Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	31	0	31
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	6	0	6
RfD	0	0	64	0	64
AfD	0	0	11	0	11

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 130 sockpuppet investigations
• 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 21 requests for RD1 redaction
• 134 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 29 requested closures
• 111 requests for unblock
• 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 22 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (18 out of 7636 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Thomas Kaplan 2024-04-30 20:37 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Moneytrees Nothing 2024-04-30 18:18 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: Something: upgrade to WP:ECP due to disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C 2024 Israeli protests 2024-04-30 18:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case École Des Navigateurs 2024-04-30 03:14 2024-05-07 03:14 create Repeatedly recreated Liz L'histoire juridique des paris sportifs au Canada 2024-04-30 02:50 2024-05-07 02:50 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Island Rail Corridor 2024-04-30 02:47 2024-07-30 02:47 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Lil' Cory 2024-04-30 02:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz

Appropriate responses to FRAMBAN

Let’s have a meta vote to see which of the following would be useful responses:

1. We all take a holiday and redirect any issues to ArbCom and T&S.
2. We all add naughty words to our signatures.
3. We community ban one random ArbCom member.
4. We all request to vanish.
5. We remain calm and wait for WMF to address our concerns. After all, they can’t write this encyclopedia without us. We are the ultimate power.

Thanks. Vote below. Jehochman ^Talk 02:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• 6. Wait until Doc James, Jimbo Wales and ArbCom report back to us, and make a community decision at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• 5. We're here for the readers. Internal governance matters, but the service we provide to the world is more important. I also support Cullen's suggestion, but at the end of the day, my service here, while mainly behind the scenes at this time is a part of the greater reason we're here: I volunteer my time dealing primarily with privacy issues and abuse. That enables editors who shouldn't have to face harassment, vandals, and LTAs to contribute better and in some cases to feel safer in real life. While there are plenty in the community who may not like me, I think one thing the FRAMBAN thing has shown is that the community wants and needs people who are actively engaged in it to have a role in privacy and harassment issues.
  This is why I will continue to serve as an editor, a sysop, and a functionary: I think my service helps the people who write the content that our readers read. I'm sure everyone commenting here can find their own reason to stay, because ultimately, whatever happens at the WMF, we created the product and the product is bigger than either the foundation or us. It is truly a gift to the world, and I don't think we should harm that because of an issue of internal governance. Questions should be raised and answered, and the WMF has not done a great job in responding to this, but that does not impact our product, which is ultimately the output of our editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I was reading up on that, and wow, that seems a pretty over-the-top response. And there is no appeal or word as to why from on high. How, very disappointing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. If/when the project dies, the text, under a reusable license, will also not be lost. While it's alive, it's worth keeping up. —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Two thoughts. 1, I learned a long time ago in a RL work situation that I might be irreplacable, but I wasn't indispensible (when I quit they couldn't find anyone willing to do what I did, so they eliminated the position). In other words, Wikipedia would survive without me if I left. 2, If you do not enjoy what you are doing, find something else to do. - Donald Albury 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Edited 09:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that a petition signed by lots of admins would have some impact. As I've suggested elsewhere, I'd suggest that the focus be on complaining about the WMF roaming into Arbcom's turf and not providing any advice on why it didn't trust it or the admins to fix the issue, or what we can do to fix the issues which generated this lack of trust. As for direct action, no I'm not going to either disrupt Wikipedia or allow vandals to disrupt it because the WMF messed up the procedure here. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support #6, although I must say, I'm getting antsy.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• With every day that passes, I'm more convinced that the WMF is just waiting for us to dry up and blow away. I haven't made an administrative action since the shit hit the fan, FWIW, and my enthusiasm for this place is lower than it's ever been. Miniapolis 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Sphilbrick at this time. The WMF Board should not, however, get the idea that the community is going to hold off on taking action forever. Their time is getting short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• We each have to follow our conscience. I handed in my bit because I answer to the community and served at their pleasure. I'm not willing to simply be a free janitor under the control of the WMF. What happens next will depend on whether the current lull is only a stalling tactic, or if the WMF finally understands that we are supposed to be a partnership. But each person has to do what they feel is right for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think the circle on this issue needs to widen; it started with an WMF action against an administrator, yes - but the response to that cannot remain with the administrators. This affects all of us from admins on down to the occasional contributor. If WMF can arbitrarily (and without recourse or protocol for a proper, transparent handling), they can do it to anyone. Not to get all Niemöller-y, but there is no way that this cannot be seen as a slippery slope into something like Wikipedia byut is not-Wikipedia.
  

I don't know Fram and have never interacted with him. I don't know what he is accused of. But this is Wikipedia, and transparency is our currency of note. This grievance needs a public airing, or the image of Wikipedia as a self-analyzing source of information dies - and I do not believe I am being over-dramatic in saying so.

So, stop surrendering the mops and go to work letting everyone know about this. Write an article about the controversy (like was done about Essjay). Link it through DAB pages so that folk don't think Fram was just the name of a Norwegian boat. Add the Fram story to the list of Wikipedia Controversies.

Transparency is the best disinfectant against back room decisions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know any independent reliable sources reporting on FRAMBAN? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

<delurk>This is all i could find so far. It's a start, I suppose.<lurk> Baffle☿gab 21:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the wind....community seems to matter less and less. Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why I handed mine in. It isn't about Fram, it's about the condescending way the WMF is acting towards the community, and this has been a growing thing for several years. My user page says more. And now WJBscribe has handed in his admin bit, crat bit, and retired over this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • After a sidewards look at BN...we're not the only ones leaving/handing in our bits...Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would never criticize any admin choosing to resign if they feel they can no longer make a contribution here or if they just no longer want to. But the project will continue, in some shape or form. Articles are still being edited, self-promotional pages are being tagged and deleted, noticeboard conversations go on, life continues.

One editor said that 421 editors & admins had commented on the FRAM page. That means that hundreds, thousands (tens of thousands?) of editors are either unaware, indifferent or are choosing not becoming involved and are instead focusing on the work. Different choices. I feel like the issues, involving the relationships between the admins/bureaucrats, English Wikipedia, ArbCom and WMF are seriously important for our future as a project. But please keep in mind that while the voices protesting WMF's actions are some of the most senior, experienced and trusted editors, they are a minority of the active editors. Most editors are still focused on the work, not the politics. I consider all of them, "our community", those who care about WMF and those who couldn't care less. We serve all of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate, that is why the larger community needs to learn about this. No one is suggesting that WMF be taken out behind the barn for a whipping; we need them almost as much as they need us. But they need to learn their place. We are the reason they have jobs, not the other way around.

Either we get some fuller explanation behind Fram's banning, or shit gets worse. When admins - the folk who support good editor and shoe the bad ones the door - start quitting because WMF is imperiously banning senior editors - there is a problem. And it won't get better.

As for the idea that "the Project will continue, in some shape or form", I imagine the good folk at Friendster and MySpace felt pretty much the same way. Until it was too late.

Maybe the Arbs and assembled admins need to write up a notice to WMF stating that this lack of transparency is unacceptable. They are just waiting for us to get bored and accept it because, you know, it only happened to one guy. It will only embolden them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a list somewhere of admins who have resigned and those considering resignation over FRAMGATE? I have only recently become aware of this situation but everything I have read thus far is shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More generally, I've found Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2019 (and the other years) perennially depressing pages to keep on my watchlist. —Cryptic 19:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin input solicited - Indian Society of Cinematographers

Hi fellow admins, here's my issue:

A variety of IPs (who are probably sockpuppets of now blocked user Roastedcocoa) keep spamming Indian cinematographer[1] and Indian film articles[2] with postnomial "ISC" every time a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers is mentioned. This has been going on for several months. In biographical articles they add it after the subject's name in the infobox, in the lead, and they also continuously misuse |title=. I say misuse, because we have an |organization= parameter, and ISC (being an organization) is not an honorific or a degree, so "title" is wrong. I've asked about this at WikiProject Film and while not many people commented, the general feeling is that the postnomials probably don't belong in the |title= of the infobox and they shouldn't be used at individual film articles. In some cases I've left them after the person's name in the lead of a biography.

However, there is a serious marketing campaign going on. Here is an example of Roastedcocoa insanely adding 10 of these in a general article about Indian cinematographers. (Note that all the links are circular, too.) There was even an effort to hijack the general Indian cinematographers article. In 2017 it was a basic article with some mention of the ISC. In these edits an IP changed the entire focus of that article to the Indian Society of Cinematographers.

Some (but not all) IPs involved:

• 49.207.63.117
• 106.51.107.188
• 106.51.109.159
• 106.51.109.35

Tl;dr, at what point would it be fair game to add "Indian Society of Cinematographers" to our keyword blacklist? Also I'm open to other options, but that seems like it could be the most impactful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider posting at WT:WPSPAM to get some advice, and find out if this justifies adding a blacklist entry. If you are hoping to get admin feedback on your actions so far, they look justified to me. I have semiprotected Indian Society of Cinematographers for 3 months due to spam. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@MER-C: Hi there, since you have loads of experience in anti-spam, what do you think should be done in this situation? There conceivably could be a legitimate reason for people to add this information to articles, but so far the only people doing this seem to have marketing/promotional intentions. A keyword blacklist entry might actually get one of these people to engage in discussion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The only option is the Wikipedia:Edit filter to prevent the addition of "\bindian\bsociety\bof\bcinematographers" by non-autoconfirmed editors. Trying to stop the addition of "\bisc\b" has too many false positives. MER-C 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@MER-C: Would you, (or anybody else) be willing to help me with this? I don't know anything about setting up edit filters. As for the ISC addition, it typically appears as to either [[Indian Society of Cinematographers|ISC]] or [[Indian Society of Cinematographers|I.S.C.]] or [[Indian cinematographers|ISC]] if that helps in any way. The first two would be covered by your regex, but the latter one would seem to be the sneaky workaround that they might try to use. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

• Discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
• Close: [3]
• Closer: Cinderella157
• Discussion of the close: WP:Village pump (policy)#Post closure discussion
• Closer notified of this review: [4]

I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.

Grounds for overturn:

• A closer's job is to assess community consensus and apply policies and guidelines. The closer acknowledges that they did not even attempt to do so in their closing statement and in the post closure discussion. The simply disregarded WP:Canvassing, and they blindly assessed consensus of the canvassed participants in front of them. I believe a reasonable closer could have accounted for the canvassing. If a closer finds that canvassing has irredeemably corrupted the process, they can void the discussion. They can direct that the RFC restart from scratch. It is within reasonable discretion for a closer to be unable to resolve a case of gross canvassing, however it is not within discretion to willfully ignore gross canvassing.
• I fully agree that a closer can disregard votecount and close on the basis of policy, or close on the basis of weight of argument. I have personally closed a 20 vs 10 RFC in favor of the 10. However a policy based close needs to cite a solid policy basis, and a "weight of argument" close needs to cite a solid and respectable explanation. One of my main goals when closing is to ensure that the "losing side" receives a rationale which they can (unhappily) respect. We do not have that here. The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for "The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences". Huh? I don't recall ever seeing such a strange or hollow basis for closure. I am also puzzled how that has clear overriding weight against concerns of disruption-of-work.
• (edit: This is a supporting/explanatory factor, not a fundamental basis for overturn:) The closer has an unusually strong personal minority-bias on the language issue. A causal inspection of their usertalk reveals an exceptional personal inclination towards 's' over 'z'. In fact Google reports that "winterised" (with an s) is a borderline-fringe usage by 6.8% of the world. This evident personal bias, combined with a disregard for the blatant canvassing issue, combined with the fluffy-puffy "embrace our differences" rationale, creates an overriding impression of a Supervote.

I'm fine with however this ends up. But this close erodes confidence in our system of closures. Can we please get something respectable? A respectable outcome if possible, or a costly repeat-RFC if necessary. Alsee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary information: This is the state of the RFC at the time of canvassing. It had been closed as The proposal has gained consensus to pass. The RFC was reopened and hit with a surge of opposes after the canvassing. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the merits of the debate itself (fwiw, I supported standardisation) but I am really uncomfortable with the last objection here. When the question is a binary "do A or do B", everyone is going to look like a partisan if you approach it with this mindset. If you're going to challenge the closer for their use of a language variant, when they've expressed no opinion on the matter, who would be allowed to close the next one? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Gray I wouldn't have looked at their personal inclination, if not for the first two points. The first two points establish the problem with the close. I said that the third point combined with the first two create an overriding impression of a supervote. I consider it a supportive/explanatory factor. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather strange closing statement but from a brief look I'm not seeing a consensus for much in that discussion. The discussion did establish that the relevant policies/guidelines can be read as supporting either option, and that opinion on the subject is pretty divided. That largely takes care of the main reasons for closing either way. Given that all English speakers use one of the two variants exclusively, every single possible closer would have the "bias" that's being claimed here. Hut 8.5 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The close needs to be re-done--it was an atrocious, wandering, closing statement that didn't actually summarize the discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have rarely seen a clearer case of no consensus than that discussion. Opinions are hopelessly split, everyone is talking across each other, no solid arguments made to persuade anyone. Seems like a solid close to me,and one that needed to be made because it looks like the whole thing was a huge time drain. Wikipedia's ENGVAR split is always going to be a somewhat tricky issue, but by and large we get through it without dispute. Suggest people drop the stick and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
    (For those who missed my point, my reference to 3-to-1 support is before the RFC was re-opened and one disruptive individual selectively canvassed 11 wikiprojects to manufacture a surge of opposes.) Alsee (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're going to make accusations of disruption, at least have the decency to notify me. As for the accusation of "selective canvassing", this was a proposal to mandate that an English word had to be spelt in a way different to that used in several countries or regions. Therefore it seems eminently reasonable that editors from those countries or regions should be alerted to a discussion that would specifically affect them with a neutral notification (there was little or no point in posting it to American/Canadian etc WikiProjects as the proposal would not affect their categories. I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change. Number 57 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded in part to Alsee (the OP of this thread) in the post-close discussion here.

• I have not "ignored" the matter of VOTESTACKING.
• I have found "no consensus" (as distinct from "consensus against"). I am happy to amend if this needs to be made clearer. It is similar to the outcome of directing that the RfC start from scratch - an outcome acceptable to Alsee? If this represents the substantive reason for contesting the close, then I suggest there is "no reason".
• The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences ≠ The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for ... - particularly in the context of a "no consensus" close. WP:5P5 identifies "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I am not invoking WP:IAR. The principle of ENGVAR etc is to "embrace our differences", rather than argue about them when they are if little consequence (to understanding). COMMONALITY applies where understanding may be compromised. The former is therefore more compelling, since this here, is not a matter of "understanding". This is a matter of identifying the underpinning principles of policy and guidelines (as I believe the OP has implored me to do) since the guidelines cited do not specifically address the issue. However, in the circumstances, this was an observation of the discussion and not a finding of "consensus".
• If I was brief in my close, and subsequently unclear, I apologise to the extent that the close template is a restriction. I believe it is reasonable to seek clarification of a close. I have responded to clarify. However, it is not appropriate to assume "bad faith", to misrepresent matters or to be uncivil in the process (see post close comments).
• I think that Amakuru's comments are particularly pertinent.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend starting the RFC from scratch, at least not now. No consensus is a valid close of any discussion, and it means that at this time there is no agreement, and often a fair bit of dispute too. The result of such a discussion is to retain the status quo, whatever that is, and move on. Restarting is likely to just see the same participants come back and make the same points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the views of the proposer @BrownHairedGirl: would be of interest. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was exceptionally poor and fluffy, and gives no appearance of even attempting to actually weight the discsussion in light of the votestacking.

It is utterly disgraceful that Number 57 continues to deny that they engaged in votestacking. After numerous expalanations by numerous editors at several venues, Number 57 still has the gall to say I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change.

It's very simple:

1. Number 57 engaged in blatant votestacking by notifying only sets of editors who he considered most likely to agree with his view. Categories relating to neatly all countries may be renamed by this proposal, and editors from all countries may have views on this, but Number 57 chose to notify only those who he believed would support his view.
2. This was done stealthily, without any notification to the RFC that the notifications have been made.

Number 57 has been admin for nearly 12 years, and a prolific contributor (over 190K edits). He has participated in enough discussions over the years to know exactly what he was doing here, so the despicable manipulativeness of his conduct has no defence of ignorance or error. Any remaining shred of good faith I might assume in N57's conduct has been destroyed by his vile attempt to claim that objections are a case of sour grapes. This doubling-down on his highly disruptive misconduct makes Number 57 completely fit to be an editor, let alone an admin. If I have the time and energy to pursue the case for a desysopping of Number 57, I will do so ... and i will do it with great sadness, because I previously had high regard for Number 57's work.

The whole process of consensus-formation breaks if an editor (and esp a highly-experienced admin) betrays the community's trust in this way. Regardless of whether the community proceeds to give Number 57 a well-deserved desysopping and/or CBAN, the result of that duplicity should not stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question

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

---

I'm curious as to whether my fellow admins are aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout states "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so" . I can think of instances where this very much is not the case and could impede block reviews, SPI cases etc. I only noticed when I saw edits such as this. Am I out of the loop on standard protocol?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless the editor has also lost talk page access, they would be fully entitled to remove all content. Including the block notice for that matter. Only declined unblock requests of the current block couldn't be removed. Per WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. So IMO it would be a mistake for admins to assume such material has not been cleared out. Of course the fact they could be cleared out doesn't mean admins need to do so although I think it can be common especially when it's not expected the editor will ever be back. E.g. non master sock accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. As long as talk page access is available the blocked editor is free to blank the majority of the content on the page themselves, but I don't understand why others should do so on their behalf.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've fixed the project page. I removed the subsection. It's absurd advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure how it even ended up there in the first place as it doesn't align with the blocking policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: It was added by Bellerophon (here) in 2011. It is an excellent thing that it has been removed, as such gravedancing is much favoured by wannabe admins and wikicops. ——SerialNumber54129 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School

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

---

I'd apprentice it if someone versed in copyright issues would take a look at the above article with an eye to removing the huge template in the history section. This school is in the midst of a controversy right now and it would be nice to have that template gone. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears Archer1234 took care of it. All that's left is to reconstruct something that isn't a copyvio out of it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of copy removed. Please make sure a {{revdel}} request is placed. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Potential COI and Sock Puppet

Hello,

I have two users who work for the same company and edit in very similar ways. You can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto their actions. Pambelle12 has had a huge history with deletions and seems to know quite a bit about the person who is being Nominated for deletion. Benebiankie Works for the same company as Pambelle and edited in a similar style. Note how they both used a bullet point with out a "Keep" or "Delete" comment. They made the same mistake. It seems suspicious and there is no COI tag either. Could someone please assist me in investigating?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it proper for an admin to censor a page of an unblocked user?

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

---

User:Bbb23 has reverted my talk page messages at the talk page of User:Cirt twice now, in his last edit summary saying this is an administrative action, the user is a sockmaster who hasn't (and can't) edited in over 3 years, leave the talk page alone. Looking at the edit history of that page I see he has been removing similar messages of other users under a similar rationale. This seems problematic to me on two levels:

• first, and of less importance: there is no indication that User:Cirt has been blocked (ever). If he was a sock or a sockmaster, isn't it customary to block them indefinitely in either case, regardless of whether they retired or not? There is no indication on Cirt's user or talk page he has been declared a sock(master) by the community, ArbCom or such. Without a proof of his wrongdoing, calling him a sockmaster seems like a WP:NPA. I did find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive, but the only person who confirmed that Cirt was a sockmaster is... Bbb23. I do not find it comforting that a single user, without community discussion or even so much as a second opinion by another admin, gets to decide by themselves whether someone is a sock(master) or not. (But, to keep it short, and per WP:AGF, I am not challenging Bbb23's call here, particularly since Cirt is inactive, so - who cares, eh; I am not posting here to defend his good name, or such; in fact I have no particualr reason to doubt's Bbb23's judgement here since he clearly has more experience with SPI cases that I do).
• second, here is the main reason I am posting here. Regardless of whether an editor is blocked, or is a sockmaster, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines justifying removal of other editors messages to their talkpages; on the contrary, the guidelines are clear: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Wikietiquette dictates that only the owner can remove messages from their talkpage, unless they are uncontroversial vandalism type of an edits. What policy gives Bbb23 the right to apoint himself a custodian of Cirt's talk page and decide what posts stay there and what posts do not? Particularly after I asked him not to remove my comment?

I think I and any other editors who wishes to do so should have the right to leave whatever messages they want at Cirt's talk page with no interference from others. I find in it very worrying when an admin gives himself extra rights that violate a guideline (TPG) and threatens others with their position ("this is an administrative action"). Sorry, to me this not administrative action, but administrative power abuse. I have full rights to leave comments at Cirt's pages, regardless of what his standing in the community in general, and Bbb23's views of him in particular, are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• What the fuck? How is this a valid administrative action? It's not even explained?!? No one has the right to force-delete talk page comments outside of the purview of WP:TPO. Of course, this notion is flexible, such as if there's a good reason for a talk page to remain unedited without exception, but if that's the case, how are you just gonna revert a good faith editor with an edit summary of "no" without explaining what the hell you're doing?! Seriously?? By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise. You can't just decide that no one is allowed to post on their talk page, without any policy rationale, or any rationale. That goes beyond every basic conduct standard we have. If Cirt is to be treated like a blocked LTA sock master who's not even allowed to receive messages, then at least block and tag. Don't just revert posters with no explanation. I literally have nothing against you, Bbb23, in fact, I respect what you do, but you seemingly never stop making these completely unreasonable and borderline-abusive actions that give me cause to speak out against. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise" et al, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cirt. ‑ Iridescent 2 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So why not just block him and end all this drama? What are we all missing? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Regarding the possible block of Cirt, it would be good to get a community's consensus before blocking and editor who can be described, to quote Swarm, "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing". If there is community consensus that the linked SPI and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cirt with its shocking contents of a single sock is sufficient for a block, so be it, but I think more than one admin should endorse such an action when dealing with an established editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Two socks of this editor have actually been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The account was not tagged, there was no notice or indication to an ordinary user that Cirt was de facto blocked or banned, and certainly no indication that they should not be left messages. If there was a good reason for such an unusual talk page moratorium, then the page should be protected, or at least a reasonable explanation should be made when removing comments. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of direct reply by Bbb23 either here on on his talk page outside reposting a SPI link that I've already posted, and other comments here, with none disputing my right to do so or citing any policy allowing an admin to arbitrarily censor another editor's talk page, I am planning on restoring my comment on Cirt's talk page since I believe this is my right within WP:TPG. If there is any policy that I should be aware of that indeed allows an admin to remove my talk page posts to another editor as 'administrative action', please do tell me this ASAP. TIA.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to see a good reason to be posting the talk page of this account to invite them to participate in an article with controversial political aspects. Given that they were caught using a sockpuppet to evade their topic ban on political biographies last October and December, no good is likely to come from this and it looks like an invitation for them to sock some more. I'm also surprised that Cirt hasn't been blocked as a procedural matter: using two sockpuppet accounts to try to evade a topic ban is clearly not on. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 has said he would block the Cirt account if it ever returned to editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Bbb23, on the grounds that neither Cirt nor Piotrus are blocked, and I cannot find a policy that says posting on talk pages of retired editors in good standing is a sanctionable offence. (See User:Ritchie333/Don't template the retirees, but that is simply good advice not policy). In turn, Bbb23 should read WP:OWN and WP:TPG and particular WP:3RR. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cirt isn’t in good standing, he socked to evade a topic ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If he wasn't in good standing, he would be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, he will be blocked by Bbb23 if he returns to editing [5]. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not the same thing. GiantSnowman 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

To avoid future confusion, I’ve blocked Cirt. For more background on this, see this discussion about blocking stale accounts. Sometimes stale masters aren’t blocked since it doesn’t really matter much, but I think in this case it makes sense given that it’s a former longstanding editor. Letting Bbb23 know, and he can reverse me if he thinks it’s inappropriate as he handled much of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts - Piotrus should not have posted, but Bbb23 should not have reverted, and Cirt should be blocked for socking. GiantSnowman 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I partially agree - Piotrus was within his (?) rights to post, especially given what he knew. However you are right on the other two aspects Nosebagbear (talk)

• I would say that an editor who has broken the rules to a point that they warrant an indef shouldn't be told they'd be blocked if they returned - just blocked. If only to avoid individuals slipping through the net in the future (which could happen if, say, Bbb23 ever left). This at least should be the case in the case of a remotely established editor. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Page history shows that Bbb23 has been routinely removing comments and xfd notifications from Cirt's talk page for several months. It's standard practice to notify editors when their creations are up for deletion, and in my experience it can be helpful to see past xfd nominations in case there's some sort of pattern. These removals are totally uncalled for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say BBB's removals were improper. Generally, removal of talk page comments that aren't your own shouldn't be done. pbp 13:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: I have reblocked Cirt as, if I had done it a long time ago, as was recommended by several editors, it would have been - and now is - a CU block. I've also, as is normal, tagged the userpage. I've left in Ritchie333's misguided revert because I don't intend to edit-war over something this lame. If editors want to invite a confirmed sock to edit, what can I say?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not "misguided", it's per consensus on this thread per at least two administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objections to Cirt's block if there is a consensus here. But it is worth clarifying that there is also a clear objection to Bbb23's removal of the posts - something that they still have not addressed. I would like to hear from them, at least, that they won't do it again (because expecting an apology for improper removal of my posts would be going to far, I know well Wikipedia isn't a community that supports the concept of apologizing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: We are still waiting for you to comment on your talk page reverts. Do you understand that you should not have reverted me and others on that talk page, and can you promise you'll not do so again, particularly under a baseless claim (threat) of "administrative action"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no reply despite a ping; I've left a direct message on Bbb23's talk page asking him to reply to this issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Whether Cirt socked is irrelevant. You can't delete good faith messages without explanation, blocked or not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as explanations go, don't be an idiot could probably be improved upon, particularly when again reverting another editor on a third-party's talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 08:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Abusive behavior and controversial edits by an IP

93.73.36.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received numerous warnings on his [talk page], yet he never ceased his dubious activity, and made many controversial and speculative edits that were later reverted. Examples: [edit #1], [revert]; [edit #2], [revert]. Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't notified him about your ANI report. I've done it for you. I think this is a case of the user not having a neutral point of view. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting input I am trying to do the right thing and not get banned or start any wars . I am just trying to learn form all the good and bad that happen so I do better

I had a disagreement with a user but it was resolved on there talk page but they started to change the wording on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history. And the reason why I undid was because the page was built extensively with multiple users to come to an agreement with the material that is on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2

So I said take it to the talk page to gain consensus and the Final things they said was, (you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity My edit stands. Take it to the talk page.) (Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now)

I did Object to it by asking them to take it to the talk page to gain Consensus that does not seem to me like its part of the rules if nobody says anything you can make your edits that were asked to gain consensus with?

I have made edits that were asked to gain Consensus with and I did try to edit without the consensus that was requested and they were reverted.

Like I said I am not trying to start any wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and I have made a lot of Mistakes on Wikipedia I am trying to learn from that is why I keep them in my archival.

That is why I am asking for input on thisJack90s15 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now." @Ramos1990: ayfkm? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Someguy1221, I think this was meant for ANI. But I have my evidences lined up already for that in case I need to report this editor. Possibly will result in some sort of sanction - has been blocked 3 times in the past 9 months for disruptive behaviors and edit warring [6].

In short, User:Jack90s15 reverted me once and I took it to the talk page to prevent any edit warring on June 26, 2019. I explained my edit there and waited 3 days for him or anyone to respond to my neutral wording edit. He did not object or respond at all in those 3 days. So following WP:BRD "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." - I re-added my neutral wording on June 29, 2019 since no objections were there.

Then all of a sudden after 3 days of silence in the talk page discussion (June 29, 2019), he begins to edit war with me again after I followed wikipedia protocol. It is obvious that he was active in those 3 days by looking at his contribution history. So now it is his loss. I gave him ample time to object, but now it is too late. My edit now stands. If he objects to my wording he can continue to discuss, but now he has to convince me of his particular edit. This editor has engaged in disruptive editing before so this is not surprising.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I want you to take a look at Wikipedia:Edit warring, and see ... the list of exceptions to the policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Redacted something I should not have said. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - I understand your response here directing Ramos1990 to WP:EW; I just feel that it wasn't necessary to word it in the tone and manner that you did. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 My first 2 Blocks were me not knowing anything about Wikipedia on how it worked.and the 3 one was Reverting a Sock puppet I found out they were after being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:6ullga So I am not here to disruptive edit.

Now I came up with a Solution to the problem I trimmed the opening for it to not favor one estimate like what was said on the talk page. this way its showing how prior to 1991 all the Estimates were 20 million and higher that were made by reputational historians. and it also shows now what the death toll is with the archival date. and it still shows the reader what reputable historians say about the death toll in its own section which shows how some say it higher and lower.Jack90s15 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15 the purpose of a talk page is to discuss and sort out differences to prevent edit warring. If you did not engage in it in a reasonable amount of time then others can certainly proceed in making a contribution. The fact that you did not raise any concerns on the talk page for 3 days and then you started to edit war again before discussing on the talk page, means that you were not being serious about solving an issue. I don't agree with your attempt at innocence since you have more than 6,000 edits in the past 9 months. I am pretty sure you would have encountered similar issues before with that much on wikipedia. Use the talk page correctly or let other make their contributions. When you revert someone you have to discuss the issue not just revert over and over without discussing your thoughts.

Furthermore, why are you still editing the article [7] when we have not resolved the issue in the talk page?!

User:Someguy1221, I don't get your comment. Look at how User:Jack90s15 operates, he does not discuss things and he just makes major edits [8] while there is a dispute in the talk page over it now [9] that he finally wrote something. He should resolve the issue on talk first not impose his edits. I see WP:OWN issues here.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did engage the right way like if it did come not off that way my bad. that is why I trimmed it to resolve the Issue with the opening I am not try to act innocent I acknowledged I have messed up on the wiki.

User:Oshwah Explained to me that,

Collapsing quote. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(If this user is stating that their edit reached consensus because you did not respond to the discussion they started on the article's talk page, just go to the talk page, respond to that discussion, and raise your objections. Then, go back and respond to the user's message and make the user aware that you've responded to the discussion and that the resolution to this issue should continue on the relevant talk page. Any user who is civil, understanding, and knows how consensus works here will gladly continue that discussion and work with you to come to an agreement,)

I was discussing my thoughts in the Edit summary that is why I trimmed it so the opening Explains the difference between the pre-1991 estimates and the estimates with archival data this way the opening is NPOV. and my large edits are from patrolling the recent changes and I am not WP:OWN other people have undone my edits on there and I let them and I do discuss on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&diff=899514906&oldid=899437161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1#Updating_the_historians_number_and_for_Simon_sebag_adding_contacts_to_it Jack90s15 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not where you discuss things! Those are edit summaries after all. The talk page is where you have to go an sort out the differences in detail. 1) Some times there are other editors in the talk page, so you can reach a consensus with others - sometimes there are no consensus with other editors by the way. 2) Sometimes no editors comment at all in the talk page - in which case you can proceed with your edit that was reverted since no one contested it further. WP:BRD states 'Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article. Read that guidline

Wikipedia is not an infinite waiting game. Clearly no one is interested in my neutral edit except you so you should resolve the issue on the talk page with me before making any further edits. Making bold edits like you did after you finally objected to my neutral wording on the talk page [10] is disruptive editing because now we are discussing the issue, whereas before you were not. Follow wikipedia protocol. Read WP:BRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

previously there was a discussion on the talk page about this the wording and the recent changes fix it this was the discussion,

Collapsing pasted talk discussion text. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I got to tell you, my father beat me, too, and I haven't killed 20 million people yet. - Stephen Kotkin, interview after publishing the book "Waiting for Hitler" in 2017, https://slate.com/gdpr?redirect_uri=%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Finterrogation%2F2017%2F12%2Fhistorian_stephen_kotkin_on_stalin_and_his_new_biography_on_the_soviet_dictator.html%3Fvia%3Dgdpr-consent&redirect_host=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the Gulags" - Montefiore 2007 , s. 376. Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives. - Volkogonov, Dmitri. Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime. p. 139. ISBN 0-684-83420-0. My own many years and experience in the rehabilitation of victims of political terror allow me to assert that the number of people in the USSR who were killed for political motives or who died in prisons and camps during the entire period of Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s. - Yakovlev, Alexander N.; Austin, Anthony; Hollander, Paul (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-300-10322-9. "More recent estimations of the Soviet-on-Soviet killing have been more 'modest' and range between ten and twenty million. - Gellately (2007) USRR – 20 mililon - Stéphane Courtois. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. p. 4: "U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths Estimations on the number of Stalin's victims over his twenty-five-year reign, from 1928 to 1953, vary widely, but 20 million is now considered the minimum. - Brent, Jonathan (2008) Inside the Stalin Archives: Discovering the New Russia. Atlas & Co., 2008, ISBN 0-9777433-3-0"Introduction online" (PDF). Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 19 December 2009. (PDF file) We now know as well beyond a reasonable doubt that there were more than 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million - Rosefielde, Steven (2009) Red Holocaust. Routledge, ISBN 0-415-77757-7 p.17 "Yet Stalin's own responsibility for the killing of some fifteen to twenty million people carries its own horrific weight ..." - Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin's Genocides (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity). Princeton University Press, p. 11 "Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some fifteen million." - Conquest, Robert (2007) The Great Terror: A Reassessment, 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, in Preface, p. ...most historians now estimate that he had been directly responsible for death of somewhere around 20 million people - Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin, XV, 1994 ,,With estimates ranging from eight to 20 million; some put the number as high as 50 million Leslie Alan Horvitz , Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, 405 - 2008 30 to 40 million dead in total (….) as a result of Stalin;s murderous impulses: Stephen R.A’Barrow, Death of a Nation: A New History of Germany, Alexander Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo and the closest adviser of Mikhail Gorbachev, who as chairman of a commission to study Stalinist repressions had access to all the relevant records, Stalin was responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet citizens. - https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/cleverness-joseph-stalin/ In my opinion, it should be written, "the number of victims is from 3 to over 20 million." Differences arise from distrust of official archives and problems with the number of victims of some events. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.247 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Our goal is not to reproduce common stereotypes, but to provide a good quality information. As a rule, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. If some author just mentions some fact tangentially, it is hardly a good source. If some author just reproduces the data from other sources, it is hardly a good source. If some author tells "historians agree that..." it would be good if they explained which historians they are telling about, and in which context. It is quite likely that the figure of 20 millions is just an uncritical reproduction of Cols war stereotypes. Actually, these stereotypes are still existing in non-special literature. In connection to that, it is important to know if each of the authors cited by you did their own research, or they just took the data from other books. It is quite likely that the figure of 20 million was taken from the Black Book of Communism. It is a very influential collective volume, and its Introduction says that communists killed 20 millions in the USSR. However, two facts should be taken into account. :First, the Black Book is highly praised not due to the Introduction, but due to the chapter about the USSR, authored by Nicolas Werth. Werth himself says 15 millions were killed. Second, Werth's own opinion about the Introduction, and, especially about the figures, which were taken by Courtois out of thin air, was very negative. He publicly disassociated himself from the conclusions made in the introduction. Third, most reviewers call the Introduction "the most controversial part of the Black Book", in contrast to the Werth's chapter, which is considered a "rock the whole Black Book rests upon". That means it is the Werth's opinion which should be trusted. Nevertheless, popular writers and journalists continue to cite highly questionable Courtois' figures, as your search perfectly demonstrates. That is probably because the Werth's chapter is long and detailed, and to a superficial mind it is much easier to look through a brief and primitive Introduction than to go through the whole Werth's chapter. However, if we are not ready to read long and complex texts, maybe we shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Last (but not least). Even the figure of 20 million (manufactured by Courtois) is a total figure of all victims of Communism in the USSR. It includes Civil war victims (from both sides), Volga famine victims, Red Terror victims, etc., and all of that happened before Stalin took a full power. Even if we consider all of them victims of Communism, they are not victims of Stalinism, because there was no Stalinism during this time. To summarise. Cherry-picked quotes from google are hardly what we need. Wikipedia's goal is not to summarize common stereotypes (if that were the case, no Wikipedia would be needed, a simple google search would be sufficient). It is always better to use few really high quality sources and filter out all garbage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Weird how these anonymous IP's and WP:SPA's are coming out of the woodwork at around the same time. I wonder...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) However, take into account that a specific number of "20 million" rarely falls in these quotations. These are rather estimates from 15 to over 25 million. In addition, you forget that the Black Book of Communist has set the number of victims across the USSR at 20 million, including hunger during Lenin's reign - 5 million victims. That is why they are not thoughtless copies. 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives Some events are not added: Deportations of Germans after 1945 [2 million victims], killed German prisoners [1 million], Hunger in 1931-1932 - a total of 8.7 million victims - Ukrainians and others - only this gives almost 12 million victims. Add to this the fact that it is not known how many kulaks died in deportations until 1937 [15 million deportees]. Volkogonov was to assess the number of those killed in these repairs up to 4.5 million, Conquest 3,5 miliona. Snyer and others only count until 1932. What's more, Snyder added to his number of starved Ukrainians, but not 3.3 million, he estimated, the dead of other nationalities. Then his number of off Stalin would be 12 million. That is why the number of victims of 20 million is likely, the more so because we do not have accurate information about kulaks until 1937 and the number of war crimes during World War II. Apparently, the NKVD shot 1 million soldiers in the back. Many historians support it, even in 2017, which is why I am insisting on a change. 37.8.230.247 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Have you read my post? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I'm sure the anonymous IP skimmed it at least, but it doesn't matter. These SPA's are bent on flooding the article with this stuff, which is why I requested semi-protection back in early September (see "Persistent unconstructive editing" above). I think it is imperative at this point.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC) As WC Fields would say, I don't know why I ever come in here. The flies get the best of everything.--Woogie 10w 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I will ask for semi protection using Twinkie since we all agreed on the death range with using archival data and historical footnotes by reputable peopleJack90s15 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) On a serious note, no W.C. Fields today. These "repression" statistics in fact are penal statistics, 14 million persons convicted of crimes in the judicial system. In addition 6-7 million persons sent by the secret police to the Special Settlements. In The famine of 1933 6-7 million perished, the reasons are debated and disputed. Wheatcroft has provided details of the 14.269 million who were convicted of crimes: from 1937-52 of those convicted 3.081 million were sentences for political offenses,only about 1/5 of those convicted in the Gulags or executed, 1,344,923 in 1937-38 in the purges and 599,909 in 1941-46, when many were sentenced for collaboration with the Nazi invaders. 3.287 million "repression" deaths are listed in this article: 878,704 occur in 1937-38 during the great terror and 1,241,031 from 1941-45 the war years when there were food shortages. The balance of 10-20 million additional deaths listed in some sources are in fact hypothetical deaths. The natural death rate can be manipulated to achieve a desired higher number of deaths. In any case the living conditions in the USSR were at lower standard than in western Europe and the US, forced labor of everyone was the norm in Stalin's USSR. We need to give readers a better understanding of the reasons for the"repression" statistics. To cite a single solitary statistic listed in a reliable academic source misleads readers.--Woogie 10w 22:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC) No comments. I am wasting my time here.--Woogie 10w 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC) You are not. Just let's re-write the article accordingly (as I proposed below).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC) I agree with your proposal below. But if we are going to go into "serious demographic effects", that changes the scope of the article a bit. Should the article also mention the "excess lives" (Ellman, 2002, 1164) and growing population under Stalin?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) The numbers scholars are operating with come from two different type of sources: documented deaths and demographical evidences. The second type data actually operate with such factors as a normal birth rate, normal mortality, life expectancy, migration. These data are are absolutely necessary to take into account when we discuss demographic evidences. Therefore, all of that fits the current article's scope pretty well.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2#Historians_assessing_the_number_of_victims_Stalin_for_about_20_million

Jack90s15 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is why the talk page is there! They can discuss any issue on the talk page section I opened if they want - clearly none of them have contributed to it probably because they don't care. None of these editors WP:OWN the article or the content nor do their words dictate what any future editors should do or not do. Their old comments from another discussion do not determine the outcome of another talk page discussion like the one I started. Each talk page discussion stands on its own.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 this all started with wording with it ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

now its showing a NPOV for the opening with it.

Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Edit_warring

If you reached an agreement with me, then mention that on the talk page! My gosh, you really seem to avoid discussing things on the talk page. Instead you create such a commotion on user pages, the article, engage in a edit war, revert with no intent of discussing things, ignore talk pages discussions - all of which are meant to resolve issue like this - and make bold edits when you have made the content to be in dispute. Please stop making disruptive edits and follow wikiepdia protocol. Once you engage in the talk page, you now have to seek consensus since two editors are in dialogue over content. Resolve the issue on the talk page first.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The help you're looking for

The discussion that Jack90s15 is referring to is this one. I maybe could've worded "go back and respond to the user's message and make the user aware that you've responded to the discussion" more clearly, since it appears that Ramos1990 interpreted "respond to the user's message" to mean that he was supposed to respond using an edit summary, perhaps. Ramos1990 Jack90s15, we don't want to make or respond to discussion using edits and edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to be used to briefly describe exactly what you're changing on the page and why - hence 'edit summary'... a summary of your edit. ;-) If you need to communicate with another user in a dispute, you need to do so on the relevant article's talk page in a discussion, or do so with the user directly by messaging them on their user talk page. Using edits to revert content in a back-and-fourth manner between editors or even argue back-and-fourth using edit summaries constitutes edit warring, which is not allowed on Wikipedia and can result in being temporarily blocked for doing so. This noticeboard isn't designed to discuss the exact specifics of the content dispute that you're currently involved with. It's designed in order to report violations of policy by other users so that it can be reviewed, discussed, and the proper actions taken in order to resolve the matter. No one here is going to dive in-depth into the content dispute itself; we have noticeboards and solutions available on Wikipedia's dispute resolution guide and protocol if you and the other editor involved cannot resolve the matter and come to a consensus amongst yourselves. I highly recommend that you go through, read, and review that dispute resolution guide I linked you to from top to bottom, and make sure that you understand everything that's discussed in there. It will contain the information you need, the answers you're looking for, and the different methods that you can use to resolve the dispute peacefully. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, appreciate your comments, but I think you are talking to the wrong person.

1) I was reverted by User:Jack90s15 so I took it it the talk page to discuss. So I did start a talk page section on it on June 26, 2019 [11] like I was supposed to.

2) Waited 3 days for comments. User:Jack90s15 never engaged in the discussion and no one objected to my small neutral wording edit.

3) So since no one objected to my edit in the talk page I went forward [12] after 3 days on June 29. Per WP:BRD, it says "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article."

4) Then User:Jack90s15 started to edit war and it was him who responded in edit summaries [13]. I even told him to take it to the talk page [14]. but he did not listen.

5) Finally after the 3 days of no objections and after this little edit war, he finally writes something on the talk page like he was supposed to [15]. Notice the dates on the edits. Clearly he was on Wikipedia from June 26 (when I made the talk page section) to June 29 (when I re-insterd my edit) and he could have discussed the issue in that time [16] which he clearly did not do. So I was under the impression that no one really had an issue since I explained my edit in the talk page on June 26 and no one objected for 3 days - a reasonable amout of time for at least him to discuss the issue - if there even was one.

6) So now that he finally is discussing on the talk page on June 29, he goes and makes major bold edits to the article without discussing on the talk page first in the same day! [17]

Hope this give you context. I have been following wikpedai protocol. But his disruptive editing, lack of engaging in the talk page, and making bold edits when he has made the situation into a dispute, is very problematic. I see WP:OWN issues. Plus User:Jack90s15 has been blocked 3 times in the past 9 months for this kind of disruptive editing and edit warring [18].

I have never been blocked because I usually try to compromise, but how can you compromise with someone who reverts, does not engage in talk pages, and makes bold edits when they make an edit into a disputed edit?Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 My first 2 Blocks were me not knowing anything about Wikipedia on how it worked.and the 3 one was Reverting a Sock puppet I found out they were after being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:6ullga So I am not here to disruptive edit. this all started with wording with it ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

now its showing a NPOV for the opening with it.

Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Edit_warring Can we agree on the bold change since it addresses Both of are ConcernsJack90s15 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did acknowledge the edits and I was on I was patrolling recent changes. and you did responded in edit summaries

(Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now)

(you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity. My edit stands. Take it to the talk page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I opened a talk page for you to discuss your concerns on June 26. That was the place for you to discuss your issues not on edit summaries. My edit summaries on June 29 were not a argument, they were redirecting you to the talk page discussion which you willfully neglected since June 26 (which you agree you were aware of my talk page discussion where I asked for input from editors). You made this edit war not me. I followed the protocol WP:BRD. If you would have discussed any issues on the talk page like you were supposed prior to June 29 to then I would not have re-inserted my neutral edit in the first place. I waited 3 days for any input. If you would have commented on the talk page like you were supposed to (since you never voiced an objection or reason for reverting me in the first place [19] aside from saying that other editors worked on this article before), I would have discussed the matter until you and I had some consensus. It is very simple.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 - Crap! I meant to ping Jack90s15 in that comment I made above, not you. Sorry... this is what I get for trying to use a mobile device to edit... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, I see. Understandable. No worries. I was beginning to think that the world had gone mad on me, when I had followed wikipedia protocol. Glad you clarified that your comment was not for me.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ramos1990. I was trying to make the point that if you find yourself making back-and-forth reverts with another editor, then unless your reason for doing so is one of the seven listed at WP:3RRNO, you are edit warring. Aside, @Jack90s15:, please please when you make comments in the future try to stick to a more easily followed indentation formatting. Between how the indentation in your comments pops in and out, mixed with multiple formats of copy-pasted walls of text, it is simply impossible to follow, and makes me not want to try. I'm not asking you to reformat it, by the way, because Oshwah is right that this is not the place to rehash the content dispute. But for future reference. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - I went through and tried my best to fix all of the indentation issues here so that the discussion makes sense. Please feel free to fix anything that I may have missed or indented incorrectly during my attempts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk) I apologized to Ramos 1990 Since I made this in to one Big Incident. and I am Sorry everybody I am looking in to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user So I can have help with Wikipedia so this does not happen again I am not ashamed to say I need help.Jack90s15 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 - My apologies for the delayed follow-up response. I just got home from work and sat down at my desk. :-) I struck the incorrect ping to you in the comment and updated it to be directed toward Jack90s15. Sorry about the confusion earlier... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?

Could someone please remove email access from Catflap08 (talk · contribs)?

This should not be a controversial request, since he was sitebanned more than two years ago and has shown no interest in returning, having never attempted to appeal his ban (he seems to prefer to just evade it through IPs). He hasn't used email to harass me directly in a few months (for reference, the earlier emails date to 4 July 2017 at 22:08 JST and 18 November 2018 at 19:42 JST), but certainly someone with a history with me has been sending people a list of my "enemies" and a pretty one-sided and inaccurate account of my history.[20] Catflap wasn't a suspect until I noticed just now that he's still following me and not even trying to hide it.[21][22]

Whether or not it was him (or if he's done it all since 2015, when he definitely was doing it to get around our IBAN), there's really no reason not to remove email access at this point. If he wants to appeal his siteban he can use his talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to refuse this, but what practical effect do you see it having? Will it really make that much difference if the emails are labelled "sent by user 'Catflap-08' on the English Wikipedia" or "user 'Catflap09'" or "user 'Fbff986oRN4'" instead? —Cryptic 06:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

AGF forces me to assume that if that happened, Fbff986oRN4 (an account with either no edit history or no apparent reason to be following me, or an account that had already been recognized as a sock and blocked) would have less credibility with the majority of email recipients than someone who claims they were sitebanned as a result of me hoodwinking the community (or whatever). Yeah, realistically anyone who believes the latter will believe anything, but at the very least forcing Catflap to create a new account every time he wants to email someone I reported for copyvio would make it harder for him. Also, as of November 17 last year I had no reason to assume I was due for another email myself: I'mnot comfortable receiving them in the first place, and since most wikiemails I receive are helpful I don't want to turn it off and only turn it on when I need to use it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good enough for me. —Cryptic 07:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptic, I reverted Catflap's talk page to the prior state as it seems like he was using it to further harass Hijiri88, and I was about to take away TPA, but remembered I handed in my admin bit over the current Fram-Gate. Would you please look at it, and take any (or no) action you feel is justified? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not ordinarily block-worthy in itself, but after them not otherwise editing their talk page for five months except to blank it, revoking access seems like it'll cause the least harm all around. I'd like to note for the record that I neither know the previous history here nor care to. —Cryptic 16:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the above appears to have prompted Catflap to do something with UTRS again, I should say here that I stated earlier this year that I wasn't opposed to Catflap's siteban being lifted under certain circumstances (primarily that the community and admin corps carry more of the burden of monitoring his edits rather than forcing me to do it and then accusing me of "hounding") and was forced to remove that statement for reasons apparently unrelated. My opinion of the matter hasn't changed a lot since February, except that the above "paranoid" thing (and the cross-wiki "Hijiri, I'm watching you!" behaviour) have made me a little more concerned that any lesser editing restrictions he were placed under would be immediately violated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh. It seems the UTRS thing was already closed before I wrote that. Egg on my face, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Backlogs

Since we have WP:FRAM, and Ragnarök is possibly approaching, many active administrators retired, and some others stopped contributing. This apparently increased backlogs. At WP:RFPP, I have seen in the past three days twice a backlog of over 30 requests, and over 24h delay. This possibly means those of us who are still around and doing admin work might think of expanding and clearing the understaffed admin areas. I would appreciate if we can identify these areas requiring a constant admin monitoring. RFPP might be one of them (though what I have noticed might be a fluctuation, we lost Lectonar who was active there on a regular basis recently).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the Fram affair has me questioning whether the WMF would back me or sack me for doing my job if someone complained to them. There's a chill in the air, and the wind is blowing from San Francisco.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC).

Edit war report unattended to after a day and a half

This report I made on the edit war noticeboard regarding Larry Sanger's article has not been attended to even though it has been on the noticeboard for a day and a half and reports made after it have been dealt with. The "war" itself has abated on the article in the time since the report was filed (although that might very well be a truce while the report is still pending), but I would like some closure on it and any underlying disputes before it gets archived. (Also, please put any dispute related to the matter on the ANEW thread, not here.) Thank you, and apologies for any inconvenience! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I explained at Talk:Larry Sanger#Best known for that adding "best known for" was a bad idea. The correct response would be to revert your changes to the lead back to the old version which was based on reliable sources. There is no need for every report to have an official close. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's all well and good and I have come to agree with you on that particular count, but my changes to the lead involved much more than that and was an attempted overhaul that was disputed in its entirety. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

More edit warring. See previous discussion at Talk:Larry_Sanger#Failed_verification. Also see misleading content in the lede. I commented on the talk page about the problematic content. See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010, while Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has attempted to downplay and diminish Sanger's contributions to the early history of the site."[23] Does anyone support adding "controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography"? This is nonsense. Neutral wording is being replaced with the word "argued". QuackGuru (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It is continuing to happen. Mass changes mainly to the lede are being made. The lede is now is poorly written and looks like a critic of Larry Sanger is editing the article. For example, neutral wording is being replaced with the word "arguing". QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

See above thread.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Awareness

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

---

I wanted other admins to be aware of the discussion at User talk:Patton976. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes people threaten to create a sock puppet army. It's more work than it sounds like, and it usually just makes you easier to spot. If I find 50 sock puppets on the same IP address, I can block them all within seconds in the CU tool. It's not really a good use of one's time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin here. These posts confirm that this is yet another sock of AnnalesSchool (talk · contribs) (who also claimed to be involved in some kind of movement which appears to have comprised nothing but their sockpuppets and personal website), and I have tagged accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

To those familiar with AnnalesSchool, it was obvious this was a duck from the get-go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Obvious WP:DUCK. Dr. K. 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just another example of why this encylopedia needs a team of competent active administrators on duty at all times. Thank you, Nick-D. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Open letter to the WMF Board

The Arbitration Committee has sent the following open letter to the WMF Board of Trustees, regarding the WMF ban of Fram.

OPEN LETTER TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

30 June 2019

On 10 June 2019, the administrator Fram was banned from the English Wikipedia for one year as an office action initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation’s (WMF) Trust and Safety team (T&S). In a later statement, T&S Lead Manager Jan Eissfeldt clarified that Fram was banned for harassment, citing the passage of the WMF Terms of Use prohibiting “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism.” The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has followed with concern the English Wikipedia community’s reaction to this action. We have received three related arbitration case requests, and multiple editors have asked us to intervene on the community’s behalf. As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue.

ArbCom is a group of volunteers elected by the community to adjudicate serious conduct disputes in accordance with the English Wikipedia’s arbitration policy. This policy also delegates matters unsuitable for public discussion to ArbCom, and all members of the committee are required to meet and agree to the WMF’s access to non-public personal data policy. Over the years, ArbCom has passed responsibility for some matters, including child protection issues, legal matters, and threats of violence, to the WMF’s Legal and T&S teams. We are grateful for T&S’ assistance on these difficult cases and for their efforts to support ArbCom’s work in general. However, despite requests, we have not seen any indication that Fram’s case falls into one of the categories of issues that T&S normally handles, otherwise lies outside of our remit, or was handled by them due to a lack of trust in our ability to handle harassment cases. Rather, we must conclude that T&S’ action is an attempt to extend the use of office actions into enforcing behavioural norms in local communities, an area conventionally left to community self-governance.

Together with a large section of the community, we have been awaiting an adequate response to these concerns from the WMF since 10 June. The Board has yet to issue a statement, and sporadic comments by individual WMF employees (including the Executive Director Katherine Maher) have been non-committal with regard to the substance of the dispute. In the last public statement by Jan Eissfeldt (21 June) and in our private meetings, T&S have reiterated that they are not willing to reconsider the ban, nor will they turn the full evidence over to the community or ArbCom for review. The ban itself was actioned using a recently-introduced T&S process for local, time-limited bans, which although announced in T&S’ 2018–2019 Annual Plan, was not adequately communicated to the English Wikipedia community, and not subject to any form of community consultation.

We understand that this change in policy from T&S comes in the context of efforts to tackle harassment and hostility in the Wikimedia movement. Individually and as a committee, we fully support this initiative. We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection. However, if the WMF have also been concerned about ArbCom’s ability to handle harassment complaints, they have not communicated this concern with us, nor have they provided any suggestions for changing our policies or procedures. If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance.

We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes. Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia.

We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign.

Yours sincerely,

The undersigned members of the Arbitration Committee,

Molly White (GorillaWarfare)

Joe Roe

KrakatoaKatie

Mkdw

Opabinia regalis

Premeditated Chaos

RickinBaltimore

Steve Pereira (SilkTork)

Dave Craven (Worm That Turned)

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Open letter to the WMF Board

Block please

Someone please block Pharmboy and Farmer Brown. Those are both alts of mine. For security reasons, I ask you block them as they won't be used or monitored anymore. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and please full protect my user page. Being a former admin, etc etc etc, vandalism and all that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I wonder if any admin could make a conclusion for this merge proposal which nominated from March 2018? Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Whitelisting IP

Hello! I am tutoring a course on Wikipedia at Polytechnic University of Milan. Could someone please whitelist this IP (131.175.147.29) for a week so to avoid throttled actions? --Jaqen (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am co-tutoring the course and second this request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This can't be done by standard economy sized administrators; you need to ask on Phabricator. phab:T192898 is how such a request looks like; the "create new task" button is in the upper right corner. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jaqen and Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure filing a Phab request to whitelist the IP from throttling is the best option. Wouldn't it suffice to grant Wikipedia:Event coordinator status to Jaqen, so he can create accounts with confirmed status without being subject to the rate limit of account creations per IP? I have met Jaqen at Wikimania and am happy to give him the event coordinator flag. Deryck C. 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not about account creation (I have EC rights), but about the throttling of edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've created the task, thanks! --Jaqen (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user

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

This account was created solely to edit Athikkadai in a disruptive way. I demand a wake up call for him/her, at least. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This definitely looks like a WP:CIR-type situation, combined with WP:OWN. Ashiq has been here for three years, and made almost 200 edits, but only to that one article, which he did also create. In that time he's been in frequent edit wars, including with bots trying to remove links to deleted files (really points back to CIR), and has never once used a talk or user-talk page. He also never uses edit summaries when reverting. Honestly surprised he has a clean block log. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bots are kind, gentle people with infinite patience who would never dream of reporting someone to AN3RR. Perhaps that's why it has flown under the radar, plus the edit warring there seems to be a low tempo warring. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pflipper73

Pflipper73 claims to be a sockpuppet (which may be so) and an administrator (which is not). Is admin action required? Dorsetonian (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the claims of being an administrator from this editor's user page. If they want to claim they are a sockpuppet, I don't think that harms anything on its own (if they are using sockpuppets abusively, that's another story). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible stalking

Would an administrator have a talk with @PM800:, as he's continuously reverting some of my edits with no summary given for why? He won't even discuss anything with me. @Sabbatino: is aware of this & has 'also' unsuccessfully gotten a response from PM800. Note: I did 'briefly' lose my patients with PM, but am trying to keep a level head. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Issued the last warning--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Wnt

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

---

Multiple editors have expressed disagreement over El_C's block of Wnt for DE consisting of criticizing WMF and a 2019-04-07 edit which introduced an extremely graphic video of an act of terrorism (without the faces shown) at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings (I'm not linking it directly). Since El_C told a critical editor And you are more than free to bring this up to any forum of review you see fit. [24] I am bringing this up here. There was an ANI discussion about a related controversial link around the same time, but this issue has not been touched until El_C's block. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The user not only linked to the New Zealand shooting video a month ago, but they recently also suggested that, as protest against the Foundation, we should use that video to dissuade corporate donors and the likes from donating to Wikipedia. The combination of which led to the indefinite block. El_C 19:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This should not be considered as it is a third-party appeal and the normal unblock process has been used and other administrators have declined to unblock. Wnt is free to submit a new appeal through the ordinary procedures. I’d encourage another administrator to close this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Another edgelord up for keeping this in the news, perhaps as an indignant response to their last block. cygnis insignis 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As Tony has noted, the unblock request was denied on the talk page, and for what it's worth I'd decline a similar request as well—Wnt's actions could be the most illustrative WP:POINT action I can think of in quite some time, and is certainly detrimental to the project. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Linkspamming of Warming stripes by User:RCraig09

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

---

User:RCraig09 appears to be WP:LINKSPAMming the article Warming stripes. Perhaps someone would look into that? User has been notified. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit - the Twitter links and the reading.ac.uk link seem unnecessary, and we would normally only include one link to the "official website" - but he's also just written the article from scratch. Have you considered contacting him on his talk page or the article's talk page, or just following WP:BRD? Bringing this to WP:AN seems premature. ST47 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• What??? The Twitter links are to three different scientists who either invented or expanded the subject data visualization technique (in one case to the very tweet that discloses a new application of that visualization technique to glacier retreat). The two reading.ac.uk links are to the university page (I know of no other "official page") of the inventor of warming strips, and to his previously-invented spiral data visualization, both of which visualizations are notable. Talk page with specifics, or WP:BRD, are appropriate, rather than making other people "look into that". —RCraig09 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

The_donald "taking back" Wikipedia

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

---

[25] I'm trying to be (cough) neutral about this. It's apparently from a week or so ago but I just came across it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

With all of its four comments, I'm sure that discussion had reaching impact. Killiondude (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 Delhi Temple attack

Could we get some administrator eyes on 2019 Delhi Temple attack. This article is about a developing event, and is plagued by editors trying to push various points of view without adequate sourcing. I've tried to help keep the article neutrally worded from proper sources, but it is a losing battle. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Railfan23: It's a great time to mention that this is being discussed at WP:CEN. There's a lot of issues at play here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s spilt over onto my user talk page too! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Topic bans against SNAAAAKE!!

I would like to propose topic bans against Niemti/SNAAAAKE!! regarding any character articles and any articles related to gender issues. Furthermore I would like an admin to consider whether his indef block should be reinstated due to the following issues.

There is a very clear consensus at Project Video Games that SNAAAAKE!! is generally uncivil, does not respect the views of anyone who disagrees with him, does not collaborate with others, is starting unnecessary conflicts, makes personal attacks and violates NPOV, especially on gender-related issues, and especially on gender-related issues in gaming.

This behaviour has been occurring for several years, and shows absolutely no signs of changing. SNAAAAKE!! has been blocked from editing over 15 times across multiple accounts, and was also indefinitely blocked at one stage. He has also been topic banned multiple times, including from anything related to Anita Sarkeesian. This is not surprising, considering that SNAAAAKE!! openly admits to being a participant of the Gamergate controversy ([26]), a targeted attack on women including Sarkeesian, something he apparently has no regrets about:[27]. I understand attacking women outside of Wikipedia doesn't directly prevent him from participating in discussions on here, but it should give you some clarity on why he is so disruptive in these topics. I have been informed he is currently under at least four other editing restrictions: a topic ban on GA, a 1RR restriction, a 1 account restriction and a general civility restriction.

It is my understanding that SNAAAAKE!!'s topic ban on Anita Sarkeesian prevents him from discussing her anywhere. He appears to have violated that topic ban with this comment here: [28].

SNAAAAKE!! is currently engaged in an argument with five other editors at the talk page for 'Women in Video Games'. In a thread he started entitled 'Why is there no article men and video games?', he refuses to listen to the overwhelming consensus against him and is insisting on radical changes to the entire article to suit his narrow world view. It is my understanding that the fact he commented at this topic at all may cause issues with discretionary sanctions he is currently under regarding topics related to Gamergate.

He has been known to manipulates prose to further his agenda against women, even if it contradicts what the sources state: [29][30]. He also frequently attacks articles and sources that disagree with this narrow world view. For example, referring to Sexism in video gaming as "ridiculous and horrible". Here he refers to an FAC approved high-quality source being used at a female character article as "nonsense" and "bullshit" (Cursing in his comments is also not unusual: [31][32]). Multiple editors, myself included, have repeatedly explained that on Wikipedia we write about what our sources write about, yet he refuses to accept this. He refuses practically any advice given; I've lost track of how many times he's been asked nicely to do something simple like actually fill out the edit summary. SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly displays behaviour that would not be expected from an experienced editor. He is very difficult to talk to not only because of his opinions and lack of civility, but also because he frequently edits his previous comments out of order, fails to indent replies and often places walls of text as a response. This may be forgiven for a new user, but there is no way that an editor with this much experience is not doing this as a deliberate attempt to make it difficult to engage with him.

SNAAAAKE!!'s lack of civility, however, even extends to the most banal of topics. Here he resorts to name-calling when people referred to a female character by her surnames instead of her first names. There is also a consensus at Project Video Games that SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly starts conversations purely to voice his complaints about certain things, and that this behavior is a persistent disruption. See here and here and here and here. Probably the archetype example of exactly how difficult it is to engage with this editor can be displayed by this thread here. SNAAAAKE!! frequently demands other people do what he wants, and frequently ignores multiple editors giving him sound advice. No less than eight editors explained what was wrong with his behaviour, yet his final comment is "You didn't even explain to me what is the problem." He also frequently violates WP:OWN, referring to articles as 'his' and using the fact he wrote a majority of the prose as a reason for why other people shouldn't be editing 'his' articles. Multiple users have commented on this: [33] [34] [35] [36].

A topic ban for SNAAAAKE!! on the above two aforementioned areas is welcomed by the undersigned. Additional comments on whether he should be topic banned from video games or indef blocked (either of which I would endorse) are welcome. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support any combination of action against - per proposal above. He is a constant source of conflict and civility virtually any time he interacts with anyone in the video game subject area. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - There is a clear need to topic ban Niemti for the repeated issues and confrontations he has accumulated here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support any combination of action against - I've been mostly withdrawn from the conversation, but my observation concurs with the suggestion. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support in terms of some action needing to be taken. I will point out that we do have a potential standard discretionary sanction WP:DSTOPICS related to Gamergate, that includes "(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed", which SNAAAKE probably should be on, regardless of any block or ban action here. --Masem (t) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on characters and gender issues As my default position, but I am not opposed to more severe actions. I believe Damien originally intended to start this with a blanket topic ban on video games. In the interest of trying to be lenient, I offered the suggestion of a narrower TBAN on characters and gender issues, which seems to be where a number of SNAAAKE's content issues most often come up. That said, we do need to weigh the fact that SNAAAKE has been blocked more than 15 times across his original account (Which is still marked as community banned) and this one, socked on at least 4 IPs and a dozen+ more named accounts, and violated his 1RR unblock restriction recently. His unblock conditions included a civility clause, but unfortunately (as topics elsewhere also highlight), I found nothing that really defined what that meant in the context of his unblock. I think most people want to give the benefit of a doubt and let things slide as much as they can, but where's "too much"? -- ferret (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Since there have been some calls for a Video Game TBAN, I want to express that I feel a TBAN on Gender issues should happen, in addition to any TBAN that covers video games or characters or both. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment as party to one of the articles in question I am going to refrain from indicating a vote. However in the interest of transparency I did feed back some of my feelings of my experience with SNAAAAAKE! to Damien and I see that this has been included in his request. I am therefore content to see the argument judged by its merits and the accounts prior history. Koncorde (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Site ban them. Wikipedia does not need this toxicity in any topic. Support the proposed topic ban as a secondary measure, but there's already evidence this will just spill over into other topics that the womenfolk might have the audacity to interact with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck per discussion with Atsme below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN and DS at the very least, support site ban. SNAAAAKE!! has a long history of combative and disruptive editing that is amply described above. Leaving aside his overt incivility in communicating, he is savvy at subtly subverting the tone of an article to push his POV, e.g., [37]. Cleaning this up requires a lot of work and a lot of babysitting his edits to make sure he is following core 100-level policies like NPOV and RS. Search "Niemti" on this noticeboard for even more context to this case. Per ferret and WP:ROPE, how much more are we going to give him? Would support reinstating INDEF/site ban based on this long history and apparent lack of any semblance of character improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Bryn, it's clear that a TBAN on video games alone, even broadly construed, would not suffice. This editor does not seem capable of leaving his biases about gender at the door. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I see you didn't notify SNAAAAKE!! as is required by WP:ANI's rules. Jtrainor (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jtrainor: They pinged SNAAAKE and left a notification... -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support a site ban, but will also support a TBAN if site ban is not consensus. Niemti/SNAAAAKE!! has made it clear he's never going to learn to be civil and to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point he feels needs to be made. This has been going on for years. If he hasn't figured it now, I would say he's not competent enough to be welcome in the English Wikipedia community. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support permaban. The user has demonstrated disruptive behavior on not just areas relating to GamerGate but also the most trivial of topics. He engages in bad faith behavior to subtly push a POV, such as trying to modify text to create a different statement out of it that is not supported by the source. I would argue that rather than SNAAAAKE!! being clueless on what people are saying or his non-neutral changes, he is actively playing clueless. Anyone who gets into a conversation with SNAAAAKE!! runs the risk of running their head into the wall, and I have talked to multiple people who say that they will avoid any topic containing SNAAAAKE!! because their behavior is so affecting that they do not want to risk it. Another example of POV pushing, and subtle at that, is here. SNAAAAKE!! has good editing qualities, but I feel that his right to participate in video game articles should be taken away. I've seen too many users who reduce their presence because of SNAAAAKE!!, and I find them more worthwhile, regardless of how good of editors they are. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Making a more emphatic proposal for a permaban. I've found the case more compelling than when I had posted. While I do not know whether SNAAAAKE!! behaves this way outside of the video game space, their issue is not with video games specifically, as they appear to have some really bizarre gender biases. A video game topic ban would only be half the equation, as there is a vast array of areas on Wikipedia for SNAAAAKE!! to disrupt and harass relating to women. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah dip, now I gotta add even more. Seeing this, where SNAAAAKE!! uses language that downplays the severity of threats of violence. It was one thing to have him be a member of GamerGate and to defend it, it's another thing for him to exhibit the same manipulative behaviors that people in GamerGate often do in order to downplay how bad women have it in games. For me, it adds emphasis to this - what is stopping him from going to comic-related articles and imposing his POV in a malicious way? Or Magic the Gathering? Or any other topic relating to women in any field? How many topic bans does he need to have before he's essentially banned as a result of literally not being allowed to edit anything? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban, if not topic ban. I've never directly interacted with SNAAAAKE!! before but have observed their behavior a lot since I'm active at WPVG, and almost nothing constructive comes out of discussions involving them. It's gotten to the point where threads they start at WT:VG are almost immediately closed. A ban might be the only way to resolve this. JOEBRO64 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support t-ban on video game topics broadly construed. Calls for site bans are over the top. He didn't do anything in that discussion to warrant a site ban. I have been mentoring SNAAAAKE!! for a little over a year now, and he has done well except for a few episodes this year. He believes his arguments are substantive, and they are for the most part, but he still has not learned how to present them succinctly. He also doesn't recognize when consensus is against him and it's time to drop the stick. He does try to let things go, but it's a learning experience that I'm hoping he will be able to adapt to over time. I can relate because I tend to be a bit overzealous when presenting an argument in controversial topic areas that are under DS w/1RR restrictions that force editors into lengthy debates. I think the t-ban will give me a little more time to help him better understand why/how he must change his behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, this means a lot coming from his mentor. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support T-BAN on video game topics, broadly construed, per Atsme: While I have never interacted with SNAAAAKE!!, others note that he is disruptive and overzealous; but I still believe that we can turn that energy towards more productive endeavors, once the impetus to edit articles that are, for him, controversial is removed. In short: if SNAAAAKE!! isn't editing video game topics, then maybe villages in Indiana or something? A little more leeway can't hurt, though it's likely his last chance (in terms of video games): per above, his actions are certainly becoming taxing. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban: I've seen it repeatedly mentioned that Niemti/Snake is capable of good work outside of 'problem areas', but I haven't seen it, and I don't think one editor is worth sacficiing the time and effort of a host of others. The problems extend beyond gender articles to failures to understand basic copyright issues and demanding others fix his mistakes. If this AN hadn't been posted by someone else, I was one more issue away from making it myself. This user has been wasting our time for years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm of the same mind. Cleaning up after his messes and sorting the wheat from the chaff is a full time job. Many people have described reluctance to edit in their areas of interest for fear of being dragged into an argument with him. This chilling effect has a much wider impact, to the point where it's hard to see how preserving one editor's inordinate zeal is worth the cumulative cost of many others. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please...let's play fair regarding the alleged copyvio issues - please read this diff which explains that some of those images "are freely released photos of copyrighted objects." Commons handles potential copyvios with expediency, and we don't expect everyone to understand the pertinent laws. SNAAAAKE!! uploaded those images with good intentions so please, let's not pile-on here over legal issues he knew nothing about. Yes, he's had issues in the past - but he has done good work for the better part of a year under my tutelage, and has done one helluva job editing Arthurian legend articles. He made the mistake of treading into the highly controversial game articles. T-ban him but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This user has been uploading images since 2012 [38] (and tht's just En.wiki), so I fully expect them to be well aware of copyright and image policy per WP:CIR. Additionally, the attitude take when it was pointed out that the mass uploads may include numerous copy vios and may need to be fixed by the uploader, was met with scorn. --Masem (t) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban or topic ban: SNAAAAKE!! was indef-blocked as HanzoHattori in 2008 after 12 blocks over 2 years for incivility and disruption. For reasons I disagreed with, he was allowed to come back as Niemti 4 years later in 2012; he didn't even make it 4 months before he was blocked again for abusing multiple accounts, which was followed by 8 more blocks over the next 2 years, for incivility and disruption, most by me. By the time I indef-blocked him (again), he was under 2 topic bans, and there was a tacit agreement to stop making threads specifically about Niemti at WT:VG because they never got anywhere. During the next 2 years, Niemti had multiple confirmed socked (AggressiveNavel, LKAvn, 302ET) as well as IP addresses. After literally being cajoled into writing a coherent unblock request after 6 months of incoherent ones, he was somehow allowed back under 2 additional editing restrictions; in the year since he's managed to get blocked once again for incivility and now this, where even his mentor thinks he needs to be banned from the areas he used to spend 12+ hours a day editing.

I can't think of a single other editor that we would put up with this nonsense for. Indef-blocked twice plus multiple socks? Civility problems for 13 years? Multiple editors saying they avoid areas he works in because they can't stand the way he interacts with people? I know he makes an absurd amount of edits, but I don't understand why we're still treating him like he just needs some time to learn how to talk to people. If he hasn't figured it out in 13 years of editing, it's never going to happen. --PresN 19:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Niemti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've investigated this editor previously. He's been seriously disruptive for more than a decade and has a block log a mile long. Topic bans are for good faith editors who might have trouble in one area. This guy has trouble where ever he goes, and he's had well more than his fair share of second chances. I'm going recommending to indef block the account and I recommend another administrator close this discussion as a community site ban and add the accounts to WP:LTA. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: before you do, note that this discussion has not been open the requisite 24 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of comments in something like 5 hours. This looks like a pretty overwhelming consensus. I'll hold off for now and we'll see if anything changes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The charges against him now don't even come close. How long do we hold prior actions over an editor's head - infinitely? He did the time...his actions at that TP don't even come close to what he did in the past. He has shown remarkable improvement - nobody is perfect - he made the mistake of venturing into a topic area he cannot handle. He spilled a little milk - take that one milk cow away but leave the herd. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Handle" doesn't really sum it up does it? Let him come back as a sock as he has done a dozen times already, and let himself known once again with his behaviour and once again we can say "yeah, but he isn't as bad as he was!" As if setting the bar so high a decade ago makes the current behaviour palatable. Koncorde (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Did he "do the time"? I'm learning in this very discussion that he's been socking and block evading for as long as he's been blocked. It certainly doesn't sound like he's understood he did something wrong in the first place, which is usually a prerequisite to lifting any sort of sanctions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the charges are perfectly acceptable. Through my interactions with SNAAAAKE!!, I have seen users not be able to handle being in his presence because of how toxic an element he is. He is incredibly uncivil, his participation in a harassment campaign is questionable at best, he has and continues to try and implement his POV despite repeated warnings against this, he doesn't respond well to disagreement, he doesn't respect consensus. How many times do we need to look the other way on his egregious behavior? How many times are we going to let good Wikipedians leave because of him? He is not worth it if it makes editing Wikipedia less palatable for others. I tried to give him a chance, and he never does anything with it except double down on his abhorrent behavior. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Axem and Abryn make really good points. If SNAAAAKE!! has not learned to play nicely by now, then I don't think he ever will. This has been going on and on since what, 2006? And we're still having the same problems since then? I don't think he deserves another chance; he's had far too many by now. JOEBRO64 20:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Let's show that we can actually enforce civility policy through the current existing community processes, please. There's no reason this sort of behavior should stand, no matter how supposedly productive the editor is. We will always find others. WaltCip (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I would recommend waiting a day or two more--the majority of the above editors whom support are predominantly in the video games area (not to discredit them). While I personally don't believe that this problem can be resolved with anything short of a pair of TBANs or possibly a CBAN, I'd like to have some assessment external to the video games members before a ban is actually implemented. This problem can wait a few days. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  What difference would it make? WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Izno. A few more days' time will allow tempers to cool, ideas to be further examined, and, most importantly, greater discussion and buy-in by the wider community (and not simply a niche core; no offense meant to the video game editors, a topic about which I enjoy but never edit). After all, this is a consensus-based process, predicated on the strength of argumentation; a few more days of deliberation and discussion (as we can't seem to decide what particular actions should be taken) is the most prudent course of action. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Strength of consensus. Things can be overturned elsewhere on wiki by saying "not enough people showed" and/or "I have new information" and/or... The above editors may also converge on a particular solution to the problem, as there is something of a spread. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Addendum: Izno, you mention a pair of TBANs; which ones would you advise in this case? Perhaps this might be an acceptable compromise. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  "Anything short of" :). If I were to consider much of the discussion above, it's not two CBANs, it's three or four, on top of the existing restrictions this editor has. When we start getting into the "lots of editing restrictions", a CBAN looks like better alternative. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. TBAN/Siteban/whatever & whenever. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I take one issue with the report @Damien Linnane: in this example you claimed that he resorts to name-calling when people referred to a female character by her surnames instead of her first names although the dispute is about male surnames too (Chris Redfield is the other character mentioned). Supposedly you framed this dispute as "anti-woman" too to fit the "agenda against women" narrative . If so, that is rather dishonest. --Pudeo (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the examples are rather underwhelming. I'm puzzled to why changing "PC and Console gaming " to "all electronic devices" or changing "women sexualised" to "sexualised, especially for female characters" would be examples of an anti-woman agenda. Basically, his worst offence is WP:FORUM bickering about feminism on some talk pages. For instance, he has 0 edits in the article sexism in video games despite claiming the article is "ridiculous and horrible". The claims about incivility hold more water. He uses the words "bullshit" and "shitty" when describing sources and posts cynical messages about everyone at the Video Games Wikiproject doing a bad job. --Pudeo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is rather better demonstrated in the background discussion here which Damien Linnane was summarizing in the thread they actually linked to. In that thread, one may observe SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly and aggressively describing anyone disagreeing with their "obvious" point of view as "clueless", and somewhat horribly as "researchers" (sometimes more elaborately as "obvious sexism/racism researchers", as in, people looking for something to feign offense and stir up drama), and describes various publications as "aggressively stupid" and "race-baiting complete nonsense". While Damien might have framed that in the context of a misogynist campaign (which does seem evident from other evidence provided) I think the point really is that SNAAAAKE!! is just generally a thoroughly awful editor to work with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pudeo:. You're right, he did complain about a male character being referred to be their last name as well, though he did so at the article about the female character so that's what stuck in my mind. As per Ivanvector, please read the full discussion to get a full context of what happened, not just my diff. And even if the dishonest changes to sourced comments weren't anti-women, they're still dishonest and deliberate manipulations of referenced content. I'm certain countless other examples exist, but it really got to a point where I thought I had enough evidence to make my point. My point about the bad language was just playing on top of the evidence that he's not a nice person to talk to; that in itself obviosuly isn't a big deal, and obviously that is not the crux of anyone's complaints. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Lets do a topic ban for now if needed and reserve the more draconian site ban if they persist.--MONGO (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And I will add - that if he does persist, I will personally request a site ban as his mentor. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree to a topic ban if there’s a mentor. My reason is that it may be less disruptive to keep track of the user with his known account than to ban him and endure socking from multiple accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems reasonable if consensus goes that way. @Atsme:, I appreciate you taking it on, rehabilitation is a preferable outcome to banning a productive editor, but you must know from the reactions here that this is really, really, the last straw. Their behaviour needs to improve dramatically and fast. Are you up to putting your foot down? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support siteban. I'm familiar with the editor's work and find it objectionable, i.e, Mai Shiranui - scroll down to the pic of the bouncing boobs. Is this what we want? Victoria (tk) 21:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that the "bouncing boobs" animation is a noteworthy aspect of the character's development. It's encyclopedic information and Wikipedia is not censored. Maybe the image itself is gratuitous? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, Ivanvector. I realize some of the images may be offensive to some but as editors, our role is not that of social justice warriors or to RGW. You are absolutely correct in that WP doesn't censor. We cannot be the sum of all human knowledge if we censor things that offend us. I will be first to admit that SNAAAAKE!! lacks diplomacy and is rough around the edges - his social interactions leave much to be desired - but if I'm made aware of an issue brewing, I will do my best to help correct it while also helping him understand what went wrong and why I had to intervene. He has done remarkable work in Arthurian legends and I will try to keep him focused on that and other topic areas where his work will shine. He actually is an excellent game costume photographer and designer (I don't know the terminology) but until he can learn how to interact, it is better to simply t-ban him from video games and allow me an opportunity to keep mentoring & teaching. Believe me, if he wasn't such a prolific writer, we would not be having this discussion. And yes, I realize there's a point when project disruption becomes the priority. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: That comment is unfair and perhaps lacks cultural perspective. It has no bearing on the behavior of SNAAAKE!! I urge you to reconsider. WaltCip (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a site-ban for SNAAAAKE!!, but would also suggest that we take the time to apologize to the editors who have had to deal with him during this misguided attempt to give him a sixteenth chance, or whatever number we're up to. I don't understand why SNAAAAKE!!'s right to get a last, last, last, last, last chance to behave outweighs the rights and interests of constructive, good-faith editors. As others have explained more eloquently than I, the time and goodwill of constructive editors are our greatest resources, yet we treat them as if they have no value at all. It could not be more clear that SNAAAAKE!! isn't a good fit for this project. Every time we conduct another social experiment in trying to salvage him, we damage other, better editors; we worsen their experience; and we increase the likelihood that they will burn out and leave. It's a fool's bargain. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• If SNAAAAKE!! is merely topic-banned, I would like to see it go further and have more restrictions on behavior, including:

1. Editing any topic strongly related to gender
2. Editing articles about other media (ie film, television, comic, etc.)
3. Persistent complaining about absence of articles
4. Persistent insulting of articles (at least in an unconstructive way, such as calling them shit)

Editing Arthurian legends isn't going to get rid of their negative tendencies, and we run the risk of his toxicity seeping into other areas if we aren't more strict. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Stats - SNAAAAKE!! has created 88 articles, has made 96,830 edits with 87.9% of them in mainspace, and only 3,799 (4%) on Talk. That covers a 5 year period beginning in 2012 because he did not edit any articles in 2015, 2016, & 2017. Yes, he socked a few years ago and he vowed that he would not do it again when I agreed to mentor him last year, and Alex lifted his site ban. SNAAAAKE has done a good job keeping his hands clean for the better part of a year. Ok, he made a mistake and wandered off the straight and narrow a few times, and expressed criticisms others didn't like. I'd like to see the profanity cleaned-up all across Wikipedia but I've yet to see anyone sitebanned for the occassional use of the f-word, or poop word. It's pretty sad when 96,830 edits in mainspace means so little in comparison to socking activity years ago, and a bit of untoward behavior. How many glass houses are on this block? Sorry, but I think he's worth the extra effort, despite the behavioral shortcomings he is unable to overcome without help. Some of us are just not born to be diplomats. More importantly, it's never a fool's bargain to offer a helping hand to a fellow human being. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My friend will not participate in any discussion that involves SNAAAAKE!! in any capacity, and she isn't the only one. She specifically avoids these discussions both because of his incivility as well as his specific sexist and transphobic behavior in the past. While I empathize with SNAAAAKE!! oin his difficulties with dealing with this kind of stuff, we should be more concerned with those affected by him. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Its hard to feel the sympathy you’re asking for, for a person who is aggressive and argumentative in virtually every single interaction with anyone. I appreciate that he occasionally stops when you ask him to, but he so rarely, if ever, shows any sense of understanding or remorse for these interactions. Just on and off. Continuously. For years. Without improvement or acknowledgement of the issue. Just momentary pauses until the next eruption. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 90,000 edits sounds like a lot but what fraction of them were productive vs. disruptive edits that just made more work for others to clean up after? Is it half? A quarter? The speed at which he zooms off to implement some half-baked new idea across dozens of articles without seeking consensus first is also worrying. This is an editor who has demonstrated the ability to generate a mountain of cleanup work for others to deal with in a short period of time and feels no remorse or recognition for doing so. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to remind Atsme that no one is indispensable to this project. We are past the era where we can handwave off gross civility and conduct violations if someone is productive enough to make up for it. No amount of contributions should shield someone from being obnoxious and difficult to collaborate with. T&S has made it clear that if we do not handle issues of civility, they will. I'm inclined to be proactive.--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (default), or as a minimum wide-ranging conduct restrictions (if SNAAAAKE were to voluntarily step back from the abyss, now, and realize how many bridges he's burnt) per Abryn. Niemti / SNAAAAKE cannot work well with others and takes even basic, easy human interactions and makes them toxic (the difference between "Hey, I've uploaded some images and would like some help categorizing and weeding out copyright problems!" vs. "I've uploaded some images scraped from the Internet you ungrateful lazy rubes, go fix my shit, I can't hear you that many of these are obvious fraudulent copyright licenses"). Side note: Alex Shih has retired so he can't be asked about his thought process on this, but there really needs to be some better procedure on editors who wreck enough havoc to cause banning discussions then get unbanned due to one sympathetic admin. Niemti is not alone on this, it's happened elsewhere too with toxic banned editors coming back with few strings attached and, shock, being toxic again. SnowFire (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban or failing that, a video game topic ban. I have watchlisted some of the articles at issue and have observed SNAAAAKE!!'s contributions. I am commenting as an editor instead of closing this thread because I do not recall whether I have also been in content disputes with SNAAAAKE!!. I agree that SNAAAAKE!!'s mode of editing is disruptive and a net negative to the project. Sandstein 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban PresN and MastCell have said pretty much everything I would want to say about this situation already, so there's little point in my repeating it. Our tolerance of this level of inappropriate behaviour, and its impact on so many other, good users for so long, has been so lenient as to verge on foolhardy, and it really needs to stop now. -- Begoon 09:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support anything up to and including an indef site ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to lies and proofs of truth (which I implore to read closely while actually clicking the links and verify, not just a matter of a prose narrative but to just check and see the truth objectively)

Huh? I will need to read it when i get some time, but I just started reading and I can see "referring to articles as 'his' and using the fact he wrote a majority of the prose as a reason for why other people shouldn't be editing 'his' articles" is a lie because i never said or thought anything like that which sounds really stupid indeed but is not true. I'm even taking care to often "thank" button when someone makes a good edit, and encourage to write more (for the latter, for example [39] out of top of my head, to quote myself: "I really hope you might expand on the rest of the series").

And you can see it it's a lie by clicking that supposed "evidence": [40] (where I explain some of these "my articles" aren't even mine, including one that I didn't write at all in any way), [41] (it is not me writing - and KFM who wrote it is my twitter-friend), [42] (again nothing about how "other people shouldn't be editing", which is a lie), [43] (also not me writing). The discussion there wasn't about editing, it was but about destroying (redirecting articles). Just such a blatant lie. Is lying allowed here? I'll come back later. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and GG wasn't "a targeted attack on women". I freely admit to participate, because I don't lie, which is important, and also I myself have nothing to be ashamed for regarding my GG conduct. For how the narrative of GG as "a targeted attack on women" was constructed on Wikipedia and beyond, see my discussion with the admin Masem here on Wikipedia: Talk:Video_game_controversies. (Really read this thread.) Masem, who was anti-GG himself, was actually "targeted attacked", but by the hardcore anti-GG people extremely hard for just trying to be neutral in his editing, as it's discussed in that thread). As I also noted right there, I chose to never edit anything GG to avoid trouble (yes) and because I shouldn't edit due to conflict of interest (something which was never respected by the anti-GG side). More later (can't now). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've randomly seen the claim I wrote "I've uploaded some images scraped from the Internet you ungrateful lazy rubes, go fix my shit, I can't hear you that many of these are obvious fraudulent copyright licenses")" just above that is also a blatant and total lie. You can see what I actually wrote and what I expected was to people to thank me for once and ask how can they help, perhaps distribute the work among each other so their work won't overlap (which I imagined as only categorizing images and using them in the articles to quote the title of my thread: "So i've been uploading hundreds of pictures from various events to Wikimedia Commons and they need: 1) categorization 2) usage in articles" and elaborated: "I'm not finished yet, but there is a lot already so I thought I would let you know. There's a WHOLE LOT more to come so check it on a later date if you want, too." which is actually indeed close much closer to "Hey, I've uploaded some images and would like some help categorizing and weeding out copyright problems!" expect the "copyright problems" part of which I wasn't even aware at all as I thought I'm all-clear by just finding free-licensed images). Now someone please do something about these and other lies about me before I come back to address everything. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And thus begins the first posts in a coming wall of text designed to confuse and discourage further discussion. His first couple lines really says it all. There's countless evidence from multiple users, but he's going to ignore virtually everything and focus on a protracted debate on a couple points. As anyone who has actually interacted with him will tell you, it's highly unlikely he only actually read the first arguments and doesn't have time to address the overwhelming consensus against him.

I've made my case. I will not be goaded into a protracted debate about my concerns or anyone else's from him. If anyone takes issue with any of my arguments, as Pudeo did above, I will only respond to them. I really think it's a mute point though; even if I made an error somewhere in my opening remarks, there's a clear consensus he's a toxic editor.

There's 19 supports for bans of some description, including from his mentor, and not a single call to let him go completely unaccounted for his behaviour. If that isn't overwhelming enough, nothing will be. I don't see any further need for conversation, but ping me back here if you must. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And the claim is of me having an "agenda against women" is just a MALICIOUS lie, which I find totally outrageous. Literally, outrageous, it's so horrible I can't believe it. How is it allowed??? Did anyone speak anything about it in all these comments?? if not, why?? The truths, as opposed to this evil lie, is that I've been actively supporting women also on Wikipedia, also in video games (by which I mean real women, in addition to fictional ones about which I wrote more than all everyone in the world on English Wikipedia - literally, not exaggerating, I've written about them more than everyone else combined). From top of my head, for example, i've written almost everything about the artist Kinu Nishimura (the starting point was [44] of 2KB, followed by my unglogged and logged edits of 21KB). PLEASE SANCTION THAT USER FOR THAT ASAP. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesus man, just let it go... take away from this that you should be better than this. As someone who used to behave in a similar fashion to you, it is within your power to be better. The first step is to stop denying and deflecting incredibly valid criticisms. I'm not going to respond further, I just want you to care about being better. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So here we go.

Bryn:

I WILL NEVER "ADMIT" AND WILL ALWAYS "DEFLECT" SUCH A MALICIOUS LIE' I have an "anti-women agenda". It made me angry, yes, it did, his right there in particular I need to be be OFFICIALLY APOLOGIZED to. As I told you, I chose to always speak truth, no matter what. I will also never surrender to lies. Not just this lie, any lie.

One of the last things I've been recently working "to further his agenda against women" in video games in articular was an article was to again improve an article about a game created by a woman (directed and written) and starring a woman: [45] I've been editing this article before, I've been editing about its creator too, who is Roberta Williams, and of whom I've been a fan for almost three decades. I consider Rhianna Pratchett my well, maybe not a friend but quittance (not personal but we correspond and I also edited her Wikipedia article but only copy-edited it as to not break the conflict-of-interest), and the photo-session I did for a girl cosplayed her (Rhianna's) version of Lara Croft helped kickstart her cosplay-model career including being one of Lara's officially-employed models. And so on. Why am i so bad about furthering my "agenda against women"? I don't know, I really need to get better at that.

And since I'm only talking about truth - I've been editing more on Liana Kerzner (back in 2015[46], whom I guess i can consider actual (e)friend) as we talk at least weekly, so here's an actual disclosure of a conflict of interest BUT I've been not doing it since my return so not really. And as it hppens noot only both of them in fact self-identify as feminists, even as it's not in Rhianna's article nor his categories (a sample proof of her feminism: [47], just not 'this kind' of a feminist which brings her "targeted attacks" by other kinds of feminists on her: [48]) and yet I have no problem with "even" that, and what's more got to know each other during GG no less. So here the truth of my "anti-women agenda" and also the truth of my editing. Full truth, always.

Oh, and btw "targeted attacks" on women - I just remembered one of our shared enemies created the account "SupremeEReader" to attack Liana on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SupremeEReader (I think I just ignored it.) Not this was done by someone who obviously knew much about me, including that me and her are frens. It wasn't the first time someone on Wikipedia made an account specifically to denigrate/parody me. I never came to complain about it.

Now, back to countering (more) lies with truth:

• He has been known to manipulates prose

Just a lie, I never did it. In 14 years here I have never done it even once. Even when I've been editing political/military articles about a certain then-ongoing conflict I tried to really get so hard to the neutral truth and put aside my sympathies (I've been no longer edit it for many years). I'm obviously not know for something that never happened.

• contradicts what the sources state: [49][50].

For the first link, here's my actual edit: [51] As you can see, the article was already contradicting what the sources were stating, as it wasn't about just "PC and Console gaming" but all gaming devices. Bryn's problem was my not-native-English writing of this as "electronic devices", and if you check the talk page you can see where the misconception is being explained to me. In the end, there's no text anymore (after Bryn removed it) and I realized it's okay and he was right (I've made a linguistic mistake) as my problem was precisely with "contradicts what the sources state", the very thing I was accused of in the lie above.

For the second one, see Abryn's talk page where we discuss it AND where I then decide it's something I shouldn't even bother. To quote myself in how i ended it: "It's really so unimportant. I just wanted to tell you that I might've had all these minor/petty/silly disagreements but actually you're alright. I mean, seriously I appreciate that you care." [52] It's another lie (of course) and also it shows how well I actually approached it. So I bolded it out for everyone to see the truth.

(I still believe I was right in this one, but I just suddenly realized it's not worth it to argue about it, it's nothing, so I unilaterally gave up and said some nice words that I genuinely felt about Bryn at the moment. But it wasn't "contradicting what the source states".)

• He also frequently attacks articles and sources that disagree with this narrow world view. For example, referring to Sexism in video gaming as "ridiculous and horrible".

I explained earlier in the talk how it's horrible - "horribly written" (to quote myself: "a just horribly written article that I just took a look at it and saw "that aren't associated with female players such as the Sims" - literally written like that", by which I meant it should be written "The Sims" for really some even just only acceptable writing).

• Here he refers to an FAC approved high-quality source being used at a female character article as "nonsense" and "bullshit"

It is, just laughably so. The authors of this "high-quality source" repeatedly can't even spell the antagonist Wesker's name (referring to him as "Westker"), but what's worse anyone who played Resident Evil 5 and other RE games cen see it as nonsense it is. As in:

explaination

the authors accuse game of "sexism" as presenting African zombies as violent and "unthinking", while not only all zombies in every RE game are violent and they were most white, but RE5 is a clone of Resident Evil 4 where the white Spanish zombies for the first time actually became intelligent and continue to be intelligent after game moved again this time to Africa. Another charge was that RE5's African location was not diverse enough, while in reality it was most diverse of any RE game along with its RE4 source of cloning and its quite diverse Spanish location as well (in RE5 it has locations ranging from a shantytown to a savannah to an industrial refinery to swampy marshes to ancient ruins underground, while for example Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3 had only the same one fictional American city full of almost-all white, actually unthinking zombies, and Resident Evil: Code Veronica got diverse by just going to the entirely other part of the war in the second part, namely going from a prison on a tropical island to a base in the Antarctica) and what's more the game was never supposed to "represent Africa" but a fictional location set on this continent. And so on - I can go through all of it in detail. The allegations against the game were just false and can be super easily checked to validate the quality of the article.My opinion of it as a nonsense is a statement of an observable and provable fact. Especially nothing like that was directed against RE4 that was basically the same game but with ridiculous depictions of modern Spanish people as you can see: [53][54][55] (that no one cared of, myself included - it's just a game, and the real Spaniards didn't care too).

• (Cursing in his comments is also not unusual: [56][57]).

Actually not a lie. But we all know it's not unusual on Wikipedia. I say it's better than lying.

• Multiple editors, myself included, have repeatedly explained that on Wikipedia we write about what our sources write about,

In this recent discussion, I've been providing alternative sources (namely I brought multiple interviews/features/editorials from video game magazines). In fact repeatedly saying I can being large numbers of them (and I can) and what I showing them was only samples. I'll elaborate: I have access to over 22,000 video game magazines on my HDD, and many of them can also be linked via Internet Archive (as I've been doing for years). In fact I even took care to manually transcribe an entire interview when I felt I was unjustly accused of "quote mining" after showing only a scan and citing some parts. It's here: [58]] (it's collapsed there).

• There is also a consensus at Project Video Games that SNAAAAKE!! repeatedly starts conversations

I don't start conversations, because (as I told them) I'm no longer coming there.

• SNAAAAKE!!'s lack of civility, however, even extends to the most banal of topics. Here he resorts to name-calling when people referred to a female character by her surnames instead of her first names.

It was apparently about "clueless". I'd say if I launched an ANI attack on someone falsely accusing them of furthering "agenda against women" it would be worse. This insistence on pointing out "a female character" as "female" had to be a part of vowing a narrative of my "agenda against women" - I've created and written most of this very article, namely Sheva Alomar, for my pro-women agenda. The truth, as opposed to a lie, it was about all fictional characters (male and female), and the consensus decided I was right, and the very Damien Linnane, so busy maliciously lying about me here to paint me as a horrible person with working on an "agenda against women", was the one who lost here and it's now accepted. It seems he didn't get over it. So incredibly petty.

I replied to the rest of the accusations above. I'm not reading the replies to the maliciously false portrayal of me as a person I'm not as to avoid stress. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• "And thus begins the first posts in a coming wall of text designed to confuse and discourage further discussion." - well, you called that one ok - (+9,807)... -- Begoon 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Atsme: thoughts on this new tirade? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You should read "this tirade" instead of dismissing. I bet none of you clicked the links when they were accompanying the lies about me. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. I can see how this user would be impossible to work with. I stand by my call for a site ban, perhaps more emphatically so.--WaltCip (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Listen. This guy accused me of my writing being "designed to confuse". It was his writing that was designed to confuse. REALLY please and see how I get it point by point, read closely, make sure to do CLICK all the links that he falsely used and I repeat to see they were falsely used and READ THEM, see my provided contexts and see if my description of these contexts is true. Really, just check it for the truth. Yourself. Without believing anyone's narrative being told (myself included, don't believe me, go check), see yourself. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, you're missing the whole point here. You have 19 users above who have an issue with your behavior here. We are here to examine your behavior, and what you're showing here is exactly the same behavior. If you don't chill out and speak to why you are behaving the way you are, you won't be convincing anyone. This isn't the time to passionately defend. This is the time to take a step back and reflect on what the community sees as an issue with your behavior so intractable that you're no longer wanted in the subject area, much less on the whole site. That is how you can fix this. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is about the worst thing you can do for yourself right now. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• A sad day. I recall Snake making great contribution to our Kony article back in 2012, and as Atsme summarises he’s done much other fine work. SNAAAAKE!!– none of the more perceptive editors think you're a woman hater. Clearly you're the opposite, all be it in a rather old fashioned chivalrous sense. I guess if you saw a woman in danger, you’d be one of the first to risk yourself to defend her. But you do seem to have an aversion to what you possibly see as SJWs / white knights / extreme feminism, but which much of the community would see as mainstream academic views on gender. Together with your somewhat confrontational nature, I fear Sandstein has called this correctly, you may be a net negative here. Unless the amazing Atsme or others can somehow find the right words to save you, this looks like game over. If so, thank you for your many excellent contributions, and I hope you know that being perma banned from here just means you are a bad fit. In many other RL & internet communities, a man with your fine qualities will be most appreciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just on one individual example "- btw the article that I myself made about Lulu (Final Fantasy) here on Wikipedia had been destroyed and turned into a redirect, thank you very much for respecting my work)." This is one the obvious examples of the passive aggressive WP:OWN demonstrated, and there are other less obvious but equally disruptive statements made that read as claims to authority on an article (or series of articles) or individuals.

SNAAAAAKE!! has demonstrated the inability to see how much of a SEALION he is. Koncorde (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

With regarda to the charge of quote mining; SNAAAAAKE purposely took 3 sentences and ignored all the context around those sentences in order to synthesise a position being held by the individual. His response was to type out the entire interview. What he didn't do is acknowledge that he was taking things out if context, and instead then claimed special knowledge of what the individual was thinking and inferred that therefore any other sources are wrong and demanded an example that met criteria that he specified. When provided, these were then dismissed as not quite meeting his thresholds even though they fundamentally agreed with the statements made Inn his first interview that he had mined around. This is not a one off just in that thread of extreme selectiveness. And while that isn't an offence, when the person goes on to create more and more arguments as infinitum, it does become tedious to debunk what are effectively gish-gallops of claims. And it's a pity, because he can clearly glean information from sources when he wants to, or it agrees with his position. Koncorde (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm leaning away from TBAN and towards CBAN here. SNAAAAKE had the opportunity for self-reflection here. The statement could have been "I disagree with many of these portrayals, but I see many people have concerns" or some such similar. Instead of even recognizing there are a dozen+ people voicing the same concerns, not just Damien's original statement and highlights, we have a heated and impassioned attack of the original post that doesn't address anyone else's views, as if this is just a 1v1 battle with Damien (or 1v2 including Abryn). I get it. It's hard to be the focus of an "attack" on ones behavior, but there's also the chance to go "Woah, maybe what I'm doing here isn't working". Edit as part of the edit conflict I experienced posting this: One of the issues highlighted is refactoring his statements and talk messages after people have replied, which is happening at this very AN thread now. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable: I didn't read the comments (my eyes only catched the one that totally mis-characterized what I said while putting it into quotation marks) as to not get even more angry. I hope they at least saw this was a lie. As for women, one of my best friends i ever had is a woman who is slowly dying right now from multiple sclerosis and I'd given up my life for her if I could to save her, I really would as in fact I hate myself and feel worthless and probably going to kill myself anyway and she's wonderful but is dying and yet she looks like if cheerful and pretends it's fine. While I'm chronically depressed over less. Thanks for your kind words, but in fact now I think my work on Kony 2012 was quite poor from my today's perspective. I'm not proud of it and would have returned to rewrite it completely, then realized no one cares about it anymore so it would be a waste of time. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Koncord: This is what happened, these articles were targeted and redirected (without a proper procedure) precisely because they were mine. And as to provide a proof of my claim, here it is: [59] (to quote the opening paragraph: "So this is another one of the Niemti articles."). This happened to a bunch of them at the same time. If they were allowed to remain, they would become infinitely better by now (through my continued work, and I've been collecting sources for that, and I can show you them of you want - Rinoa for example had 14 more waiting in addition to more already there at the time[60] when I found out the article ceased to exist and stopped collecting), however all these "Niemti articles" have been destroyed and I didn't work on restoring them. And no, I diodn't "purposely took 3 sentences and ignored all the context around those sentences in order to synthesise a position being held by the individual", I even transcribed and posted the entire damn interview (expect a few entirely unrevelant questions) which is an exact opposite thing of "3 sentences and ignored all the context" and even since the very beginning I posted a link to the scan of the page with all the context of course expecting everyone to read it. Are you too just unable to tell the truth? WHY do you need to lie? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I see many people have concerns" indeed, but for the sake of not getting stressted I didn't read for them as they appeared to agree to the character assassination conducted through a personal attack (look at this guys spreading his "agenda against women") and lies. Let's not go around it, it's lies, which you can check and verify. What about the lies? It's my question that I need a response. Are lies allowed? Is it just okay? Nothing happened? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, please listen to me - you are NOT worthless. Please...I will help you get through this, and you know that I'm your biggest fan. I'm going to help you create amazing articles. You know how much I enjoy reading them. Ivanvector, Ferret - I just sent Ivan an email...please contact him via email. Can we please end this discussion? I will be happy to communicate with you via email, but we should not continue this discussion. Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same about my 2012 work – I just remember thinking your edits to that were good at time. Almost everyone questions their worth at times, sometimes others see what we are more clearly. You have some great qualities, my words may have been kind, but I never say nice things I dont believe to be true. Ill leave this with Atsme for now as she is wiser than I. Listen and believe the wammenses! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a warning

Nothing to see here. LLcentury, please dial it down a notch or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

I am very very patient human being, however, I don't tolerate bad manners, irony, sarcasm and disrespect. I wanted to make it clear, I don't want to accuse any user, but hostility on Wikipedia is getting used as a day-to-day thing, I've blamed for my bad English. I will tolerate good faith comments about my English, never calling it appalling. Thank you. --LLcentury (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, LLcentury. Do you have an issue that requires administrator attention? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No User:Ivanvector, I hate conflicts and confrontations but I just got enough of mistreatment because of my level of English. I just wanted to express that appalling seems to my English unnecessary and rude. --LLcentury (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The statement says: to work to make Wikimedia communities safer for all good faith editors. A safe and respectful environment is not only one of our five pillars, it will also allow for more diverse voices to join our communities, bringing new knowledge with them.

Humbly, I am amused by that really, when it's clear the hostility and disrespect Wikipedia has for users with some difficulties whether technical or language-related. It's my unchangeable opinion and I stand for what I say. Not for one incident, I've already stumbled upon many hostile places on this site, if your Foundation really wants to make a safe and respectful environment for good faith editors, I think you're very far from that at this point. --LLcentury (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved your comment, because it seems to belong more here. If it was meant to be a response to the Board statement, please discuss it there. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury, if you're being harassed, please post it at the incidents noticeboard. If you don't want to post publicly, please contact an admin (me?) and we'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you get some resolution on that. I see so many editors being so uncivil and offensive, and it's rather saddening. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Abryn:, you're a good faith contributor, but I've crossed (if that's the word in English) way too many more hostile than nice people on here, so I've decided to humbly retire w/o accusing anyone. It's up to God, destiny or whatever your belief is to deal with them. Thanks Wikipedia for opening up my first place to literally come out. :) --LLcentury (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems LLcentury was referring to this diff. WaltCip (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and as usual I'm commenting on the content, not the user. I don't even know the user, nor if the user is a natural English speaker. In fact, I didn't even look at who created or amended the blurb. I certainly didn't "blame" anyone for anything. I simply stated that I thought the blurb was appallingly written, just as I find it appalling that we are featuring a stub as a bold link from our main page. I also find the behaviour of WMF appalling. None of this constitutes "bad manners, irony, sarcasm and disrespect", certainly not where I come from. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Board response to WP:FRAM

The Board has posted their statement at WP:FRAM. I am cross-posting it here so that those not following the WP:FRAM page can read it. If you wish to comment or discuss this further, please do so at the discussion subsection. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss at the discussion section here

Statement by WMF Executive Director, on behalf of the WMF, regarding WP:FRAM

Katherine Maher, the executive director of the WMF, has made a statement regarding WP:FRAM on her talk page: Special:Permanentlink/904607134#Response_on_behalf_of_the_Foundation. I have cross-posted it to WP:FRAM. For those not following the discussion closely, I have included a copy below. Please leave comments on WP:FRAM. MER-C 09:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

A pre-note: Thank you for your patience awaiting the statement from the Board and now this message from me on behalf of the Foundation. In the intervening time between the Board's statement, my writing and re-writing this below, and now posting it, there have been many comments and question here and elsewhere. This message will not respond directly to those points, but is meant to offer a broader perspective on recent events. In coming days and weeks, the Foundation (myself, T&S staff, and others) will be able to respond more directly to these more direct comments. Some will be easily resolved and clarified, some less so. Some may need to wait for further conversations at the upcoming Board meeting at Wikimania Stockholm. Hopefully not all will be answered at 01:00 local time. Thanks again.

The events of the past few weeks, following the Foundation’s decision to implement a partial ban of User:Fram on English Wikipedia, have evoked concerns, surprise, anger and frustration, and led to an important debate on the difficult task of managing disruptive behaviors and ensuring a healthy and civil community for all. The leadership of the Foundation, as well as the Trust & Safety team, have been closely following the conversations and constructive criticism and suggestions here on wiki.

First, I’d like to apologize. I am genuinely sorry that so many people have felt such distress, frustration, and disillusionment in recent days. Each person who has participated here in these conversations, and as Wikipedians in general, has done so out of a passion for this project. Whether we agree or disagree, we’re here because we care deeply about its stewardship and future. Whatever one’s perspective on the merits of the issues at hand, I regret that this has been such a difficult period for so many people.

I also would like to acknowledge that there are things that the Foundation could have handled better. The conversation about the limitations and challenges of addressing the most difficult behavioral cases, and what this means in the context of the principle of community self-governance, should have been held in fora in which people here would have had a chance to participate, weigh various considerations, raise issues, and collaboratively develop constructive solutions.

The introduction of the tools themselves could have also been improved. Paraphrasing an expression about unpopular decisions, the first application of a temporary ban on a contributor might have come as a shock, but it should never have been a surprise. That is to say, it is the Foundation’s responsibility to ensure people across our communities had been consulted on, and were familiar with, the reasoning and process behind the creation of new T&S tools, the conditions under which they might be applied, their relationship to the role and authority of existing community processes and bodies (e.g., ArbCom), and the relative weight and flexibility of the sanctions.

Finally, I would do certain things differently if there were a way to rewind and retry the last few weeks. As I’ve noted on my talkpage, I am responsible for approving the ban. Regardless of the merits of the case, I should have been better prepared to step forward and be accountable. There was some early confusion about the role of the Board in office actions, and some well-intentioned efforts by both Foundation and Board that both delayed response and added to uncertainty. During that period of delay, there was an opportunity to be more engaged in community conversation, rather than adding to the perception that the Foundation was aloof or insensitive to both people’s concerns and constructive proposals. And while this paragraph is not intended as a comprehensive retrospective, certainly, I would sit on my hands and not tweet.

As of a few hours ago, the Board of Trustees has posted their response. Building on the guidance from the Board, and in response to ArbCom’s open letter to the Board which set out its preparedness to review the User:Fram ban, the Foundation has completed its preparation of the case materials it can release to the committee. The release of these materials is intended to facilitate the committee’s review of the length and scope of the ban in place. T&S and Legal staff have a standing meeting with the members of the committee on 3 July 2019, in which the case and materials will be further discussed.

Additionally, Foundation staff have begun preparing for a dedicated community consultation on:

• The two new office action policy tools introduced during the last change (temporary and partial Foundation bans). Under the approach noted on June 17th, we will seek further community feedback on those changes. These new tools will not be used again until community consultations to clarify their purpose and mechanisms are completed;
• Alternative approaches to supporting communities dealing with onwiki harassment;
• Working closely with the community to identify the shortcomings of current processes and enforcement mechanisms, and to support the development of appropriate solutions;
• Offering training opportunities for community leaders (including ArbCom) involved in dealing with harassment to strengthen their ability to meet these challenges.

I believe strongly in the commitment to community self-governance, as do Foundation staff that work closely with our editing communities, including those in T&S. We also believe strongly in the principle that no one participating on the Wikimedia projects should be subject to harassment, abuse, or intimidation. We believe there is a way to respect and support both of these as foundational and equally important principles, to do so judiciously and with integrity, and without compromising on the safety and wellbeing of Wikimedia participants. As many have pointed out over the past weeks, Wikipedia is a grand and ongoing experiment, and we do not always get it right.

Someone on my talkpage asked me the other day if the culture and priorities of the English Wikipedia community are compatible with the Wikimedia movement’s broader vision and the Foundation’s own strategic plan, and whether the Foundation would care if they were not compatible. It was a thoughtful question, which seemed to get to the heart of some of the concerns and skepticism I was reading and hearing from some community members over the past few weeks.

English Wikipedia is a marvel. It is imperfect, it is a work in progress, it is a remarkable achievement of collaboration and cooperation in building the encyclopedia -- a rendering of humanity’s knowledge. Members of this community have spent thousands of hours writing and building this collective resource, as well as developing the processes, roles, and governance structures that are critical to sustaining English Wikipedia. In doing so, you have not only made English Wikipedia possible, but shaped the principles of the broader Wikimedia movement.

The Foundation views its responsibility as being to the long-term health of all Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia. This responsibility must be guided by both the needs of the projects as they exist currently, and the broader Wikimedia vision of a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. This means supporting essential technical and social resources that enable the projects to thrive today, while also keeping an eye on what to anticipate for the future. This means supporting Wikipedias that are open to newcomers, in terms of policies, experiences, and culture, in order to best position the projects and communities to remain self-sustaining, self-governing, and resilient -- and better yet, grow in size, commitment, and capacity, enriched by diverse global perspectives.

The community that has built this remarkable project has more collective wisdom and experience than any one of us alone, and the richness of that perspective must inform the long-term flourishing of this remarkable project. I look forward to working with you all on how we support this, together.

Katherine (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Discussion (Katherine Maher's statement)