Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than six days are
archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Centralized discussion

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC) (Initiated 105 days ago on 26 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RfCs[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 162 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazerdadog: Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There appears to still be an open request for closure of this here. - jc37 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Tazerdadog and User:Deryck Chan, are you both still willing to close this? I'll give it a week for you to respond, else I'll see about closing it. - jc37 18:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to close it, but I'm worried that the debate will be stale at this point. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#Request for comment on “vulture” descriptor[edit]

Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 99 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:

Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude>[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude> (Initiated 97 days ago on 3 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus seems apparent enough, so I don't think a formal close is strictly necessary (all the more so because the discussion has now been automatically archived), but it would be be good to have someone uninvolved confirm that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that this should be formally closed, especially because, if there is consensus to do anything in that discussion, it hasn't been done. Pppery 23:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
My reading of the consensus has been challenged, so a formal closure would be needed. – Uanfala (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation (Initiated 73 days ago on 27 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 67 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AD 1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AD 1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to? (Initiated 64 days ago on 6 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:AD 1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment by involved editor. The closing statement of the earlier RfC stated: the consensus is that the pages 1-100 will be moved only if a consensus can be reached as to the name of the articles. If there's assessed consensus for a title, please consider suggesting a period of time in which pre-move preparations can (need to) be made before the batch moves. This will involve new conditional logic such as year nav/dab templates. If it's assessed there's no consensus, these template updates will not be necessary. Take this with a grain of salt; I'm an involved editor, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment by involved editor. Concur with Andy. There would be a lot of work required in the year-related templates, although some needs to be done anyway, and the first RfC was contingent on a WP:CONSENSUS as to the move targets, which is not related to a majority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment by OP – Work on the templates has started and is not very difficult if we stick to changing the targets of years 1–100. There was a rather strong consensus in the original RfC for limiting the move to this range. Titles of year articles should be consistent but several name variants are already handled by redirects, so there is no harm in whichever solution is adopted. — JFG talk 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Update – By collective effort of some editors, pages 19 have been moved to AD 1AD 9 as a testbed to validate all necessary technical changes, including numerous templates dealing with years. Titles 19 are now assigned to the disambiguation pages. There were no objections from readers and other discussion participants so far. We are waiting for a formal closure of the second RfC in order to proceed with the migration work for 10100 if a naming convention can be decided. — JFG talk 16:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#RfC: Jane Doe content[edit]

RfC will be 30 days old on 21 November (ignore signatures near the top as they are re-signs or material added significantly after RfC start). FWIW, there is a consensus to close now, due to no activity, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Call for close. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss  05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Clark#RfC: Which of the two fields that contain his school info should be displayed.[edit]

Needs closure from an uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style? (Initiated 50 days ago on 20 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:Johannes Brahms#Illegitimate RFC in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park (Initiated 49 days ago on 21 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:National Hockey League#Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Hockey League#Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL" (Initiated 50 days ago on 20 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MPay#Proposed merge with Advanced Info Service[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MPay#Proposed merge with Advanced Info Service (Initiated 45 days ago on 25 October 2016) after 30 days have passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church (Initiated 51 days ago on 19 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages (Initiated 85 days ago on 15 September 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right[edit]

Unanimously opposed; it's snowing, someone please close this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • (involved comment) - I think it is reasonable to snow-close or procedural-close the original proposition, but to keep the "alternative proposal" by Jbh open. Maybe refactor the whole page or something. I made a comment to that effect here. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The alternative proposal should certainly remain open, yes. ~ Rob13Talk 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll close the first part. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    • yellow tickY Partly done by BethNaught. The other part of the RfC (which should probably run at least a full month) was (Initiated 17 days ago on 22 November 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fidel Castro#Request for Comment[edit]

I initiated this RfC yesterday to deal with a situation already extensively debated on the Talk Page and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Over the past 30 hours the RfC has seen a great deal of attention, with twenty statements of opposition/support/neutrality with regard to the central question. It has reached the point where insults are being traded and the same of issues are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps it is too early to bring it to a close, but I feel that it has served its purpose. Would an experienced editor who is well versed in Wikipedia policy and determining consensus please take a look and, if they see fit, bring it to a close. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016[edit]

Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#End[edit]

Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold war (general term)#Proposed merge with Cold War II[edit]

While the discussion might need more time, requesting it earlier is best due to the backlog of requests above. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Barsi#Cause of death[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Barsi#Cause of death {(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement? {(Initiated 44 days ago on 26 October 2016)? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#RfC: Is the language biased? and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity {(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox {(Initiated 35 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content {(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead {(Initiated 47 days ago on 23 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions? {(Initiated 41 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark {(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be? {(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides? {(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image {(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion {(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Center for Security Policy#RfC: Wording of Lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Security Policy#RfC: Wording of Lede {(Initiated 35 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table? {(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes {(Initiated 28 days ago on 11 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles? {(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC {(Initiated 41 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC {(Initiated 41 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects {(Initiated 38 days ago on 1 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing Was the Same#RfC: Should metacritic be listed in both the review scores box and the critical reception article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nothing Was the Same#RfC: Should metacritic be listed in both the review scores box and the critical reception article? {(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#The initial sentence in this article is not factual. There are two problems, one is a major objective issue in that non factual information is being presented. The other is possibly subjective, as discussed here[edit]

This section and others, for example the already closed Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi, are protracted WP:FORUM debates and seem to be going nowhere. (Initiated 95 days ago on 5 September 2016) —DIY Editor (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Talk:Charlotte (wrestler)#Requested move 29 October 2016[edit]

Needs closure from uninvolved editor.LM2000 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum currently has an average backlog, 17 items going back to November 7, 2016. (15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions[edit]

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The backlog has grown to about one month (plus one extremely old one listed below). Pppery 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8#Roman Empire establishments (1st century and earlier)[edit]

This discussion has stayed open for nearly six months! ((Initiated 184 days ago on 8 June 2016)) Pppery 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Amber[edit]

Has been open for nearly a month; needs closure from an uninvolved admin (I personally have no opinion on the subject). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 248 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Operation Entebbe 2016-12-08 13:43 2017-12-08 13:43 edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page CambridgeBayWeather
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) 2016-12-07 17:54 2017-03-07 16:19 edit,move changing to extended confirmed, consistent with related topics Acroterion
International aid to Palestinians 2016-12-06 12:22 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page: RFPP request Ymblanter
J Street 2016-12-06 06:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Two-state solution 2016-12-06 06:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Rosebud (film) 2016-12-06 06:31 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Fauda 2016-12-06 06:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Cast a Giant Shadow 2016-12-06 06:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm 2016-12-06 06:23 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Southern Lebanon 2016-12-06 06:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
The Blitz 2016-12-05 22:26 2017-03-05 22:26 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry CambridgeBayWeather
Population statistics for Israeli settlements in the West Bank 2016-12-05 10:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
List of Palestinian suicide attacks 2016-12-05 10:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Child suicide bombers in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2016-12-05 10:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Zionist political violence 2016-12-05 09:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) 2016-12-05 09:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Ziad Abu Ein 2016-12-05 09:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Dalal Mughrabi 2016-12-05 09:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Coastal Road massacre 2016-12-05 09:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Six-Day War 2016-12-05 09:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Comet Ping Pong 2016-12-05 03:50 2017-01-27 03:10 edit,move increasing protection to extended confmirmed in view of real-life circumstances and current disruption Acroterion
Telaga 2016-12-04 14:13 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry RegentsPark
Ariel (city) 2016-12-04 06:21 2017-12-04 06:21 edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page CambridgeBayWeather
History of the Palestinians 2016-12-03 12:12 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page: RFPP request Ymblanter
Blogger (service) 2016-12-03 08:24 2016-12-10 08:24 edit Persistent spamming CambridgeBayWeather
Palestinian right of return 2016-12-03 08:17 2017-06-03 08:17 edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page CambridgeBayWeather
Module:Basketball color/data 2016-12-02 12:43 indefinite edit,move allow extended confirmed editors to edit MSGJ
Fred Penner 2016-12-01 17:52 2017-02-16 21:18 edit,move Persistent block evasion: switch to ec protection - semi-protection is not working Ponyo

Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)[edit]

I would like to request a review of the closure of this RfC regarding the page Paul Singer (businessman). It was discussed with the closer here.

The previous RfC for this same issue (12/10/15) can be found here where consensus was established six months prior to the RfC in question. Between the two RfCs, the closer had created a number of discussions (possibly in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

It must be noted that the RfC in question is rather old (29/04/16) and editors protested the closure since it was closed by the same editor who opened both the RfC itself and all other discussions, and was not necessarily reflective of consensus which does appear to reinforce that set out in the 12/10/15 RfC.

The improper close of the RfC would normally not be an issue, however, yet another RfC has opened, claiming that the last discussion was "inconclusive" and we must therefore have another discussion.

I would argue that this has all been incredibly disruptive considering the huge number of editors involved (36) in the prior 8 discussions from a 16/07/14 RfC to the 29/04/16 RfC is plenty of discussion for something which editors have considered relatively uncontroversial - 23 have been in favour of the current consensus and 6 against, with 7 somewhere in between. Furthermore, consensus has often not been respected in the rare points of calm between discussion, with some of the "6 against" editors making against-consensus edits and reversions.

This is a messy situation, but to conclude, I would like to request the evaluation of the close here and the closure of the current RfC, considering the arguements made by other editors at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC is Nonsense. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.
SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.
Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:
After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): You're hardly the person to close this RfC... is a splendid example of grotesque snark. I did not "close the RfC" and that snark is ill-suited for rational discussion. In addition, I left in the "vulture" opinion about EMC, and note that the lead is supposed to be in summary style. I am concerned that this sort of snark is poisonous to any discussion, and ask that any editor who feels such personal attacks should be used should get the aitch away from here. Collect (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?
From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.
The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Wikipedia calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Wikipedia should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: [5] [6]. You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you, DGG; that's a fair representation of my basic thoughts as well. As I just posted on the Singer talk page, we're trying to discuss the use of "vulture" as a descriptor of a human being. "Vulture" is as such a charged word in the sense that we're liable to annex this valued meaning to a word that is used in the context of a business endeavour. Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture. I am utterly amazed people fail to see that. The previous close was precisely that, a "middle of the road close". The "vulture fund" practices are thoroughly discussed throughout the article in the context of what quality sources have to say about the matter. Using the term through a personal angle by making a de facto generalisation in an article's lede is another story, and I believe we were making some progress back in October in this regard. I would very much like to see us return to that stage and come up with a neutral and balanced solution. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC makes for a dramatic read. My perception of things, after also skimming the older RfCs linked about halfway through, is that the prior RfCs were imperfectly framed, and as a result conversations were bogged down by arguments over whether Singer himself was a vulture, not whether vulture should be a descriptor in any lead at all. The RfC certainly has broader implications than one biography, as the overall precedent on Wikipedia most definitely favors avoiding such descriptors in bio leads. Has anyone else been able to find a biography or corporation with an animal slur used in the intro? I tried with several creative search phrases, and have so far utterly failed. This RfC is far from perfect as well, but I do applaud its attempt to focus the issue away from Singer. Most constructive so far, in my opinion, is that the argument that excluding vulture from the lead equals censorship has been debunked several times. Leads are certainly not required to include every detail of a criticism section, and per prior arguments, any concept that could be carried across by "vulture" could also be carried across with an alternate explanation.
Note to whoever closes this RfC: However long this discussion needs to continue, I would like to note that there is obviously not a clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead, even though the reverts apparently leading to this discussion were founded entirely on the argument that prior RfCs had reached consensus. As such, I would like to note that all three of those reverts have been proven to have been without basis, even if they were done in good faith. A number of contributors, several of obvious neutrality and experience, have agreed that a slur of denigration is inappropriate in a lead when applied to a person or company, especially since both the criticism and the neologism can be fully explained with neutral and more conservative words. As such, the argument that there is a violation of the neutral tone mandated by WP:BLPSTYLE is at the very least plausible, however this consensus concludes itself. Until that time, however, the assessment that biography leads must be treated with extra delicacy is absolutely correct, and I agree with Yvarta's bold action to remove "vulture" when he/she did, just like I would have agreed with a decision to remove "rat" or "loan shark" or "pig." Basically, until something is settled, there is currently no consensus', and I believe "vulture" should be again removed until consensus is reached and the barn is built.Bbmusicman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are examples of why I answered as I did, if anyone is interested:
My point is that when derogatory information *is true* then we are not required to pretend it's not there.
- btw, for a dispassionate take on what a vulture capitalist actually is. I think people should read vulture fund and vulture capitalist -- nothing there about animals. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I highly encourage you to take some good examples to the RfC, where contributors can see them (this discussion isn't linked on that talk page anymore, after archiving). I'm a bit confused by your examples, though? Shrimp isn't very deragatory, except perhaps to a very short and insecure person, and "dictator" is actually a relatively neutral, especially compared to synonyms such as "tyrant" or "monster" or "fiend." Other phrases, like "mass-murderer," also have negative connotation, but they are clinical and exact, without cartoonish connotation making the phrases more loaded than necessary. Perhaps other examples? Yvarta (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Observations: (1) SegataSanshiro1, who opened this AN thread and who has written more than double the amount of text of the article than any other editor [7], is Argentinian (as noted on his userpage) and has a very strong POV and agenda about the article, since Singer's most controversial debt-funds are Argentinian. (2) In my opinion FoCuSandLeArN should not have closed the previous WP:RfC (nor should he have made the edit[s] presumed to be "consensus" -- at the very least, another editor should have made any edits springing from the RfC), since he started the RfC and has also been involved in the contentious debate(s). One can withdraw an RfC one has started, but one cannot close it. Only an uninvolved editor can formally close an RfC. See WP:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. (3) That said, SegataSanshiro1 has opened this AN thread in a very non-neutral, POV manner, and as Meatsgains commented above, SegataSanshiro1 had no problem with FoCuSandLeArN's 5-month-old close until now. (4) What seems to need to happen is for an uninvolved administrator to look at and close the current RfC that is now on the talk page awaiting closure. (5) I believe Collect, a neutral and highly experienced editor, has encapsulated the issue well in his three comments above. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonywiki[edit]

The appeal of the sanction has been declined by a clear and active consensus. A few additional points:

  • The section "notification of that administrator" has not been edited by the appellant to include a diff as it says it should, and indeed EdJohnston's talk page doesn't seem to have received a notification, but Ed did comment here so I do not think this small omission has flawed the outcome in any way
  • In reply to Anonywiki, you can find the log of the sanction here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Genetically modified organisms. It is also where this declined appeal will be logged.
  • In reply to BMK, I think that the wording of the procedure indicates that the six month delay for a second appeal would start when the appeal was made (Nov-27th), not closed (Dec-5th), but it's a matter of days so it's probably relatively trivial. I hope an appeal in six months won't be hastily declined for a matter of days.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Anonywiki (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from the subject of GMOs, imposed at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anonywiki, logged at
log of sanctions (according to EdJohnston, I can't find it.)
Administrator imposing the sanction 
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Anonywiki[edit]

This is the by far most bizarre sanction I have ever received on Wikipedia.

The original text read that commentators were "pointing out" that Jill Stein's comments contradicted the scientific consensus. The "pointing out" was changed by me to "claiming". In the discussion I added the analogy that if Huffington Post writers are writing that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union we don't say commentators are "pointing out" that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union.

In the end some other editor changed the verb to "writing that", which has the equivalent point, marking an improvement to the accuracy of the article first initiated by me and a mistake in moderation by EdJohnston. I totally agreed with this edit, it was similar to my own, the "pointing out" was changed to "writing that" because we do not have a point of view about this opinion.

In my opinion EdJohnston has not understood the argument and is pushing his moderation powers around. In my opinion he has acted in an outrageous manner and I hope he is sanctioned himself.

I agreed with the new more correct wording but because EdJohnston did not like my opinions he found that he would ban me from the subject of GMOs for one year.

The reason that in one edit I removed the Huffington Post links was because of the incorrect wording. I had zero problem with it after that. Anonywiki (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

The problem with Anonywiki's editing about GMOs was discussed in detail in the Arbitration Enforcement request. The complete set of diffs was presented there. Two other admins supported issuing a topic ban. Anonywiki speaks as though his own position on GMOs was obviously correct, writing that "Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such articles that have specific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them." He does not seem to be aware that an RfC was closed on 7 July 2016 by a panel of three administrators that expresses the Wikipedia consensus on the topic of GMOs. The consensus was found to be Proposal 1 of that RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality[edit]

I was the editor who originally filed the complaint against Anonywiki. His/her appeal should be denied for the reasons set forth by EdJohnston, and because Anonywiki presents no substantial reason to lift the topic ban. Neutralitytalk 00:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonywiki[edit]

  • I see no legitimate reason put forward by the OP for the sanction to be overturned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • BTW, assuming that this appeal is declined, I assume that the clock starts ticking on the six months before Anonywiki can appeal the sanction at that time, and is not measured from the original placement of the sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with BMK. Miniapolis 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I see no reason presented for lifting the topic ban. Decline. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline. This appeal clearly doesn't address the totality of the issues presented at AE, and I have no confidence in lifting a topic ban when the editor under sanction doesn't understand why their editing was problematic. ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline - Editor makes the same arguments made at the original AE, and is clearly attempting to unilaterally change consensus. I see no merit to the claim that EdJohnston overstepped their authority as an admin. Recommend that the six-month clock start over when this appeal is closed, and any appeals prior to that date should be summarily closed on that technicality. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Anonywiki[edit]

  • There is clear and active consensus to decline the appeal.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Possibly compromised account[edit]

The block was lifted. Editors no longer think the account was compromised. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Recent behavior of WikiCats (see deleted edits too) suggests that it might be compromised. Would appreciate if an admin (or admins) could investigate. Thanks, FASTILY 08:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm going offline now for a while: I'm happy with anyone else taking further/different action. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering the long absence, and that the edits they're making are similar to those made over 10 years ago, my money would be on the account not being compromised. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see any evidence of compromise either. The two things they have created (and which have been deleted), Parochialism in Sydney and Category:Catholic Church offices, have have been deleted before after being initially created by the same account - a hacker wouldn't be able to see their deleted contributions and wouldn't know they'd previously created them, would they? Also, there is evidence of long breaks before too - not as long as this 3-year gap, but we have only 2 edits between between December 2006 and January 2008, a gap between September 2008 and May 2010 with only two edits, and a gap of nearly 2 years between September 2011 and June 2013 with no edits. As per DrKay's comment, I have unblocked - and will keep an eye on edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've just realised that there are links to Parochialism in Sydney and Category:Catholic Church offices at User:WikiCats, so a hacker could have recreated them from there - but I still think these re-creations coupled with previous long absences put the balance in favour of not compromised. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The editor has been unblocked by Boing! said Zebedee on the theory that there is no compromise of the account. In my opinion this thread can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Pre-emptive Extended confirmed protection for templates[edit]

I've just been asked by a user to reduce a protection level I set some years ago, downgrading from Template Editor protection (TEP) to Extended Confirmed protection (ECP), on the basis that past requests for TEP to ECP were undertaken by administrators (two such changes are in the ECP log further up the Administrators' Noticeboard) and that it would be more suitable for the template in question (Template:Location map Russia).
I've read through the note which was left on my talk page regarding ECP, and I've read through the policy on ECP, and it doesn't appear to permit this pre-emptive usage, but I agree with the broad view expressed by the user, that ECP would be more suitable for some templates.
Any thoughts on this ? Nick (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying my response to Nick from his talk page: WP:PP does not discourage ECP on templates per wording of the policy... not yet. Actually, the wording looks vague, especially WP:PTPROT. Would trying to interfere with protective levels, i.e. upgrading protection from ECP to template-protection, violate the "Wikipedia is not bureaucracy" rule? --George Ho (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Magioladitis: (Talk page stalking elsewhere). --Izno (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I declined a couple of those as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Totally uninvolved; I don't think I've ever seen this template before. Do you think that TE protection is necessary? If so, don't reduce it: this is fundamentally the same thing as going from full to semi. If not, go ahead; we don't have anything against reducing a page from full protection to semiprotection, and this is, again, basically the same thing. Reducing a protection you imposed, if you now believe the protection to be excessive, is reasonable, and it would go against WP:BURO if someone would oppose your action because the lower protection level isn't explicitly authorised for the page in question. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There was a large RfC to determine usage of ECP, located here. In that RfC, the consensus was for Option C, which states "Allow use to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." That was very specific consensus to use ECP only to combat active disruption where semi-protection is ineffective. The absence of specific guidance on applying ECP to high-risk templates doesn't mean it's up to administrator discretion. It means that the community has not yet supported us using the tools in this way. Prior to the RfC, administrators could not use this protection level without specific community consensus or a relevant ArbCom remedy. Similarly, I believe that we shouldn't expand the usage of ECP without some evidence of community consensus specifically for that. I expressed similar sentiments when admins started applying ECP creation protection. Maybe these are positive uses of the extendedconfirmed user right and protection level, but administrators who believe that's true should pose the question to the broader community. Admins are provided the tools to use them as the community has determined they should be used. We shouldn't deploy our technical abilities to effectively change the protection policy without an appropriate level of community input. ~ Rob13Talk 13:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Has the community opposed using ECP for templates? George Ho (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
We don't use administrative tools on a "Well, they haven't explicitly told us not to do it!" basis. The community hasn't supported using ECP for templates, which is what's relevant here. ~ Rob13Talk 13:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
If "high-use" templates are not "high-risk" templates, can ECP apply to "high-use" (not "high-risk") templates? I'm basing this on "high-use" and "high-risk" message templates. George Ho (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it can, the community has only recently discussed the matter and agreed that extended confirmed protection is for cases where semi-protection has been tried and where it has failed. The policy says In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. We, as administrators, have to respect the wishes of the community through the use of our tools. I know things change and the wishes of the community often change over time, but we're talking about the most recent significant change in the administrative toolset, something which was ratified only a few weeks ago, I feel this definitely has to go back to the community to be discussed further. Nick (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
If the community has only just decided it, why would we go back to the community to discuss it further? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, though pre-emptive Extended Confirmed Protection for templates, as a replacement in some circumstances for Template Editor Protection wasn't discussed during the discussion, so there could be something for the community to discuss without rehashing old arguments. Nick (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Brexit means Brexit, don't forget.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The community just decided on a policy, but this use case never came up. It's not rehashing things to bring a new use case to the community for discussion. Ideally, such a discussion should also discuss ECP creation protection, which is currently applied to 17 pages but has no basis in the protection policy. ~ Rob13Talk 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • This request is make-work nonsense. Template:Location map Russia was last edited in September 2010 and the only talk page comment was in July 2010. Editors should not wander about the project looking for things that might be useful. Clarification I mean George Ho should give a reason for wanting a bunch of people to spend time on the template. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    I was going to compare this to Template:Location map China, transcluded by 1,300+ pages and semi-protected. However, I almost forget that Russia is part of Eastern Europe, which is subject to discretionary sanctions. So are its related pages. I added discretionary sanctions banner in its talk page. I did the same on the template talk page. Shall I add "ds/talk notice" on many other related pages? If discretionary sanctions is justified for using template-protection on related pages, like "location map Russia", then... I shall not challenge that. Nevertheless, other templates not related to Eastern Europe shall be discussed. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    What are saying? Are you thinking of adding tags somewhere? If so, do not add anything to any page unless there is a need. There may be a theoretical possibility that a tag is needed, but the tag should only be added if needed. Or, are you wanting to have a protracted discussion about why a template that has not changed in six years is protected? If so, do not discuss stuff unless there is a need. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'll rephrase: ...I'm giving up on requesting downgrade on that template for now. The talk about it is done. Now back to general concern about templates and ECP... George Ho (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

George Ho you need to stop posting at WP:RFPP asking for changes in template protection. If the template has less than 1,000 uses or is semi-protected and there is no disruptive activity it doesn't need changing. If it is template editor protected it doesn't need changing. Thanks to BU Rob13 they have all been taken care of. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all the thanks I get for making requests of any kind? You know what? Have it your way. Until you trust EC users to edit templates, I'll not make any more requests for protection on templates. George Ho (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC); edited, 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) To be fair, I don't mind the edit requests where template protection is needed even when they're currently semi'd. Those requests aren't particularly necessary, as I regularly go through the database report and widdle away at unprotected or underprotected high-risk templates, but they aren't damaging. The continued requests for ECP protection to high-risk templates do need to stop, though. ~ Rob13Talk 12:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
George Ho I didn't say you should stop just that you need to be more selective in your requests. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for my outbursts hours ago; I struck that comment. However, I still decide to hold myself off from such requests until the time being, i.e. allowing EC users to edit templates without telling them to request the special right to have access to template-protected pages. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
As for requesting protection on templates transcluded by <1,000 pages, I saw one of administrators accept some of my such requests in the past. I thought any of you would do the same. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@George Ho: It really depends on the template. I'd template protect a template with 100 transclusions if those transclusions were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, United States, etc. It's very possibly I would semi-protect a ~800 transclusion template if the pages were medium traffic, but not for low traffic pages. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up ECP discussion[edit]

I've drafted an RfC to gauge consensus on two use cases of ECP at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2. Could some of the admins here look over the proposal and provide any suggestions? I'd like to keep it at these two use cases for now to avoid muddling things up. Note that the RfC isn't live, so no actual comments should be made there yet. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you add more proposals of usage? "High-risk" can be interpreted broadly. What about "high-use templates"? And what about protecting titles of articles? --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Never mind. I overlooked or misread the bold statement. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I'll say what GH struck himself on: We should distinguish between high-use-low-risk and high-use-high-risk templates. I know that I would very clearly not support ECP for Template:Navbox, but I might for Template:WikiProject Video games--both are considered high use but one has a highly-visible impact and one does not. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: If we get into the weeds of what a high-risk template is, we're never getting out of that with any type of consensus for anything. That's been posed to the community many times but failed to gain consensus any which way. As always, protection should be a matter of administrative judgement, and the protection level should be comparable to how widely used, complicated, and high-risk those templates are. We already trust administrators to correctly differentiate between templates in need of semi and templates in need of template protection, so I think it's safe to trust them to make this differentiation as well. ~ Rob13Talk 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
If the community doesn't form a consensus in favor of using ECP on "high-risk" templates, maybe another RfC proposal to use ECP on "high-use" templates might do. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
No, we need to keep this simple. Protection is an administrative discretion area, including about which templates are high risk and which are not. Approve it for templates or don't, and if we do, let the decision about what is at risk be up to the administrator. Katietalk 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree, this should be generally discretionary - and can be entertained at RFPP as needed. Being able to use LESS protection (ECP as opposed to TP when TP would have otherwise been used) shouldn't be a big stretch. — xaosflux Talk 20:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Concur, Protection should never be based on a set of "if-then-else" conditions. The admins were already granted discretionary use of ECP, I don't see why template protection should be made an exception. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If template protection is not an exception, how do we motivate people into requesting to become template editors? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Two things: Blackmane, the community never granted purely discretionary use of ECP. They granted discretionary use on these conditions: "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic." Extending that to pre-emptive protection of high-risk templates is more than trivial. The community may or may not want the use of ECP to be extended in that way. George Ho, I'm not terribly worried about "motivation" to become template editors. If we create a situation where less editors need the right, then less editors will ask for it, and that's completely fine. There's no need to grant user rights just for the sake of granting them. Lastly, I will be launching this RfC in the absence of any additional comments in a week or so, when I have time to go about notifying everyone from the last ECP RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 08:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@BU Rob13: yes, you are correct. That was the decision that I was referring to as I was involved in the RFC. Apologies to George Ho for not being specific on this. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: may I suggest adding the sentence "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure on templates against disruption that has not yet occurred" (bolded words mine) in accordance with the existing policy on the use of ECP? While I am disappointed with the last ECP RfC, the community spoke quite clearly, and I don't see a strong case against allowing ECP for templates with ongoing severe disruption. However, I will oppose any attempt to allow using ECP to preemptively protect templates. There are already more than enough protection levels for that. Altamel (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Altamel: Where are you suggesting I add that? The RfC is already clear that it's addressing only use on high-risk templates. ~ Rob13Talk 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
After the last sentence of the second paragraph, after "two such potential use cases." insert "In accordance with existing protection policy, if extended confirm protection is approved for either of these two cases, it should only be used with prior evidence of disruption, not as a preemptive measure." That, or something carrying the same meaning. Thanks. Altamel (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this asking for more unnecessary rules, Altamel, or is semi-protection adequate enough or something? Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making tackles that. Also, WP:TPROT says that "template protection" should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists – the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In other words, maybe we can make templates editable just for autoconfirmed and/or EC users. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, in theory, ECP is less restrictive than full protection or template protection. That is a reasonable point. But in practice, I have not seen evidence that ECP is being used to make page protections less restrictive rather than more restrictive. Of the 248 pages that are currently extended confirm protected, I count 8 instances where full protection/template protection was reduced to extended confirmed, and 32 instances where a page was upgraded from semi to ECP. The empirical evidence shows that in general, ECP is being used to deny additional editors the ability to modify pages, not the other way around. I noticed that you have made efforts to downgrade some templates from template protection to ECP—thank you for that. But on the whole, I am concerned that if preemptive ECP on templates is allowed, the general trend will be to upgrade, not downgrade protection, which is precisely what has happened with articles. In the last RfC, the closer wrote that extended-confirmed protection should not be used as a first resort, which I interpret as barring preemptive protection. We ought to respect the result of such a widely attended RfC, and note this condition in the upcoming RfC. I see no harm to clearly spelling out the rules under which ECP may be allowed for templates. All the best, Altamel (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian editing on Articles Concerning American Politics[edit]

This is a general question but wanted to get some thoughts. It been widely reported that Russia has sponsored efforts to undermine US elections and politics. Russia has developed fake news, hacked emails, etc. I would think it would be likely that the Russian government could sponsor editors on Wikipedia to push certain POVs inside of US politics. Is this something that Wikipedia has considered? Could Wikipedia do anything to prevent this (e.g. identify editors from locations that are located in Eastern Europe or within Russia)? Casprings (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence this has happened or will happen. If we see POV pushing editors, we'll deal with them, same as always. It's rather easy to do so in that topic area because it's under discretionary sanctions. Given that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we're not about to block all of Eastern Europe and Russia from editing a whole topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 11:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Just wanting to know.. but wouldn't this be easy to look at? You just look at articles the Russian government might be interested in (e.g. Syria) and see if ips are: 1. From Russia or Eastern Europe; 2. Editing the article in favor of known Russian positions. You wouldn't have to ban editors. You could then investigate further or even tag the editors so others would know. There is actually plenty of evidence that this is happening or will happen in the future. Russian efforts in cyber are very widely reported by mulitiple wp:rs.Casprings (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you really imagine that the USA is not also making "efforts in cyber"? If you accept that, then we just look at articles the U.S. government might be interested in (e.g. Syria) and see if ips are: 1. From the USA, Canada or Western Europe; 2. Editing the article in favor of known U.S. positions... and so on. The USA does have a past history of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, after all. MPS1992 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, not to mention that we should expect Russian citizens to enter from a pro-Russian POV at times, if only due to their government's influence. Same as US citizens, really. I should say there's no specific evidence of government-endorsed/paid POV editing. I seriously doubt this would ever happen. I could see it on the Russian Wikipedia as an inward-facing propaganda thing, but on the English Wikipedia? When you can choose to dedicate resources anywhere you want to influence American politics through espionage, hacks, theft of sensitive materials, military operations, etc., what sensible government chooses Wikipedia? As much as we like to pretend otherwise sometimes, we're not that important. ~ Rob13Talk 19:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest the US isn't making efforts. What I would suggest that it hasn't been reported in an WP:RS that the US government efforts "include thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia." . Multiple sources do say that about Russia. Rather the US is or isn't doing that also seems a little irrelevant to the question. Shouldn't Wikipedia investigate possible influence by governments, rather or not other governments do it? If multiple reporting on Russia is true, editing Wikipedia to support certain POVs would be right in-line with their past behavior. Both the popularity, the rule based behavior of Wikipedia, and the openness to editing makes it a pretty easy target for any organized state effort to sway public opinion. Just saying... Casprings (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Casprings. There seems to be a vague consensus here that it is unlikely that the WMF would or should spend much time investigating possible influence by governments. That, of course, is merely the opinions of some editors here on this one particular project. I think most or all of us volunteer editors do our best to deal appropriately with editing we encounter that seems not in accordance with WP:NPOV for whatever reasons. Speaking of which, you may wish to spend some of your volunteer time assisting User:Sagecandor, who has posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about potential influx of Russian propaganda users regarding exactly that. MPS1992 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
We can't respond to every moral panic that crops up from time to time, whether it's rainbow parties or Russian whatevers. LavaBaron (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Everybody who is editing articles on Russian/Ukrainian topics knows that this happened already years ago. We have a lot of POV pushers, in particular, from the Russian side. They are often accounts which registered years ago but made may be several dozens edits. They appear from nowhere and start non-neutral editing, edit-war, often refuse to discuss or repeat the arguments which were already rejected previously etc. This takes enormous amount of time from editors in good standing, and in the end the accounts get blocked anyway. The easiest is to block these accounts per WP:NOTTHERE as early as possible if it is clear they behave disruptively.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested unblock, user:zanimum[edit]

A steward has already unlocked this account. — xaosflux Talk 19:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

zanimum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone could work with me to get me unblocked, as per this suggestion on Meta? I believe the password I was using on LinkedIn some years ago, which was leaked a few months ago, is the password I was using for my global Wikimedia account. Anyway, someone logged in and delinked the main page on about 170 pages, using my account.

I'm an editor since 2002, a sysops since 2003 or 2004, and part of the WMF Communications Committee. I'd like to simply change my password to something secure, and go back to editing, please. How can we go about doing this? My email address is available on my German Wikipedia user page. -- 198.96.114.148 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (user:zanimum at work)

Your email address, nicholasmoreau@gmail.com, appears on your userpage here as well. Please reply to the email I've just sent you. Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, that's true! (I got lazy and Googled my username, instead of typing in the URL, and strangely other projects came up first.) I've just replied, thank you for your help! -- 198.96.114.20 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to note that I've no objection to any admin unblocking the account locally without reference to me, once the ID has been established. Sorry, I don't have time to look into this myself. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have received a response from Nick, confirming that the IP really is his. Now let's see about getting him back in control of his account. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate Zanimum's posting here for the local community to be aware that he will be returning to editing En-WP, but I think the trust and security team in the Office has also been involved recently in confirming that compromised admin accounts have been secured. Zanimum, would it be possible for you to have someone there give us a go-ahead here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Active politician?[edit]

This is purely a content dispute, not a matter that requires the use of the administrative tools. Administrators have no standing above that of any other editor when it comes to content decisions. ~ Rob13Talk 18:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I have a dispute regarding this, active politician status on the talkpage of a biography - if a person was in a position then are no longer in a position, they have no political job, no political status at all, are they then classed as an active politician, yes or no on the talkpage settings? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari is referring to the discussion here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That discussion is about the actual article content, this concern is about the talkpage status only, is he to be classed as an active politician or not when he has no political job Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    This is a pure content dispute (about a banner that doesn't really matter at that). What administrative action are you looking for here? Work it out on the talk page. --Majora (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    As an aside, your edit didn't actually do anything. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • user_talk:zzuuzz Then why was it reverted? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zac_Goldsmith&diff=prev&oldid=752856912 the use absolutallypuremilk is claiming there is a consensus for his change that a person without any political job is to be classed as an active Politian - active, yes or no - then why do we have the parameter?
    • It is more important than that, although it is clear to me, Apsolutepurepilk is disputing it, I am looking for an administration comment to sort this out, it is important, otherwise why do we have the yes or no options, should inactive politicians be classed as active - yes because they have been active in the past? Govindaharihari (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
      • When you've got users like Martinevans123 on the case you don't need an admin. Actually I see the the diff which is mentioned on the talk page will work - there's more than one parameter to change. Personally I think the talk page template should be reworded to include politicians who have recently left office. As it is currently worded however, it clearly does not apply. Don't bother with whether they are active or not, look at what the template says. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for Closure Review: Talk:Michael_Portillo#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F[edit]

This is a request for an official review of the decision to close the Request for Comment at Talk:Michael_Portillo, which was requested by Smerus and carried out by Midnightblueowl. The RfC concerned the issue of whether the subject's infobox should contain his political predecessors and successors, as is customary on other BLPs and as is provided for in the community-endorsed infobox template. As you will be aware, the standard policy is to let RfCs run for 30 days, unless the discussion has come to a standstill and there is either an agreement by both sides that the RfC should be closed or another compelling reason for closure. This RfC was opened on November 14, 2016 – it was closed today, Dec. 3 2016, whereas under normal circumstances it should have been closed no sooner than 11 days from now. Discussion has not come to a standstill (an editor !voted and commented just 10 hours before closure), and there was no such agreement by both sides that the RfC should be closed; the request for closure was filed by Smerus without the consultation of other editors. Moreover, as this issue is relevant to thousands of BLPs wiki-wide I think it is all the more important that the RfC be allowed to run for at least the full 30 day period. Prior to making this review request, I informed Midnightblueowl here and they agreed that an official review was appropriate. I have also notified Smerus on their user talk page. Best wishes, Specto73 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It might make more sense to open an RfC about including predecessors and successors in politician infoboxes in general. Everything said there pro and con has general applicability. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@DGG: That is precisely my view. As the inclusion of predecessors and successors in political infoboxes is the current status quo standard, I agree that a wiki-wide consultation would be more appropriate. Given the general applicability of this issue and the overwhelming past consensus, I would be exceedingly grateful if you would reopen the discussion – I don't see any reason that suggests the RfC should have been closed in the first place, and I am disinclined to start a general RfC as I am very much in favour of maintaining the status quo. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

" Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review. Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." (WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). If anyone is concerned about the "thousands of BLPs wiki-wide" (actually it only affects 'Infobox officeholder' articles), they should, as suggested by DGG, take the issue to discussion at Template:Infobox_officeholder. If they are 'disinclined' to do this, that may offer some index of the true level of their concern.--Smerus (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User continues to remove sourced information[edit]

Hello, could I please have help in solving this matter? I added some information to the Guardian: The Lonely and Great God page but another user continues to remove this information. I tried to engage in a discussion with them on their talk page but they removed the message. This is not the first time I have encountered this. I have seen many other South Korean drama pages that list information like this. A few months ago, under a different IP address, the same user was removing large portions of information and when I tried to leave a message on their talk page they ignored it. I had to get another Wikipedia user to act as a mediator to solve that issue and I'm having to do that again. Could someone please help me solve this? Thanks. (124.43.93.21 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

Administrator protection for block-abusing edits?[edit]

An administrator is ordering me to protect the edits of socks with the edit comment, "Do not edit closed AfDs".  Two examples are, [8] and [9] I am giving the administrator a chance to explain himself, but if there is no response here, I will simply revert him, as such edits have no 3RR limits.  @Sandstein:Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Might want to discuss this on User talk:Sandstein before coming here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was clear in my warning: "Do not edit closed AfDs, not even to strike through comments by blocked editors. This creates the mistaken impression that the closing admin closed the discussion in the state after your edits." Our policy at WP:TPO is also quite clear: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." I'm not sure what the point of this is, except to waste the time of others.  Sandstein  17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:TPO is not a policy it is a guideline.  Further WP:TPO has in no way been disregarded.  Changing the meaning to the rest of the discussion is covered by dating the strike.  This is exactly why the edits of blocked editors in AfDs cannot be directly reverted, with the exception of when their post is the last post in the AfD.  Changing the meaning to the blocked editor's comments is exactly the purpose of the strike, which is covered by policy.  Also, this is long-standing practice in closed AfDs, and you've not responded to the point that I can revert you and my revert is not subject to 3RR.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that WP:Blocking policy is a policy, and WP:SOCKSTRIKE is established practice, your comment seems to be a matter for you to take up at the respective talk pages. 

Your other point that AfDs are harder to read, I disagree with, as it has been my experience that reading old AfDs with block-abuse strikeouts in place allows considering if the closer was improperly influenced by block-evading editors, which is only done while considering the information available to the closer.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Barring serious issues" - I think we're all agreed on that much. But some of us see socking as just such a serious issue. (I would support this strike-through.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

*Just my 2c here but what's the problem with Unscintillating striking a socks comment & adding a note?, Nac & admins have done it for quite some time & in one case a comment was struck a month after the closure so I don't get the issue here ?, Although AFDs shouldn't be edited after closure I just don't see an issue with striking a socks comment after closure? .... –Davey2010Talk 19:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Nevermind I didn't realize one sock-strike was added despite the AFD being closed back in October - I personally have no issue with anyone adding a sock strike perhaps a few hours or days of it being closed but these shouldn't be added 2 months (or even a month) after a closure - I'm not going to revert but I would recommend the sock-strike be reverted because it's rather pointless - Many socks have been blocked and many have commented at AFD and many haven't had their !vote striked (nor should they). –Davey2010Talk 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's pretty much never a valid reason to edit an AFD that closed a month an and a half ago. Spouting off policies and essays that you imagine support this behavior is not compelling, especially when It looks like you haven't read them very carefully, i.e. SOCKSTRIKE reads, in part '"When deciding how to clean up after a sock, ask yourself "What is the cleanest and least disruptive way of dealing with each edit?" and use that as your guide. As long as you aren't emotionally motivated, you will probably get it right most of the time. If you are unsure with any modification, just ask an admin first" emphasis not added. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue of closed AfDs has no relevance for policy.  Nor is there any theory that the edits of banned or blocked editors have a statute of limitations.  The following is from WP:Blocking policy:
== Evasion of blocks ==
. . .
=== Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors ===

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't revert, you struck them out. Not the same thing. In any case, you may notice that literally nobody who has commented so far agrees with your position. As I would hope you are aware, consensus, not quoting rules, is how decision making works here, and consensus does not appear at this time to favor your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I also agree the striking in closed AfDs was inappropriate. Would anybody object to a mass undo of his other such edits today? BethNaught (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Since the op is so fond of linking to things, I would suggest that both WP:POINT and definently WP:BOOMERANG apply at this point and it's unlikely anyone would object other than the filing party here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll get on with it. BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Unscintillating: It is not desirable to make a fuss about socks or banned users. Certainly sock edits should be struck or removed from active discussions, but there is no point doing that to a closed discussion. We know that some comments are from dubious contributors while others might completely miss the point of the discussion—tagging them is not helpful, and the excitement may in fact be counter productive per WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Your last sentence suggests the boomerang is in full effect here. Beeblebrox said it best above in that consensus is how decisions are made. No party in this thread seems to be in full agreement with you. It might suggest your actions were not ok. Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I noticed the strikes on a few closed AFDs as well (some were closed like a month ago?). Personally, I don't get the point in striking out the stuff from closed AFDs. Considering that we are trying to WP:DENY recognition, it is better to just let it be. Sometimes, edits made to an AFD after it has been closed are also disruptive in the sense that other editors need to double check the edit - which wastes time of multiple editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There has always been a large wiggle room between that which needs to be done and that which can be done, but most editors wouldn't bother to. I see these strike-throughs as being within this. There is no need for them (the AfD has gone now, it wouldn't have been affected by them). Yet Unscintillating also has justification for striking them: these were socks. It is not a good thing to start talking about BOOMERANGs. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
For reference, I'm not assuming any bad faith and I'm not in support of any boomerang here. I'm just saying that it goes contrary to WP:DENY. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This is pretty ridiculous. The others are correct imo that closed AFDs and similar discussions should not be altered unless there's a serious issue. Striking the comments of a sock for the sake of striking them is not serious enough. Doing so changes the meaning. Even an IAR perspective yields little as this behavior does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If you stirke through a sock's comment in a closed discussion, you're giving a false impression - namely that the closing admin saw the comment crossed out. Please also note that in some cases, a user may appeal a closure on the grounds of sockpuppetry not recognized until after the closure - and if you strike it out, it looks like the issue was known at the time of closure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oyi, I can kind of see the point of wanting to strike those out. It could be relevant to a later DRV or other review of the AfDs. For example, it is common to see someone commenting at an RfA that the RfA candidate was often on the wrong side of outcomes at AfDs and if those were greatly influenced by socks, it might be helpful if those socks comments/votes were struck. That said A) that seems rather unlikely, B) striking them seems confusing, C) the whole thing (honestly on both sides) seems like a huge waste of time. Maybe just let Unscintillating add a note to the end of the AfD saying "bob and tom were later determined to be socks of mary" would be a workable solution (outside of the AfD close box if someone really wants to be hugely litteral about _that_)? Again, I honestly don't think it matters much either way, but if it's somehow important enough we need to discuss it here, I think we can find a compromise rather than having both sides quote policies/guidelines at each other and not be willing to move. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

How about the following compromise: In cases where the sock's participation in the XfD had no meaningful effect, leave it alone per WP:DENY. In cases where there is a real reason to believe that the sock's participation could mislead someone who later looked at the XfD, rather than edit the closed RfA, an editor can post a note in small print at the bottom of the XfD, along the lines of "Post closing note: User:X was later revealed to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Y." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Rereading, I see that Hobit made the same suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Great minds :-). In all seriousness, I'd be okay with this being in all the AfDs if someone _really_ wanted to do it (otherwise I fear we'll be back here with folks arguing about "meaningful effect"). It seems like a waste of time to me, but people are allowed to waste their own time and I don't see how it could be considered disruptive. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It is disruptive because editing a closed discussion breaks the integrity of what is shown in the discussion. If no one ever reads the closed discussion, adding comments to glorify the achievements of a banned user achieves nothing other than encouraging the banned user by doing the opposite of WP:DENY. If others want to read the closed discussion, they now have to check the history, notice that someone made an edit, and then check the diff of the edit to be sure what changes were made. It is simple to link to an archived closed discussion, but if it has been edited, the link is misleading because it does not show the situation when the discussion was closed. Editing closed discussions to glorify socks is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely with Johnuniq. Editing the archives in this manner serves no helpful purpose and makes review of the discussion history more convoluted than need be. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit unclear on how this applies to what NYB and I suggested. We are suggesting not striking anything, but instead just adding text at the end (probably outside the closed section). It would be clear without looking at the history. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you are aware of how unclear that would be when most of the AfD is sockstrikes.  But [I]t is something to look at.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This argument has moved into a discussion of WP:DENY, because of disagreement with WP:Blocking policy.  But WP:Blocking policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", so unless this noticeboard is a place to engage in "consensus denial", the place for that discussion would be at WT:Blocking policyUnscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Had Sandstein accepted my request for G5, link, there would be no issue now, although there is another AfD that IMO should be relisted and needs more discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, note that the request for G5 took place when there were no edits to the closed AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • facepalm I need a great shot of happy beverage to deal with this kind of special... Does post facto editing of closed discussions improve the encyclopedia? If a closed discussion gets incorporated into precedent/evidence in annother discussion the editors and their commentary will be analyzed then. If an editor takes a principled position against a sock swarm, the explanation will be plain as day (if it wasn't already considered in the discussion itself) when editors look and discover that the "majority" POV was actually the sound of a great many ducks singing in concert. I strongly suggest that OP drop the stick unless this is the molehill they wish to sacrifice their wiki career on. Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • And now we see attempted WP:FORUMSHOPing since he doesn't like the result here:[10]. Don't worry, I already shut it down. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you closing that RfC in your authority as an administrator?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you asking this question because you have something to say about that? Because if you do I'd rather you just come out and say it, your passive agressive style of questioning everyone is extremely tiresome and does not serve you well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Image files with embedded data[edit]

For those who don't wander over to commons often - there has been a large issue with uploaded jpgs containing a hidden video appended at the end of the file, in order to use Wikimedia as a free web host. I suspect less likely here, as we require autoconfimation to upload, but since commons has implemented an edit filter to stop such uploads, they may start looking elsewhere. See...

Would it be sensible to add their edit filter here to to make sure? Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The query on Commons yields nothing here. MER-C 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless there's evidence of active damage on enwiki, I think we should let it be for now. Edit filters are expensive, and this a new/not-very-prevalent issue on Commons. It may be a temporary uptick in activity. ~ Rob13Talk 03:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As an admin here and at Commons, I agree: as long as the query finds nothing, we should be good, and we can always use the filter if needed. If I were one of these uploaders, finding myself thwarted at Commons, I'd try to find some other way to do it (I have a "good" idea, but WP:BEANS gets in the way...), rather than coming to the largest of all WMF projects, where folks might find it easy to stop me if I did the same thing. Nyttend (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Need other adminly eyes on Arnav19[edit]

Arnav19 is a very prolific editor in Indian television articles, but for six months or more I've been dealing with massive cleanup efforts across his articles. He's created tons of them using some flawed template and just keeps creating more with the same weird and unnecessary errors:

  • Numbering things 01, 02, 03 instead of 1, 2, 3. I had to fix a ton of these in August but they still keep coming.
  • Adding Indic script to the lead (contravening WP:NOINDICSCRIPT)
  • Misusing |related=, |followed_by=, |preceded_by= - the first is for spin-offs, adaptations, reboots. Arnav tends to use it to indicate shows that are thematically similar. The other two are for works in the same general continuity. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine precedes Star Trek: Voyager. Arnav et al. use it to indicate that Show X aired in the 8pm time slot before Show Y.
  • Generally having no awareness or understanding of Template:Infobox television despite numerous efforts to get him to look at it.
  • Prematurely creating articles for individual TV seasons when the articles basically duplicate what's in the main article. Compare Annamalai (season 3) to Annamalai (2014 TV series). Or look at Rayil Sneham (season 3) and ask why there isn't even a main article on the show.
  • There was an issue with him recreating Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series) after an AfD had been held for a AfD had been held on a similarly named article. (I just remember this issue. Not sure what to do about it.)
  • A couple of months ago I had to fix a ton of articles that incorrectly listed Tamil Nadu (a state in India) as a country.
  • I haven't even dealt with the matter of whether or not the articles he's creating are notable. Is it on Indian TV? Boom, he creates it.
  • There were numerous other problems -- poorly sourced improperly formatted International broadcast sections, etc.

Now, he didn't create all the articles, but I found I kept finding his name at the bottom of a lot of them. Some of the problems have improved, but many have not. And as a very strange coincidence, many of my fixes were met with extreme resistance by a number of fly-by-night editors and IPs. Like, people were going out of their way to restore 01, 02, 03, and a number of the other bizarre mistakes. Very odd. IP 73.189.117.30 was one of them, a California-based IP on Comcast. In this edit from a few days ago, Arnav creates an article and includes the unnecessary |preceded_by=, |followed_by= and |related=, which gets filled up (erroneously) by a California-based IPv6 editor from Comcast. Given the nature of Indian entertainment articles, it's not out of the question that there are numerous paid editors circulating around these articles. Anyway, the bigger issue is how to handle Arnav, how to get him to bring the articles he's already created up to snuff before creating more, and how to deal with the problems created. I'm happy to help with some of the cleanup, but since I've already been involved in a lot of the cleanup, I think it would be most equitable to let another admin handle the adminning here. Arnav has not been impolite, but his prior assurances that he'd help clean things up I don't think have been fulfilled and he keeps moving forward with new articles instead of being sure that the one's he's created meet a basic standard. I also think that English is not his strong suit, so that will be a challenge as well. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've come across the editor when I was cleaning up after another sockfarm. I've found most of the articles to revolve around shows on Raj TV but unlike that sockfarm (which was exclusive to the channel) Arnav19 is prolific on any dubbed TV series and the articles all had the same problems as the farm. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Leaving pings for User:JamesBWatson, User:Huon and User:Doc James who have issued previous blocks to this editor. Per Cyphoidbomb, now that the editor has admitted there is a problem, if he still seems incapable of changing his approach then a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I blocked them indefinitely due to copyright issues and than agreed to unblock them once they agreed they would not happen again. Any more of these since the block? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay yes indefinitely blocked. They continue to copy and paste. Such as here[11] from [12]
The problem with likely paid editors is that they will simply move onto socking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: Thanks for the assist here. Yeah, it'll always be a problem, but at least if I now have a pattern in my head for this user, it might be able to get them blocked quicker and have CU confirm stuff. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: thanks for your info on that other sockfarm. I'll try to keep that in mind. I've been dealing with something I've been calling a "Campaign of Ignorance" where it seems a ton of IPs and fly-by-night users keep reverting anything that doesn't fit with a cookie-cutter template. I'm going to bend your ear about that on your talk page in a minute. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question of possible undue weight in articles on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump[edit]

Because I don't have a freaking clue exactly where to post this, I am posting it here. In the first article, the lede prominently mentions the factoid that Clinton won the popular vote by 0.2%. There has been significant discussion on the talk page of the other article on Donald Trump about adding that material to the lede of that article as well. Personally, I think the matter is basically virtually trivia, and certainly doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the lede of either article at this point. The matter has received a great deal of press attention since the election, for various reasons, but I have to personally think that this attention to it is only a temporary blip. I could be wrong of course. I think broader input from a greater variety of experienced editors on this matter would be very useful, and sorry if I put this in the wrong place. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're very incorrect that this is going to be a blip. It's also in the lede not only of George W. Bush but of Rutherford B. Hayes! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There is historical context in both of those mentions (gotta love the ref for the Bush one though), but more generally: House POV will prevail, don't drive yourself nuts about it. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The only part that's really annoying is the tendency to phrase it as "despite winning the popular vote, XYZ lost the election." which puts the emphasis on the popular vote, not the true major event, the actual result of the election. It took a bit on Clinton / Trump to get it phrased as "...lost the election despite winning the popular vote". Subtle but very real POV push and yes, the house POV as well. Ravensfire (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree that phrasing to the effect of "X lost in the electoral count, despite receiving (some) more popular votes," would probably be more neutral and place more emphasis on the matter that is really important in these instances, the electoral count, not the popular vote. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, nobody won the popular vote in 2016, as nobody got over 50%. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been mentioned on the Trump talk page too, where someone indicated Clinton won the plurality not the majority. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


This kind of thing goes to WP:NPOV/N after discussions on talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if those articles-in-question were victims of WP:RECENTISM, as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily; Hayes' article has mentioned this fact since at least 9 August 2002. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Particularly the bio of Trump. Clinton has been pretty much quiet lately, but there seems to be an almost uncontrollable urge on the part of people to add content to the main article on a topic, in this case the Trump bio, rather than the more directly relevant subarticle dealing with the narrower topic. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure[edit]

This is a request to review the closure at Talk:Wurdi Youang#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus (or lack thereof) incorrectly. I and other editors have discussed this with the closer at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure.

The RFC was closed as "no consensus"; there were several editors on each side of the debate, and (to my mind) no indication that any editors were likely to change their minds on the subject. However I do not think that "no consensus" is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because:

  • According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies"
  • According to WP:CLOSE#Consensus the closer should "discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy"
  • Editors in favour of including the coordinates in the article explicitly cited policies, and well-established guidelines and precedents, specifically.
  • Editors wanting to remove the coordinates appear not to have cited any Wikipedia policies at all that would exclude the coordinates.

Even the closing statement says that there is a policy that would have the coordinates included in the article (even when an external organization wants them removed) but does not mention any policy that would exclude them.

The result of "no consensus" is not appropriate because it applies equal weighting to opinions that have no basis in policy, whereas those opinions should have been discarded; only those opinions based on policy should have been considered. I submit that result of the RFC should have been to include the coordinates because there are several policies and guidelines that say we should include them and explicitly say that we will not remove them at the request of an external organization. There are no policies that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The GEO wikiproject can state whatever it wants, it is not valid policy or guideline regarding content, any more than any other wikiproject. The only real argument with a policy back was NOTCENSORED which relies on the information being 'encylopedic', given that the only point of co-ords is to precisely pinpoint a location, it is arguable if that is useful information if the location is in private ownership and is a culturally significant area that is highly unlikley to welcome tourists tramping over it. As the owners have specifically requested it not be geolocated, this is even more unlikely to be useful. What it is - useful information, precisely where it is (beyond a general area) - useless given you cant go to it. As there was only one policy-backed argument, which was directly opposed by people arguing the information was not encyclopedic, a 'no consensus' result is acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agreed that WP:GEO#Usage guidelines is not a policy, but it is a generally accepted guideline whose existence - together with the existence of coords on many, many other articles - tell us that the precise (precision per WP:COORDPREC) location is deemed by the Wikipedia community to be encyclopedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikiprojects only indicate that members of that wikiproject find the work they do encyclopedic. It does not necessarily make their focus encyclopedic just because a number of people are interested in what is (for a lot of projects) less-than-useful cruft. It is arguable that there is an encyclopedic benefit to that information, and since multiple people have argued that, a no-consensus result is a reasonable close to that RFC. You need a stronger argument than 'other stuff exists' and 'its encyclopedic' when people disagree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asserting that the "removers" did not present any policy, I'm asserting that the removers did not present any policy that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Here's where I point out that your two policies do not exclude the coords from the article, and thus are immaterial to the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
From that point of view, then I may say that you have not presented any policy either... - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse Here we are weighing potential real-world damage vs. harm to the quality of our article. This is not a trivial issue--in fact it is in many ways one of the key issues at Wikipedia. We need to weigh these trade-offs all the time here (that trade-off is, in fact, the basis for our BLP policy). The claim by those wanting to remove it is that there is no significant gain to be had by including the GPS coordinates, and there is potential harm to the site. The claim by those wanting to keep it comes down to NOTCENSORED and a wikiproject best-practices document. I think both are fairly reasonable. So I endorse given the numbers and the relative strength of both arguments (I'm honestly not sure what I'd have voted here). Hobit (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Once something's added, and you have an RFC requesting its removal, "no consensus" defaults to retaining the content, not to removing it. Moreover, the closure depends on "ethical concerns voiced by several editors", but we aren't bound by certain groups' ethical concerns. Perhaps there's actively consensus to remove the coords (I haven't looked over the discussion itself), but if that's the case, we'll need to have a completely new close, because the current one is deeply flawed. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close. Personally, I think an interpretation of policy that would give WP:BOLDly inserted content special status is incredibly wrong-headed. Consensus requires substantial agreement which is too large of a burden to require for removing material that never had a real prior consensus. Also, you have conflated "ethical concerns voiced by several editors" with " certain groups' ethical concerns" which is a misreading of my closing statement. One oppose commenter spoke specifically to Wikipedia's overarching purpose ("The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the preservation of human knowledge and culture."), which is an argument of some merit. One commenter asked "Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners?", which is a valid rebuttal of the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments, a policy that specifically relates to removal or inclusion of offensive material. - MrX 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". — As I stated at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure, [13] taking the literal wording of the question ignores the fact that the disputed change was the removal of the coordinates, for which there was no consensus. [14][15]. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is the state of the article when the RfC was started. The article did not include the coordinates at that time, nor for a full five days prior to the start of the RfC. - MrX 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
NC is a tricky thing. What is the default when we can't reach a decision? An IP added the data and no one edited the article for a long time. But soon (in terms of edits, but certainly not time) after the addition was reverted, then reinstated then reverted again. It's not clear where the "bold" edit was. In cases like this, I think we need to defer to the closer. But a review is certainly reasonable. I'll continue to endorse that close. The more I think about it, the more I think the request to keep the data out of the article seems reasonable. It's a lot like a BLP issue IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
An IP added the data ... — We should judge the edit on its merits, not on the editor that made it. If we are to judge edits based on the editor, then we need to also consider that Dhamacher has a potential conflict of interest as a researcher working on the site. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
My intent when researching the history was to figure out the timeline of all of this and mention them. In this case, it was an IP. I suppose I could have given a full IP address but I felt the exact address didn't matter. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a lot like a BLP issue ... — There's a fundamental difference: we have a WP:BLP policy; we do not have a policy that says "do not include coordinates" I know there is no policy that says "include coordinates", but see my previous points re WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines as to why we should include coords). That's why my review request says the "no consensus" result is wrong - when you exclude the arguments that are not based on policy, the consensus of editors who refer to relevant policies is that the coordinates should be included.
Perhaps we should have a policy on not providing coordinates in some cases - I've certainly suggested it several times during the discussion, but none of the "excluders" seem to be sufficiently motivated to try to create one. But the reality is that we do not have such a policy, and consensus should be based on existing policies. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Policy follows practice here, not the other way around. AFAIK, this issue hasn't come up before and seems like something that is rare enough that it likely won't come up often. As such, we shouldn't have policy--instead we figure out what the right thing is to do. And we do use relevant policies. (NOTCENSORED doesn't _really_ apply because it's not about offensive material, but the spirit of the idea is there. Same with the ideas of BLP even though this isn't a BLP. We look to policy and history to help us make decisions, but when no policy is fully on point, we need to wing it and figure out what we think is the right thing to do.). Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Similar discussions have occurred before: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#Unsourced geocoords] is about unsourced coordinates, but also delves in to sourced but sensitive coords; Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations is about wildlife, but it's the same principle - the risk of damage to something if its location is published. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Those discussions are a bit old, and not quite on point, but seem pretty relevant. One common thread is that we shouldn't be publishing information that isn't published elsewhere (WP:V etc.) and that that argument is a fine way to keep unpublished information off of Wikipedia. Is there a reliable source for this location? Hobit (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The coordinates originally come from an UNESCO-IAU case study about Astronomical Heritage, author was Ray Norris. This case study was published on the UNESCO Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy (see http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1 ). I am the Technical Manager for this UNESCO site. As soon as we became aware of the formal request (by the traditional owners of the site) to conceal the precise location, we complied with this request and changed the original coordinates to the "cultural center" where the traditional owners are happy to receive visitors and guide them to the site. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The coordinates are reliably sourced, as mentioned several times during the dicussions: [16][17] Mitch Ames (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The second one is effectively a blog from what I can tell, and the 1st is a later redacted report. Which I will note that the owners of the site could have removed from the archive if they requested (or created a robots.txt file). I think the situation is more complex than I had thought, but I'll stick with my endorse. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
actually we submitted such a "right to forget" request to archive.org (dated october 27, 2016), but have not yet received an answer from them... Ruediger.schultz (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Endorse non-inclusion'. When it comes to inclusion or non-inclusion of material, Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out". All the wikilawyering in the world about whether the material was in or out at the time of the RFC doesn't change that basic guideline, so "No consensus" means "No consensus to include". And absent any compelling reason to include the exact coordinates -- an ACTUAL reason, not handwaving about principles -- then the cultural center is perfectly appropriate to use for the co-ordinates. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out" — What is the actual policy? (You know, those things that RFC decisions are supposed to be based on.) In the absence of policy, can you please provide some evidence to support this assertion of "Wikipedia's practice has always been ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

Hello sysops. I am topic banned from making any edits on the Balkans and this is how it's now been for about a year and a half. I only edit from time to time anyway and the account I have is a legit alternative account of User:Sinbad Barron, but this is known to all editors that have dealt with my account. Ideally I would have liked to ping User:Swarm here but his editing pattern shows he may not be likely to respond to my message any time soon, it is one month since his last contrib. Anyhow, would someone be willing to allow me to make edits once more on Balkans subjects as I promise I will respect concensus, not edit war, and be constructive. I'm happy to accept some form of restriction if this can be allowed. Thankyou all from now for any consideration, in mean time I will edit as I do normally. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify the name E.V.R ( periyar)?. You have mentioned Erode venkata Ramasamy, but his actual name is Erode venkatappar Ramasamy. Pls check and correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaiharajas (talkcontribs) 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, Elaiharajas, how is Periyar E. V. Ramasamy related to Sinbad Barron's topic ban from the Balkans? Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sinbad Barron: Can you please provide links to the prior discussion that resulted in the topic-ban? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be @Let's keep it neutral: not Sinbad Barron, SB is blocked indef for being a sockmaster, and Let's Keep it Neutral, among others is a sockpuppet. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron/Archive. User:Let's keep it neutral is employing a misleading signature that identifies him as User:Sinbad Barron, a blocked account. According to his block log, the surviving account User:Let's keep it neutral was unblocked by User:Swarm in September 2015 per the terms of the standard offer. In return for being allowed to return, the user accepted a ban from the topic of the Balkans as an unblock condition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Since Let's keep it neutral and Sinbad Barron are the same person, I see nothing wrong with the signature and account use. When a user's been blocked for sockpuppetry, and when a successful unblock request is made, there's no general requirement that the master account be used; if the unblocking admin unblocks a sock instead of the master, it's not block evasion. When the same person has multiple accounts that are openly disclosed, there's nothing wrong with having one account sign its posts with another account's username. See the "Except when doing so..." sentence of WP:ALTACCN. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock review: User:Musa Raza[edit]

NO CONSENSUS TO UNBLOCK:

no consensus at this time to unblock. --Jayron32 01:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Musa Raza was indefinitely blocked, with talk page access revoked, on 20 May 2016 by Admin Tokyogirl79 for sock puppetry, see block log. Following UTRS appeal #15961 against the block, that was submitted on 14 June 2016, Musa Raza was made our Standard Offer. Tokyogirl79 revoked email access on 28 June 2016. Following the elapse of six months since the block, a further UTRS appeal #17018 was submitted on 30 November 2016. As a result of that appeal I am procedurally bringing the case here for Community review. In that appeal Musa Raza fully accepts their wrongdoing and has stated that they wish to "start editing as a completely changed user". However, the Community will wish to be aware of the comments by the blocking admin, here. I have enabled their talk page access to enable them to reply to any comments. Just Chilling (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'm against it. They had a pretty big habit of saying one thing in public and a completely separate thing in a seemingly private environment. What I mean by this is that while he was writing seemingly contrite messages on his talk page Musa Raza was sending me e-mails with some semi-veiled insults like calling me a liar, and accusing me of bashing him. Might I add that he was calling me a liar on things that had already been proven, like his sockpuppetry and his repeated refusal to understand why he was blocked. Essentially he was sending me nastygrams because he didn't think that it would get out. Musa Raza is someone that will almost certainly end up blocked once again because he's someone who is trying to exploit the system. He knew pretty well what he was doing wrong all along, but he would continually try to squeak around guidelines by parroting back what someone else said... with a tweak that would, if not caught, have given him the ability to break more rules if unblocked because then he could've said "oh, but they said that it was OK for me to do this thing that is obviously against the rules."
Basically, I find it hard to believe that someone who was trying to exploit the system like this back in June would have had a complete change of heart six months later. I tried being nice to him while he was unblocked by helping to restore an article, only for him to turn around and try to edit via me and saying stuff like "Also if possible undelete the article "Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai" or recreate it yourself cuz I know it is notable Pakistan related article as I was part of Wikiproject Pakistan. It is about a film which is about to be released. But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it." In other words, he was trying to manipulate me into recreating a second article by subtly insulting me by insinuating that I'd be more interested in "getting even" and "bashing" him than improving Wikipedia. By that point, however, another admin had pointed out what he was doing and I chose not to restore the page at that time. It was at this point that he had officially squandered whatever goodwill I'd had for him at this point, as this was someone manipulating the system and bashing someone who had tried to help them in a small way.
I'm a broken record at this point, but I really don't think that someone who pulled as much as he pulled would have truly seen the error of their ways in six months time and I just can't help but feel that he'll likely end up reblocked - but not without causing a large amount of headache and trouble before that point. I feel that if he is unblocked, whichever admin unblocks him needs to take responsibility for his actions because I see this user as a bigger liability than he ever would be an asset and that the only way to minimize this would be to watch him like a hawk. (I still don't think he should be unblocked.) I'm going to ping Bbb23 and Favonian since I know that they interacted with this user in the past. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: If you still have them, would you mind posting an example of the insults/threats sent via email? ~ Rob13Talk 06:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call them threats, they were more just insulting. The thing about these was that they were written in such a way that he could backpeddle if he wanted to, but the gist of it was pretty clear: he kept badgering me to unblock him or reduce the block, he didn't really do anything wrong, that he didn't understand why he was blocked, I was unfair and lying about him, and so on. I'll post them all in their entirety, along with notes about why they were so problematic. I need to note that I didn't check my email until after he'd sent two e-mails and in the second message his tone gets a little nastier than his first one.
  • First email (sent 5/21/16):
This one wasn't as bad, except that this came after this discussion, where I very clearly stated why he was blocked (sockpuppetry, among other reasons) and Bbb23 came in to explain how the SPI worked. Note that in the above linked conversation he refused to admit that he was Mnaqvii despite the SPI closing as sufficient evidence. In this conversation he claimed that it was all "poor evidence" and that I was going against policy. In other words, he tried to deny everything that he did wrong. He did eventually admit that he was Mnaqvii... but only after he realized that he had truly been caught. In the prior post I recommended against an unblock.
email 1
Hello, I'm Musa.
I want to tell you that I only want User:Musa Raza back. Is it possible to get that account back? And please tell me the reason why you rejected my every request. I tried to be very good to you but I don't know why you're doing this to me.
Thank you.
  • Second e-mail (sent 6/2/16):
Now in this one he acts as if the block will only be for six months, ie - that he'll be unblocked without issue. He also tries to claim that he admitted what he did wrong on the day he was blocked, which was not entirely correct since as was noted above, he initially denied being Mnaqvii. Then when he was caught, he tried saying that "Everytime my unblock request was rejected it urged me to create a new account.", which is not the case unless the templates and guidelines say something completely different than what I've seen previously, especially after he was already caught once for sockpuppetry prior to this. I've never seen someone told to make a new account unless they were blocked for a username related offense and even then, in specific situations. Also of note is that he only admitted to lying once - despite the fact that he lied several times about using sockpuppets.
This is the first time he sent me an email saying that I lied about the reasons for his block. Now the vandalism comments were something that he continually stated because he kept assuming that my (and others') statements about his problematic editing were us calling him a vandal. (He did vandalize my userpage once as Mnaqvii and he received a block under that same account in 2014 for disruptive behavior.) The thing is, one of his big issues under all of his accounts was that he continually had issues with notability and sourcing, despite many editors trying to talk to him - you can see this in his user talk history even prior to his block. (Like here, for instance.) Under the most recent account he was also blocked for edit warring, something that he should honestly have known better than to do if he was really trying to stay on the straight and narrow.
email 2
Hello Tokyogirl,
You were inactive for past few days and I wanted to contact you regarding my Block. I contacted Dennis Brown and he told me that you can help be better as you blocked me. I just want to say that if it is possible please reduce the period of not editing Wikipedia from six months because I really want to edit it. I want to create and update articles as I can see vandalism on Shahzeb Khanzada but I can't remove it I want to update release date for Madaari but I can't. I have said before that I will wait for six months but trust me six months are really long and I can't wait. Just forget about lying once. I admitted everything on the same day on which I was blocked. And as I have said many times before I don't want to lose the account User:Musa Raza please make me satisfy in this problem. And PLEASE! You can reduce the time and you know that I'm not a Vandal. Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied. I lied but I admitted it on the same day and now I can't do nothing except apologising you. Please try to understand me for once. When I joined Wikipedia in 2014, I was blocked after a few days. Since then blocks are associated with me even though I haven't made any vandalism. I just want to get out of it now. I want the account User:Musa Raza cuz it's my real name and I made it with a new IP (that was not previously used on Wikipedia) with the intention of being helpful to Wikipedia and I don't want it to be blocked. Kindly reply me here as soon as possible and also to the messages on my talk page regarding undeletion. I also want to discuss article Haji Springer with you. So please reply me.
Thanks!
  • Third email (sent 6/26/16):
In this one he grows more insulting and accuses me of bashing him. Note the sarcasm in the "lovely message" comment and him trying to get me to do his editing for him. This is after I posted this on his talk page. I have to echo what I wrote here: "Throughout both emails (and this talk page) there was a very common reoccuring theme about them being a wronged party, that they were a great editor, and that they should be unblocked right away. They had to be continually prodded and led into admitting any wrongdoing and the emails have shown that without this prodding they reverted back to the idea that they have done nothing wrong". You can see this prodding at User talk:Mnaqvii, where he had several people trying to explain things to him and a repeated refusal to get the point.
email 3
Hello Tokyogirl,
I saw you were bashing me on my talk page. After you left that lovely message Favonian added a script or a probably template above that message so the bot does not archives it. My talk page contains the template at the top. I want you to remove it. I know and I understand that you're the most busiest person and this is the most difficult task. But I think you have the strength to do it. I'm determined that you'll remove the template without facing any trouble. I also wanted to say that undid the edits made by that archiving bot but I know it is impossible task. Also if possible undelete the article "Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai" or recreate it yourself cuz I know it is notable Pakistan related article as I was part of Wikiproject Pakistan. It is about a film which is about to be released. But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it. If you remove that template from my talk page that's enough.

I will get back in November 2016 and I'll make Wikipedia great again! Don't forget to reply me. I'm waiting for your response. Have a lovely day.

Thanks! 😌
  • Fourth email (sent 6/27/16):
In this one he does a bit of turn about face with things and tries to insist that he wasn't trying to call me a liar or insult me on the various account talk pages, like at Mnaqvii, where he said that I was being rude to him for refusing to unblock him because I refused to trust his apologies after he outright lied to myself and several others only a short time before about sockpuppetry and because all of his accounts had the same pattern of sourcing and notability issues - despite having an account since 2014 and getting several warnings on these issues from various editors.
email 4
Hello,
Thank you for your response on my talk page and for removing that template. I read your message and I think (maybe I'm wrong) you should not judge me just by a email. It was just an email and there's big difference in messaging and editing. I assume good faith and I have always edited with good faith. You are judging me through emails but what about the messages on my talk page where you were calling me nasty? Even after reading that I emailed you with a nicer tone. And I'm not calling you a liar at all. But you're saying that I have bad faith. I think you should not judge me through the emails. Emails are private but you're making them public and saying it is nasty or a bad faith. This isn't a insult to me? I tried to be more nicer to you in the email and you just say that I'm insulting you or I'm calling you a liar. But you find nothing insulting to me in your messages. And I have mentioned in the previous email that I will join Wikipedia back in November. I have admitted everything but you're saying I'm not understanding the guidelines. And if you think that unblocking me will cause immediate reblock, just try it once. I'm ready to wait for six months but you're saying that if we unblock you, you will be blocked immediately as you assume bad faith. So okay then try it once.

I: just want to tell you that an email can't decide how I'm going to edit. I'm not here to insult you. And for the page Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai, just type it in Google News or whatever you use. I have nothing to do with it. I'm just telling you that it is notable and should be on Wikipedia. You're thinking too long about it but you just have to google it. I'm not asking you to edit on behalf of me. And if you think I am then don't do it.

Now some of you might be tempted to assume that these emails aren't that bad. The thing to remember is that these were written during the same point in time where he was lying about his sockpuppetry, accusing me of taking him to SPI without solid evidence, and continually insulting me on the account talk pages by saying that my refusal to unblock him because he violated several guidelines was rude and that I was being unreasonable. He seemed to think that I was arbitrarily punishing him despite several people (JamesBWatson, Vanjagenije) trying to explain things. I got the strong impression that he seemed to think that if he could get enough admins on the page, that one of them would unblock him. Boing! said Zebedee even chimed in, saying "please do not accuse her of not giving a damn and of being too scared to unblock you". That's what makes the emails so insulting, as they were just a passive agressive extension of his posts on the account talk pages and were just him trying to continue to badger and insult me despite it being painfully clear that I was not going to unblock him.
To put this all in a summary: Musa Raza continually thumbed his nose at the rules under multiple accounts. He has tried claiming that he "didn't know any better" and only claimed responsibility when he was forced to, when he knew that he was good and truly caught. When I refused to unblock him immediately for the sockpuppetry and other issues, he accused me of operating in bad faith and made ad hominem attacks (some of which were fairly passive agressive) against me on his talk page and via email. He was initially given a standard offer back in 2015 when his first account was blocked, but he apparently refused to take it and instead opened new accounts. He's shown a long term pattern of behavior where he goes against guidelines despite clear indication that he's doing something wrong and doesn't seem to really want to take true responsibility for his actions. His blocks in 2014 for sockpuppetry weren't effective in getting it across to him that he shouldn't open new accounts, nor did the warnings about notability and sourcing - and those were the issues that made it easy for us to find his sockpuppets. If he wasn't able to learn how to follow guidelines since 2014 (since again, he kept making a lot of the same basic editing issues under his most recent account) then I don't know that his current months long ban would have taught him any better. I think that any unblock will just end in another re-block, given his attitude and editing style. Just remember - he made the same promises back in 2015, under his Mnaqvii account. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I also need to stress that he was saying and doing all of this despite me showing him a little sympathy on May 26, 2016, when I restored a page for him. JamesBWatson rightfully called me out on doing that without asking him first, but this kind of shows how quickly Musa Rasa/Mnaqvii will change his tune as soon as he isn't getting what he wants - a repeated behavior of his. Something else I noticed, which I didn't initially since it must have gotten lost in a flurry of notifications, is that he used my middle name to thank me. That's not somethimg that I've readily given out here, so I'm kind of creeped out by that. If I did say that on here, it wouldn't have been to him and I honestly can't remember when I've said that to anyone on here. I didn't respond to any of his emails, so there's no way he would've known my middle name unless he was searching for information on me. I'm thoroughly creeped out now. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline. Based on his communication and behaviour, especially the multiple socks, I'm opposed to lifting the block. As an aside, when he said, "Everytime my unblock request was rejected it urged me to create a new account," I read it as meaning something like "every time you reject my block request, it just means I'll (or encourages me to) create a new account." That is, it was his response, not something suggested to him via a template or another editor. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments. I think his poor English could be misunderstood in those emails:
Email 2
  1. He says Just forget about lying once - Rather than meaning he only lied once, it could be read as a request to forget it once.
  2. He says Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied. If you read that as Now please don't say that "I can't do this because you lied" (quotes added), I think it was just poor grammar/punctuation rather than accusing Tokyogirl79 of lying, and that he's suggesting that Tokyogirl79's response to him is "I can't do this because you lied". (Fixed the quote placement, as per JamesBWatson, below - it makes even more sense like this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
Email 3
  1. Bashing? Poor English, he might just mean criticizing.
  2. Sarcasm? I think it is very important to be careful not to read US/UK culture into the words of people of Asian or Middle Eastern origin. Very few of the world's cultures actually use sarcasm, and its use declines the further East you go. My wife, for example, simply does not understand what sarcasm is - early in our relationship she would be really puzzled when I'd say something that was clearly the exact opposite of what I meant.
  3. But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it. Again, I wouldn't try to read motive into that from my own cultural viewpoint. I think that email could be read as something like "I've asked you to do several things for me, though I realize I'm probably asking too much, but if you just do this one thing for me I'll be happy".
Email 4
  1. I'm not calling you a liar at all - as my comment on email 2, I don't think he was.
In short, I think I'm seeing misunderstanding based on poor English, and I'd urge everyone not to over-analyze specific words and phrases as they would be seen with Western eyes.
And I just want to add that I don't think it is fair to describe these emails as "nastygrams". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Middle name
I can see an innocent possibility, and I've sent Tokyogirl79 an email.
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If he hadn't made a lot of barbed comments and accusations of me being rude and abusing my powers on the talk pages of the accounts, I probably would've seen the emails as more innocent, however his attitude on the usertalk pages was pretty terrible and deliberate to where I think he knew full well how he was coming across. He's made pretty sarcastic remarks in the past as well. I read the email, but honestly that doesn't do much to resolve me being creeped out here. The long and short is that this guy has been around since 2014 and has received plenty of warnings about things he should and shouldn't do, and he couldn't even bother to learn those guidelines and avoid detection under the latest account. He engaged in the same behaviors and even went for some of the same articles that got him detected in 2014, which is how I found him. That makes it a WP:IDHT situation wher he seems to be deliberately ignoring the rules. When he's caught, he lies about the sockpuppetry. He eventually apologizes and confesses a few hours later (after he realizes that he was truly caught), but when an unblock isn't immediately forthcoming he turned abusive and honestly, the way he wrote things on his userpage gave off the impression that he thought that I was arbitrarily refusing his unblock. Again, he was caught in 2014 and has had about two years to learn from his behaviors. If he couldn't or wouldn't learn that sockpuppetry was unacceptable or the guidelines about notability and sourcing in that time, it's not unreasonable for me to be skeptical that he's willing and able to understand guidelines now, especially given messages like this one in his archive where he tried to say that I wasn't acting within policy. That suggests that he has read the guidelines, but is only following the parts that serves his purpose. I don't think that he's capable or willing of editing within policy unless someone were to tail his every edit, which would be a pretty big burden on whomever had to take that on, especially since they can't be on all the time. And you also need to take this into consideration - he was still making errors with notability and sourcing... yet was trying to become active with GA nominations. That's kind of concerning, given that nominating and judging something for GA status requires a pretty good understanding of sourcing and guidelines. I just don't think he's ready or able to be trusted with editing and honestly, I don't think that he will be for a long time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I got dragged back into this, I also need to point out that he edited a speedy template that he posted on the talk page of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on April 16, 2016. HW called them out on it. The change was to try to alter the template to make it seem like HW couldn't remove a speedy template and that only admins could do that. The template was added because HW removed a speedy deletion template from Fanindra Deb Institution, an article that Musa nominated for speedy deletion only minutes after it was created and despite the presence of a work in progress tag on the article. Musa kept trying to re-add the speedy tag, which HW repeatedly removed, after which point Musa tried to scare him off by posting the altered speedy template on his talk page. Again, the thing is that Musa is asking us to trust him when a lot of his actions with the most recent account were pretty problematic, even if we ignore the whole sockpuppetry issue, especially since he was acting in a lot of areas that would require him to have a pretty firm grasp of policy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline. In view of his extensive history of disruption, I am unable believe that he will ever be a constructive editor. I note in passing that yet another instance of Haji Springer, Musa Raza/Mnaqvii's favorite singer, popped up and was speedily deleted only two weeks ago. Favonian (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm, that could be a killer. In the light of this review, would it be justifiable to ask for a checkuser check on User:Pushkar6141? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, looking further, the text of the deleted article appears in a number of other place on the web (probably Wikipedia mirrors from earlier versions), and so the similarity of the text is not an indicator of guilt. I'd be very wary of assuming socking here without checkuser confirmation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    Pushkar6141 is  Unrelated to Musa Raza. However, I'd point out that Musa Raza was blocked as Special:Contributions/115.167.70.196 on September 27 by Ponyo, and edited again on November 30 (see his last contribution to Talk:Adam Saleh). I have no confidence he won't continue to disrupt as he has clearly not met the conditions of WP:OFFER. Katietalk 14:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To add a bit more to this, I'd like to add that his comments in this edit history, in the last section are pretty identical to Musa's comments about his block on the various talk pages. It looks like he was editing under this IP address since August 2016. It looks like he still had the same issues with sourcing/editing that the other accounts had too. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative Unblock, though I suspect I'll be in a minority here. I've read all of the talk page interactions at User talk:Mnaqvii and User talk:Musa Raza, and the four emails posted above, and what I'm seeing is typical of young and headstrong individuals who have not yet developed the cooler heads that adorn many of our older shoulders. He effectively reveals his age in one of the discussions, but I don't want to expose it further other than to say he suggests he's under 20. Six months can be a very long time to a young person, and he does appear to have sat it out as required. And I'm not necessarily seeing the bad faith here that others seem to identify - although I can see how it can be seen that way. What I see is a combination of youthful impatience, coupled with English that is not bad but seems non-native and does not encompass US/UK idiom too well - and I think it is a mistake to concentrate on specific words and phrases and over-analyze them from our own linguistic/cultural perspective. Standing back a bit from the forest of words and looking at the bigger picture, I see a reasonable possibility that he does understand what he did wrong and wants to put it behind him and start afresh. I don't think that repeatedly rehashing his failures and demanding more and more servility will be beneficial, and that instead we need to decide whether it is worth assuming good faith and letting him try again and prove himself by his future actions. What we stand to gain if we unblock him is possibly a life-long contributor who can bring a perspective on non-Western subjects (which we seriously need), and the worst that can happen is that he creates further problems and has to be blocked again. His edits would be carefully scrutinized for sure, which would greatly reduce the risk - and what risk there is, I think, is worth taking. Blocks, as they say, are cheap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I have to switch to decline in the light of the block evasion identified by Katie, above. The latest edit request at Talk:Adam Saleh shows evasion as recently as November 30. I'd still stand by most of my analysis, but we'd need to see at least six months without block evasion starting from November 30. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have come to this discussion because I received a notification of Tokyogirl79's mentioning me above.She and Boing! said Zebedee are two of the administrators I have most respect for, and when the two of them disagree so much about something, it is worth looking at carefully, so Ihave spent some time checking the relevant history.
One of Boing! said Zebedee's great strengths is his willingness to assume good faith. He is a true expert at giving editors the benefit of the doubt when others (often including myself) had not recognised that there was any doubt. I confess that on this occasion, when I first read his comments, I thought he was taking assumption of good faith too far: clearly Musa Raza was making accusations against TokyoGirl, and Boing! was bending over backwards to find a way of seeing black as white. However, re-reading the quoted emails in the light of what Boing! had said, I came to see it very differently.
Reading "email 2", I, like TokyoGirl, took "Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied" as being an accusation that she was lying, though it did seem that the sentence didn't make much sense: why would the fact that she had lied mean that she couldn't tell Musa Raza that he couldn't do something? And what was the thing that she couldn't tell him he couldn't do? The previous sentence was about TokyoGirl doing something (reducing the block time), not about Musa Raza doing something which "this" in "I can't do this" might refer to. Then the next sentence jumps from commenting about TokyoGirl lying to commenting about Musa Raza lying. It seemed totally incoherent and confused, but nevertheless I still took it, as TokyoGirl did, as including an accusation that she was lying. Then along comes Boing!, who manages to see a very different way of reading the passage. Yes, the whole thing suddenly makes perfect sense if we read Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied as actually meaning Now please don't say "I can't do this because you lied". And so it goes on with the other things that Boing! mentions: not only is it possible to read Musa Raza's comments as attempts to be constructive which poor command of English makes easy to misunderstand, but reading them that way actually makes better sense of them. It is impossible to be sure of every detail, but I am now convinced that Boing!'s reading is substantially correct.
I am in general more of a believer than many administrators in unblocking editors if they appear to accept what they have done wrong and promise they won't do it again, even if their history gives me doubt as to whether they actually will stick to their promise, because if they do stick to it then unblocking is beneficial, and if they don't, then it's easy enough to block them again. Certainly he has an extensive history of lying, twisting, turning, trying to wriggle out of things. However, having read and accepted Boing!'s suggestion of a good-faith reading of his comments, I now see no evidence that he is still doing anything wrong, and in the absence of evidence we have to assume good faith, and so I think we should unblock. (Incidentally, looking at the editing history to prepare for writing this post, I noticed some interesting history. In May 2016 when he was denying being both Musa Raza and Mnaqvii, probably nobody noticed that as far back as October 2014, Mnaqvii had made a confusing sequence of moves of his talk page from one place to another, with it ending up at User talk:Musa Raza, a pretty good give away of who he was. Subsequently I history merged User talk:Musa Raza and User talk:Mnaqvii together, but I had long since forgotten that by the time he was lying about his sockpuppetry about a year and a half later. I don't think that makes any difference here, but I just thought it interesting enough to feel like mentioning it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I drafted the above message before Boing! said Zebedee's latest contribution, even though I posted it much later. Having now read that contribution, I should mention that I too had thought that this appeared to be a young editor, and young people really can change very rapidly as they mature. I had intended to mention that in my post above, but forgot. Yet another reason to favour unblocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think everyone is making this too complicated. The things MR says are fairly standard by most socks. Doesn't normally happen in extensive e-mail, which I've read and don't find insulting, but that's not particularly material to the issue of whether to unblock him. I've lost count of the socks who say things like, "I'll be good", I just want to edit Wikipedia again", "I have useful edits to make", "There's vandalism that needs to be fixed", "Please unblock me", "Give me a chance", and the list goes on. There's of course no way of knowing what the person will do if unblocked, and many administrators want to go with the standard offer and assume good faith. I think the focus should be on the user's history as an editor. Was he a benefit to the project as an editor (one must consider all of his accounts, too, because, remember, they were all operated by one person). I haven't done that analysis and I'll leave it to others if they want to undertake it, but without such an analysis, I don't see how a decision can be made.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline (Non-administrator comment) per KrakatoaKatie. The user socked extensively as recently as 2 months ago, and appears to have edited disruptively as recently as last week (other users have posted links already) just prior to appealing to UTRS. Even if we don't take those edits as confirmation of evasion, we ought to consider their month-long post-block campaign of email harassment (repeatedly contacting users after being asked to stop is clear harassment) against Tokyogirl79 and other admins as further block evasion, which only stopped when their email access was revoked, and should therefore count six months from June 28. Thus they have not met the conditions of WP:SO. I'm often accused of interpreting SO too literally, so I would also oppose on the basis of behaviour: Tokyogirl79 pointed out this editor's pattern of saying what they think we want to hear in an unblock appeal while continuing to disrupt elsewhere, a pattern which continues with this apparently sincere UTRS request while also resetting old declined semiprotected edit requests on one of their frequent targets and recreating one of their favourite deleted pages. I also don't think we're paying enough attention to the fact that this editor looked up not-readily-available personal information about the blocking admin and posted it on the site, that's hella creepy and a terminal red flag for me. A person only does crap like that with intent to intimidate, and they can just get the hell out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline They were just shown to be socking a week ago. This shows, to me at least, that they are trying to say the right things to get unblocked, while at the same time not change their behavior in anyway. WP:SO would be fine, IF the IP last used is the last one used by this editor until June 1st, 2017. Outside that, this block should stay in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd posted this above, but here's an edit history on the IP's talk page. If you look at how his arguments for having the IP address unblocked, you'll notice that it's in the same style and fashion that he used on the account talk pages for Musa and Mnaqvii, right down to the caps lock shouting and statement that he wasn't vandalizing - something he made while as Musa Raza, despite my not saying anything about vandalism. He also seems to have made some of the same errors as he did with the other accounts (see this conversation), like sourcing and notability, albeit in this case he was pretty much limited to creating articles at AfC since IPs can't create articles. Still, he made edits with this IP starting in August, only a few months after having talk page access revoked at the end of June. I'd be surprised if this isn't Musa trying to evade a block and just engaging in the same stuff he did before. It's just that it seems like he either can't or won't learn from his mistakes and when confronted with his past actions or any mistakes, he starts getting upset and acting like he did with me. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Before I posted my message I had seen that Katie had run a check, but she hadn't commented yet. Now that she has, obviously the request to be unblocked should be declined. The six-month clock should be reset but with the understanding that MR's credibility is shot and that he is unlikely to be unblocked six months from now, even if there is no evidence of socking in between.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline - User clearly doesn't get it. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline - I know my good friend Boing! said Zebedee is more forgiving than I am, but I too am often keen to give kids a second chance and I've spent half an hour on this and checking out the background. I've never once been wrong yet (although of course there's always a first time), and the couple of times I've conceded to a consensus to unblock in a case like this, sure enough the user was blocked again shortly afterwards. So I've seen and read enough and my gut feeling tells me: No. Reset the clock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline My opinion echoes that of Boing! said Zebedee, JamesBWatson and Kudpung. Musa has passion and enthusiasm, which is admirable, but it is not well directed. They're obviously not devious like other sock masters nor a vandal but their enthusiasm and passion needs to be tempered by maturity and experience neither of which WP is designed to impart. I would propose that Musa remain indefinitely blocked for a period of no less than a year during which they may not appeal this block. At the end of the year, they may appeal to the community again for an unblock. Socking of any sort would result in a reset of the block counter and extensive socking will result in a site ban. This would make the block a community endorsed block which can only be lifted by appeal to the community. @Musa Raza: this is not to punish you nor is it because anyone hates you but a way to tell you that trust lost on Wikipedia is not easily regained. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:THQ[edit]

Input is welcome on this thread, to try to determine consensus and/or a plan moving forward. I started the proposal, but only after a discussion I was generally uninvolved in (prior to my comment immediately preceding the proposal).

There seems to be a trend toward support in sheer number of !votes, but there have also been some really good compromise suggestions, and some well thought out oppose arguments, including from some current/former WMF folks. Thanks in advance. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man[edit]

User:Parsley_Man blocked a month, by Nyttend, for harassing E.M.Gregory. Blackmane (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

This past summer User:Parsley_Man brought me to this board. The outcome was a WP:BOOMERANG: 31 July 2016 : "Parsley Man will leave E.M.Gregory alone." Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930. He backed off, briefly, but has recently begun trailing me around making minor edits on a range of articles (I am eclectic, but the fundamental discord stems from our different perspectives on Islamism). I recently requested on his talk page that he back off; he has not. Instead he now follows me around to articles I have just edited to make trivial changes like this [18], apparently just to let me know that he is watching my every step. But sometimes in bizarre ways, as when he followed me from Keith Ellison, which we have both edited, to a page where I was moving a bit of text from Ellison's overstuffed page. Parsley Man made 5 rapid edits, correcting and tweaking, but choosing NOT to correct my error in cutting off the last 2 letters of the congressman's name, [19]. I am requesting that an administrator repeat the instruction Parsley Man was given in July, to leave E.M. Gregory alone." Respectfully, E.M.Gregory.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you've posted here before, you know that there's a big yellow box up there that tells you you're required to notify an editor about whom you've started a discussion. I've done that for you. Don't forget it again. Katietalk 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I have, actually. did I? I might have forgotten. I do know that I was dragged here once by Parsley; not he by me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
my bad. I knew that Parsley Man checks my edits daily, and would have seen this. I can see that I ought to have notified him. But I am not the skilled wikilawyer Parsley is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked his last 50 contribs and only two of them involved pages that you have also edited recently. Are you sure you aren't worrying needlessly? I can't see anything particularly problematic in his/her edits either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
He is a tremendously active editor, you need to look at more edits, or at the comps in the previous ANI. Or check his name against my edits. For example, he recently followed me to Keith Ellison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
He was instructed not to at this page. He backed off for a few weeks, then began to track me around again, slowly but with increasing frequency in the last couple of months. I had already tried ignoring him, so I tried thanking him occasionally for a good edit and cooperating on a few things. I finally gave up and called him on it on his talk page, reminding him of the ANI instruction. He may also dislike me because in one of our earliest encounters, about a year ago, when he burst into Wikipedia like Athena, a fully formed and highly knowledgeable editor, I asked him to list previous names under which he had edited, which he declined to do. I believe that he thinks that by making this a creepy and nasty environment for editors with whose worldview he disagrees, he can drive such editors off the project. He's probably correct.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This tool demonstrates the truth of your words. Even if I check only the pages that you edited first and that Parsley Man has only once edited, I see a good number of articles, including recently edited articles, at which he's clearly just stalking you from place to place. This is entirely inappropriate. I've blocked him for a month, and I'll leave a note that recidivism will probably lead to an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

My account is old and has no email attached to it, I cannot get my password reset! Help![edit]

Hello I have a very old Wikipedia user account (Falreign) which has no email associated with it. I remember creating this account a very long time ago and it was not necessary to have an email back then. I want to use my account for normal activity, including a place to store my payment information when I donate.

Is it possible to have my email added to this account name and some one reset my password?

Your help is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.208.15.134 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'll have to create a new account. If you forgot your password, and did not set an email address on the account, there is no possible way for you to recover your password. See Help:Logging in. If you don't have email, you cannot get your password back. The only solution is to create a new account. --Jayron32 17:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no way to do what you are asking. It should be possible for you to get control of the account by following the instructions on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The account has never made any edits. - GB fan 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
GB fan's solution is the only one -- make a new account, and the request usurpation (taking over the name) of the old, unused Falreign account. However, I strongly recommend that you find a better place to "store your payment information" than Wikipedia.  · Salvidrim! ·  18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I presume they meant donating to the Wikimedia Foundation. However you don't need a Wikimedia account to donate; this includes setting up recurring donations. For more information see the WMF FAQ. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Falreign (talk · contribs) account has no edits or actions of any kind, so you won't be losing anything by creating a new account and usurping the old one, except for any preferences you may have set, and the logged creation date of the account. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

xTools[edit]

x-post from WP:VPT, I am sure administrators find this toolset useful, and if so please vote on the link below.

Hello all!

As you may or may not be aware, I'm a maintainer for xTools, which is a wonderful suite of tools originally developed by User:X!. As many of you have no doubt noticed, there are some lingering stability issues since User:Hedonil (One of our last maintainers) retired in 2014. His rewrite and maintenance also tied us tightly to Tool Labs, which has its own stability issues at times.

I have been working for a few months to rewrite xTools. I have decided to use Symfony, which has built-in caching and template functionality. My current development version is located at [xtools-dev.wmflabs.org xtools-dev.wmflabs.org], though please note that it is pre-alpha software and very buggy!

I have also asked for assistance from Community Tech. If you believe that xTools is useful, a vote would be appreciated: meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Moderation tools#Rewriting_X.21.27s_Tools.

Note: While technically in violation of WP:CANVAS, Canvassing is permitted as part of the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. See here. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 22:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for BAG membership (bot approver)[edit]

Hello! I have offered to help with the WP:BRFA backlog as a bot approver. This procedural notification is to make the community aware that a formal request is open for your consideration. Your input is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: MusikAnimal. Regards MusikAnimal talk 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)