], [5], and [6]) I note multiple edits to many of the talk pages he edited, especially in the case of article talk pages. I have not examined these edits in detail, but I think it's necessary for anyone responding to this request to do so, as the lack of talk page bludgeoning is a necessary element in an appeal being accepted. In other words, if Winkelvi is still bludgeoning on talk pages (and I do not prejudge whether he is or not), he is actually not allowed to file an appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)There is also general consensus for an indefinite WP:0RR editing restriction, appealable in six months after the block expires if no talk page bludgeoning has occurred. (emphasis added)
- Note re: BMK's comments above: An important part of the condition re: bludgeoning has been left out above:
"An uninvolved admin or community consensus will decide if talk page bludgeoning has occurred and Winkelvi must be warned and given a chance to stop before the matter is brought to an admin or noticeboard."
- No such warning has ever been given since the restriction was imposed, no complaints about bludgeoning in my case have been brought to my attention, or anyone's that I've been made aware of. Conclusion: there has been no violation of WP:BLUDGEON as described by the caveat/condition in the restriction and block decision. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what was written, confusing two different parts of the sanction. You cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned under the terms of the editing restriction unless you been warned against bludgeoning first, but if someone was to examine your editing right now and determine that you've been bludgeoning on talk pages, your appeal would be groundless. You would not be hit with any additional penalties, but your appeal would be moot. You happen to have filed an appeal before any warning was issued (if one was warranted), but any bludgeoning which had occurred without being noticed would still invalidate the appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your interpretation. I would disagree even if the restriction wasn't imposed on me. NeilN was pretty specific in what would be acceptable behavior from the community regarding the block, restriction and appeal. Context here is important. Look at what followed the comments I included above (that you left out). It's clear that these were warnings not so much for me but for the community when it came to what would be tolerated and what would not in regard to the sanctions. As I'm sure you are aware, there are community veterans know how to game the system, find loopholes, and essentially make the lives of blocked and sanctioned editors hell on earth. I have enemies. This was a way to keep those enemies from trying to push the envelope. The clarification regarding how a complaint over bludgeoning was to be reported was a guideline for those who would want to make such a complaint. When you consider that engaging in bludgeoning would be a disqualifying factor in me appealing the 0RR restriction in the future and how those who also would seek to poke the bear (the next warning/caveat/guideline for behavior) could try to goad me into bludgeoning, the context of the guideline is clear: in order for bludgeoning to be a valid form of disqualification for appeal, a complaint and subsequent warning would have had to already taken place. Let's use some common sense here, too: I can't know that I'm disqualified from appealing if I've never had the required warning and opportunity to stop. Which I haven't. Regardless, I've not engaged in bludgeoning on any talk pages since the sanctions, so your point is moot anyway. Even so, it would probably be good to have NeilN weigh in here since he is the one who closed that discussion and set the conditions at the time of the close. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what was written, confusing two different parts of the sanction. You cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned under the terms of the editing restriction unless you been warned against bludgeoning first, but if someone was to examine your editing right now and determine that you've been bludgeoning on talk pages, your appeal would be groundless. You would not be hit with any additional penalties, but your appeal would be moot. You happen to have filed an appeal before any warning was issued (if one was warranted), but any bludgeoning which had occurred without being noticed would still invalidate the appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note re: BMK's comments above: An important part of the condition re: bludgeoning has been left out above:
- Comment those editing on an iphone (for example) can't hover over a signature. "Consistently disruptive" is a pretty accurate assessment. 0RR is pretty generous considering past behavior. Is the 0RR really just for talk page bludgening? Seems like it's for edit warring a lot. I don't recall a rule at AN that says only invited admins can comment. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I have edited the header to be more specific. I also agree that the signature is both deceptive (trying to maintain that the drastic change was not intended to hide further undermines Winkelvi's already problematic credibility) and prevents access and transparency. For access reasons and for transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be his screenname clearly spelled out. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Two admins asked me to fix it not because of the initials (my signature was the initials 'WV' at the time of the sanctions and for at least a year or more before that) but because - unbeknownst to me - hovering over it did not show who I am. I have since remedied that and have changed it back to the colors of the signature at the time of the restriction(s) and three month block. But truthfully, I'm failing to see what my signature has to do with anything or why it's being tied into this request and my 0RR restriction. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- To repeat: The signatures (both the one that this thread started out under, and the one now) are deceptive (trying to maintain that the changes were not intended to hide further undermines your already problematic credibility) and prevents access (as noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. For transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be your screenname clearly spelled out, for both access reasons (noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Two admins asked me to fix it not because of the initials (my signature was the initials 'WV' at the time of the sanctions and for at least a year or more before that) but because - unbeknownst to me - hovering over it did not show who I am. I have since remedied that and have changed it back to the colors of the signature at the time of the restriction(s) and three month block. But truthfully, I'm failing to see what my signature has to do with anything or why it's being tied into this request and my 0RR restriction. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Opinion: I'm not seeing any comprehension at all of why the editing restriction was put into place, or admission that the user understands why their editing was a problem; therefore I don't see any reason for changing the editing restriction. If the only reason the editor says they have edited differently is because of "fear", then they still do not understand the issues at hand that led to the restriction. Until such an understanding and admission is at hand, and a description of how they plan to remedy the problem, I see no reason to lift the restriction since it has, as Cullen stated, accomplished its intended purpose. Even if the editor were to convey understanding and a new plan, I don't see a way to lifting the restriction completely, given the way this request started out; the only concession that would seem appropriate would maybe be changing it to 1RR, but again, I think it's too late for that since there's been no understanding or rehabilitation other than low editing out of "fear of being indef blocked". Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment In spite of what Softlavender has stated above, I absolutely understand why the restriction was put into place: I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with others to the best of my ability is. If that's a "plan", it's the only one I have. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, that's not what you said here and here, and it appears that this confession was only made under duress (i.e., after I brought it to light). A request for removal of an editing restriction should start out with a clear statement of understanding and admission and learning. The fact that it didn't and one is only at hand now is rather puzzling, and seems to smack of more insincerity. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't make a "confession", I made a statement. You stated I didn't understand why I had a 0RR restriction, I immediately responded and showed that's not the case. Sure, in a perfect world and with a perfect person making the request, a request such as this should start out the way you say it should. I didn't do that and have rectified the omission. I take great offense to you now saying I'm lying and that I'm intentionally trying to be deceptive (with my signature) Why are you exercising zero good faith? None of this suspicion and being told I'm dishonest is deserved or appropriate. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your actions speak for themselves, as does your previously stated description of and rationale behind your current behavior and approach to editing: [7]. Cullen gave you an opportunity to display understanding, and you displayed none. The complete overhaul(s) of your signature and the timing speak for themselves as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't make a "confession", I made a statement. You stated I didn't understand why I had a 0RR restriction, I immediately responded and showed that's not the case. Sure, in a perfect world and with a perfect person making the request, a request such as this should start out the way you say it should. I didn't do that and have rectified the omission. I take great offense to you now saying I'm lying and that I'm intentionally trying to be deceptive (with my signature) Why are you exercising zero good faith? None of this suspicion and being told I'm dishonest is deserved or appropriate. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, that's not what you said here and here, and it appears that this confession was only made under duress (i.e., after I brought it to light). A request for removal of an editing restriction should start out with a clear statement of understanding and admission and learning. The fact that it didn't and one is only at hand now is rather puzzling, and seems to smack of more insincerity. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support changing the restriction to 1RR per ROPE and because there are better things to do than sit here arguing about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The pointless obduracy over such a trivial matter as changing his confusing signature is enough to convince me that restrictions should remain in force. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to support 1RR because I actually understand where Winkelvi is coming from. I think it's entirely reasonable that, with the expansive definition of "revert", Winkelvi edits mainspace at his peril. Given revert rules tend to be enforced without regard to intent, Winkelvi could easily find himself blocked for inadvertently "reverting" an edit by adding content that had been removed weeks or even months earlier. Even if that specific scenario is somewhat unlikely, I believe it's significant enough to chill Winkelvi's participation. And, that Winkelvi actually sought out the opinions of others as to the dimensions of 0RR rather than just doing whatever he wants is a positive sign to me. The signature thing... I'm not thrilled about that, but I don't think it's as nefarious as is being suggested. I remember a case from a couple years ago where someone had gone silent after an unblock, blanked his user talk page, and got a username change, and went right back to what had gotten him blocked before... now that was nefarious. This is just silly. At worst, the sig thing is concerning with respect to candor. Well, I'm willing to look past that for now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Winkelvi has not satisfied the appeal prerequisite of no talk page bludgeoning: [8]. I would be willing to overlook this single example if were not for the fact that he only made 53 article talk page edits. As a practical matter, there is almost zero chance of Winkelvi being blocked for violating the 0RR restriction because he changed a wrong word, altered current sentence structure, or corrected a date, jot or period out of place, provided that it's not an obvious reversal of the last edit. For the record, I supported a 1RR restriction in the March discussion.- MrX 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. It doesn't seem to me that Winkelvi has adequately demonstrated collaborative editing in the nearly eight months since his editing restriction. As seen by his edit counts, he seems to have instead virtually stopped editing [9], a behavior we call "waiting out" an editing restriction. Meanwhile even so he has continued his battleground approach on usertalk pages [10] and ANI [11], and article talk as noted by MrX above [12]. I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is my last set of comments in this thread unless someone asks me a direct question. I wasn't going to comment further, but I just don't think it's wise or right to let Softlavender's comments be left without advocating for myself:
- First my signature was a problem for you. You accused me of intentional deception via the signature. When I pointed out that the problem had been corrected, you still didn't like the signature and basically demanded it be changed back to what it was when my block was imposed in March. Then, you stated I didn't express an understanding of why the 0RR restriction was imposed in my original request and said the restriction shouldn't be lifted based on that. When I did give a very reasonable and adequate (admittedly necessary) response to your complaint, you didn't like it that the comments weren't in the original request and accused me again of being dishonest. Now you are accusing me of more dishonesty by intentionally "waiting out" the restriction. You further say I should edit for six months collaboratively before the restriction can be reconsidered again, even though that's not what NeilN imposed conditionally when he closed the discussion, and not what everyone seemed to be in agreement with. Remember, you accepted accolade after accolade as well as barnstars from editors on your talk page for your intervention in that AN/I discussion and, in so doing, took credit for what the final decision ended up being. You were fine with the conditions and final decision at the time, but are not fine with the conditions and final decision now. Not to mention you think I should edit more in the next six months to prove being worthy of the 0RR lifted. How does that work, exactly? 50 edits? 500? How does one force someone to edit Wikipedia for a six month period of time? According to policy, editing is not compulsory: "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your signature has been noted as problematical and deceptive by many people, and you did not change it back to the way it was before the editing restriction; it was still bizarre symbols. I am not accusing you of dishonesty, I am stating facts. I "took credit" for nothing, "accepted" nothing. Trying to point fingers at others isn't going to work for you. You have indeed engaged in talkpage bludgeoning, as noted previously: [13], [14], and moreover, in further battleground behavior at ANI: [15]. As I stated above, I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR per my general opposition to the use of 0RR, because it leaves editors vulnerable to gaming the definition of a revert, which WV has indicated makes them afraid to edit, and I believe them. Further I support WV's use of Greek characters in their signature, given that they've fixed the other issues with userspace links, the rest is just picking on them. It's not "deceptive" at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR That would still meet WP's protective needs. Be aware of WP:ROPE and that you will be under close scrutiny. Also fix the signature. A signature that irritates other editors is not a thing you need in your life. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR - 0RR is bamboo under the fingernails. 1RR is far more palatable and allows an editor to develop collaborative skills while helping to keep the worst disruption at bay. It doesn't prevent tag teams for doing the dirty but it does help keep GF editors out of the quicksand. Atsme📞📧 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Upwards of 99% of Wikipedia editors somehow manage not to spend much of their time at the center of heated controversy. Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF. One can't disconnect themselves from their past at Wikipedia or anywhere else in this world, even after they have truly found Jesus. In my opinion, what we're seeing here is but one example of the downside of bending over backward to be "fair" toward problematic editors, and I wonder whether Winkelvi will ever stop consuming vastly more than his share of community time in debates about his behavior. As seen in this thread, he has yet to learn an essential fact of Wikipedia editing, which is the meaning of "don't bludgeon": One can't "win" debates by picking apart every comment made by every opponent, as if there were only one correct way to see things; if only things were so simple. (If I didn't write this, I would expect Winkelvi to pick apart my strictly inaccurate use of "every" twice in the preceding sentence, pointing out the few opponent comments that he didn't pick apart, thereby proving to all that I'm full of shit.)
If Winkelvi wants 1RR only for reverting clear vandalism, I wonder whether the project might do ok if those reverts were left to others—even if that means leaving them for some time in lower-traffic articles. For repeated vandalism by one user, he has the same access to WP:AIV as everybody else. And I'm not buying the fear argument either. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would agree very much with your observations here (and I've just had a Talk: comment demonstrating just this). But I would still support giving them just a bit more leeway, to 1RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- And you did so, a few comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF."
I trust that's not how you really meant to convey your thoughts. Every editor should be treated with fairness and AGF. I agree Winkelvi has exhausted everyone's GF, and it would not be unfair to continue the editing restriction. Moriori (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- @Moriori: I put the project's interest before that of any editor including myself, and there is no case to be made that it's in the project's interest to spend all these hundreds of editor hours to accommodate one editor's demands for fair treatment. I was treated unfairly in the only block of my career, strictly speaking, but I didn't make a federal case of it. Rather, I chalked it up to the inevitable limitations of messy self-governance, part of the price that we all pay for that, and I dropped the issue after a day or two and without a block appeal. In contrast, some editors have no qualms about exploiting every last inch of the community's goodwill, while persistently abusing the project in return for that goodwill, and I strongly object to that. No, I conveyed my thoughts quite accurately. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- And you did so, a few comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would agree very much with your observations here (and I've just had a Talk: comment demonstrating just this). But I would still support giving them just a bit more leeway, to 1RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fully agree with Softlavender's blunt but fully accurate assessment. Winkelvi has substantially downgraded their contributions in recent months; call it what you want, but it is just a "waiting out" tactic. I have no idea why some editors here want to encourage that behavior by lowering his restriction to 1RR. I would like to see six months of collaborative editing -- something worthy of an award -- before granting any leniency on their editing restriction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I couldn't disagree with this assessment more. The worry Winkelvi has voiced is a realistic one, and Winkelvi's seeking input and first requesting clarification rather than leaping headlong into behavior on the edge of acceptability in order to gradually test the bounds of the restriction is an excellent sign. That his approach, particularly with the signature change, comes off as argumentative is not helpful, but in light of the panic this request seems to have engendered, I would consider it truly paradoxical were Winkelvi to fail to defend himself. Winkelvi is not sitebanned or mainspace banned. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't term a consistent period of collaborative editing as being on the "edge of acceptability". And I am fully aware there is no site or mainspace ban. I never hinted at one. Virtually discontinuing editing and still displaying battleground behavior here, at their talk page, and elsewhere are not indicators of an editor who has learned from their past behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I couldn't disagree with this assessment more. The worry Winkelvi has voiced is a realistic one, and Winkelvi's seeking input and first requesting clarification rather than leaping headlong into behavior on the edge of acceptability in order to gradually test the bounds of the restriction is an excellent sign. That his approach, particularly with the signature change, comes off as argumentative is not helpful, but in light of the panic this request seems to have engendered, I would consider it truly paradoxical were Winkelvi to fail to defend himself. Winkelvi is not sitebanned or mainspace banned. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only has there no clear reason to lift the restriction been established- at least, not one that demonstrates how such a move would benefit the encyclopaedia- but this complete time-sink above regarding their signiture illustrates that the same WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude exists, the principal that if one can do something, then one should. So if one can get away with having a misleading signature, one should? --->phenomonally unhelpful. And, for the record, WV's comment here, in response to Cullen, that "having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia" is a distraction. Per WP:SIG#Custom si: A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page and A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users, regardless of what others' sigs may or may not be doing. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR - Oh lord... about 90% of this discussion was entirely unnecessary. I would hardly call the signature "deceptive" - not least because deception is an intent to trick or fool people - as anyone familiar with Winkelvi should have been able to identify them on sight. The shadow and envelope logo have always been present in his signature, psi looks similar to w and lamba looks like an upside down v, you know, WV. Furthermore, WV is not Winkelvi so why has nobody pulled him up on this in the... how many years has he been here? No, now that they've changed it to a slightly less obvious WV it's a problem. Mountain ... mole hill. <rant>And then on top of all that, who the fuck could psi-lambda over here possibly have been deceiving when they linked the AN/I that had the /0RR/ imposed in the first place in their request? What? Joe "Psi-Lambda" Bloggs just waltzed on over here to request that /somebody else's 0RR/ restriction be lifted for them? Huh???</rant> That said, Winkelvi's responses haven't been... optimal. Rather than just immediately going back and changing their signature to their old deceptive signature, so they could deceive us with their old deception, they decided to defend their choice to deceive us with a new deception signature so that we couldn't possibly identify their deception. Or alternatively place the slightest imposition on an editor to... oh I don't know... look at the diff and let the neurons do the rest? (I am bearing in mind that their sig did indeed make it exceptionally difficult for someone to navigate to their talk page and that this should, and was, rectified soon after it was pointed out).</rant... again... I get annoyed at people who start shit over trivial matters> All of that said, however, the non-sig based criticisms are reasonable enough. Winkelvi hasn't been engaging in much productive work, though if the 0RR restriction is effecting that (not affecting it) then it might be reasonable to loosen the ropes slightly to 1RR and I'm not impressed with their conduct at Talk:Bruce Harrell, but, that's probably more true of their "opponent" who came in with the knife out with little reason. In all, I see no reason to remove the restriction, but, I'm fine with loosening it to allow Winkelvi (WV / Psi-Lambda / Deceptive) to edit in peace. Now Imma move along. Μρ ρνδδυδε (ταλκ) 19:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. While WinkElvi has been quiet, I don't see that as an indication of changed behaviour. His edit-warring has diminished the contributions the rest of us would have made otherwise, and a short leash on his editing is quite proper. BTW, I find his new signature baffling, as it uses unfamiliar symbols that require a specific "decoding" to make the connection. I suspect he is trying to evade the associations many of us have with his previous signature, which suggests he does not acknowledge the reasons why he has been restricted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Adding the following as I feel it's important for those considering my request to read (I stated all this below, but I think it's not being seen as it's buried in the discussion).
- I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan forward in regard to this request other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block in March 2017. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting the work of others just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with editors to the best of my ability is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that Winkelvi has modified their signature back to an easily navigable and recognizable version. Their kind holiday greetings to various editors popped up on my watchlist, along with the modified signature. Thank you, Winkelvi, for responding to community concerns. I now support changing the 0RR to a 1RR restriction instead, with the stated understanding among all that behavior by Winkelvi that the community finds disruptive will result in new sanctions. I truly hope that never happens. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I see the holiday greetings as a deliberate ploy to contact and get in the good graces of a passel of administrators, which is his normal ploy when confronted by a block or an editing restriction -- we've seen it over and over: his numerous pings to friendly admins during the previous block, and so on. He didn't send out Thanksgiving or even Christmas greetings last year or any previous year, so why today? Plus many if not half of the people he sent the Happy Thanksgiving message to are not Americans. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Softlavender, I think that the greetings may be a response to a New Year's greeting I sent to Winkelvi on December 31, 2015, which I sent to many editors that day but customized to Winkelvi as an "olive branch". As for who received Winkelvi's greetings, holiday greetings are a nice thing. I happen to be Jewish and am not offended when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, though I may respond with "Happy Hanukkah!" I doubt if many editors will be offended by an American Thanksgiving greeting. I think that Winkelvi is trying to send the message that their initial response was a mistake. Wikipedians often tell people, "when you are in a hole, do not dig deeper". It looks to me that Winkelvi is trying to climb out of that hole. Let's assume good faith, and give it a try. 1RR is, after all, a pretty strong restriction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Gotta disagree with you, Cullen. Changing his signature back is one thing, contacting a group of admins out of the blue, like pinging a group of friendly admins when he is blocked, is quite another. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Principled, thoughtful disagreements are fine, Softlavender, and I agree with much but not all of what you have said in this conversation. I interpreted the original post as a request for complete removal of reversion restrictions, and I could not support that. That had now been clarified, and we are now discussing 1RR. Winkelvi has now clarified that 1RR is what they seek. I objected to the signature and despite some complaining and input from others, now that issue has been resolved. If Winkelvi had come here with a well formulated plan requesting 1RR, and a clean signature, I would have been inclined to support. They have made clarifications and corrections, so now I support 1RR. This person has editing privileges and is not blocked or banned. They have been reminded quite forcefully of community concerns, and have acknowledged those concerns. I think we should give Winkelvi a chance at 1RR at this point. It will either end well, or it won't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Those holiday greetings. Twenty one of them. ~ Fifteen of them to admins. A slight anomaly? — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 07:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Who cares? He's not canvassing. There's no rule against being friendly, even if you're doing it in the hopes of impressing someone. If anything, I think it's a positive sign given reviewing this request is supposed to involve evaluating Winkelvi's character and maturity. I happen to think it's an adult, mature thing to do to wish people well during the holidays. Far better than the bludgeoning behavior that's been claimed as Winkelvi's hallmark elsewhere in this thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Those holiday greetings. Twenty one of them. ~ Fifteen of them to admins. A slight anomaly? — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 07:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Principled, thoughtful disagreements are fine, Softlavender, and I agree with much but not all of what you have said in this conversation. I interpreted the original post as a request for complete removal of reversion restrictions, and I could not support that. That had now been clarified, and we are now discussing 1RR. Winkelvi has now clarified that 1RR is what they seek. I objected to the signature and despite some complaining and input from others, now that issue has been resolved. If Winkelvi had come here with a well formulated plan requesting 1RR, and a clean signature, I would have been inclined to support. They have made clarifications and corrections, so now I support 1RR. This person has editing privileges and is not blocked or banned. They have been reminded quite forcefully of community concerns, and have acknowledged those concerns. I think we should give Winkelvi a chance at 1RR at this point. It will either end well, or it won't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Gotta disagree with you, Cullen. Changing his signature back is one thing, contacting a group of admins out of the blue, like pinging a group of friendly admins when he is blocked, is quite another. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Softlavender, I think that the greetings may be a response to a New Year's greeting I sent to Winkelvi on December 31, 2015, which I sent to many editors that day but customized to Winkelvi as an "olive branch". As for who received Winkelvi's greetings, holiday greetings are a nice thing. I happen to be Jewish and am not offended when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, though I may respond with "Happy Hanukkah!" I doubt if many editors will be offended by an American Thanksgiving greeting. I think that Winkelvi is trying to send the message that their initial response was a mistake. Wikipedians often tell people, "when you are in a hole, do not dig deeper". It looks to me that Winkelvi is trying to climb out of that hole. Let's assume good faith, and give it a try. 1RR is, after all, a pretty strong restriction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR I'm not familiar with the original case, but I can't imagine any reason not to change a 0RR to 1RR after many months of no violations. Some of the oppose votes raise WP:CIR concerns, but none that suggest that 0RR is beneficial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Perhaps you'd care to look a little deeper. The reason you can't imagine is the combination of this consensus and the continued bludgeoning documented by multiple experienced and objective editors in this thread. Including, in my opinion as I expressed in my !vote, bludgeoning in this thread. I see no significant change in the discussion style.
Lest I commit bludgeoning myself, I'll now withdraw from this discussion, unless somebody pings me for some bizarre reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at that, 0RR seems to be a compromise between 1RR and indef. I think that after 6 months of "good behavior", going to 1RR (with a healthy reminder of the WP:ROPE principal) seems reasonable. The closing statement probably needs to include another stern reminder against edit warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- There hasn't been six months of good behavior; there has been six months of almost no editing coupled with a number of battleground/bludgeoning incidents, including [16], [17], [18]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- 27 main-space edits since March is not at all encouraging; I wouldn't blame the closing admin for discounting my vote in light of that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the fact that he's really not been editing makes the claim that he feels unable to edit in mainspace without risking a block more credible. I think it can go either way. What I find disturbing about the claims that "he's just waiting it out!" is that it almost presupposes that the purpose of 0RR is punishment, and that by doing something other than editing mainspace, he's not felt the effects of his punishment adequately. The idea that Winkelvi should have to "learn something" first is essentially endorsing the idea that the restriction is supposed to be punitive, which it is not. He's behaved himself as well as should be expected. We don't require perfection. We just require that the restriction is no longer necessary to meet the goal of preventing disruption. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: So it's your position that this thread can override the condition set forth in that consensus. I disagree, as that would mean it was meaningless to begin with, and therefore bad judgment on the closer's part. But hey, it's only reasoning. Take care. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I absolutely feel this thread can over-ride anything from the previous consensus at WP:ANI. Quite frankly, if he's going to do something new that justifies an indef block, we should let him get on with doing it. If he's not, his edits are OK and 0RR is excessively annoying. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've never seen anything convincing policywise that says a closer can impose arbitrary, complex, and extremely subjective conditions on appealing or requesting the loosening of a sanction. The typical requirement for requesting a sanction to be lifted is something modeled after the standard offer. But the standard offer is merely that: the standard offer. Exceptions abound, both in the sense that some restricted editors may be ineligible for a SO request, and that it may be reasonable to request early relief.So, to take your point above:
... that would mean it was meaningless to begin with, and therefore bad judgment on the closer's part.
I agree entirely: Because consensus can change, and the usual participants at AN/ANI do not have exclusive and perpetual jurisdiction over community sanctions, long-term prospective restrictions are at best considered guidelines that the community may waive with or without reason. Imposing them in a close is poor judgment because they give the community a false sense of security. This is the, admittedly frustrating, double-edge of WP:NOTBURO... and the degree of bureaucracy imposed with the sanction here borders on byzantine. But even then, I think Winkelvi has done as well as should be expected given how onerous 0RR is when the "partial revert" rule is applied mechanically. Let him edit. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Perhaps you'd care to look a little deeper. The reason you can't imagine is the combination of this consensus and the continued bludgeoning documented by multiple experienced and objective editors in this thread. Including, in my opinion as I expressed in my !vote, bludgeoning in this thread. I see no significant change in the discussion style.
- Support 1RR, and I think the new signature is fine so long as it's clearly linked. SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR. I see no need to continue with 0RR now, and 1RR is usually an effective limit without being so distrusting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR With the condition that any admin is free to revert it to 0RR. Frankly WV has, as SL says above, just waited out the restriction, but I am willing to extend the rope. Let me be clear on this: I don't think they are capable of not edit warring, so raising it to 1rr is the fastest way for him to combust again. Per my comments at the original block/0RR discussion, "He is well aware of 1rr, 3rr etc and since he has repeatedly shown no interest in not edit warring despite knowing full well what it is and all the details around what constitutes a revert, only 0RR has a hope of working. I say working, but I mean 'cause less disruption to other editors'" - 0RR has functionally caused him to stop editing because he cant edit war, and thus has been working in restricting the disruption to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR, 0RR is effectively an editing ban due to the risk of just about any of the restricted editor's contributions being construed as a revert if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so. fish&karate 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR I have had my issues with WV in the past and I concur with the opinions that WV is a difficult person to edit with. I have also been the victim of WV's stalking and editing to prove points. That being said, it might be time to give WV some rope and hope for the best. 0RR is for many a basic block from editing and I do sympathize with the editing on eggshells with this hanging over one's head. I support the 1RR with the same condition as OID, that any admin can revert back to 0RR if it is warranted. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR, pretty much exactly as per OID, except I think that if it's violated the recourse should be straight into a block rather than back to 0RR. Any loosening of conditions should be not only subject to a time constraint but also to an edit count constraint (which people will be able to pretty easily tell if it is being gamed). While I'm not optimistic that a lesson has been learned and internalized, in the interests of WP:AGF I don't think extending a short length of WP:ROPE is out of line. PGWG (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR, based just on the contents of this section (without knowing anything about ψλ). And recommend (in general) giving warnings before blocking, in case of any plausibly-accidental violations. Κσυπ Cyp 17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 1RR - The opposes all raise valid concerns however lets be honest this 0rr is a gag and it's great short term however I don't agree with it being an indef thing - Everyone deserves atleasr 1rr! - Obviously you shouldn't edit war but you also shouldn't be gagged indef. –Davey2010Talk 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need a page semi-protected ASAP (update: protected)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedI know this is already at RfPP, but there has been MASSIVE amounts of vandalism on this article, which is related to him throwing five interceptions today. Could an admin please semi-protect this article? —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 23:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP unblock?
Hi, can you please unblock 107.77.224.0122 for account creation? It's a public range that I'm running an editathon on right now. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- hi! relatedly - can we lift the account restriction on 64.251.121.244 -- this is the other ip? thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Phoebe: I removed the account creation restriction on 107.77.224.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) earlier after your message on my talkpage, but I don't know about the other IP. Graham87 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Unblocking of User:Roysandytei
User:Roysandytei, who is an active editor from Ghana, has been blocked, because he was believed to be a sockpuppet of a sock farm. However first checkusering in countries with a very limited amount of providers includes a lot of false positives. Secondly he was blocked because he was writing about African popular culture. But if you look at his articles like Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (Ghana) you will see that there is hardly any resemblance. Roysandytei is an active member of the Wikimedia User Group Ghana and he needs his account back. He has an upcoming Education Program appointment with the dean of the Ghana School of Law for explaining Wikipedia to him and a Wikimedian in Residence position has been approved for him. What proof do you need for unblocking him? --Gereon K. (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- The block was made by a checkuser following a sockpuppet investigation. I would suggest that you first discuss this with the checkuser (User:There'sNoTime)) concerned. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- There'sNoTime has not edited since 1st of November... --Gereon K. (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- He edited yesterday. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you're right. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi, please see this discussion. I'm awaiting another checkuser to review my findings -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- There'sNoTime has email activated, unsurprisingly. This might be a good time to use it, Gereon K.. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- That being said, per the above request, I have unblocked Roysandytei pending a second checkuser review. There's no need for them to remain blocked while we wait -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you're right. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- He edited yesterday. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- There'sNoTime has not edited since 1st of November... --Gereon K. (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Mentoring and removal of permissions needed
User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (Dysklyver for short) has been on enwiki since 2014, but has become really active in July 2017. Issues with their editing include:
- On 13 November User:Legoktm asked them to stop posting to the #wikimedia-tech channel on IRC because " I'd like to politely ask you to refrain from helping people in that channel - as far as I can tell all of the advice you gave to people in the past 24 hours was entirely wrong". Dysklyver completely misunderstood that simple request.
- Their rollback right was removed in September 2017 by User:KrakatoaKatie with the support of User:Alex Shih.
- AfC issues: User:DGG said here: "Looking at some of your comments to in your talk page archive, it is clear that you must learn to be more polite to contributors, even when you are absolutely right. And you are not always right. As an extreme example, you declined an article because of a reason that amounts to a denial of the fundamental policy NOT CENSORED, saying "WP is read by children". Considering the poor judgment shown in the recent series of deletion nomination, I think it is necessary to withdraw at least temporarily your right to review New Pages." They concluded the discussion with "In my opinion, the best way we can judge if you are reading to return to afc and nNPP, if relevant, is through good fairly detailed comments at AfD and appropriate nominations for deletion. ." That discussion has an interesting list of the most recent AfD nominations they made, and the results.
- Deletions.
- Starting deletion discussions without knowing, understanding, or applying our policies and guidelines. They were asked to refrain from starting nominations or to familiarize themselves with BEFORE by User:Primefac (30 September "Per the close of this AFD, I kindly ask that you read WP:BEFORE and not nominate any more pages for deletion until you have thoroughly read and understood it.", User:Premeditated Chaos, User:GreenMeansGo ("WP:BEFORE is not a suggestion; it is a requirement, and your nominations show a general if not complete lack thereof. You may consider this a warning if you like."), me here, and User:Edwardx.
- They promised to stop nominating articles for deletion after this on 19 October 2017: "Out of respect for your concerns I will not nominate any more AfD's until all these have closed, and then 25 weeks, and give you notice of any articles I would normally AfD, CSD or PROD rather than tagging them myself."; they didn't keep the second part of that promise though.
- On 2 November, they were instructed that G5 deletions only applied when the creation was made after the sockmaster was blocked. "ok thanks, it was not clear to me the exact G5 procedure, but your comments here and on IRC have helped clear it up." is again promising. However, only yesterday they nominated a bunch of pages for G5 just to get them declined for not meeting the G5 rules...
- Early november, they started Prodding articles with dubious rationales. This was discussed at User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Arbcom candidacy. The first such Prod after they promised to stop nominating articles for deletion was Carabao (band)[19]. After discussion, their position still was "" I still can't verify practically anything in the article to multiple reliable sources, this is my default stance to things which remains unsourced, not necessarily representing an issue." If someone is unable to verify these things, despite the subject having e.g. their own full lemma in the "Historical Dictionary of Thailand"[20]", then the problem is with the editor, not the subject of the article.
- Sourcing.
- Looking at his article creations, I came across Lesquite Quoit, created on 13 November. One of the sources used was this page, which you should probably read first to fully understand the issues. When I asked them "Or do you think that e.g. a source like this has a place on enwiki and should be reinserted in your article?" they replied "perhaps you have something against druids?" which at first I thought was facetious, but soon turned out to be a completely serious response. User:Doug Weller also tried to talk sense with them about this, but to no avail. Their latest reply about this issue, at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions: "[...] how is that source unreliable? It is published, attributed to a known author, verified (presumably) by the co-author who are both druids." "I will draw your attention to WP:RS, specifically WP:BIASED which says Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So really now my point should be clear, quoting druids on a matter of concern to druids, regardless of whether you actually know how to use dowsing rods (trust me, its just like using a protractor on a star chart, you point a metal rod at something in the sky, and make note of the angle to the object) which was the method used by this druid to determine that a 10 ton stone points at the constellation of Libra on 14th of July at 6:11am (every year). I am not "trolling" this is obvious stuff, although you clearly have no concept of druids." My response "That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published. Any source that published this would disqualify itself as a reliable source straightaway." was read as "So in short, you do have an issue with druids." as if rejecting that source was some form of religious persecution and bigotry.
I have gone on for way too long (original version), so a quick recap: an editor who has been asked for quite a while, by many different editors, to famiiarize themselves with our policies and guidelines again and again (WP:BEFORE, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, ...) but shows no indication that they have yet grasped the essential points in these policies, is continuing to disrupt enwiki by frivolous nominations. They seem to be unable to do a good search for sources, and when they have sources they are unable to recognise completely unreliable ones even after this has been pointed out to them. Such an editor should not hold any advanced permissions (new page reviewer, autopatrolled, ...) and probably needs both a mentor (if someone is willing) and a topic ban from anything to do with deletion. Fram (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Statement by User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver.
- Most of Fram's statement seems reasonable. Immense oversimplifications, partial misquoting, stripping of context and missing key points, but essentially correct.
- I have only been actively editing since August, not July.
- Fram clearly detests druids, but I don't necessarily hold this as an issue, since I am not one.
- I can't understand why CSD even exists, it seems impossible to get it right.
- Regarding the main debate over my competency. It not so much that I haven’t grasped the key points, more that I have a diametrically opposing view on the meaning of key polices to that held by Fram. I cannot tell for sure if his views are representative of the majority opinion given that numerous people agree with me and vice-versa. For example, my view on notability can be summed up " requiring the presence or availability of enough independent reliable sources to write a short stub " And Fram continually makes reference to how "important" something is, so is clearly part of the "notability = well known" group, which I am not. Otherwise I think everything is self-explanatory from things I have written on my talk page and ArbCom page, as I have already answered all of Frams points in full several times, elsewhere. but if anyone needs clarification on something specific then do ask (and ping me). Thanks. Dysklyver 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Looking at recent articles, this, this, and this contain fairly basic errors in formatting/tagging, and this is still missing projects after two weeks. Those are exactly the kinds of things that NPP can help clean up in fairly short order most of the time. As to NPP itself, it certainly doesn't require perfection, but it does require you to probably be right most of the time, and be pretty exceptionally receptive to feedback when you're not. One way or the other, it does require a thorough understanding of CSD, PROD, and AfD, and when we have several others suggesting a TBAN from AfD, probably only unimplemented because of a voluntary break, then it's probably a good indication that a user isn't yet ready to be a reviewer.
- Having said that, I'm generally of the opinion that the more rights we can pass out to competent editors the better, even if they're only occasionally used. In all fairness, CSD can be confusing at first blush, and for many, three or four active months simply isn't going to be enough time to get the hang of it, because it's a system that's designed to be expedient and not intuitive. The same is true of a lot of things on Wikipedia. No prejudice against restoring rights after a suitable period of time and demonstration of further experience, with a very pointed recommendation to Dysklyver to do less arguing and more listening, especially when multiple people are telling you the same thing. GMGtalk 11:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Fram’s proposal re: removal of rights, and if it wasn’t clear there, support s topic can involving anything involving deletion, broadly construed. I like Dysklyver as a person, but there are serious CIR issues here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support The 'diametrically opposing view on the meaning of key polices [sic]' is irrelevant. If one ain't on the same page as everyone else, that's gonna cause problems. With full respect to Dysklyver. My name is not dave (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so we are agreed on the user-rights issue, can we move onto clarifying the issue of a topic ban, I believe Fram thinks I should be banned from nominating articles for deletion by any method, this does not seem unreasonable. Especially given that I have already voluntarily agreed to not make AfD nominations. Dysklyver 13:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Support removal of rights -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)- On reflection, this can be sorted without the removal of rights. Hopefully a better outcome can be decided on. I personally think if someone can't be trusted with all these rights we're looking at a slightly bigger issue -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see a compelling reason for a topic ban to extend to AfD participation. If anything, continued participation in AfD (as a participant, and not a nominator) is probably what is needed in order to learn. If you look at AfD stats prior to 19 October, which is the day this discussion occurred, we've got a 54% accuracy. That was it seems the height of the problem with AfD. If you look at the 54 AfDs participated in from 20 October onward, we have around a 90% accuracy, which obviously is perfectly acceptable for any user. GMGtalk 14:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with allowing them to participate in AfDs, but not to tag. Their CSD log is also somewhat troublesome, and I think Fram has had issues with them and PRODs in the past. Allow participation in AfDs as a participant but preventing tagging or nomination of articles would let him learn about our deletion process while still preventing disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- (ec)I can live with a topic ban on any deletion nominations, while allowing participation in discussions at XfD. My concern was that after having many problematic AfD nominations, he moved on to problematic CSD and Prod nominations. I didn't really check AfD participation. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal of rights per WP:CIR, and I must question the Arbcom run here too. Patient Zerotalk 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support there's a bit of "he's a witch, burn him! take away all his privileges!" going on here. As far as the individual proposals are concerned.
- I thought he was already TBAN-ed from deletion proposals, and support making it official. If he feels a page needs to be deleted, he can post on IRC, add it to his watchlist, or ignore it and move on.
- Fram and GMG explain very well why autopatrolled should be removed.
- No opinion on new-page-reviewer, but it is very difficult to do that job without being able to propose deleting pages.
- No reason to remove ECP is given, and I don't know of any myself.
- Overall, I would support these being indef, with the clause that while he can't appeal them for 6 months, an admin can file an appeal earlier if they feel it justified. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Some points: I should probably point out that my previous voluntary TBAN was from AfD nominations (explicit to AfD only) and that this is really whether it should be extended to cover PROD and CSD tags. I have already found it hard to do proper NPR with no recourse to AfD, using the other methods instead, to the detriment of my record. If TBANed from making PROD and CSD also, it would effectively stop me from doing NPR regardless of the right being removed or not. Additionally I should point out that I have only been autopatrolled for a few days, after some people mentioned I should get it, and I have not created any pages since getting it, so it will not affect me or my editing regardless of the outcome here. I had not realized anyone was considering removing ECP, and to do so would seem... odd? I don't think I have even edited an ECP page, and I have no immediate plans to add to the Donald Trump article, so its not really relevant, I think we can assume its a non-issue. Dysklyver 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - We need editors to understand that they should listen to people. Also, they do not have a good understanding of what a reliable source is, after being told. Thus, to make them understand this, and to prevent further going-against-consensus-behaviour, I support this. I do think, although, that a clause needs to be included whereby after this editor has been mentored for, say, 2 months, there can be a discussion opened to override this if an editor believes Dysklyver will not repeat the behaviour that got them restricted. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the IRC issue is related to their editing, but I do think that it shows a pattern of lack of understanding and competence. I haven't looked into the other issues Fram mentioned, but they don't surprise me at all. Legoktm (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support I've been following this saga from the beginning, and I want it to be clear literally every person who has dispensed sage advice to this user has been promptly ignored. He started off as a promising novice editor, and each PERM he gained, he quickly lost it, often quite spectacularly. I'm not here to pile on what has already been said, but in IRC, every person in there told him not to do ArbCom so he did, we all told him to stop doing G5's (on wiki and off), he continued after his promises not to. It's obvious to me that a TBAN needs to happen, but I have lost hope in him being mentored to contribute positively, he simply won't take advice. He publicly claimed that he knows better than Doc James, for crying out cornflakes. I suggest maybe tacking on a 72-hr kick to get the point across, not to be overly punitive, but to give him a moment to reassess how he wants to contribute without creating more work for many of us in the meantime. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - but only because I absolutely despise Druids. Except for all the good ones. Support topic ban & rights removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Suppose-I have been out of touch with this particular issue as I have not frequented IRC and administrative pages due to my recent work ,when I first saw this mess I was utterly confused and my reactions ranged from WTF ,seriously etc. That being said after I had looked through the relevant pages I believe that this discussion was justified,Yet I am in favor of some last resort preventative measure instead of outright punitive action out of frustration against the editor:
- I urge A Den Jentyl Ettien Dysklyver to voluntarily withdraw his candidacy to the ArbCom
- NPR, Afc-rights should be removed temporarily per WP:CIR followed by mentoring if anybody is willing
- autopatrolled- may be kept as long as they sticks to creating articles only about Cornwall town's, EXC can stay as they have not misused that right
- TBAN-from nominating anything for any sort of Deletion ,that being said they can comment in any deletion debate as that can provide slow learning experience on notability
- Review- of their behavior after 6 months to decide if any punitive action is necessary
- I believe the current provisions are too harsh as they are punitive rather than preventative and could have been fueled by the frustration at not being able to get the point across to the user.-
To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]05:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm willing to mentor, as voluntary mentor (again) ir involuntary. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not going to support any sanctions at the moment (but I'm not opposing either), but instead just want to offer a few comments and recommendations.
Firstly, there's the use of this as a source. Firstly, it's a personal blog, and we know that for sure because it says so at the About page - "This blog is about the experiences of two people learning modern druidry and ancient dowsing techniques". WP:UGC clearly says "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs...". Then there's the page used as a source itself, which is a report of some guy's dowsing and allegedly uncovering all kinds of "energies" at an ancient site. I'm staggered if anyone can think that's a reliable source, and even more astonished that objections to its use are put down to "Fram clearly detests druids".
Next there's "I can't understand why CSD even exists, it seems impossible to get it right", and I can sympathise because CSD can indeed be hard to understand - I regularly decline inapplicable CSD requests even from experienced editors, and I also see admins sometimes accepting problematic ones. But when you don't understand how to do something, the obvious answer it to not to it. The same goes for deletions in general.
My recommendations to User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver are:
1) Withdraw from the ArbCom election, please. Nobody with your very short experience, making these kinds of mistakes, and being recommended for topic bans and mentorship has any chance whatsoever of succeeding - and withdrawing could bring some doubters around by showing that you can listen to sensible advice when it is offered.
2) Do not nominate any articles for deletion, via any of the three deletions processes (CSD, PROD, AFD) for a minimum of six months. But do spend some of that time taking part in existing AFD discussions as a way to learn about these tricky processes.
3) Don't directly create any new articles, don't patrol new articles or new changes, and don't mark any new articles as reviewed. If you want to create any new articles, use WP:AFC, where more experienced editors will review your work. Again I'd suggest for at least six months, until you really have a proper understanding of Wikipedia's definitions of notability and reliable sources.
4) If you can find someone who's willing, get a mentor to help you learn your way around. (During an edit conflict, I see Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ has already kindly offered).
5) (Update per below) Do no GA reviewing until you have a lot more experience here - I suggest at least not until you get one of your own articles successfully past a GA review.
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support per this muck up. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reply by Dysklyver. there are some things here that are acceptable, others that are somehow getting said but have little connection with reality, despte only being here a short time, I have been very controversial, there isn't anyone commenting here that I would call uninvolved and therefore various other perceived punishments seem to be seeping in. the arbcom thing is seeping in too. no matter.There is, for example: nothing wrong with my articles; I have not even used EXC/ECP; I am already banned from making AfD nominations; I already decided GA was not for me after being effectively banned from it already; I already got removed from AfC (by Doc James, as a potential Indian paid editor); I already had a mentor regarding NPR - which did not help much at all it seems; and:I maintain that Druids are reliable for matters concerning druids, for those interested, Fram explained how even if I found a proper journal with that article in it, it would still be unreliable, by saying {{That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published.}} and Doug Weller went down a similar route on my talk page with a source that is peer-reviewed (and cited). If the argument was about the website that would be fine, but I can get that article (or something very similar) from somewhere that is not a blog, and it is therefore a direct issue with the druids themselves, Fram is aware of this and therefore has not bothered arguing the site (other than not defining the argument). Hence my comments. Dysklyver 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not specifically about druids, it's about dowsing, which is considered pseudoscience. Sources based on dowsing or making assumptions based on any other pseudoscience are not considered reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- "I can get that article (or something very similar) from somewhere that is not a blog, and it is therefore a direct issue with the druids themselves" No, you can't, not from a reliable source like a peer reviewed journal. The source you are discussing with Doug Weller is totally different. Sources about someone measuring the male and female energy, then "measuring" where the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic (or reality even). That you are still defending that source and pretend that it could just as well come from a peer-reviewed journal just means that you are not fit to judge sources (and thus should stay away from anything that requires this, whether it is deletions, drafts, GA reviews, ...); that you claim that my rejection of that source is some form of religious or cultural discrimination is offensive. A crank site is a crank site, no matter the background of the author. I indeed said "That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published.", and I doubt you will find anyone here disagreeing with that but you. As for "There is, for example: nothing wrong with my articles"; apart from the sourcing and other issues that have been mentioned, I note that three of your 85 creations have been deleted. Fram (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- When the request for autopatrolled user right was accepted on 16 November, Lesquite Quoit was the most recent article created by Dysklyver, and the druid reference was the most recent edit there by Dysklyver, on 13 November. DGG's talk page comment was three weeks before the patroller right was restored. It could be that the rights were granted by mistake, or it could be a difference of opinion on when these permissions should be granted, and I can't see any evidence that this has been discussed with the administrators. Recent AFD participation has not been problematic. Speedy deletion has been less accurate, but is often misunderstood even by experienced editors and that includes administrators - at least one page in the log was deleted when it didn't meet the criterion and at least one was mistakenly declined. Peter James (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver
- Statement by Dysklyver.
- Much of this is still directly related to the druids, astronomical observations can be measured to the millisecond with a simple telescope but given the tools used a margin of error of a minute is perfectly reasonable. You say: "the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic" yet fail to see that the stones alignment is a precise calculation you can repliacte with either ancient or modern methods, and the realignemnt has obvilusly caused by the stone falling over, which I am sure was mentioned, so your oversight is all the more irritating as a result.
- Fram's comments have three main points.
- 1. Fram thinks dowsing rods and anyone using them are pseudoscience which itself is reasonable, but missing the point of everything I have said.
- 2. Fram thinks that star alignments themselves are pseudoscience and has convinced Doug Weller of this.
- 3. Fram thinks I am somehow accusing him of being offensive to people he has described as "unreliable pseudoscience",
"perverse and illogical", "crank" and "utterly wacky". Whilst degrading their entire culture and history with every comment and implication. - There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination, Fram needs to get a grip on the issue, that source is easily discredited (as it is a blog - duh), if he had simply said that at any point I would have agreed with him, but he didn't. Instead Fram chose to go down a different route of attacking me, and attacking my cultural background, there was no need to go wholesale down the road of insulting my cultural roots as you have done, or your rather counterproductive route of expanding the issue to being beyond that of the source itself, to cover the issue of the subject, and the Druids themselves. After Doug Weller noticed your highly public debate with me on ArbCom, he read what you wrote, and then actually claimed a double blind peer reviewed article published in a reliable journal by a known expert with multiple citations was "unusable", If any proof of the effectiveness of your argument is needed.
- I claim that you are aware of my nationalist tendencies related to Cornwall, and could see from my record that I am in the habit of supporting minority positions, and have deliberately argued this issue to reinforce your otherwise reasonable concerns with my 60% success rate at deletion in order to restrict my editing in areas otherwise unconnected to deletion.
- The articles I created, which were subsequently deleted, were detailed to the person who granted me autopatrolled, who actually made comments on a possible improvement to the lesquite Quiot article related to making a new navbar for scheduled monuments, this was a comprehensive review of of my article creation, which I maintain is very good.
- I don't doubt that it would be sensible if I stopped making deletion requests I should also stop NPR reviewing, and given that my 60% success rate and multiple errors on the criteria for deletion, it does not seem unreasonable to indefinitely topic ban from making deletion requests. However it is manifestly unfair, and a clever manipulation, to imply that my failings in the area of deletion policy extend to my articles, the only one of which was deleted for notability (out of 85) was a request that had major COI issues.
- The timing of this is undoubtedly connected to my ArbCom candidacy rather than any perceived issue which would otherwise be of significance, the issue with AfD was resolved some time ago and me standing up in a public forum has got Fram flogging the dead horse, although I don't doubt it has had the desired effect, there is not much I can do about that now.
- so taking all of this into account, and as I am considerate enough to make things easier for you people by stating what I would reasonably accept without arguing to much. I therefore propose the following:
- What this will not affect
- Dysklyver will retain all other editing privileges not mentioned here. Including but not limited to Extendedconfirmed status, permission to create articles directly to mainspace.
- Dysklyver will not be obligated to withdraw from the ArbCom election.
- Dysklyver 14:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll reply to the newer proposal below, but first I must respond to...
- "...astronomical observations can be measured to the millisecond with a simple telescope but given the tools used a margin of error of a minute is perfectly reasonable. You say: "the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic" yet fail to see that the stones alignment is a precise calculation you can repliacte with either ancient or modern methods, and the realignemnt has obvilusly caused by the stone falling over, which I am sure was mentioned, so your oversight is all the more irritating as a result [...] There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination..."
- The problem is not whether the angle of the stone can be measure accurately, because it obviously can. The problem is the claim that it aligned itself on a specific date, and to identify what it aligned with you need to know that date. The author determined that date by using his dowsing rod and 'asking' (I'm not sure whether he asked the stone or the 'energies' around it, but it doesn't really matter), and only when he had that date could he find out what was in the sky in that direction from which the stone is allegedly getting its energy. That dowsing part is absolutely pseudoscience, and it most definitely can not be reproduced by any scientific method - there is no scientific method that can determine an accurate time for when the stone fell to its current position. In fact, the whole alignment to an energy source in the sky is total pseudoscience, and again there is nothing scientific to support it. If that is "religious and cultural discrimination", then yes, Wikipedia does so discriminate - it discriminates in favour of the modern scientific method and against ancient superstitions and pseudoscience. It still astonishes me that Dysklyver cannot understand this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that D. doesn't even say that he will accept his own suggested sanctions, instead he says "[A]s I am considerate enough to make things easier for you people by stating what I would reasonably accept without arguing to [sic] much. I therefore propose the following..." [emphasis added]. In other words, he would even argue about his own suggested sanctions, but not too much. Perhaps the possibility of deliberate trolling ought to be more seriously considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Getting a solution
I've read through this thread, with an eye on closing it, and suggestions for what sort of sanctions are all a bit over the place. Some people support removal of all advanced rights and a complete ban of activities, others want something less, others want a closer review of activity. In conclusion, I would put Dysklyver on general probation. That means he can be blocked by any uninvolved admin for any length of time for any further disruption as described above (the list by Boing! said Zebedee is a good place to start). I think this will satisfy the concerns of most editors who have already commented here. Thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- On a personal note, I don't think this has been brought up anywhere (because I resolved it quietly), but while wanting to counteract systemic bias and write more women biographies is an acceptable stance to take on the project, advertising it with a picture of Wikipe-tan in a bikini is probably not what the Women in Red project is about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think some insight into the possibility of our being trolled by D. is inherent in his response to being questioned about why he used the image in question.
This is, in short, bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)This image itself is neutral, it is a CGI image of Wikipedias unoffical mascot on a beach. the only reason people think its offensive is because they are automatically stigmatizing the image due to deep rooted bias against women, in this case sexualised systemic bias against women, which is worse. There is nothing inherently sexual about that image, and anyone who is truly neutral would not see it as offensive, therefore the image itself is a representation of the issue of systemic bias. Which is why its there, it is supposed to make people think. [21]
- I think some insight into the possibility of our being trolled by D. is inherent in his response to being questioned about why he used the image in question.
- Change above to uninvolved admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- You know what, I was thinking last night and today about a future thread if all went to pot with Dysklyver, and there were some motion to indef him, where I would have written, "Well, even if there isn't a job contract for editing Wikipedia, Dysklyver has managed to create one, with a one-year probationary period, which he has not passed." In short, Ritchie has conceived exactly what I was thinking. Good idea. My name is not dave (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I also support your idea, Ritchie. And yes, the use of an image of a woman in a bikini to promote Women in Red is rather odd, and could be seen as offensive. Thanks for removing it. Patient Zerotalk 13:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer this to sanctions proposed above, and a firm support from me. Some of the concerns that have been raised are that this is a CIR issue that might go beyond deletion. This both gives Dysklyver a chance to work to show that he understands the encyclopedia, while giving the community flexibility in dealing with it more than a simple topic ban would do. Pinging all those who have commented on the previous sanctions@Fram, GreenMeansGo, Drewmutt, Force Radical, Beyond My Ken, Zppix, Boing! said Zebedee, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Peter James:. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thinking again after Fram mentioned it below, I support both. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support with involuntary mentoring Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 14:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Ritchie's point -- about the proposed sanctions being all over the place -- is a good one, and his solution is better than the one I was working up to, which was a timed block -- which I believe I would have trouble justifying well enough to get passed, but which just seems somehow "right" in my gut. Ritchie's solution is an intermediate step, one in which Dykslyver will play an important part by their choice of actions. I would also join in with Zppix and !vote for involuntary mentoring as well, but, frankly, given D's intransigent attitude, I don't think it would do a damn bit of good. It's not that D. is ignorant, or incapable of learning (I don't think), but instead the core of the problem is that he seems to have chosen this particular path, and simply needs to decide to go another way. The change has to come from within, and cannot be forced on him, at least in my evaluation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- May I make one additional suggestion: would it be useful to limit Dysklyver to editing from a single account? I'm aware that there have not bee any allegations of sockpuppetry, but his own mention in the boxed sanction suggestion above of "all his alternative accounts" makes me nervous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken, looking at the list I don't see it as really an issue; the alt accounts are just his former usernames and an unused bot account which he intended to use in his ill-fated attempt to get bot approval. Since AGF tells us we believe his story that the vandal accounts are owing to his having been a practicing attorney for three years but still so poor he lives in a shared apartment with
only one laptop computer shared among the householda shared computer which his roommate used to create VOAs, I assume both that he'll take better care of his computer in future, and that Steve A. McDonald is aware that if there's any more shit from this particular useragent there's a nice shiny hardblock headed the way of both their IP and their shared cookie file. I don't really see the need to spell "no sockpuppetry" out formally, since it's already covered by the existing policy. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK, makes sense, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Except... one shared laptop? C'mon, pull the other one. Do they share one cellphone as well? OK, OK, AGF, sure, but that's one hinky story.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: He's deleted his user page per U1, but you (and any other admin) might want to go back to earlier deleted revisions from August 2017 backwards - it may shed more light on this "practising attorney for three years" stuff Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken Actually, I've struck part of that; the actual offical story is
He thought it would be funny to 'interfere' and created several 'troll' accounts (User:I Love Oshwah & User:Dysklever is gaaay while I was not there. (using one of my computers which I had lent to him)
, although useragent checks show that Steve and ADJEAD were using the same computer.@Ritchie333 Hmmm, interesting. There is some definite yanking of chains going on here. (Context to save other admins going through diff-by-diff.) ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken Actually, I've struck part of that; the actual offical story is
- @Iridescent: He's deleted his user page per U1, but you (and any other admin) might want to go back to earlier deleted revisions from August 2017 backwards - it may shed more light on this "practising attorney for three years" stuff Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken, looking at the list I don't see it as really an issue; the alt accounts are just his former usernames and an unused bot account which he intended to use in his ill-fated attempt to get bot approval. Since AGF tells us we believe his story that the vandal accounts are owing to his having been a practicing attorney for three years but still so poor he lives in a shared apartment with
- Oppose although I don't doubt the intention behind it (and I won't be too concerned if this gets approved anyway). Seeing his latest reply here[22], I thnk we have either a troll or a major competence issue which will not be resolved by waiting some time. A claim like "Fram thinks I am somehow accusing him of being offensive to people he has described as "unreliable pseudoscience",
"perverse and illogical", "crank" and "utterly wacky". Whilst degrading their entire culture and history with every comment and implication." is so filled with problems that it's hard to decide which is the most typical of WP:CIR problems. For starters, when you write a comment and notice that something in it is not correct before it is even published, you don't strike it out, you simply leave it out. Second and more important, when someone is describing one source, one webpage, as being "utterly wacky" and so on, then they are not "degrading an entire culture and history".
- Being described as "There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination" is a severe personal attack completely loose from my actual comments, "Instead Fram chose to go down a different route of attacking me, and attacking my cultural background, there was no need to go wholesale down the road of insulting my cultural roots as you have done, or your rather counterproductive route of expanding the issue to being beyond that of the source itself, to cover the issue of the subject, and the Druids themselves."; I have not insulted your cultural roots or attacked your cultural background. I have not made a comment about druids, despite your continuous efforts to turn this into some anti-druidal witchhunt by me. I don't care whether a source filled with pseudoscientific baloney is written by a druid, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, a Jedi, or a Pastafari: it has no place on enwiki. "Fram thinks that star alignments themselves are pseudoscience and has convinced Doug Weller of this." Can you perhaps provide a quote or diff for this, as I have never made such a statement as far as I am aware. Star alignments are not necessarily pseudoscience, and that many prehistoric monuments are aligned astronomically (e.g. towards sunrise on 21 July or so) is well-known. What is pseudoscience is dowsing to find star alignments. No page which proclaims "Lesquite Quoit is aligned with the constellation of Libra currently. Yet, originally this could not have been the case, because the capstone had clearly fallen since its original construction, so… had it re-aligned itself? Indeed it had!" can make any claim to being scientific or acceptable for enwiki. If that is somehow offensive to you and your cultural background, then enwiki simply isn't the place for you. Fram (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Fram: Since you "won't be too concerned if this gets approved anyway", do you think you could see your way clear to changing your "Oppose" to something that makes it clear that you frefer your own sanction suggestion, but that this is acceptable as a second choice? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with Fram's proposals (in my view) is essentially WP:BEANS. All Dysklyver needs to do is find something not covered on the above list (say, frivolous ITN/C nominations), and then say "ah haaa, I'm not topic banned from that!" I think there's an agreement that there is a general problem, so we need a general sanction to resolve it. Otherwise we'll be back here again arguing about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Ritchie. This is essentially a final warning that any CIR issues in any area may lead to a block in the future. The general nature of the probation is why I prefer it to a simple topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then why not a combination? A topic ban as proposed and supported above (e.g. from deletion nominations in general, plus from article reviewing in general) + a general probation? Avoid the known problem areas, and if new areas led to similar problems anyway, block. Fram (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Ritchie. This is essentially a final warning that any CIR issues in any area may lead to a block in the future. The general nature of the probation is why I prefer it to a simple topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with Fram's proposals (in my view) is essentially WP:BEANS. All Dysklyver needs to do is find something not covered on the above list (say, frivolous ITN/C nominations), and then say "ah haaa, I'm not topic banned from that!" I think there's an agreement that there is a general problem, so we need a general sanction to resolve it. Otherwise we'll be back here again arguing about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support--More than anything, what I utterly dislike in D is his stubbornness in beliefs and executions that are horribly misplaced and the chances to get a honest reply in the lines of: Yeah.I fucked up! without a lengthy exchange/expenditure of words is herculean. IMO, that is very problematic for healthy collaboration in the long run.Coupled with it, lies a borderline IDHT behaviour and an ignorance of the Law of Holes.Overall, while I am not sure that Ritchie's proposal has got the bases covered, it's sensible enough and is clearly D's best bet by miles; one that would potentialy make or break his wiki-career.Winged Blades Godric 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- And, can any wiki-historian kindly mention any past case(if any), where the conditions were so dire, that it turned out that an election-commisioner"was proposing sanctions for a running candidate?Winged Blades Godric 15:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric, that's not as uncommon a situation as you'd think, as quite a few people either run because they've been editing particularly tendentiously and hope that a reasonable support level will vindicate their position, or are outright trolling for attention. I can think of at least one occasion (as I was a candidate in the same election) in which a candidate was indefinitely community banned during the election yet their candidacy was still allowed to continue. (For the record, he got 49 supports, which AFAIK is still our benchmark for estimating the size of the WP:HTD vote.) ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- And, can any wiki-historian kindly mention any past case(if any), where the conditions were so dire, that it turned out that an election-commisioner"was proposing sanctions for a running candidate?Winged Blades Godric 15:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support (2nd choice) A majority of UK water engineers still use dowsing rods ;) - saying that, I support either Fram's original suggest with the above option as second choice. My opinion is that we are collectively being trolled however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Although I don't think we are being deliberately trolled, the belief of it is certainly strong in my mind, and shows more the mere incorrigibility of the user. My name is not dave (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - We are looking at massive WP:CIR issues here. Honestly, I’m not so sure I would support anything less than a block at this point. I guess I would be somewhat willing to try out a topic ban, but as it can be seen from the info provided above, these issues are not just with deletions. I’m not sure it would be effective if any way. As someone who has tried to guide him and point him in the right direction in a few areas (mainly in IRC), I struggle to believe any improvements will be made. Nihlus 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- General comment - Ritchie333 I understand you're trying to strike a balance here to get some kind of workable solution. And after all my years on Wikipedia, nothing should surprise me. I only noticed this thread because the user has nominated himself for the Dec 2017 ArbCom elections. He has multiple accounts and conveniently lists them, just so we know he isn't hiding anything. There are numerous issues going on here. How is it that this user never got an outright indef block? Look at all the time and editor efforts, in this thread alone, put into trying to corral this editor. I think I am, as the British phrase it, gobsmacked. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support-Only the messy Business of the sources is left to be cleared up-
To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I'm moving away from my original thoughts about specific topic bans, as we're really looking at a generic competence problem here rather than specific weaknesses, so I'm going to tentatively support Ritchie333's general probation proposal. And even if not formally banned from the topic areas already suggested, Dysklyver really should largely keep away from them - and tread very carefully if he ventures close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- (As an aside, when I first looked at this I thought people were supporting Dysklyver's massively over-lawyered proposal above! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC))
- Actually, although I can support a simple probation, I'd prefer to go with Fram's suggestion - of a topic ban from initiating deletions and from article reviewing, in addition to a general probation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ambivalent - First, this was much too much to read before coffee, but I'm getting there. I think I probably fall somewhere along the same lines as Fram, with an oppose that's not really an oppose and a support that's more like indifference. I'm not sure this would avoid a thread at AN or ANI if it comes to it, because the list of people who are involved is getting quite long at this point. If it results in a block, I think this is probably more likely to end up in one that feels comparatively punitive from the perspective of Dysklyver, and less likely to end up being a learning opportunity in the end. (Although we are certainly reaching a point where the opportunity cost of learning is becoming prohibitively high.) At the same time, while the strength of a TBAN is it's clarity, the weakness is it's specificity, and it does provide opportunities to either productively or unproductively contribute in areas that are not covered.
- I suppose I probably fall on the side of both. Not really either/or, but probably both. There are definitely areas where the editor is effectively TBANNED by the probation proposal anyway, and any at all questionable actions in those areas would result in a pretty swift block, which makes the TBAN de facto in effect. At the same time, there has probably been sufficient problems at this point, where if the TBAN was enacted in isolation, but those problems pretty immediately spilled over into other areas, that the community would probably look at this as a probationary-type consensus/don't-put-any-more-straws-on-that-camel's-back-please, that a sort of probation would also already pretty much de facto be in effect. So I don't see a compelling reason not to pull the trigger on both, hope that this is recognized as really getting to be bending over backwards to avoid an outright block, and hope that that results in a fundamental attitude change, which is what is fundamentally needed.
- For whatever it's worth, defending Wikipe-tan's modesty probably seems slightly too much like a sort of benevolent sexism, not necessarily in a way that comes off as offensive so much as it comes off as unnecessarily distracting. And that's all I'll say about that. GMGtalk 17:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I wasn't pinged and just noticed the claim thnat I "actually claimed a double blind peer reviewed article published in a reliable journal by a known expert with multiple citations was "unusable", If any proof of the effectiveness of your argument is needed." What I actually said is "Silva is only a tutor, and his paper published in a journal run by grad students " to provide authors with experience in publishing articles early in their careers." Peer reviewed, yes, but not cited in any other academic papers so far as I can see on Google scholar. Doug Weller talk 6:48 pm, 22 November 2017, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)" For some reason Google Scholar didn't show me any cites. I see now that on his talk page he says "cited 10 times in international journals" - I note that one of these[23] is a dissertation "submitted in partial fulfilment of M.A". Hardly an international journal. I used to assign and mark similar M.A. dissertations (not in that subject) and I can assure everyone it's useless as a reference. The next one[24] is also an MA dissertation (described as such here). I hope [https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/26155/1/A%20Astrof%C3%ADsica%20na%20Ajuda%20%C3%A0%20Arqueologia.%20A%20Possibilidade%20de%20uma%20Representa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Rupestre%20de%20um%20Cometa.pdf is similar as it uses Wikipedia as a source. However, my first search obviously failed and I apologise for that. A search I just did only turns up 4 articles, one the same as the one that uses Wikipedia, another I can't access, and two from the "Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry".[25] Again, I apologise, but I am concerned that he thinks that he thinks those are all reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reading the above yet again, another point on sources. He writes above "I maintain that Druids are reliable for matters concerning druids". Elsewhere he wrote that "I will obviously point out that the dolmen itself was a pagan burial site, so modern practitioners of the same faith are therefore a natural source (not that I mind you removing it) which is why I used it in the first place." Again, this shows that he doesn't understand WP:RS or the mainstream view of Druidism (or else he does and disagrees). My response was ". We have no records of the Druids, no evidence that they made anything, and certainly not calculations since we have no artefacts we can be sure they made. They weren't fringe. We have little idea of their beliefs and that only indirectly, and Neo-Druidism correctly states that "the modern Druidic movement has no direct connection to them, despite contrary claims made by some modern Druids." They are not reliable sources for neolithic monuments, which in any case are pre-Druid." Doug Weller talk 19:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Umm...what is this doing here, which D created? My name is not dave (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I assume an ill-thought-out attempt at comedy rather than anything malicious. I wouldn't say it's actually speedyable as it it's incompetence rather than vandalism, but if you MFD it I imagine it will quietly disappear. ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ну вот! My name is not dave (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's provenance, such as it is, lies in Floquenbeam's comment here, I believe. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 18:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
| The line here might be a fine one, but IMO that crosses it. GoldenRing (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment I have accepted to have involuntary mentorship services via Zppix. Dysklyver 20:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment and support It was under Zppix's tutelage that got us here, no dig against Zppix, just demonstrating Dysklyver's unwillingness to be mentored. The fact that we're even using the term "involuntary mentorship" is of concern to me. I agree with the above that we're likely getting trolled, and it's gotten to the point where I feel it's intentional. As much as I want to say "oppose, this doesn't go far enough", I feel probation is a descent compromise.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support probation. Does it apply to topic bans (as suggested by the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions page) or just to blocks? I wouldn't support a topic ban now but this should be an option. Peter James (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support probation, mentorship, topic bans, or whatever else it takes for Dysklyver to realize that he is editing on thin ice. Jonathunder (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support probation. I wouldn't have chimed in, but after I had the "lob a grenade and run away" image-page-link he'd created moved into my userspace for essayification today, he added this to it, which raised my eyebrows with what it implies about how he views the Wikipedia administrative process... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I would support something that works, but I'm not convinced we've arrived at that. Trolling seems to target the situation here. Please read Arb election candidate statement, if you have not done so. Anybody can claim to be anything, but then he follows here by offering his own detailed plan on what his sanctions should be. In his own way, being in charge of how this is going. Whatever else is happening, I'm not convinced it's a matter of competence, for this editor is able to formulate his statements too well for it to be lacking in that area. Being played? I fail to see what probation or mentorship would achieve. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Another statement from Dykslyver
- I have been refraining from replying to each comment here, despite the fact I could argue against most the comments made, since one of the main complaints is that I spend to much time arguing. It is difficult to collate the numerous ideas in this second thread, it was hard enough summarizing the ideas in the last one (see yellow box above). Everyone is writing support, and then some new take on the sanctions so I am going to do another of my detailed plans on my sanctions. For the interest of getting an agreement I will include several versions, based on comments made. Maybe will help. Dysklyver
Extended content
|
|---|
- It is not possible for me to include every variation that has been thought of, therefore by all means make your own. Dysklyver 15:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposal for indefinite block
Per the list of plans above and since this hasn't been officially proposed as of yet, here we go, I propose that: A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is indefinitely blocked by consensus of the English Wikipedia community. This may be appealed after 6 months by a request at WP:AN.
- Support "nuclear option"/plan A/indef okay, the list of plans above have gotten me to the point where I think we're being trolled. Since this is a self-suggested indef, I have no problem supporting that option. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support indef-- Blame my lack of AGF. But, enough IS enough. The aforesaid list of plans and his latest exploits at his t/p regarding preserving the edits of a banned user has got into definite trolling territory. Winged Blades Godric 15:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric, I IARed and made this a formal proposal after you already !voted. I didn't think you would mind, but pinging you as a courtesy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- No qualms:)Winged Blades Godric 16:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This is the only solution I believe will have any impact whatsoever. If nothing has been done by now, I don’t see how improvements will be made in the future. I suggest he work on another project to perhaps demonstrate WP:CLUE that is severely lacking. He can return after the standard 6 months to possibly appeal. However, I highly recommend he avoid wasting any more of the community’s time. Nihlus 15:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Unfortunately nothing Diksylyver has said or done in the course of these proceedings persuades me they actualy understand the issues. In fact, they have proceeded to rush headlong towards doing precisely the same thing. TonyB. suggests- above- that this may be a sign of trolling; indeed. But if not trolling, then it is a competence issue, and both of these are as disruptive as each other. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support I was waiting for someone to have the nerve to propose this. It's a yes from me. I was even thinking site ban, but this should be good enough. My name is not dave (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support yes this is a good idea. Dysklyver 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Similarly to My name is not dave; I was waiting to support an indef block for WP:CIR issues which normally a discussion is enough to resolve, but clearly WP:IDONTHEARTHAT issues are at play here too in their response to Carrite's question about the odd choice of image for the Women in Red project. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment--That the party has agreed to the proposal under disc., can any sysop bring the hammer down on the nail?Winged Blades Godric 16:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - WTF is going on when the subject endorses his own indef block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Protection for the articles on Net neutrality due to the current developments in the U.S.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The articles related to the Net neutrality subject can be vandalized or edited with political statement because of the proposal to repeal the current rules in the US. I suggest the articles to be protected in some form to avoid constant edits. This is an example of one such edit
--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Dlohcierekim has protected that article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continued pushing from new SPI
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive294#500.2F30_ARBPIA, the same editor appears to be back again, now called Dank Chicken. See edit history here: [26].
Illustrative article histories at [27] and [28]
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I assume you mean SPA? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, both. SPA who's been at SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. ansh666 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: I've dropped a DS alert and a note regarding the 500/30 restriction on their talk page. If the SPI doesn't go anywhere and they keep editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, please report to AE for enforcement. By the way, you are required to notify them of this discussion. I'll do so now. GoldenRing (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I couldn't edit the template since it wasn't locked. Now I understand that no edits are allowed regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict before making 500 edits in 30 days. Thanks for informing me!
Btw, this is my first account in a couple of years. I just thought I'd clarify that because it appears some editors are doubting my credibility.
Dank Chicken (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Need a quick delete + revdel + block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If it hasn't been done already: [29]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I clicked, and it appears to have been done. Thank goodness nobody drew attention to it on a highly watched page or two. -- Begoon 10:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.