Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

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.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 45 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 35 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	12	15	27
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	8	41	49
AfD	0	33	33

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 April 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 16 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

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

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

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

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

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

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

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 35 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)[reply]

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

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

Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

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

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

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

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

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

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#New article

(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 7770 total) ^(Purge) WATCH
Page	Protected	Expiry	Type	Summary	Admin
Wokipedia	2024-05-21 23:50	2024-05-23 23:50	edit,move	Shenanigan precaution.	BD2412
Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn	2024-05-21 20:22	2024-11-21 20:22	create	Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks	Yamla
June 2024 Ukraine peace summit	2024-05-21 18:38	indefinite	edit,move	Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR	El C
Template:English manga publisher	2024-05-21 18:00	indefinite	edit,move	High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info)	MusikBot II
Draft:S S Karthikeya	2024-05-21 13:27	2025-05-21 13:27	create	Repeatedly recreated	Yamla
Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel	2024-05-21 01:18	2024-05-28 01:18	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta	2024-05-20 21:26	2029-05-20 21:26	create	Repeatedly recreated	Yamla
Gaza floating pier	2024-05-20 17:36	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Science Bee	2024-05-20 15:26	2027-05-20 15:26	create	Repeatedly recreated	Rosguill
Wikipedia:Golden Diamond Timeless Watch	2024-05-20 06:54	2024-05-23 06:54	create	Repeatedly recreated	Liz
Screams Before Silence	2024-05-20 04:56	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk	2024-05-20 03:49	indefinite	edit,move	Persistent vandalism: per RFPP	Daniel Case
Atom Eve	2024-05-20 02:53	2024-08-20 02:53	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry	NinjaRobotPirate
Ebrahim Raisi	2024-05-19 22:02	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIRP; upgrade to WP:ECP, 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash-related; aiming for the short term (remind me)	El C
2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash	2024-05-19 21:15	2024-06-19 21:15	edit	Contentious topic restriction	Ymblanter
Koli rebellion and piracy	2024-05-19 21:08	indefinite	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry	Spicy
Khirbet Zanuta	2024-05-19 12:15	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA	ToBeFree
Poppay Ki Wedding	2024-05-18 20:42	2025-05-18 20:42	create	Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP	Ymblanter
Joseph Sam Williams	2024-05-18 11:59	2024-05-22 11:59	move	Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP	Robertsky
2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupation	2024-05-18 06:32	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Edcel Greco Lagman	2024-05-18 03:31	2024-07-18 03:31	edit,move	Persistent disruptive editing: Removal of sourced content, per a complaint at WP:ANI	EdJohnston

Wikidata Infoboxes RfC closure request

Since the ANRFC request hasn't attracted much attention and this is quite an important, complex, and controversial RfC, requesting an admin, hopefully three, to fully assess and close RfC on the use of Wikidata in infoboxes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a closure by a committee of three uninvolved editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems problematic to me that we cannot find candidates to close this... I mean, i understand why people are hesitant and that many of the familiar faces are in the discussion themselves, but somehow, we have to close this right. suggestions ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regularly patrol ANRFC, though I probably should... but don't take a lack of closure as automatic "hesitation" on anyone's part. Sometimes big discussions just are a hurdle to get stuck into. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on the panel, as long as someone else does all the work. Swarm ♠ 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that always the goal of group projects :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind taking a stab at writing a closing statement; I almost did that a few weeks ago, but decided it might not be the wise thing to do alone. As long as there are at least 2 other volunteers willing to review my statement before I add it & close the RfC, I'm fine with taking my share of the heat. (I figure after 15-16 years of watching stuff unfold at Wikipedia, I know something about the issues involved & can make a plausible closing statement. Especially about an issue I have no real interest in.) Is there someone besides Swarm willing to help bell the cat? -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started drafting a closing statement, but have seen no interest from anyone else to assist me in this. While I consider the result fairly straightforward, & am willing to issue it alone if need be, any decision would be much more acceptable to all involved if it were not the opinion of a single person. (And if I encounter too much blowback over a solo decision, that may lead me to stop offering to close further RfC. That's not a threat, just an admission I'm not much of a hard ass.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd look at it, but I opined in the discussion, and made a comment in a related one, so that wouldn't work. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer to help, but I don't think I can be sufficiently objective, since I have a rather strong opinion on the topic. Deor (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next cryptocurrency topicban

Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

edit count
related: Shiftchange TBAN

Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir, is the next cryptoadvocate for your consideration.

Per their editcount they have ~8.700 edits; ~8,300 of them in the last four years, almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies. Here are their top edits:

2,565 Bitcoin
564 Blockchain
429 Legality of bitcoin by country or territory
286 Cryptocurrency
279 Bitcoin Cash
207 Rebol
184 Bitcoin scalability problem
168 History of bitcoin
103 Satoshi Nakamoto

On the talk page

What brings us here today is this comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash: Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrand Bitcoin Cash to Bcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Wikipedia to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failed Bcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely used Bitcoin Cash name. which they have restored twice, despite my warning to them at their talk page, first here with the doubling-down-on-the-crazy edit note rv., this is confirmed by the cited sources and again here.

There is of course no source on the Talk page or in the article, that says that "proponents ...are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose".

(The alt name, "BCash", for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actually insulting. Vehemently so. Shiftchange for example, had !voted at the Rfc on mentioning BCash" in the lead as follows: Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for the purpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way.)

The comment above was an addendum to Ladislav Mecir's earlier !vote, here (sorry, that is four diffs separated by some diffs from others) which is too long to copy here, but makes the same argument as Shiftchange, albeit "supported" by citations. I use the scare quotes because their summary of what those sources say is often not supported by the source cited.

Their comment in another RfC on the talk page about about removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes".

at the article

This recent diff series is typical. Looking through that, they added"
- tabloidy ref (Independent) with a passing, postive mention, to the first sentence, added this ref, linked to a section with "good news" about Bitcoin Cash, added some more unsourced content to a section that was unsourced, etc. and then reverted to keep it when it was removed.

before then, added this source to the first sentence, with "bad news" about Bitcoin.

before that, added a big bolus of badly sourced content about "wallets" (the software where you keep your cryptocurency).

and there is plenty more. This person is an advocate who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir"—note this edit proving the claim is unfounded. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"comrade" in the sense of editing promotionally and aggressively in favor of Bitcoin Cash. This is not even a little ambiguous. Being aware that Shiftchange was worse than you is no sign that you see how badly you are editing and behaving. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog wrote: "The alt name, BCash, for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actually insulting."—Note that in my comment cited above I actually wrote that "Bcash is not a derogatory term."

Here Jytdog wrote: "The comment you made here ... amounted to personal attacks on other editors."—There are several reasons why this is unfounded:

Here is an edit made by Jytdog claiming that there have been attempts to recruit users with specific viewpoints to edit the article.
There have been attempts by proponents of said specific viewpoints such as this, this and many others, actually leading to page protection.
In my response to Jytdog's claim at my talk page, I also wrote:
- Let's consider a Wikipedian XY that is not a proponent of rebranding of the Bitcoin Cash to Bcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made, speaking about "proponents of the rebranding" does not concern XY at all. Thus, logically, it could not amount to "personal attack" on her.
- Now let's consider a Wikipedian XZ that is a proponent of rebranding of the Bitcoin Cash to Bcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made is not a personal attack on her either, since it just claims that XZ wants to claim that the Bcash name is at least as notable as the Bitcoin Cash name, which is exactly what the "proponent of rebranding" implies.

Jytdog should be more careful when accusing anybody of wrongdoing and deleting their comment based on unfounded accusations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help here. I will leave it to others to evaluate your rhetoric and respond.Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog wrote: "Their comment in another RfC on the talk page about about removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes"." - note that I just made a comment not claiming that the section should be kept, but claiming that the contents of the section does not correspond to its title. If that is a reason why I am a "Shiftchange's comrade" remains to be judged by somebody else than Jytdog, as it looks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog wrote: "almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies"—note that, e.g. the statistics of the Cox's theorem page mentions my authorship to be 3'677 bytes and my authorship of the Bayesian probability article to be 2'865 bytes. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that I've noticed Ladislav Mecir trying to own a page or dominating discussion on a talk page, see e.g. Talk:Cryptocurrency#Controversial in cryptocurrency articles. I suspect that many of the articles noted at the top of this thread would fit into that class of articles being owned or dominated by LM. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for any WP:SPA focused on cryptocurrency. It's exactly like creationism, climate change denial or homeopathy. These are quasi-religious cultists and the wider Wikipedia community lacks the time and the patience to continue to argue with them. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lots of areas have WP:SPA editors, that's no reason to enact a TBAN here. If you really feel that is necessary, let's invoke General Sanctions in the area first. I do agree with the comment at [1] that the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash feud has spilled onto Wikipedia, based on my own editing experience and the diffs in this thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is, because the SPAs have an absolutely homogeneous agenda, promoting crypto. SPA religious editors may be from different sects, but SPA crypto editors are almost all members of the crypto cult. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite homogeneous; the specific dispute here is that certain Bitcoin Cash supporters feel that is the one true Bitcoin, and opponents feel that it's some form of scam. A lot of the other crypto-currencies have no wide-spread interest, importance, or significance, and are edited merely by people who stand to profit from promoting them. Those articles are overwhelmed with promotional material from "the trade-press" (as a charitable description of what others would simply call "unreliable sources" and "blogs", i.e [2]). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki this is not a content dispute, and no, it is a not a binary thing. Generally for each one of these currencies there are fierce advocates for it, and most everybody else (inside the crypto-communities and outside) looks at the currency/project with some interest, or perhaps some skepticism, or maybe doesn't look at all and is just bored by the whole thing. There are a few of these currencies that have been outright scams. I haven't read anything that said that Bitcoin Cash is illegit or a scam per se.

The issue here is the behavior of this advocate, as it has been for each other advocate I have brought here. The issue is the advocacy.

You know as well as I do that that Wikipedia is always vulnerable to activists, due to our open nature. This vulnerability sharpens, if there are online communities of activists. This vulnerability sharpens to the point of bloody hell, when there are online activists with financial interests in their object of advocacy. There is almost nobody involved in the online communities around these cryptocurrencies, who doesn't hold the currency and believe that they are going to change the world through the technology. This is like (not exactly like, but like) some kind of prosperity religion thing, and it is all happening online.

Wikipedia is not an extension of the blogosphere -- not a place for people to come here and preach their currency-religion and state their paranoias like they are facts. LM's statement of "fact" (on which they have by now not just doubled down, but quintupled down) that the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose is not a statement of fact but rather an expression of the paranoia of the Bitcoin Cash community. He has no self-insight into how unacceptable that statement is, here in WP.

This is a symptom of the underlying approach to WP. Fortmit.

I'll add that our content about each one of these currencies is going to be paltry and slim in the eyes of these people. WP is a lagging indicator of notability by design; we are not going to have the level of detail they want for a long long time, if ever; we are not going to track the roller coaster of valuations as the coin markets gyrate. Not what we do here. Not what WP is for. These crytocurrency people do not understand this. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you're reading too much into the specific diff of the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. I take it to simply mean that there is POV-pushing in this area (which everyone agrees is happening), and not an accusation of canvassing. There's definitely some biased editing here by Ladislav, if General Sanctions were in place and he had been warned about them, I would support sanctions. I don't currently feel they are necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct claim about what other people are actually doing here in WP. Reading it as anything else is reading against its very plain meaning. I get it that Bitcoin Cash advocates in their reddit forums are all paranoid. Edit warring to retain that level of paranoid attack on other editors here in WP - to revert with an edit note that this is confirmed by the cited sources is just... bizarre. There are no cited sources that say that people are coming to Wikipedia to try to rebrand the currency. None. This is paranoid crap that Ladovic obviously cannot restrain himself from. So we need to restrain him. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Mecir's comment about being sourced was in regard to the "Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt." rather than any other claim. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is obvious. And that is not why the comment was removed. Which is also obvious. The edit note was a twisting nonresponse to what was (and still is) problematic. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN and support general sanctions for cryptocurrency per Guy and Power. We are currently getting flooded with crap about crypto, and I think this editor is being disruptive, but I don't think Jytdog and Guy should have to get a topic ban discussion going every time we need one. Let's streamline dealing with the stuff, please. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the topic ban, but I agree that cryptocurrencies should be under discretionary sanctions. I'll make a formal proposal below. MER-C 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a topic ban I'd want to see ongoing disruption that haven't been managed via other means. I can;t see any other means having been tried, but then I can't see evidence of long term disruption - after years of editing on these topics, no ANI threads about the editor (noting that there was one in 2014 which briefly included discussion about his editing, but that was a) 4 years ago, and b) not the focus of the discussion), a clean block log, no history of 3RR violations, and going through his talk page for the last two years I can find no formal warnings, with the occasional concerns seemingly met with discussion and at times compromise or agreement. There may be more elsewhere, but it isn't obvious, and hasn't been presented here. What has been presented here is enough to say that a warning is appropriate, but jumping to a topic ban for a few recent edits of varying quality is a big step. With all that said, if we end up with general sanctions, then all editors would be aware of the limits for their behaviour, so stepping out of line could reasonably warrant tbans for anyone, and that would be fair enough. - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support given his recent edits to cryptocurrency (e.g. [3] reverting the word "controversial" in the lede) @Ladislav Mecir: is up to his old article ownership again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For article ownership, note this, this and this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover goaste vandalism

I recently stumbled upon the contributions of this vandal here [NSFW, extremely graphic], and I'm wondering if an admin could search for the string "Goatse in Wiki Table format" in all the revisions of Wikipedia and revdel that stuff. Or if there's a tool out there that facilitates deep revision history search on Wikipedia. It probably needs to be something WP:DUMP based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: that sounds like something that the folks at WP:VPT could help with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But for now the revdels have been done, so that was the priority. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dash not hyphen

in the tab name is says '[pagename] - wikipedia' instead of '[pagename] – wikipedia'
– 2407:7000:8A01:8341:45D0:67AB:59E1:EF83 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Change hyphen (-) to dash (—) in page title. The proposal was rejected because some old filesystems and browsers don't have support for unicode characters, and the hyphen is a more well-supported alternative. Mz7 (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Got a 12 hr backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross

Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a lot of noise about Philip Cross (PC) on the internet, with implausible claims of COI and such, and it is pretty clear that he's engaged in a Twitter spat with some of the subjects of articles he's edited. That may well not be a problem at all - I have sparred with Dana Ullman online, that dispute originated with his POV-pushing here, it's not an off-wiki dispute imported to Wikipedia, it's a Wikipedia dispute that attracted off-wiki activism from people dissatisfied with our reflection of an entirely mainstream view, and the same seems to me on the face of it to be true with PC.

The characterisation of PC's targets as "anti-war" is framed to invoke sympathy from a typically small-l liberal project, but is problematic. George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way. It's also worth noting that the three main sources for criticism of PC are George Galloway, Sputnik (where Galloway is a presenter), and the Russian state media conglomerate RT (which is the parent network of Sputnik).

Given the off-wiki profile of this, and the to me obvious involvement of non-public information in assessing whether any of the claims made by Galloway (e.g. that PC is an account shared by a network of paid individuals) are actually true, should we refer this to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow PC to definitively clear his name? Or is it a nothingburger? I'm rather leaning to the latter but I honestly don't know. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support referral to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow Philip Cross to definitively clear his name. The proposer has related some context, but from a point of view that clearly indicates, as he concedes, that he considers this "a nothingburger." I believe it's a something burger, and offer the following additional background.

With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His first edit to that page was on September 15, 2005. Six and a half years later, on March 31, 2012, Philip Cross began trolling George Galloway on Twitter. Finally, on May 1, 2018, George Galloway struck back, calling Philip Cross "a gutless coward."

There ensued a lopsided exchange, with Galloway tweeting to or about Cross nine times, and Cross tweeting to or about Galloway 75 times. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he six days later called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Cross tweeted to Galloway, "George, I'm talking to you punk." He also acknowledged Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross again edited Wikipedia's BLP of George Galloway.

Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas has spread from Twitter and is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Philip Cross has violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." This applies not only to George Galloway, but to the other subjects of Wikipedia BLPs whom Cross has called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited.

But far worse, Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye. KalHolmann (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support referral to ArbCom, Good resume. Philip Cross (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that the conspiracy theories themselves are a 'nothingburger' that probably do not need an ArbCom case to "clear his name" (though if he really feels the need to clear his name, it should be allowed). That said, that doesn't mean there's no problems that need to be addressed. When your editing behavior causes controversy in the media, there's most likely some problem. In this instance, I think this for sure satisfies "significant controversy or dispute" with an article subject, an obviously-important stipulation of BLP that the user in question has acknowledged when confronted about it on Twitter, but has ignored in practice, as is evidenced above. This type of violation should uncontroversially result in a AE TBAN from the article at the minimum (especially if the user in question is the article's largest influencer, this obviously damages the credibility of our supposed NPOV), but if the user has additional COIs that they're editing articles in spite of, additional discretionary sanctions might be necessary. Is there some reason admins haven't addressed this yet? Seems like something that should have at least been reported by now. Support referral to AE to address the BLP considerations. Swarm ♠ 17:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, I first raised this issue on 18 May 2018. The discussion was closed before it could begin by User:NeilN, who advised "Go to WP:ANI, not here." On 20 May 2018 User:Drmies hatted —effectively disappeared— the section from Talk:George Galloway.

Next on 18 May, I filed a report at COI Noticeboard. It was closed within literally two minutes, with the explanation: "Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." (User:JzG determined this in the span of 120 seconds. Amazing!)

Later that day, I filed a report at ANI. It was closed five minutes later by the same Admin, with the explanation: "WP:FORUMSHOP." Forum shopping is defined at the relevant page as "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages," and is forbidden because it "does not help develop consensus." Duh! How can editors arrive at consensus if my every attempt to stimulate a discussion is instantly quashed? KalHolmann (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would an RFC be a good first step? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need to look at actual edits, not at off-wiki garbage. If editors can be run off controversial topics by media mentions then various special interest groups will have a field day. On Wikipedia, we have a sock farm targeting Cross, KalHolmann who inappropriately canvassed before I told him to stop, and attacks by usually-dormant accounts [4] and IPs [5]. What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, I found three veteran, experienced editors expressing serious concerns about Philip Cross's edits. In December 2015, User:John (207,744 edits since 2006-01-08) wrote, "Tentatively endorse a topic ban on the basis of the talk page comment, and more especially on the apparent inability to see that comments like this will be seen as problematic." He later added, "Count me as a 'support' topic ban." That same month, User:Guerillero (18,031 edits since 2009-11-07) wrote, "I support a topic ban after this revert. Philip Cross seems to be focused on coatracking as much negative information about Sr Mariam as possible into the article." In February 2016, User:AusLondonder (24,968 edits since 2015-04-17) wrote, "I have noticed myself an inappropriate pattern of editing by Philip Cross relating to left-wing British organisations and individuals. That needs to stop." KalHolmann (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN takes a cheap shot, coming here to accuse me of canvassing. As I explained to him on 18 May 2018, I posted a notice to each of six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section at Talk:George Galloway. I did so to comply with COI Noticeboard instructions, which state: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue." (Emphasis added.) I sought to follow, in good faith, the procedure as I understood it preparatory to filing a COI Noticeboard report. Now, NeilN tries to shift the focus of this latest discussion from the behavior of Philip Cross, where it properly belongs, onto me, a "sock farm," and "usually-dormant accounts." I encourage other editors to examine the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved. KalHolmann (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann: Canvassing [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban. And you haven't presented any examples of problematic Wikipedia edits, only asserted that "Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye." How is that examining "the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved"? Pretty sure various editors have "disgraced" Wikipedia according to public special interest groups. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, thanks for providing diffs of my notifications to each of the six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section at Talk:George Galloway. I tried to follow the rules as I understood them, and made no attempt "to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban." As for your other point, I do not regard the proposal on which we are commenting to be about "problematic Wikipedia edits." Rather, it's about the spectacle of a conflicted editor waging war on Twitter against the "punks" and "goons" whose BLPs he has frequently edited and with whom he has admitted, "Well I have a big COI now." This is not about edits. It's about the integrity of Wikipedia as perceived by the public at large. KalHolmann (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice then to see some examples of this public at large, rather then the like of gorgeous George.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, Wikipedia page protection filters prevent me from providing a direct hyperlink to Twitter search results, which show exhaustively the ongoing public debate on this issue. However, as a workaround, please navigate in your browser to any Twitter page, and paste the following into the Search box at upper right: (Wikipedianhidin OR philipcross63 OR "Philip Cross" OR "Phillip Cross"). When results display, click "Latest" for full list. KalHolmann (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, here's a recent hacker news (news.ycombinator.com) discussion on the topic. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC) I'm a bit dismayed that people are not getting a good impression of WP :-/ [reply]

For the third time (and more bluntly), subjects of articles are not the "public at large". Parties interested in influencing our coverage about them or their causes are not the "public at large". If you can't produces examples of problematic editing then this is a nothingburger as JzG says. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom does not exist to review conspiracy theories on off-wiki websites. If anyone has actual evidence, they can file a case. If they do not, then we move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, you clearly violated the guideline against canvassing because your notifications were not neutral. I recommend that you apologize for that infraction. You are also wrong when you write "This is not about edits." It is always about the edits here, first and foremost. So, if he is the most active editor working on the Galloway BLP, but all of his edits accurately summarize what reliable sources say, then there is nothing at all wrong with that. Almost every developed article has a most active editor, unless two or three happened to be tied in the edit count at a moment in time. So, your task is to show, with diffs, that the editor is misrepresenting sources or violating BLP policy or core content policies. The self-admitted Twitter squabbling is a problem, in my mind. Personally, I consider that behavior to be very unwise and unseemly, and I am very interested in what other uninvolved editors have to say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328, thank you for this opportunity. I do indeed apologize for notifications that were not neutral. KalHolmann (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothingburger. If anyone has policy-violating bad diffs please present them, but the diffs seen here don't seem to support a conflict of interest claim. I'm really not seeing evidence that this user is a "stalker-troll." But, if anyone has diffs of that, pony up. Andrevan@ 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this looks to be a well-organized attack campaign run by "the Russians". WP:RBI probably applies to their on-wiki activities. Separately, while Philip Cross probably could use a short vacation from a "quality-of-life" perspective, I haven't seen a single diff that justifies any action against him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the off-wiki site linked by Andrevan, the content at Piers Robinson actually is problematic; Cross's preferred version borders on an attack page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think Piers Robinson's was bad, go and look at Tim Hayward (academic) immediately after Philip Cross had finished with it. Ludemate —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unclear to me from this that there is a COI or POV pushing. This person certainly seems politically controversial. It seems the article has been cleaned per BLP, and I don't see Philip Cross revert warring to insert his content. Perhaps he could comment. Andrevan@ 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of content

I request that User:Andrevan explain his removal of content from this section. KalHolmann (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the IP's talk page would have told you it's a sock puppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, content was added by a block evading anon who is now blocked, and consisted of copypasta from 2015 and 2016 of dubious provenance, structured to look like users supporting a topic ban in this thread. Misleading at best. Andrevan@ 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, well, wasn't that convenient? Four minutes after the IP posted his comment, you just happened to block him. I gotta hand it to you, Wikipedia admins sure know how to run (or is it ruin?) a discussion. KalHolmann (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kal, if you'd like, I can reblock the IP instead. Dumping comments here from a discussion years ago, and conveniently fitting them smoothly into this discussion, is not a good-faith contribution to the discussion — it's an attempt to skew the discussion a specific direction by making it look like these comments were made in this discussion, not a separate one. No comment on whether it's a sockpuppet or not, but the person behind this IP is significantly disrupting things, and as this IP's following project conventions (e.g. {{od}}) in an internal project discussion, we give a good deal less leeway than with an IP tweaking a few things improperly in an article. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Not sure why a reblock is needed. I've blocked them before as a sock of Hillbillyholiday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is. Kal was complaining that you're using the tools inappropriately, blocking someone on the other side of this discussion in which you've involved yourself. My point is that if he really thinks it's wrong, I'll happily reblock, and he'd better be satisfied because I've not offered any opinions (and haven't formed any) on the merits of the complaint. In other words, I'm the "any reasonable administrator" of WP:INVOLVED. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quotations included in the reverted edit included timestamps that clearly placed them in 2016. I don't see any attempt to pretend they were more recent. Rather they demonstrated that people had been having trouble with Philip Cross's editing as far back as 2 years ago. NeilN really did write[12] "What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits." and the reverted post purported to show examples of exactly that (I don't know how experienced those editors were though). Kai Hohmann provided more examples, going back even farther,[13] and I do recognize at least one of the editors in Kai Hohmann's post as a sensible editor of very long standing. NeilN reverted Kai Hohmann's post[14] calling it "proxying". But it instead comes across as an attempt on NeilN's part to cover up evidence in a dispute.
As an outside observer, if someone like User:John makes a comment on a dispute, I'd consider his viewpoint to probably be credible and so I want to hear what he has to say. I don't care if John's comment is shown to me by a banned user: I want to see it anyway, and now that I've seen it, I think it is relevant. The rule about banned user edits (at least as I used to understand it) was that they MAY be reverted, not that they MUST be reverted, and in this case I think they should have been left to stand. In any case I see no evidence of Kai Hohmann proxying (acting under a banned user's direction) although the diffs might have originated with a banned user.
I would *really* like if those reversions were to stop. Wikipedia doesn't have an exclusionary rule and in any case we engage in some minor terminological abuse when we refer to diffs as evidence. The evidence is actually in the publicly accessible revision history of the wiki, and diffs are just revision numbers (formatted a particular way to tell the wiki software what content to retrieve) indicating where in the history the evidence can be found. It would make Wikipedia dispute resolution look pretty stupid if any user could destroy a case by getting themselves banned, then posting all the diffs favoring one side of the case, so that they would have to be reverted and nobody else could use the evidence that they point to.
I don't know the exact source of Kai Hohmann's diffs or what his thoughts were in presenting them, but if they originated with another editor (banned or otherwise) and Kai Hohmann wants to post them again explicitly taking responsibility himself for their contents, I'd be very opposed to anyone reverting them again. I haven't examined the AN page history for more such reversions but maybe it's worth it for somebody to do so, if we are to get a complete account of what's been going on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking me to stop reverting the posts of block-evaders and those who proxy-edit for them, that's not going to happen (note that Andrevan removed the initial post). Article space is one thing - editors can take responsibility for edits they think improves the article - but blocked editors don't get to participate in discussions, either directly or by proxy. The diff is still in history if the post content needs to be referred to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

So, ignoring all of the other crap above, we do still have the most prolific editor of a BLP directly feuding with the subject of said BLP, and continuing to edit the article, in contravention of clear BLP guidance on this specific situation. That concern, to me, comes across as a legitimate one, even if everything else about the situation is complete BS. Are we going to address this or just look the other way on this one? Swarm ♠ 19:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The feud seems to be that the subjects of the articles don't like what has been written about them on-wiki, right? Is there an indication of non-neutral editing that we can pick apart? Andrevan@ 19:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki presented this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: the The Guardian, Robinson has said, should employ Beeley and another blogger, Eva Bartlett (who reputedly wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet). In so doing, it would become more "ethical, independent and glamorous" by doing so. sentence was mentioned in the off-wiki site (amidst other, perfectly good edits). I'm not sure if www.opendemocracy.net is a reliable source, but that entire sentence reads a lot into a tweet, and I feel it's deliberately intended to mock the subject. When Tibloc suggested its removal, Cross implied that Tibloc was a Russian agent. The current version of the article (after removals by Drmies) reads fine to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power, what about that website would give you any reason to think that it might be reliable? See their about page; they're activists, and their significant figures formerly included Anthony Barnett (writer) and Tony Curzon Price — just average journalists, with no evidence of scholarly review or expertise in anything except news reporting and (in the case of former editor Price) an unspecified area of economics. Unless I've missed something significant, if anyone used a source like this in a literature review, his committee would quickly begin raising questions about his competency. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. Newspapers with "average journalists" can be reliable sources, especially for fact-based claims. That said, I'm not claiming it's reliable, I'm just noting that Philip Cross used it as a reference. I have concerns, but haven't investigated it enough to claim it's not reliable. [15] is the specific article, which looks to be a contributed piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're almost never reliable secondary sources. You can often trust them with simple facts about recent events (e.g. "During yesterday's Question Time, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X"), but there they're primary sources because their writing comes at the time of the event; they're not summarizing and distilling at-the-time-of-the-event sources from a chronological distance. We mustn't use them significantly, because we risk placing undue weight on something that doesn't get covered by reliable secondary sources — WP:BALL, we can't know whether yesterday's Question Time will get mentioned in the secondary sources, since they can't exist yet? And when they're writing about past events, yes they're secondary, but journalists' credentials are typically restricted to covering the news, not providing solid retrospective coverage of something. You have to limit it to simple stuff (e.g. "Twenty years ago, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X") unless it's written by someone with credentials in that field, or unless it's reviewed by someone with credentials in that field, e.g. a retrospective on economics reviewed by the editor with the economics Ph.D. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell some of the editors on Trump-Russia related topics that? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] NeilN, you linked to a revision, not a diff. Here is the edit resulting in that revision (a bot could do that), and while I've checked several edits before that, all I'm seeing is adding links, changing "he" to "Robinson", adding relative pronouns, moving content from one paragraph to another, etc. — nothing potentially problematic. What could possibly be wrong? Did you provide the wrong link by mistake? Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately linked to the revision. This would be the diff, almost all (if not all) the content changes in the 53 edits are by Philip Cross. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; thank you for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, no, the feud is not solely that the article's subject does not like what is being written about him in good faith. The editor is directly attacking the subject off-wiki. It's a direct interpersonal dispute, and diffs are not needed when the existence of the COI has been self-acknowledged by the editor. BLP policy specifically addresses this situation, and as of now, it is not being followed. The policy does not tell us to "examine the diffs" and determine whether there is actually non-neutral editing going on. It explicitly preempts the potential of problematic editing, by prohibiting editing during a direct dispute with a BLP subject. If someone's advocating that Cross should be allowed to ignore the specific BLP guidance on the situation, I find it hard to believe that his participation on the article is that essential. Swarm ♠ 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree with your estimation of the situation, but if Philip Cross has self-acknowledged the COI and has indicated he will no longer be editing there as he now has a COI, do we need to enforce that through a sanction or a referral to ArbCom? Maybe we do - but it seems like there is a well-organized sockpuppet opposition pushing for such an action, which makes me suspicious. My cursory analysis of Philip Cross is that he is largely a well-intentioned editor who may have let his political POV creep into a few of his edits, but I don't see a sustained practice of POV pushing. Has he been continuously editing after he said he wouldn't? Andrevan@ 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: No, the policy actually says, "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." It does not prohibit editing (your emphasis) with good reason as there have been times in the past where editors have been targeted off-wiki and have defended themselves. Not saying that's what's happening here but saying policy mandates prohibition is reaching too far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I'm not saying we need to enforce it with a sanction (though a discretionary sanctions TBAN would be the most obvious way of enforcing it). The ideal scenario would be for Philip Cross to simply acknowledge the policy guidance on this issue and agree to abide by it. @NeilN: point conceded, it's not a hard prohibition, and it theoretically allows for the possibility of continued editing with good reason. But it is straightforward guidance from a policy that we generally take pretty seriously. So, that's fundamentally what I'm getting at. Is there a good reason for Cross to be ignoring the clear policy guidance on this situation? If not, he should understand why it's not ideal and agree to stop, at least until his issues with the subject die down. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Sorry, I didn't answer your question. Yes, he actually has edited the article since he acknowledged his COI, as evidenced by KH in his first comment. That's why I'm bringing this up. It's not a sustained problem, just something that I think should be addressed. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I agree that Cross should voluntarily stop editing the affected articles. I suggest he use edit-request templates if he has content changes to propose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I'm looking for from him as well. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, please specify the "affected articles" to which you allude. I would list George Galloway, Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens. But there may be others. KalHolmann (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so folks will need to watchlist those and make sure they are not disrupted. Just in case someone was waiting until Philip was out of the way so they could insert their POV. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann: This is not a formal restriction. Cross needs to use his common sense and stay away from editing the articles he believes he has a COI with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The primary concern is the George Calloway article, because he's directly in a dispute with George Calloway, and the policy guidance on that situation is clear. That's a valid concern. We're not going to start imposing blanket restrictions strictly because of opinions expressed on Twitter. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swarm I agree with your OP completely. I want to emphasize that we don't know (and cannot know) if the real person operating the Philip Cross Wikipedia account and the real person operating the Twitter account is the same person. If it is, in my view this would be very problematic with regard to BLPCOI, if the twitter account is actually interacting with the article subject on twitter. (Giving opinions is one thing; actual interpersonal conflict is another). I looked and have not seen if Philip Cross has disclosed here on WP if that is their tweeting or an imposter. (I know about twitter imposters -- i had one).

I think that editing on any of these Russia-related-populist subjects is very hard and I am glad we have people like Philip Cross doing it. But if it is the same person on twitter and here, and if the twitter interactions are actually interpersonal, then we are not in a good place. I think this should be referred to Arbcom so the issues of whether it is the same person, can be clarified. What remedies Arbcom would choose, I don't know. As I understand it this is not the same issue that KalHolmann has been raising. This is quite narrowly focused on carrying out a real world dispute here on WP, too. It may be that Philip Cross' edits are perfect, but if the same person is operating that twitter account, the optics are reproachable. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom. If the person operating the Twitter account and the one operating the Wikipedia account are the same person, then we need - at the very least - topic bans for Philip Cross on cerain BLPs here. I don't think this is even arguable. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog & Black Kite, as shown in a now-deleted version of his Wikipedia user page, Philip Cross advised (¶3): "You can contact me via the user talk page, email (see the toolbox on the left), or via twitter @philipcross63." As preserved in a Wayback Machine snapshot of one of his Wikipedia-related tweets dated 7 May 2018, his Twitter profile bio then read, "My main published outlet is via my Wikipedia account as Philip Cross." On May 16, 2018, he changed his Twitter handle to @Wikipedianhidin and removed Wikipedia from his bio, but otherwise his account remains, in all essential aspects, identical. KalHolmann (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ping me. Do not write on my talk page. If you reply to this, I will not reply. I want nothing to do with you. You were advised below to drop this, and you absolutely should. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Philip Cross wants an ARBCOM case, it's reasonable, but I think that enacting a topic-ban here is both reasonable and sufficient. I'm not sure of the scope, but I agree with Black Kite that PC editing George Galloway is too problematic to allow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got pinged here as a courtesy, but while I'm here I might as well say that I see no reason to allow Philip Cross to engage with this subject any further. I think it's NeilN above who is very curt on the topic ("unacceptable COI" or something like that), and I agree. And at the same time, of course, we should extend them all the protection we can: editors who jump on Cross one way or another should be dealt with. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Philip Cross should not edit George Galloway anymore. I noticed the COIN case and at that time since I didn't look in the details, assumed Guy's summation was reasonable. But having read in more depth here, I agree there's a clear problem. Even if GG is the one who initiated the 'feud', it seems clear PC responded in kind. Once you're as involved in a dispute with someone as PC appears to be here, it at a minimum causes major perception problems if you're continuing to edit their article. And more than that, there's a reason why we strongly discourage direct COI editing. It's very difficult to be neutral when you have strong feelings and having a major dispute with someone is likely to generate those feelings. When it's a BLP involved whatever 'fault' the subject may in starting the dispute we can't allow them to be punished for it. I can understand why PC may have wanted to push back if they felt the way they were being treated was unfair. And I do have concerns that subjects can pick a fight with editors who are potentially editing perfectly fine and try and goad them into a response to stop their editing. But we have to deal with these situations when they arise. And I see some signs it may have been PC who initiated the offsite dispute anyway. (Haven't looked at the timeline in detail since ultimately it's irrelevant.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Philip Cross has knowingly violated WP:BLPCOI on several occasions, jeopardising Wikipedia's reputation. That said, I'd prefer for him to voluntarily recuse himself, perhaps accompanied by a formal pledge here, from editing articles on UK political activitists and similar with whom he knows he has a profound disagreement, to put it this way. A tban would perhaps go too far as first punishment as I am not aware of any previous formal proceedings against this editor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Philip Cross can write on these BLP subjects from the disinterested/dispassionate angle that is required of BLP editors. So I agree that Philip Cross should stay away from these articles, especially the George Galloway one as the two are engaged in an escalating public spat. I'd like it to be a voluntary recusal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it wholly unacceptable that someone having a real life disagreement with a subject should edit about the subject. While I'd prefer Philip Cross step away on his own, the community might need to step between him and the article.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Cross needs to stop editing George Galloway immediately, along with any other articles about people whom he is hurling abuse at. You can't be publically labelling someone a 'punk' and a 'goon' and expect people to see you as capable of editing disinterestedly with your Wikipedia hat on. If he can't do it informally then a formal topic ban needs to be imposed. Fish+Karate 12:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above (about BLPCOI regarding Galloway) makes good sense. I'm not formally endorsing a topic ban because I've had only a superficial look at the happenings, but ZOMG, how is this even possible. Beyond that I think it warrants checking into whether there's a wider problem. I'm offline tomorrow but might look some more in a few days. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann

Regardless of the merits of anything else here, I think KalHolmann should be topic banned from any further mention of user:Philip Cross, other than in the context of any potential ArbCom case. He is not helping. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to use:KalHolmannKalHolmann. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless there's a voluntary recusal from matters related to Cross going forward. He's derailing the process with his zeal here. Swarm ♠ 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. When I pointed out a specific error that KalHolman made, the editor apologized. Although much of this incident may be based on baloney or worse, I am convinced that Philip Cross has shown extremely poor judgment by taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter for years, while actively editing their biographies. I simply cannot see that as acceptable behavior, and I am surprised to see editors I respect make light of it. Though there have been some fumbles, I for one thank KalHolman for bringing this to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Issue brought to our attention - good. Unable to realize that people/organizations with vested interests are not "the public eye" - not so good (otherwise, according to The Daily Mail, we're all completely useless, biased, etc.). I'd like to see how KalHolmann interacts with Cross in the future after this matter is settled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have been co-editing (and arguing) with KalHolmann for a month or more at Joy Ann Reid. My strong opinion is that he/she cares about our Wikipedia project and puts effort into making this great encyclopedia better. You might disagree with his/her opinions (snd I often do) but their seriousness and good intentions should not (IMO) be doubted. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support and strongly. I find their constant pounding with the likes of RT and Sputnik so formalistic as to be approaching the Theater of the Absurd. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I fully agree with what Cullen328 wrote above: taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter...is simply totally unacceptable behaviour, IMO. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though I note that their further participation in this thread is unlikely to benefit to anyone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If asking the one editor to stay away from an article (or a set of articles) is not a big deal, it's also not a big deal for the other--per Jytdog, really. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Drmies, if any restriction be applied to Philip Cross, Kal Holmann also seems to naturally fall under said editing restriction. However, if both are to be warned to voluntarily not involve themselves with COIs and/or sensitive, politically charged topics and to use their best judgment, that also seems fair at this juncture, absent more current diffs of problematic editing. Philip Cross obviously knew he shouldn't have been Tweeting at article subjects and editing them, so I doubt he would have any problem with toning that down, considering he's a very prolific editor on many other pages that need work. Andrevan@ 02:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an editor should not be restricted merely because it is perceived that they are "not helping" (explicit evidence is needed) and a topic ban is not merely "asking [an] editor" to do something but mandating they do so or face punishment. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is getting ridiculous, although I agree with Andrevan (and others) regarding the need for both editors stepping as far away from any potential COI editing as possible, this is an editor facing severe harassment off-site. The least we can do is deal with their behaviour on-site following the rules of Wikipedia as opposed to "George Galloway said Phil was mean to him on Twitter therefor". If there are things to be answered for then let's deal with them and not get distracted/side-tracked by RT and a twitter-spat. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If KH continues to have problems with PC then it's worth reconsidering. But even if their approach wasn't the best KH had a very relevant point namely that there were significant problems with PC editing GG given their apparent feud (whoever initiated it). It's unfortunate it took us this long to deal with it. I do agree now that this has our attention KH needs to step away. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on policy grounds ~~but issue a formal warning to KH~~. We don't normally impose such sanctions for GF actions, whereas breaches of CIV or STALKING should normally require at least one warning before any bans. Additionally, I fear a penalty may also be seen as punishing an editor for bringing up valid issues with other editors' editing (even if we agree the manner WH did this was inappropriate). ~~Should a warning not work, a ban would be an option.~~ — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I do not see any proof submitted that this editor has been repeatedly disruptive WP:CBAN. And vis-a-vis his comment about Kal I agree with Cullen WP:AGF.– Lionel^(talk) 05:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The proposal is bizarre - I see no evidence of disruption, merely the odd mistake any of us might make. I agree with Cullen above. --NSH001 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per others above. The allegations made by said user and elsewhere in the media are highly serious, and threaten the integrity of the encyclopaedia. If it is found that they are untrue then fine, but the user shouldn't be chastised for making other editors taking them seriously. User:Jdcooper (posting from IP address cos I'm at work) 46.227.13.24 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Cullen328 and other opposers. Cross is the problem here. Jusdafax (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the above opposers, which is all I can really say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki mentions

I saw this issue come up (having never heard of it before) on Hacker News here and later here. The first of those has a long comment thread and links to a "Five Filters" article "Time to ditch Wikipedia?"[16] that looks like a transplanted Wikipedia dispute (full of diffs etc.). I didn't look at it closely. The second links to a post by Craig Murray called "The Philip Cross Affair"[17] which has a time-of-day analysis of Philip Cross's posts and argues that Cross either spends ridiculous amounts of time editing or else is more than one person. Leftwing author Caitlin Johstone also has an article[18] and audio podcast[19] "Wikipedia is an establishment psyop" about the matter. I can't make much sense of the article and haven't listened to the audio, but they are there for those interested.

I'm not endorsing any of the writings cited above, but am posting the links here in case they are useful for further analysis. This sounds messy and even ignoring the political bias allegations, the level of editing activity attributed to Philip Cross is IMHO already a bad sign (people who edit nonstop tend to do more harm than good). The Wikimedia UK response was also unconvincing to say the least. So I agree with people above saying that it might take an arbcom case to figure out what is going on. I haven't looked into it enough (and probably won't) to say whether it's already time to file one. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for links. I saw Murray's article earlier and I am baffled with his use of aggregate statistics which unfortunately feels rather of the type, statistically, a man with his dog have three legs each. The chart might equally well show PC editing only one day a week on different days each year over seven years. PC's average 27 edits daily of an average of 52 characters each (62% being below 20 characters!) equals to some 30-60 minutes spent on WP a day. I see no statistical grounds for Murray's suggestions that this is an institutional account which edits round the clock 365 days a year. So, I propose we stick with considering PC as a single person (unless CheckUser tells us otherwise). (This of course has no relevance to PC's violations discussed above). — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The idea that Philip Cross edits 'nonstop' may be based on a misinterpretation of the timecard section in the user's editcount summary. The circles are of even, maximum size because the user's edits are pretty randomly distributed 9-5 Monday to Friday. The fact that the circles effectively fill the daytime weekday space doesn't indicate constant editing. George Galloway piggybacked the theory that the account is run out of GCHQ or the like on this 'nonstop editing' notion. William Avery (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kasmiri and William Avery, thanks, that's a good point about the timestamps and I now realize the claim shouldn't be taken at face value, though ISTM that it's still worth checking out. There have definitely been cases in the past of people making apparently ridiculous numbers of edits with no breaks (in those cases it was imho bloody obvious that the people in question were actually running bots) but in this case it sounds like the numbers aren't that extreme. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stats end up being something like 30 edits/day for the past several years, which for reasonably motivated Wikipedians is not hard to achieve at all. nneonneo ^talk 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing every day with zero breaks for N years was pretty impressive. Does the guy have no life? Never travels, doesn't get sick of Wikipedia, no time crunches at work, spouse never wants him to go kayaking, etc? But yeah 30 edits in a single day is not much, depending on your style. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An outsider's perspective

Alright, I am hardly a prolific WP user, having been inactive for 5+ years. However, I wholeheartedly, as a complete outsider to this case, support a topic ban for user:Philip Cross. There can be no mistake here; Cross IS exhibiting a COI and has admitted so publicly. Whether he/she did on-wiki or NOT, or regardless of the machinations of interest groups, there can be no denying the credibility of the articles has been compromised. If we ignore this, we might set a bad precedent for WP Cocoliras (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway BLP

Despite acknowledging on the article's talk page that we have an "active discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Philip Cross" User:Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway, explaining, "Old habits linger and so on." This strikes me as a middle-finger salute to the Administrators' Noticeboard process. KalHolmann (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is a problem. He *should* stop editing, but he also carefully explained why they were uncontroversial edits, and they are. Please stop making a fuss out of this. nneonneo ^talk 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose topic ban

Due to the overhwelming support for the suggestion that User:Philip Cross should not edit on the subject of George Galloway due to his real-life spat with him (and inevitable COI), and due to User:Philip Cross's apparent contempt for the opinions of the community, I propose that User:Philip Cross be topic banned from the subject of George Galloway, ~~broadly construed~~. I'll just note that the latest edits do appear to be uncontroversial, but an editor with a clear COI regarding a subject should not be the one to decide if something is controversial. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure "broadly construed" is needed at the moment, so I've struck that - but if others think it's needed, obviously feel free to add it to your comments. I'll also add that had this simply been George Galloway attacking Philip Cross in public, I would not be calling for a topic ban. But the attacks and insults have been going the other way too, and Philip Cross has got himself too deeply entrenched in a fight with George Galloway for it to be in any way appropriate for him to edit the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Caving to off-site pressure sets a bad precedent. If someone doesn't like their WP coverage, all they'd need to do is amp up a "spat" with editors of the article to disqualify them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And all an editor in such a situation needs to do is not respond in kind and continue to maintain a neutral approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nearly two thousand edits and he’s still at it after repeated taunting? Enough is enough. I say a full block if this keeps up. Jusdafax (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SBHB puts it well. The amount of unsubstantiated guff that has been posted about Philip (on wikiP and off) is a clue to why this would be a bad precedent. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but topic ban should not be limited to George Galloway, whom User:Philip Cross has publicly addressed as "punk." The ban should also include the other subjects of Wikipedia articles whom Cross has likewise called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens. KalHolmann (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Earlier above, I suggested to be lenient. But as Philip Cross is now showing his middle finger to all who are discussing him here, instead of offering an apology and recusal, I see it as a lost WP:SECONDCHANCE. It doesn't matter whether his COI edits are controversial; suffice that the community has requested him to stop editing. I will support a tban covering UK left-wing politicians and journalists broadly construed, i.e., to include political commentators, activitists, councillors, and similar. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious what the "middle finger" is - is he continuing to comment publicly about this? nneonneo ^talk 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to subsitute "middle finger" with "contempt". — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still haven't looked at the edits enough to independently support a sanction, and I note that there are some good editors opposing. But I couldn't imagine this pattern of editing being allowed in a US politics article, under the AMPOL-based discretionary sanctions affecting all of those articles. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - PC is the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign. His opponents do not have a wiki presence, so there's no one from "the other side" to censure, yet they are POV pushers of the highest degree. Repeated edits by anonymous users, sockpuppets, etc. to these articles push the same POV as PC's accusers (see the page history for Oliver Kamm - dozens of IPs, then autoconfirm protection, then edits from a half dozen users with 10 nonsense edits, then 30-500 protection, then an edit from a user who made 200+ extremely minor edits in a day after a long period of inactivity, all pushing the same text). The vast majority of PC's edits have been to clean up this crap and push proper RS material into the related articles. If you TBAN PC, please carefully consider who is going to step up to assure the quality of the articles - because I can guarantee you that the "other side" will gleefully start pushing their POV once "the malign presence of Philip Cross is no more" [20]. nneonneo ^talk 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Philip Cross should not be editing any biographies of people he is insulting in public as a self-identified Wikipedia editor. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable behavior should re-examine their position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is clear that the user is incapable of editing that page objectively. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the edits are uncontroversial, WP:IAR, and the fact that COIBLP is not a hard and fast policy but more of a strongly worded suggestion. If he makes controversial edits, and there are diffs, I will change my opinion. Andrevan@

User:Andrevan, are you saying don't ban because PC's most recent edits to GG are uncontroversial, even if earlier ones were controversial? Or do you mean all of his edits to the GG article have uncontroversial? Did you look at the Five Filters page?[21] It does have some ugly diffs, and looks to have been written by someone who knows their way around Wikipedia DR. If that person is here, can they speak up? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Long overdue. We should consider a ban from a few other BLPs, too, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed. If George Galloway doesn't like it, I invite him to go piss up a rope. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move ban for Jimbo

Hatting by Andrevan, a Wikipedia constitutional crisis certainly won't be solved on WP:ANI and this is a noticeboard used for admin issues day-to-day. This ban proposal is disruptive because it is unlikely to obtain consensus, and is unenforceable even if it did, absent some ArbCom ruling to the contrary. The Supreme Court of Wikipedia is the only entity that could feasibly check its benevolent dictator. So don't revert the hat, thanks! Andrevan@ 05:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There were long discussions at Meghan Markle about changing the page name in light of her upcoming marriage.

User:NeilN move-protected the page in this diff at 16:34, 17 May 2018 , and the time of that protection was extended by another admin, User:Zzyzx11, in this diff at 03:47, 19 May 2018, and Zzyzx11 added further editing protection in the next diff.

Jimbo moved the page unilaterally at 11:15, 19 May 2018.

A "move back" discussion was opened at 11:16, 19 May 2018; the section is here.

A discussion was opened at Jimbo's talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Unilateral_page_moves (permalink) at 11:47, 19 May 2018, asking Jimbo to self-revert. Jimbo replied there at 13:08, 19 May 2018 once, writing Actually, looking at the talk page, there appears to be quite a strong consensus in favor of the page move.

At 13:28, 19 May 2018 Jimbo made a comment at the move discussion, and wrote this: I made the move primarily because I made the similar move of Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. and some more.

The unilateral page move over protection was bad enough. The comment at Talk is another thing altogether. The admin tools are not given for "fun", nor for playing at being The One Who Moves Royal Bride Pages.

I think this is behavior we would desysop people over, but I will settle for a ban on page moves. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A dramafest is not required since Jimbo will never move pages around in a disruptive manner. He may ruffle some feathers every few years, but the move discussion shows that Jimbo's move is supported by the community and posting here is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Jimbo moved the article, there was a quite clear consensus on the talk page not to move the article without a discussion. Even those who were in favor of moving the article agreed that it should only be done after a move request. Jimbo's complete disregard for that discussion and for the move protection is disappointing. His justification of his action ("It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again.") was degrading. The same thing happened to the Prince Harry article. The article had been the subject of several move requests in the past and the future title of the article had been discussed since April. Several options were on the table when another administrator swept in and decided the page title on his own, with no regard to the talk page discussion. Why do we even bother discussing? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the remedy is that we should have fun arguing about a topic ban? I know it is irritating when someone sails in with a bold edit that turns out to be supported by a new consensus, but life is full of such irritations and it's best to get over it and move to something constructive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the bold page move was hmmmm, but the talk page comment was completely beyond the pale. Using the admin tools for "fun" is horrible. Saying "I would do it again" is mind-bogglingly arrogant behavior. The celebrity-whoringness pattern of behavior of "I move British Princess pages" is disgusting. We don't give admin tools for any of those reasons. The response is desysop worthy. I will settle for a pagemove ban. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to do this please put the proper notice on Jimbo's talk page (I am inclined to support with the present evidence but will see if he has anything more to say after notice). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did do it, and I did put the notice, here at 22:23, the same minute I posted above. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on general principle and with full knowledge it will never happen. In a perfect world we would remove the +admin bit for such blatant abuse but since Jimbo gets his tools via the +founder bit I do not believe there is really anything to be done. We have no barons to leash our capricious lord so we simply suck up these mostly harmless whims and protest in futility to make ourselves feel a bit better. Jbh ^Talk 23:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have an ArbCom ruling on this sort of issue. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Jimbo as the ultimate authority. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was 12 years ago. WP is not the same as it was then. Not by miles. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt his "ultimate authority as project leader" was meant to be used for an ultimately trivial page move. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS. There is no realistic doubt that the article will end up at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, so this entire argument is about whether Wikipedia editors should have a temporary right of veto over what is, after all, now her correct official name. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:JzG no, that is not the issue. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really is. It's all about the content. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best outcome would be for Jimbo to voluntarily and irrevocably relinquish his "ultimate authority" powers, and stand for RfA and for a seat on the WMF board. I do not care about the ultimate outcome of article title, but I consider it disruptive and arrogant for the "boss man" to edit through protection, just for the fun of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (and rarely) I disagree with you. Every now and then we have a situation where someone needs to just cut the crap and deliver the correct outcome. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the situations and topics where I would consider what you say true this case is nothing of the sort. The chance of Jimbo jumping into a controversial or problematic policy or operational issue is so close to zero as to be zero. This was just an ego-gratifying whim — nothing grand or useful about it at all. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close to zero? How quickly we forget Jimbo's central involvement in the debacles around Arnnon Geshuri and Lila Tretikov in 2016. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected ~~re content~~ . This, however, is not of the like. Jbh ^Talk 00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Yep... forgot the whole thing... Jbh ^Talk 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have met Jimbo one on one for a beer. He simply does not come across to me as the sort of person to behave as you describe. He now lives in England and has a decent appreciation of English mores. I think the best and most charitable explanation is that he moved the article to the correct target in order to shortcut pointless process. PMy son is at Sandhurst right now, Prince Harry is normally known as Harry Wales, the name he used in the Army. Maybe Jimmy feels some kind of connection, albeit tenuous. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short circuiting process, on a collaborative project, is seldom the right move. It certainly is not when there are no pressing issues, such as BLP, requiring immediate action. Regardless of motivation we expect those who have advanced permissions not to use those permissions to enforce their view whether the outcome is 'right' or not. If Jimbo understands neither that principle nor that by moving through protection he would inevitably cause drama and disruption then there is a problem. He deserves respect for what he has done with Wikipedia but at some point that respect can no longer include the ability to arbitrarily do as he pleases. Children grow up and parents let go. This shows it is finally time for him to let go. Jbh ^Talk 00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's about whether administrators should be able to override talk page discussions because it amuses them to do so. There was absolutely no consensus for the Prince Harry article to be moved to a new title either. There had been quite a few move requests regarding it throughout the years (which clearly spells controversial), and several possible titles were being discussed when the page was abruptly moved, baffling those involved. But whatever, it has already been pointed out to me that I am not worthy of questioning the supreme leaders. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amuses? This is England. As of right now she is, officially and formally, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. You may or may not be contemptuous of our customs but that is the objective fact. Wikipedia was launched in 2001. My school was founded slightly earlier, in 948. Even then, a person marrying a Duke would be addressed in this style. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not England. This is Wikipedia. And no, she is not officially and formally "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk". If we were using the official and formal title, the article would be called Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The present title reflects the style of an ex-wife of a duke, not of a spouse. Is Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex also official and formal? No, it is not. But all that is entirely besides the point of this thread, and the title itself is discussed elsewhere. This is about unilateral page moves that pay no heed to the ongoing discussions and do not even acknowledge them in edit summaries. It's cringeworthy. Surtsicna (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo lives in England. So do I. And, crucially, so does the Duchess. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what JzG said - surely there are more productive things we can do with our time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now 1) there was no actual reason to do it right then - it could have waited days, weeks. 2) It is very bad use of admin permissions to force your content edits. 3) It seems very disrespectful of those, who had weeks ago properly opened the discussion, asked for the protection, and gotten a neutral admin to apply it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (In matters of disclosure, I have not yet voted one way or the other in the move, prefer to see next weeks coverage, if I vote at all, I do note that the New York Times used "Meghan Markle" after her wedding.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eng-land swings like a pen-du-lum do. Her name, from the moment she was married, was exactly the name that Jimbo Wales moved the article to. He found it fun to move the page to its inevitable title, and having fun on Wikipedia, if we assume the move was made in good faith, is nothing to sneeze at. And Jimbo having fun on Wikipedia? Priceless (a multi-editor trout decorated with a two hour ban and I bet he wouldn't complain). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's most certainly not her name, it is her first name and it is a title, but you won't be seeing that as name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it absolutely is. In the same way that her father-in-law is Charles, Prince of Wales and her brother-in-law is Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Harry being Harry I wonder if they will go by Mr. and Mrs. Wales, he was Harry Wales in the Army, but we have nothing on that yet. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it absolutely is not "Duchess of" is a title not a name. Moreover, apperantly there are sources saying it's the way you refer to a widow in England, but regardless of any of that, such moves are to be discussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, if one were to be all formal and proper, she was Princess Henry in the same way as Princess Michael of Kent. Jbh ^Talk 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is Princess Henry. Had Prince Harry not been been made a duke, that is what we would call her. But she has adopted the style Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Which is fine. The guiding principle is everyone gets to determine their own form of address. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well as a general principle that sounds fine, but do you have a source that she has ever called herself that? The closest source I have seen, the royal website does not call her that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find the arguments regarding the title odd, considering that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has been at that location for several years, and no consensus has found any reason that name is inaccurate. Also, due to the sheer volume of fuckwittery in discussions in the area, naming conventions of British royals is one of the few areas where there's a plausible argument for the Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Finally, unless Jimbo is interested in Jack Brooksbank, the situation is unlikely to recur in the next decade. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you made me laugh at least :) Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and Jane Seymour has been at Jane Seymour, for even longer, and Wallis Simpson has been at Wallis Simpson forever, and Grace Kelly has been at Grace Kelly forever, etc. etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bad move, obviously. Would have got any other admin into trouble. But nothing is likely to come of it and, frankly, if Jimbo is such a big fan of the royals that's his problem. Let it go I say. --regentspark (comment) 00:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Any other admin, and we'd be having a WAY different conversation right now. But, since it's Jimbo and we really can't do anything about it, it's a waste of time to pursue. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering comments by JzG (Guy), Johnuniq, and others, I suggest we act responsibly and close this thread, before it becomes a meaningless dramaboard. No offense to OP. Rehman 00:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. No earthly good will come of this thread, and there's no need to pillory Jimbo in multiple places at once. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something good and simple would be a page move ban. This is the only place other than arbcom where that could happen. Arbcom would be drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:IAR, WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:BOLD. Perhaps Jimbo still believed in those ideals, and we've greatly let him down. Perhaps it was just an ego-fueled power play. But given the overwhelming community consensus backing it, the move itself was a good one. And sanctioning someone for doing a good thing to an article, for nothing but procedural objections, is worse than an out-of-process move itself. By all means, express your anger on his talk page, take him down a notch, but let's not overdo it. The project isn't seriously going to benefit from slapping Jimbo with a ban. And, not that this card needs to be played, but he literally founded* the project. Give the guy a damn break. Swarm ♠ 00:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Why won't it benefit? It's happened before that he, specifically, not to mention other admins lost some power, the project goes on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The corruption in the talk page "rationale" is as obvious as the snout on a pig. Celebrity pages are the cesspool of WP and I guess some abuse of admin rights in the midst of that cesspool is not a big deal to folks. I am fairly disgusted by the boys club Jimbo ass-kissing here ~~and will not be commenting further.~~ Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (aw heck Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose Lets be realistic here, this thread isn't actually going to accomplish anything. The page was going to end up there any way this isn't a bureaucracy. The community most likely will never agree on sanctioning Jimbo. Lets all go back to being productive and return to our normal editing. While I commend Jytdog for their sense of fairness and moralistic views this honestly isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JzG, but I would like to express disappointment in Jimbo. That move, and especially that subsequent comment were dumb decisions. Furthermore, Support freshwater fish-based responses from the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sanction, this was nowhere near egregious enough to merit sanctions based on one bad call. But for reference, it was a bad call. "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean "ignore other editors", and while there's a decent chance this would have been the outcome anyway, letting the process take its course so everyone can be heard harms nothing and often prevents ruffled feathers, and the editors involved seemed to be fine with waiting for the discussion to run its course. But a topic ban is overkill, an aquatic-based kinetic remedy will do. (And for Guy in particular, the common name, not the correct name according to UK rules, is what would be used). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qppose. Seniority has...or at least should have...its privileges, and having fun doing funny things is one of them. Btw, the cowboy rode into town on Friday, stayed 3 days and left on Friday....how did he do that? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cowboy invoked WP:IAR. Whether it was a good move to eliminate three days from the calendar was impossible to predict in advance, and that could be resolved only through extended, heated, and time-consuming community discussion. In the end, nothing came of it because the cowboy was well-liked and respected overall. The next month, a different cowboy eliminated three days from the calendar under slightly different circumstances, and ended being hanged for it. It's a little like quantum theory. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, of course. The Pope of Wikipedia is infallible and we all need a final indisputable authority to settle intractable disputes. Perhaps Jimbo can also return Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or move the name of the Ukrainian capital from the Russian form "Kiev" to its native Ukrainian form "Kyiv". Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am back. "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I guess that really is the world we live in. I am not OK with that. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Godwin's law is in need of an update. It's now more like "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Trump approaches 1". Mr rnddude (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested deletion

Could an administrator delete all of these pages, which qualify for CSD G7? They cannot be tagged due to their content model. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035:

Done Mz7 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png has got a {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}, but I think this is a PD-texlogo. No problem with transfer to Commons. Or not? Regards. Ganímedes (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, because the logo is of a British company and British copyright law has a much lower treshold of copyright than the US. A textlogo that isn't copyrightable in the US may be copyrightable in the UK and thus ineligible for Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin dashboard count oddities

Template:Admin dashboard - As I'm looking at the count for CSD, it says 133. I manually counted 43 and found no others listed. Likewise, Open SPI investigations says 156 - I didn't manually count them, but 156 seems high even for SPI. Why it is over counting on CSD, and possibly on SPI? — Maile (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few G13's that were deleted earlier. Sometimes it takes a bit for the count to catch up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For CSD yeah it takes time to update, for SPI Category:Open_SPI_cases does have 156 members, though ~50 are awaiting archival and ~50 are CU complete; the code was subtracting a category that has been deleted since 2014 to calculate open cases; I made it now subtract those awaiting archival (though with the number so high does it matter..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A day later, we still have a greatly inflated count on the number of CSD. It's worse than yesterday. As I write this, we have 37 actual items at CSD, but the Dashboard count says it's 176. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#CSD_backlog? (better place to discuss this), something strange with pagesincategory for the csd category. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the high SPI count, as of this edit there are 4 cases only waiting for an administrator (this status means any administrator, not just an admin SPI clerk). That number is pleasantly low at the moment but is sometimes quite high. As a clerk I tend to avoid those cases because there are others that need attention from a clerk specifically, while any administrator can act on this set - the requests are typically from a non-admin clerk asking for an admin to review deleted edits or block an obvious sock, and they explain exactly what it is they need an admin to do. If someone interested would like to take a look at Category:SPI cases needing an Administrator from time to time (or watchlist it?) your efforts would be appreciated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator login broken?

Moved to WP:VPT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure) Resolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandford St Martin Trust has had a copyright notice on it since 2015. Looking at the history I think the material in question was blanked from the article at the time, but should the offending material be revdelled or whatever it is we do to this sort of thing? Sorry if this is the wrong place, haven't raised one of these for a while. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, shall I take the notice off it now? DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, thanks. I should have done that. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

AE sanction - moved from ANI

Since Malik has declined to post an appeal here (which of course does not preclude him from posting one in future) I am going to close this, with a comment on how broken our system of AE sanctions is. It really needs an overhaul, because at the moment it isn't fit for purpose. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure where to place this (since it wasn't posted at WP:AE), so I've gone to WP:ANI as the usual site.

User:Malik Shabazz (MS) has been topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months for this comment at an AfD discussion eight days previously.
In my opinion this is incredibly heavy-handed - a number of other admins saw this, and did not react. The banning admin, User:Sandstein, posted this message at MS's talkpage, which MS reverted with an edit-summary of "taking out the trash". Sandstein then imposed the 6 month topic ban partly based on MS's reversion of his comment (here). ~~I don't want to invoke WP:INVOLVED here, but ...~~Let's focus on the main issue. Comments? (and from uninvolved parties, not from the usual suspects, please). Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Black Kite, might be better to move this to AN, because from a procedural standpoint, MS could either appeal to AE or AN (and he would need to appeal or confirm that he wants this to be treated as his appeal.) As an uninvolved admin, I'd like to see what Sandstein's response is, but I wouldn't have TBAN'd for 6 months based on the comment you linked. That being said, I don't see it as INVOLVED. Sandstein was acting in an administrative capacity when he left the talk page message. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this have been filed by Malik? --Tarage (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an appeal, but an admin looking at it and thinking it's wrong. Obviously, had it been placed at WP:AE, that would be different - but it wasn't. As I said, I'm not necessarily invoking INVOLVED. I'm more concerned that the TBAN itself is excessive. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify (as I think I EC'd with the 8 days comment or didn't see it the first time), if MS were to appeal, I would support overturning the sanction, as I think it is too late in the game without there being a pattern of behavior being given as the reason. I still don't see it as involved just because there was a snarky edit summary: if you ask for an explanation and say you are going to sanction someone, and they respond by not giving an explanation, that doesn't make the admin involved. Doesn't make the sanction smart, but there is a distinction between an involved sanction and a bad one. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - to be honest, the possibility of INVOLVED isn't really the issue here, and I probably shouldn't have brought it up, so I've struck that bit so we can concentrate on the main issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC from ANI) Is there anything more that we are not seeing here? If not this looks to be incredibly disproportionate especially considering the general opinion about civility hearabouts. I would, without further background information, consider an admin showing up 8 days after an event to say they were "considering sanctions" and demanding the editor to justify why they should not to be unreasonably provocative. The response of "Taking out the trash" was not the best response but something similar, or much stronger, should have been expected. Jbh ^Talk 18:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's authoritarian and heavy-handed, but that's Sandstein. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What a stupid comment. Just because they are Sandstein, it does not allow them a blank cheque to act in a heavy-handed way. Cassianto^Talk 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misunderstand, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. My comment was intended to be critical of Sandstein's action - in my view, he is far too literal and heavy-handed a lot of the time, including in this instance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I suppose I have. Please accept my apologies, but the way in which you worded your first comment suggested to me that it was part and parcel of being Sandstein...almost akin to "sure, he smokes drugs and kills well-known Hollywood actresses, but hey...that's Charlie Manson." Cassianto^Talk 19:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ha, yes, I see what you mean - my comment was indeed ambiguous. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Sandstein made it clear he was considering some sort of sanction, he probably should not have issued it after Malik Shabazz posted "taking out the trash" in his edit summary. Would have to see more diffs to make a determination as to how this escalated if it did at all but issuing blocks and sanctions after being slighted can have dire results for an administrator such as.--MONGO 18:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed the issue with Sandstein at his talk page. I never received a clear response as to why MShabazz was singled out when other editors made similar comments, nor why it had to become an issue after eight days and many other editors seeing the comment. In my opinion, after Sandstein said Shabazz's refusal to comment "convinced" him, he was just looking for an excuse to hand an active content contributor a harsh punishment. Regardless, I'm sure this will conclude with the community saying Sandstein was within his rights as an admin and that nothing can be done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you and others commented on the post, Malik commented on the person and attacked. That is why he was sanctioned. Why Drmies didn't do anything is a question for him, not for Sandstein. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you - as I said above, it would be better for uninvolved editors to comment on this. Otherwise it will just descend into the usual Israel-Palestine shouting match. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am not surprised to see this here at all. I too was subject to heavy-handed action by Sandstein for the idiotically worded sanction imposed upon me by our resident kangaroo court. It's high time this administrator was held to account and now seems like a perfect time to do it. Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I am not asking for any action against Sandstein, only that this (IMO) very excessive sanction be subject to discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until the next time, that is. And then we find ourselves back here again. There's no point in fixing the tap when it's the sink that leaks. Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person who thinks that there isn't a few day/one day statute of limitations on comments? I don't know if the tban is disproportionate or not, but when considering a preventative longer-term (e.g 6 month) TBAN, whether a comment happened 8 days ago or 1 shouldn't really matter, should it? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Unless they are being used to demonstrate a long term pattern comments have been, in my observation, treated as stale after a couple of days. Certainly after a week. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it would be trivial to demonstrate a pattern on Maliks part due to his editing history - but his issue is one of civility and restraint, not neutrality. The problem with a topic ban however is any ban essentially takes out a large portion of the editing that keeps the unashamed Israeli POV pushing editors (two prime examples in that AFD) from their crusade of hatred and frankly propagandist article skewing in check. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he should be not sanctioned just because he is Pro-Palestinian editor?Its funny that WP:NPOV for some is one way street.--Shrike (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he should not be sanctioned because pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of Israeli pov-pushing editors, while not civil, completely illustrates the problems facing editors attempting to keep some sort of neutral view in the IP area. The end result of a topic ban will be an increase in same editors ability to turn Wikipedia into friends of Israelpedia unchallenged. The root problem is an old one, and short of topic banning everyone jewish/israeli/palestinian/etc from the area in totality due to an inherant conflict of interest, is not going to be fixed. The best we hope for is some sort of cancelling effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said it seems some editors care about only one type of POV and talk about POV pushers from other side while clearly they have POV of opposing side also some may argue that Wikipedia is Palestinianpedia right now and some want it to stay that way.--Shrike (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein ought to be desysopped for the stunts he's pulling or alteast deserves an Arbcom case!, It's one thing to do a job other admins don't want to do but it's another to be very heavy handed with everyone and everything .... The community as a whole seem to object to his heavy handedness so this should IMHO be looked at. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not exaggerate here. Rather than being "very heavy handed with everyone and everything", Sandstein is often the first one at AE recommending that no sanctions be given to an editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. One excessive sanction doesn't mean desysopping. My only reason for posting here is that Sandstein will reconsider this. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exaggeration, He may not be heavy handed with everything but I would certainly say he is with the majority of things ...., That's the point tho ... it isn't one .... so far it's been about 5 or 6, Had this been one case then sure I wouldn't care one iota but that's the point it's been more than once. –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, what was the point of this thread if we are simply asking for Sandstein to reconsider their heavy-handed action? They so "no", we say "oh", and then the request is over. Sandstein, and his Teflon covered cloak, then slink off into the shadows to pounce on their next, poor, unsuspecting victim, and this has been a whole lot of wasted time. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, due to the arcane way in which AE works, there's bugger all else we can do. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol, who'd have thought! Cassianto^Talk 20:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everybody. I'll be glad to discuss the reasons for my sanction in detail, but an appeal may only be made by the sanctioned editor themselves, see WP:AC/DS#Appeals by sanctioned editors. Because this discussion cannot therefore result in a change to the sanction, I think that it is better to wait until any such appeal is made before I discuss why I imposed this sanction.
Only with respect to the appearance of action while involved, I do not think that this applies here. "An administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role (...) is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area" (WP:INVOLVED). That is the case here. While I did take into account Malik Shabazz's removal of my request to comment, I did not even consider that removal as a possible "slight" against myself, but rather as an indication that the editor is unwilling to recognize or discuss problematic aspects of their editing and that sanctions therefore served a preventative purpose. Even if one were to see an attack against myself in such a removal, I suggest that it would be unhelpful to consider any admin who is in some way attacked by an user to be "involved" just because of that. That would incentivize users to pick fights with all admins active in AE in order to "inoculate" themselves against sanctions. Regrettably, admins are frequently personally attacked by users against whom they have taken (or are about to take) admin action, but I consider it part of the job to be able to shrug such things off. Sandstein 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that I applied a somewhat broad and long sanction because of Malik Shabazz's complete refusal to discuss their own conduct. Should they change their mind, decide to appeal (either to me or to a community forum) and indicate that they now understand that severe personal attacks are not acceptable in a WP:AC/DS topic area, I'd be more than ready to discuss lifting or modifying the sanction depending on what they have to say. But the ball is in their court. Sandstein 19:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, that is exactly the kind of arrogant rigid rule-following dismissal of the concerns of your fellow admins that I have come to expect from you. But I know we're all wasting our time trying to talk to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just take "rigid rule-following" as a compliment, then. Sandstein 19:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's probably the saddest comment I've seen here so far. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem just because Malik popular editor and some editors support his POV this was brought to AN usually the sanction that Sandstein levied are upheld in appeals and I agree with you that his sanction are harsh but the beauty of that there are uniformly harsh--Shrike (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only prior ARBPIA sanction I see logged for Malik Shabaz is a 4 day block by Sandstein for civility/PA back in January 2017. In reasonable progression the next thing should be a 2 week or, at most 30 day, block. That would only be sustainable if it had been enacted sometime nearer the time of the actual offense. Since no evidence of disruption of the topic as a result of or in association with the PA I do not see how a long topic ban can be sustained. Certainly it can not be without citing evidence of long term disruption and, considering the civility levels of the topic area, that Malik's behavior is significantly outside the norm.

A six month topic ban seems to me to be so disproportionate to the cited offense that it should be considered outside reasonable administrative discretion. I suggest the topic ban be modified to 30 days. Jbh ^Talk 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My entire point in bringing this here. 4 days -> 6 months? Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 3 possible routes from here - 1) MS goes to ARCA to get his sanctions changed, 2) MS goes to AE to get his sanctions lifted, or 3) Sandstein faces a review of his administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MS could confirm here that he wants this treated as his appeal. The committee has allowed this at ARCA (or suggested allowing it if someone wanted to.) I see no reason why we would require another forum if he wants this to count as an appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as Sandstein said earlier, he's OK with modifying the sanction if Malik speaks with him. The ball is in Malik's court. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Malik should answer simple question are he willing to strike his violation of WP:NPA policy?If yes I would support his appeal if he ever file one--Shrike (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to those who have expressed concern, but I would sooner jump off the Empire State Building than grovel before a "good German" like Sandstein, who strains out a gnat but swallows a camel. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I regret that you feel that way, but should you change your mind and be ready to discuss your conduct towards others, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Until then, I do think that it is better for both yourself and others if you stay out of the topic area in which you don't seem able or willing to restrain yourself from voicing your feelings. (By the way, to whoever it might concern, this is not a license to harass Malik Shabazz in any way while they are topic-banned. That banhammer has two ends, you know.) Sandstein 20:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racist remarks are generally not viewed favorably. Might want to remove that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, and you won't find anyone more opposed to Sandstein's actions around here than me, but what has his nationality got to do with this? Leave out the xenophobia, please, and concentrate more on the person. Please also see Godwin's law. Don't resort to such drivel, if you can. Cassianto^Talk 20:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I have abstained from commenting here, per Black Kite's request, on what has caused me much grief. But it is deeply morally and even analytically wrong to insinuate Sandstein is a "good German". He's Swiss, for fuck's sake. That German is one of his mother tongues has fuck all to do with who he is, whoever he is. To say that he speaks German ergo is silently complicit in the Holocaust is analogous to saying a native Hebrew speaker (Noam Chomsky) is complicit, ipso facto in the nakba. I'm sure you know this if you dwell for a minute in silence. You made a brilliantly illustrative quote from Deuteronomy that underlined precisely your sensitivity to shameful behavior (editorial double standards in our area). Don't let this unfortunate contretemps get the better of your sensitivity to shameful behaviour. Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I once read or heard a saying 'Swiss are Germans without the sense of humor.' A cousin of my wife is married to a Swiss man named Hubie. Hubie has a great sense of humor. His crack about our wives returning from a shopping trip was classic but I can't recall what it was he said. Me and dear wife (she recalls the saying too) spent 10 days in Switzerland in 1997....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Block

Not happening, Silly threads like this only escalate the matter 10x worse, Let Shabazz cool down!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

In light of the above comment and their response it sounds like a topic ban was a bit light and should add a block. PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It appears that Malik was sanctioned ~~by Malik~~, not for his post, but for refusing to speak with Sandstein. That looked, and still looks, like Contempt of cop, not an uninvolved administrative action. Kablammo (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The proposal is not related to the original topic ban. It is about their conduct in response to it in the above thread. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I suggest the proposer stop wasting the community's time with ridiculous proposals that no sane editor would support. Like you are doing with this proposal, Sandstein escalated the situation. That obviously does not excuse MShabazz but the t-ban was just an excuse to wave a big stick; Shabazz just needs to cool off on his own.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was posting when this was being closed but for the record should it ever matter, here was my post:

It rather appears that "Good German", here, was specifically meant to refer not to nationality but to turning a blind eye, that's explained by the follow-on explanatory new testament aphorism "straining at a gnat . . ." [22] ie. focusing on the (morally) wrong thing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closure Review of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox

Moot as there is an ongoing RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The RfC of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION as four editors were WP:CANVASSED into commenting by the requestor here.

In addition, invalid arguments were made in favour of the requestor that because requestor had done most of the work on this particular article the editors sided with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox. I believe this is also contrary to WP:OWN and a discussion isn't a WP:VOTE.

Based on the above, I believe the closure should be overturned. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you should wait a month, then (if you wish) open another Rfc. Not that I'd be looking forward to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanbircdq: So what? The RfC you're talking about was closed on 30 April. Another infobox RfC, which looks likely to end in consensus for an infobox in the article, is now in full swing, as you well know, since you yourself started it on May 1. An infobox in the article is what you want. So why are you here, and why now? Please recollect that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IMO you were pretty lucky not to be sanctioned for immediately starting a new RfC, and even more for putting the infobox back in the middle of it. User:Fish and Karate, who closed the RfC you're talking about, and myself, decided instead it would be less disruptive, and lead to less alarms and excursions, to let the new RfC run. Discussion here. In seven days it can be closed and consensus assessed. I expect everybody to then live with the new consensus and stop it with the incessant RfCs, or I will put the page under a similar sanction as the one I implemented at Stanley Kubrick.[23] Well, similar except that the Kubrick sanction was that people are not allowed to add an infobox to the article for the next four months, while a sanction for Nicholas Hoult would be more likely to read "you are not allowed to remove the infobox from the article for the next four months" — all in the interest of respecting consensus as well as stopping the infobox wars on these articles. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Re-pinging: it's Fish and karate. Grrr. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I "immediately" started another RfC because the correct the procedure and rules of consensus weren't followed as the requestor clearly canvassed other editors to game the system which skewed the discussion in their favour as you can see from this diff. The fact that all editors sided with Numerounovedant without any reference to any guidelines whereas the RfC is clearly going significantly differently says a lot.

I'm acting on the advice of another editor here (it's a shame an admin couldn't have given me this information in the first place).

Not my fault that main opposing editor changed his mind from conceding that the article can have an infobox which is why I readded the infobox here. All done in good faith. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the editors have no brains of their own? Or are they all quasi-socks? Well, all of them have been around for way than myself and have rarely (in my knowledge) discussed info-boxes. I invited then because they were all more than familiar with BLPs and nothing more. I am sorry but you have to stop with the canvassing allegations, it is turning into a yawnfest. Discredit it first. There are people at the new RfC who have fairly vague opposes, but you don't see people running around accusing them if siding with you as a part of larger conspiracy against anyone right? I'll give you that everything has been done in good faith except for your constant canvassing rants. VedantTalk 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Tanbircdq: I still don't see the point of coming here now, when only a week remains of the new RfC's runtime. You weren't exactly advised to do that, you know. The other user was talking about what to do in a similar situation "in the future". In this situation, the closure review train has already left the station, and will soon be arriving in the heavenly City of Consensus. Just wait a little, please. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

Page moved, auto archiving not updated

Can someone check and see if I got this fixed correctly. I was using OneClickArchiver on Talk:Alex Jones, but the page had been moved in January but the auto archiving settings were not updated, the page name was not changed. The script put the archives at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 13 and Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 14 which I moved the contents to Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 14 I think everything is OK but Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 14 will need to be deleted. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The moving admin is away til June. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a first time for everything. I'm actually not "away" until June, but I have limited availability. This is within my bandwidth, though. bd2412 T 20:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Sorry

- FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump

A number of right-wing POV pushing users are engaged in tendentious editing to maintain a whitewashed status quo version of the article that avoids coverage of numerous scandals, specifically the Mueller investigation, instead following a line that more or less reads: "it's a witch hunt, no collusion!". Yes this article is a BLP, yes this topic is covered elsewhere in greater depth, but the Russia scandal and the issues surrounding numerous members of Trump's campaign, are some of the most significant things about Donald Trump, covered massively in RS, and will only become more significant over time. I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. Others may simply be partisans. Sure there are issues with trolls and socks, but some are wikilawyering. Some, I assume, are good faith editors. At this point I have spent some time engaging in the discussion, and I am ready to disengage and file some RFCs and probably an ArbCom case. As a first step, here I am. Also, in before someone says that I'm the one engaging in POV pushing: the vast majority of RS have covered Trump in great depth including his scandals. I may have given up my impartiality to engage on the page over the last few days, but I submit I was doing so in the interest of ultimately making progress in the dispute. I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump and I don't intend to act as an admin on that page, just an interested editor. Andrevan@ 03:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [24] Andrevan@ 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-content comment: I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents. POV pusher? nah mate, you're a conspiracy theorist. Just ... and you said it all serious. Alright, line up here if you're a Russian spy. Vlad will take down your names. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just upset Putin hasn't paid me this month and my rent is due soon!--MONGO 03:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought today was May 24th, not April 1st. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC):[reply]

Kind of wish I was a Russian spy, I hear the pay is not to bad. But in all seriousness, I have been mentioned in this as well. You can take a look at my talk page for some discussion on this. It sounds like a take a break and reassess yourself type situation. PackMecEng (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One has to love it when he opens a question out of the blue on your talkpage with a harassing comment:[25] "Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I am guessing you are a right wing American politics editor and supporter of blocked user who I warned about the username policy just now." This was right after he harassed a blocked editor about their long established username which gets zero traction from other commentators [26] and above he calls out others as POV pushers when he just got through posting he plans on violating WP:SYNTH by stating: [27] "What I'd like to ultimately add to the lede is the idea that Donald Trump is the most scandal-ridden president in recent history." There are a few more issues of POV pushing to be sure like his refusal to budge on his DS violation of a challenged edit.--MONGO 03:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple fact that there have been more Trump scandals in the last year than there were for 8 years under Obama. Yet our article is whitewashed and held hostage by tendentious partisans such as yourself and PackMecEng and others. I edited the article for a couple days and I'm more or less done finding out what I wanted to find out, so feel free to make this about me if you like, but that's not a very productive use of time. Andrevan@ 04:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret paid editing rings are a reality, see: Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia, [28]. We also know Russians were paying social media users on Reddit, Facebook, and other places[29][30] Andrevan@ 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is a thing, but to make those types of serious accusations requires serious proof. PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be interested to see this proof. Whatever it is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Wikidata Infoboxes RfC closure request

Next cryptocurrency topicban

Leftover goaste vandalism

dash not hyphen

Backlog

Philip Cross

Unexplained removal of content

BLP

KalHolmann

Off-wiki mentions

An outsider's perspective

Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway BLP

Propose topic ban

Move ban for Jimbo

Requested deletion

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png

Admin dashboard count oddities

Phabricator login broken?

Copyright issue outstanding since 2015

AE sanction - moved from ANI

Proposal: Block

Closure Review of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox

Page moved, auto archiving not updated