Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 17 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 86 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 46 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 36 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	10	0	10
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	35	0	35
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Redshirt

(Initiated 48 days ago on 16 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 36 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 292 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 194 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is too stale, especially given how half of voters picked "wait." I think that if somebody wants to merge this article, they should feel free to boldly undertake it, or if they'd rather clarify things, start a fresh discussion on the talk page of one of the proposed parents. I'll leave this open in case another closer feels differently, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 160 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notes @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Super Goku V, @Compassionate727, and I appreciate your input @S Marshall! Sorry for not getting to this earlier; I've had some unexpected personal commitments that have taken up most of my bandwidth. Given that it looks like this would be left best as an unclosed discussion, I'll mark this request as resolved for now ( Not done). Frostly (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Frostly and Compassionate727: Personally, I think it would be useful to try to discern some sort of conclusion from it, if only to provide editors some level of guidance as to how to respond to future notifications in that form.

  I’ve marked it for not done for now, to prevent it being auto archived before this comment can be read, but if you’re confident closing it won’t be useful I won’t object to remarking it as done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 9 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 4 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (48 out of 8799 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Prachi, Gujarat 2024-11-04 13:05 2025-02-04 13:05 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Primefac Oduduwa 2024-11-04 10:52 2024-11-18 10:52 move Persistent sock puppetry Callanecc Ada and Abere 2024-11-04 10:51 2024-11-18 10:51 move Persistent disruptive editing Callanecc Egusi 2024-11-04 05:16 2024-11-11 05:16 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Chetsford Highway 4 shooting 2024-11-04 01:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement,WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade June 1980 West Bank bombings 2024-11-04 00:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Muhammad Shabana 2024-11-04 00:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade The battle of Hatikvah Neighborhood 2024-11-04 00:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Hussein Hazimeh 2024-11-04 00:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rula Hassanein 2024-11-03 22:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Operation Tyre 2024-11-03 22:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Operations attributed to Israel in Iran 2024-11-03 22:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2024 Israeli Secret Document Leak Scandal 2024-11-03 22:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2038 Asian Games 2024-11-03 22:31 2028-11-03 22:31 create Repeatedly recreated: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 13#2038 Asian Games Sdrqaz Eskerê Boyîk 2024-11-03 22:22 2025-05-03 22:22 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Ymblanter Ole Sæter 2024-11-03 22:16 2025-05-03 22:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Template:Zero width joiner em dash zero width non joiner 2024-11-03 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Talk:Shehzad Poonawalla 2024-11-03 09:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz 2024 in Israel 2024-11-03 01:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:CT/A-I Asilvering General Union of Palestinian Students 2024-11-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ikwerre people 2024-11-02 23:24 2024-11-09 23:24 edit edit warring Izno November 2024 Batroun raid 2024-11-02 23:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter David Ivry 2024-11-02 03:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ajlun offensive 2024-11-02 03:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Black September 2024-11-02 03:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:First Intifada 2024-11-02 03:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thom Yorke 2024-11-01 23:49 2025-02-01 23:49 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Rajput clans 2024-11-01 21:23 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: upgrade to WP:ECP; WP:CASTE El C Gwalior 2024-11-01 20:44 2025-05-01 20:44 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Sarah Jama 2024-11-01 20:02 2026-11-01 20:02 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR (related content) El C Fathi Razem 2024-11-01 19:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade October 2024 Beqaa Valley airstrikes 2024-11-01 19:52 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip 2024-11-01 19:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Iranian reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009) 2024-11-01 19:44 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Ehsan Daxa 2024-11-01 19:29 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Draft:Carnival Internet 2024-11-01 18:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Vietnam War 2024-11-01 15:57 2024-12-01 15:57 edit Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik 2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade List of best-selling boy bands 2024-10-31 22:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Sporting CP 2024-10-31 20:23 2025-05-01 12:37 edit,move Well, that didn't take long. Black Kite October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba

Undeletion and userfication

REFUNDed by ... I can't tell who, there doesn't seem to be a log entry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, could someone undelete and userfy Markovian parallax denigrate for me? It was deleted several years ago by Cirt, who has been inactive since 2016. The deletion discussion is here [2] with the deletion rationale being that there were no reliable sources covering the event, however I've found three (more recent than the AfD) with a simple Google search [3], [4], [5]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Handled at WP:REFUND, thanks. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Blocking policy and IPv6 ranges

I am usually an idiot about this, treating IPv6 addresses as though they are IP addresses and only blocking the one. Once in a blue moon I remember. We don't seem to say anything about this in our blocking policy. We'd also need to spell out how to identify the appropriate range, etc. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Should we include advice to block an IPv6 range, not a single address? and then realised people don't seem to read that page. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses also needs updating. Credit to Bish for this by the way who reminded me about it recently. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if a technical change would be feasible (and a good idea), to automatically offer the /64 range as an option when blocking an IPv6 address? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A technical change (as suggested by Boing) or at the very least some wording changes would be greatly appreciated. I think it's fair to say the number of IPv6s editing has increased year on year (75% of all percentages are made up on the spot), so this is probably more of an exposure thing -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is more complicated than people make it out to be. Generally, blocking the /64 is the right thing to do, but not always. A /64 could represent a large number of customers in certain unusual situations. I don't see any reason to deviate from our usual practice. If you see them using more than one IP address, block the range from the start. Otherwise, just do one IP. If you see them come back, then it justifies a range block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: What I'm suggesting is that we have a section in the blocking policy with advice on how to deal with IPv6 editors. I agree that there are times when blocking the range would be a bad idea, but wouldn't that show up if you check the contributions from the range? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As you almost suggested above, this would probably be an idea on the WP:IPB page, but I don't think it's good for a policy page. And I can give a handy example for not using /64 blocks (and indefinite blocks): Special:Contributions/2600:387:*. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

zzuuzz for you information the above IP6 search is not a /64 subnet; it is a /32 subnet. as such is could represent as many as 4,294,967,296 different /64 connections. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please pick any subnet within it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you could pick Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:802:* , a /64 subnet, and it looks like a single user. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Any subnet except that lone example. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Phabricator tasks of interest: RFC: IPv6 contributions and talk pages, Should block IPv6 addresses at /64 instead of /128, and Have one aggregated talk page for ipv6 /64. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think we're seeing more and more IPv6 addresses editing the 'pedia and, yes, it would be helpful to incorporate some advice in the blocking guidance. mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 has some useful information. Typically, an IPv6 /64 subnet is allocated to a household or a location and we would block a /64 subnet as we would a single IPv4 address but only after checking the range, satisfying ourself that it is stable and that a single user is using that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Any admin worried about blocking /64 subnets should not be overtly worried: it's roughly equivalent to blocking a single static IPv4 address. If you look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375 at The Internet Engineering Task Force it quite clearly explains the reasons why:

Using a subnet prefix length other than a /64 will break many features of IPv6, including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971], privacy extensions [RFC4941], parts of Mobile IPv6 [RFC4866], Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) with Embedded-RP [RFC3956], and Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (SHIM6) [SHIM6], among others. A number of other features currently in development, or being proposed, also rely on /64 subnet prefixes.

Nevertheless, many IPv6 implementations do not prevent the administrator from configuring a subnet prefix length shorter or longer than 64 bits. Using subnet prefixes shorter than /64 would rarely be useful; see Appendix B.1 for discussion.

However, some network administrators have used prefixes longer than /64 for links connecting routers, usually just two routers on a point-to-point link. On links where all the addresses are assigned by manual configuration, and all nodes on the link are routers (not end hosts) that are known by the network, administrators do not need any of the IPv6 features that rely on /64 subnet prefixes, this can work. Using subnet prefixes longer than /64 is not recommended for general use, and using them for links containing end hosts would be an especially bad idea, as it is difficult to predict what IPv6 features the hosts will use in the future.

So any ISPs worth their salt are going to allocate /64 subnets for connections, as allocating any larger subnet could cause all sorts of end-user problems. Of course this doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be blocking a single user, but neither did blocking a single static IPv4 address necessarily imply this either. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by this definition of "worth their salt", many ISP's, especially in Asia and Africa, are not. I've seen IP-hopping throughout much greater ranges (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar). One of our incentives for enabling IPv6 was to allow more granular targeting of a single user not possible with IPv4 - we shouldn't impose IPv4's limitation here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but can you explain how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar demonstrates this? I can't understand how it does, there are no IPv6 socks at all listed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I should've been more clear. Look at the investigation on June 13 where a CheckUser says a rangeblock won't be feasible. I linked the contributions page of an IPv6 sock during that investigation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that indicates a greater than /64 subnet, there could be other explanations such as a mix of Ipv4 and IpV6 addresses, or uncertainty about Ipv6 rangeblocks. I'm not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but you can on my talk page if yo so wish. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many ISPs that fail to live up to your expectations of how things should work. Although many ISPs allocate a /64 for each customer, others allocate customer IP addresses from a very wide pool, typically a /40 or /42, though I've seen them range anywhere from a /60 to a /36. These are a pain to deal with. User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat is one particularly frustrating example. There are many others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Looking at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, these less than /64 (i.e. wider) ranges seem to be for wireless broadband. Now wireless broadband suppliers can use many /64 connections for the supply: the end result is that the range is far greater (or/<64). The reason for this is because in these circumstances radio towers (or combination of radio towers) will have access to many /64 connections; just like a wireless radio tower IPv4 would use a large variety of dynamic IPv4 addresses. Basically this is analogous to using several dynamic IPv4 connections, it implies nothing about connection subnets.

I see no particular evidence that ranges with a greater than /64 subnet are active; but even these can be explained by router alllocations giving a bigger than /64 (or narrower range) which is well within protocols; routers have no compulsion to use entire /64 ranges when allocating /128 addresses, only the connection itself must be at least /64. All this gives the impression of non-/64 connections which is simply not true.

Another way of looking at this: let's say I had a router with a /64 connection which allocated the same IPv6 address each time to my laptop. Now as far as my editing goes it would look like I was using a /128 subnet (i.e. a single IPv6 connection). While this would be true, nevertheless my connection to the ISP would be /64. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The theoretical role of /64's is subordinate to their roles in practice, which is that since they don't necessarily represent single users and we want to utilize the finer granularity of IPv6 to reduce collateral damage, we can't treat /64's the same way we have been treating single IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's true in theory but in practice Wikipedia has to be defended from brain-numbing nonsense that will eventually wear down the most dedicated editors. My suggestion would be to block IPv6 /64 when that is shown to be needed after blocking one or two individual IPs. Anyone adversely affected would have to make their case. Or, any concerned registered editor could point to a case where blocking a /64 resulted in a loss of encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If I may try to summarise the above - would most people agree that if after directly blocking a single disruptive IPv6, another IPv6 from the /64 continues being disruptive, a /64 rangeblock would be the next step (as opposed to how we deal with IPv4s)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Imo the best practice would be:

1. Check for collateral as a /64 block could definitely cause this (e.g. a corporation). Use the Gadget-contribsrange.js gadget to do so, and other whois services.
2. Check it's not a public mobile wireless connection: blocking these is like blocking dynamic IPv4 addresses, a bit pointless with the capability of causing collateral.

If you do these two steps then it should be OK to use /64 rangeblocks; appeals can be made on talkpages if users suffer significant collateral, just like Ipv4 blocks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI native support for range contributions (phab:T163562) is going out on this week's MediaWiki train. It is already on mediawiki.org (example). If all goes well, later this week you'll be able to query for IP ranges at Special:Contribs here on the English Wikipedia without the need for a gadget or wildcards. It will take a while for the data to backfill, so don't count on it working at Thursday's normal deploy time. I'll make a proper announcement once it finishes :) See also phab:T145912 which is like a power user range contributions tool. It's a long ways away but feel free to follow that task for progress updates — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

IP's edits at Sorted magazine article

At Sorted magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. See here and here. In the version before the IP's edits, the text states that Russell Church launched the magazine and that "the title was geared to the lads' mag market." In the IP's version, it states that Steve Legg launched the magazine and that it "has been voted the world’s most wholesome men’s magazine with 100,000 readers in 21 countries." I warned the IP twice. I then reported the matter at WP:AIV, but, when no administrator picked up the case, I decided to bring it here instead. If I request page protection at this time, I'd likely be declined because there is not enough disruption and it's just one IP. Furthermore, editors might confuse this as a content dispute since the IP claims to be "removing incorrect data." I don't particularly care about the article; I came across it via WP:STiki. I do care about inaccurate information being added to it. I'm not sure if two different magazines are being confused or what. For reference, this is the source the IP keeps using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see they're actually both correct. The original magazine was published by Church and was indeed aimed at the "lad's" market. However it appears it was taken over by Legg's publishing company later on and repositioned as a Christian men's magazine. So the "wholesome" cite is correct as well (although it's a primary source). Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Black Kite. The issue I see is that the IP keeps removing material about the original launch and other important material. The IP's edits are not only repeatedly removing this important information, but are replacing it with unsourced, boastful information. I have seen that Viewmont Viking has been reverting the IP, and that Viewmont Viking has reverted again. Perhaps Viewmont Viking is willing to weigh in here. From what I can see, the back and forth reverting will continue if the article is not semi-protected. The IP will simply get a new IP, and might later edit as an account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, unless the IP editor comes with sourced NPOV information we should keep the article as is and semi-protect it. --VViking_TalkEdits 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, if it continues, we can obviously list the matter at WP:Requests for page protection. I think it would get declined for protection right now. But if the IP strikes again, a case can be made, with this thread cited as part of the argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Note: Primefac apparently hid copyright violations made by the IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the violations were the promotional content added by the IP. I am conversing with them off-wiki and didn't realize this thread existed. If it comes to it, I will point them in this direction and hopefully can get them to explain their actions (somewhere). Primefac (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. I did point the IP to this thread on their talk page. As for this, it didn't seem like the main issue to me. It seemed to me that the IP didn't want any mention of the magazine's previous history included, especially the "lads' mag market" aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My conversation off-wiki was mostly centred around the removed content, but yes, the "history" of the magazine is also of concern. Given that former wasn't necessary and the latter is still up for debate, I only changed the former. I'll probably post some more on the talk page of the article if I get more details regarding how "they want it fixed". Primefac (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As an update, I've completely rewritten the article and am now (somewhat) under the impression that this isn't a notable magazine. However, I think the "AN" portion of the discussion is likely to be over, so I am going to suggest closing this. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I can't state that I agree with the complete removal of the magazine's history. A relaunch should not mean that the magazine's previous history should not be covered. And per WP:COI, we don't edit articles the way that a company wants it edited anyway. But I'll address this on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Checking some sockpuppet cats

I am checking the accuracy of the following cats:

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand

I don't see any evidence for them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive. Am I looking in the wrong place? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Sockpuppets are often blocked without an SPI if evidence is compiled off-wiki or the admin doing the blocking is the one who discovered the sock. SPIs are a place to submit evidence if it needs admin review or warrants a CheckUser, but it's not the only way to get a block for sockpuppetry. If you think any of the blocks may not be correct, talk to the blocking admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am going to start by simply asking User:Δ: [6] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What good would that do? If Betacommand denies that a particular account was a sock, are you going to believe him and remove that account from the category? Don't you think that any puppetmaster has a vested interest in being blamed for fewer sockpuppets? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Betacommand has admitted to violating various policies in the past, and is arguing that nine years is enough punishment for a violation made in 2008. So he/she may very well admit to some of the older ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he's arguing that his last violation is in 2008, he'd be unlikely to admit to anything after that. In any case, I think you'll find that for many editors, the Betacommand/Delta crisis is still quite fresh in their minds. It put the community through a lot of stuff, and went on for years, so if you're working with Betacommand, I would tell him not to get his hopes up. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Delta SPI came up empty - insufficient evidence of any connection to him. He's been blocked for more than 5 years now, which is plenty of time to lose a skilled technical contributor. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection backlogged again + some comments

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection was heavily backlogged in the morning (30+ items, some of them being there for 24h). I cleared most of it, but now I will not have time to do it anymore, and any help will be appreciated.

While I am at it, may I please suggest that all of you (not only administrators) occasionally take an effort to send public thanks for (uncontroversial) administrative actions. That used to happen a lot when I started to work at RFPP a couple of years ago, and it hardly happens anymore. Very few of us (possibly none of us) enjoy routine administrative work, but we are doing it because we feel responsibility for the project and find the janitorial work important. It is thankless, takes time, and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles). There is not much what can be done about it, but public thanks are cheap and kind of give us that little motivation which we may be missing by doing this day by day without any feedback. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be de-backlogged now. Plus I completely endorse the comment above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear admins, on behalf of the community, please accept this vacuum cleaner. It's more efficient than a mop, and really helps you clean those hard-to-reach corners, like RFPP. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Can I tag on to the end of that the musing that some of us have become rather tired of attending to situations that require full protection (per policy, no less), because it is, by its very nature, ALWAYS controversial, and we seem to get hardly any support from the rest of the admin corps for doing such policy-based actions? Thanks, Samsara 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: thanking Admins for page protection and other noticeable routine tasks is a really good idea. I will be doing this from now on. Thanks very much for the suggestion - because these efforts are really appreciated. And thanks Ymblanter and Ritchie333 for clearing out page protection today. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that if it was a non-admin making a similar statement about backlogs, they'd be shot-down by other admins saying they're complaining too much, or start an RfA themselves. Usually this comes from the psedo-admins, who only edit once a week, and don't really do anything else. If it's "and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles)" then resign, so you don't feel the guilt of not helping and you can get involved in writing articles. And for the record, I thank every editor, admin or not, who does something to help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to respond but then decided that we have too much drama anyway, so I just let it go.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. Complaining about not being thanked for a thankless task that YOU wanted to do in the first place. Well I never. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. You have zero chances to ever become an admin, so whether you want it or not is highly irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear editors, admin or not, on behalf of the community, please accept this broom. It can't clean up everything, but it's especially good at sweeping the dirt into a big pile for people with vacuums. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Request Admin close AfD

The discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017) has a reasonably good turnout and it seems merge is and probably will be the consensus decision. I am the article's creator and I also just Ivoted for "merge". Rather than continuing to extend the discussion in time and attract attention to a discussion that may not need this attention or more editor's time, I am requesting an Admin close this AfD per the perceived consensus. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems a little unnecessary to me to close this early. I also think in general that AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I thank you for saying this. I was thinking along similar lines, and have become very frustrated having to deal with an AfD this soon after creating the article. It doesn't give me much time to come up with more material - if any shows up. It's like, by the time that happens the horse has left the barn. I wanted to say something like this at the AfD, but I didn't want to come across as whining and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my request for early close on this AfD. Please let the AfD run its course. This AfD happened way too early, in my opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the AfDs that are happening too early, it's the article creation. WP:NOTNEWS and the like. "AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature." is just wrong. Apart from clearly notable events (Hurricane Irma, erecurring major sporting events, ...), most articles on breaking news should be sent to draftspace for a while and only released into mainspace when the enduring notability seems to be clear. E.g. not every wildfire needs an article asap. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it still is premature. That the article creation was premature as well does not negate that NOTNEWS issues cannot be properly handled when the event is fairly recent. I've seen a fair amount of editors with concerns that articles on "Breaking news" events are started too quickly. And that many if not most such articles are kept when brought to AfD, mostly on the basis of recent coverage. I don't think everybody accepts this state of affairs but meeting an arguably premature article creation with an arguably premature AfD nomination is not by default the best answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:REFUND could do with some attention

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

---

There are about a dozen unanswered undeletion requests at WP:REFUND, with the oldest dating back to 8 September. Looking at the archives, prior to this week they were generally answered within a day. - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Exemption from WP:BURDEN at WP:DAYS

I'd like some additional eyes on a discussion at Wikiproject:Days of the year regarding preserving the arbitrary exemption to WP:Burden that the project has granted themselves. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1:--Why was this posted at AN? Wouldn't it be better to launch a RFC? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good question. There are already at least two admins involved in the discussion. Deb (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lack of coffee. Good point, @Godric on Leave:. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on a heated AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of gaming platforms could use just a bit of watching for a few days. While nothing drastic outside of external canvassing so far has occurred, the article in question and this AFD discussion has been a focus of a large reddit forum, got to the site's front page, and could bring a bit of hostility here. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfies

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

---

I presume this means that the images that have (both in normal editing and utterly gratuitously) been used here as free images are now copyrighted? I would tag them all as copyvios at Commons except that the article is a little unclear about what the copyright status actually now is. It looks like the copyright has reverted to Slater but it's not obvious. Can anyone shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We're discussing this at Monkey selfie copyright dispute. It currently seems that the images are still PD within the US, since the court has affirmatively ruled animals can't claim copyright. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my confusion - since the copyright has to belong to someone, presumably it reverts to Slater (especially as the article talks about any money made from the pictures, which again suggests copyright). Also, to be PD in the USA, the image has to be PD in the country of origin, which the article suggests it now isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The copyright does not have to belong to someone. Did the court rule about the human photographer's copyright claims? If no that does not tell us anything. That news article is not precise enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's my point. It refers to money being made from the sale of the images with 25% going to PETA, which suggests that Slater now has the copyright (otherwise anyone could do it). As you say, we'd need to see the actual judgement. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can sell something that is PD. Slater (or rather his company) does so (via gettyimages for instance). And to get rid of PETA he will now donate 25% of his sales of that image. So basically PETA has successfully extorted him. None of that influences the state of that image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Commons:File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg#No longer Public Domain? Probably has to be settled on Commons in the end. Maybe the most conservative thing to do would be to open a DR. No point in wasting extended discussion here, when it would just all have to be rehashed at the DR anyway. TJW^talk 19:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's this (Chapter 300, page 22, section 313.12) Copyright Office publication that says "A photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

David Slater is not a monkey. That section has no relevance to whether he holds the copyright or not. These should be deleted from Commons, and should have been years ago. Wikipedia, Commons, WMF and Wikimania in particular, should be ashamed of their actions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

David Slater is not a monkey. No one said he was. Whatever your opinion of relevance, what's relevant for that sentence is "a photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Listen folks, this has apparently already been sent to DR and shut down only today. If you have a problem with it, take it up at Commons:AN or Commons:VPC, or start a new DR if you think you have something new to add. Those are the correct venues. TJW^talk 21:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of us are about to go ape shit crazy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a more expansive description of the ruling, the judge found that a monkey has no "standing" to sue, so dismissed the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothy makes a valid point, which is that image usage on this project is subject to approval by whoever is in charge at Wikimedia Commons. If Wikimedia Commons decides that a particular image is OK, then that image will automatically be permissible here on English Wikipedia, regardless of any mere local consensus that it is not. That being the case, why complain? MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That does not sound right. Just because it is hosted there does not mean we have to use it, we can decide not to, as we do with most Commons images, most of which we do not use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's been vetted, then yes. But don't anyone go assuming that that screen shot of Batman is cool because it's on Commons. There are things on commons that have never been seen by beast nor man. TJW^talk 22:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that I assume if something is on Commons then I can use it in my article on English Wikipedia without worrying about anything at all -- NFCC, but also any other worries. That may be naive of me, but in reality many editors on many different language Wikipedias are probably doing the same. If Commons is wrong, then it needs to be fixed, if necessary by some wider body than whatever clique is in action at Commons at the time. MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We do not have any control over Commons here, but we do have control over what we do, and to revisit and revise what we do with any content. So, saying 'it's on commons so you relied', does not matter, nor is saying Commons decided, they decided to host it there, and we can decide not to use it. If those starting these discussions seriously want to revisit this, it should not be here at AN, but it should be someone who is motivated to really gather the RS, the history, and lay-out a cogent argument that's not ad hominem and conclusion. It should also probably be a WP:centralized discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why three parallel discussions?

Why are we discussing this here, at Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute, and at File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg? Could someone please step in and shut down two of those discussion, directing the reader to the remaining one? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I... No. Shut them all down. None of them matter. Please direct people to the correct venues. TJW^talk 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So what is the "correct venue"? The files are protected on Commons so a deletion request can't even be filed. A DR was filed today on a derivative image Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2014 crossword final.png and was summarily closed after such obvious falsehoods as "We have court decision, that the photo is in public domain," (no, we have neither a court decision (it was an out of court settlement, so not binding on anyone outside that settlement), nor a court decision that it is PD) and " Not this again. Already discussed to death.", which is just another of the claims that both WP/Commons are incapable of error and that the external situation can't change.

As happens far too often, the Wikimedia response to external challenge is to circle the wagons and defend the establishment cabal. We should not do this, we should act correctly, even when that means admitting that Wikimedia has got it wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:VPC or Commons:AN. No conversation here will affect anything that happens there. You may as well be trying to reach consensus on an article on es.wiki or a page on Wikiquote. TJW^talk 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've opened Commons:COM:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies. I expect it to be closed imminently. I expect every likelihood of being blocked for even raising this. I don't care - WP has to admit that it has behaved very badly over this and that its actions have ruined an innocent photographer. I can leave WP more easily than I can move house. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No. We do not go there to decide what we do on English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:en:WP isn't hosting these, Commons is. If :en:WP wants to make a fair-use case for them, then that's probably justifiable, but then they'd be smaller images, and they wouldn't be offered under a claim of being freely licensed, such that they're widely re-used elsewhere, from a belief in WP's imprimatur. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Because these images are not copyrightable in the USA, no fair-use justification is needed; even if they're copyrighted in the source country (an allegation that's consistently been rejected), they could be hosted here under the same terms as File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg, which is PD-US but copyrighted in the source country. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"these images are not copyrightable in the USA"

Why not? Why can they not be Slater's copyright, as he claims? There is no ruling on that, either specific from a case related to this situation, or from a general principle.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if they're not copyrighted in the US, if they are copyrighted in their country of origin. Commons requires them to be PD in both in order for Commons to host them, see Commons:COM:L. That might be enough to permit them to continue on en:WP (and at full size, unlike for fair-use), but they'd still need to go from Commons, and they wouldn't be advertised as worldwide PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy, please start defending my claim to a copyright on those pictures. After all, you are defending Slater's copyright claim despite the fact that Slater did not take the pictures, and I also did not take the pictures, so to be consistent, you should defend my claim as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As a word of advice to Andy, I think the only place to even get traction on this is through the WMF since they "sanctioned" commons to keep them as PD after refusing to delete them and later stating that there cannot be copyright on the photos. And I doubt the WMF will change their mind given that the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014 to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sanctioned Commons to"? I've not seen a WMF statement on this, other than a verbal one that was mis-reported by the BBC [7] (the BBC text doesn't match the WMF audio).

" the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014" Nor have I seen this. The "no animal copyright" rules I've seen have pre-dated this, and were based on elephant paintings (there is a motion to dismiss the PETA case on the basis of this, and also on the principle that the mcaque has no standing in the court - but this was not a new ruling on copyright, based on the macaque case). Yet again though, I simply do not believe, "to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright" (I have made the same statement over and over today). There is a clear statement that "animals can't hold a US copyright", but that is too narrow to imply that these images are PD - it does not exclude the claim that Slater holds the copyright. I am unaware of any ruling on that, and without such a ruling, the situation still remains in significant doubt. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

[8] , Section 313.2. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oh Christ almighty. Commons is not the precipitous edge of the universe. Most people there speak English to a manageable level. We happen to use Commons for 90+ percent of our images. If anyone has an actual copyright problem then fix it at the source. If anyone isn't fluent in Commons then go get it, because a good measure of what you do here is dependent on it. Commons:COM:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies is where to take this conversation, and if you think this is a real copyright issue and this is going to expose WMF to litigation, then burying your head in the sand and saying "en.wiki will just ignore it" isn't really an option. TJW^talk 00:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Anti-harassment tools team's Administrator confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in mid September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Semi-Annual_Admin_Survey_Privacy_Statement

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a survey form.

If you have questions or want to share your opinions about the survey, you can contact the Anti-harassment tool team at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey or privately by email

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): do you mean September of this year ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and fixed. Thanks :-) SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My user name and password from en.wiki does not work at WMF? Tiderolls 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Foundation wiki is read only except for people that need access to add "official" content. So, you can't log in there. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Backlog

If a sysop has a moment to spare, could you swing by AIV and UAA and clean up the pending accounts, numerous waiting for blocks. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

C'mon @Ymblanter: - one for you, mate. And don't forget to thank him for his troubles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like stalking, no? (For the record, I worked a bit at AIV in the morning).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What, checking a noticeboard once a day and asking you to pull your weight? Wrong again. How many thanks did you get? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be snotty, Lugnuts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding template protection

What is the current thinking regarding the use of full protection vs. template protection on extremely high risk templates? PROTECT is not very explicit, but absent actual vandalism / edit warring, it seems to always prefer template protection. Broadly speaking, I think that makes sense, since letting more trusted users edit is generally a good thing. However, is there any threshold above which one wants to remain even more cautious than template protection? I got a request to downgrade the protection level on a template with millions of uses, so I wanted to double check. Also, is it worth proactively switching templates from full-prot to template-prot even if no one has made a request? I can think of a variety of templates that have had full protection since before the template-prot option was created. Dragons flight (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would say we should always go for a template protection. Template editors are not expected to produce damage visible in many articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Ymblanter. The template editors know what they're doing. That said, unless I get or see a request for downgrade, I leave the fully protected ones well enough alone. Katie^talk 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Dragons flight, on your last point (should we mass lower protection in the absence of need/requests), we had a discussion at WT:RFPP within the last year and decided, as Katie also suggested, to leave existing protection alone for the time being (unless there's a reasonable request, obviously). HTH, Samsara 12:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As someone who regularly patrols TPE requests, I can say that we hold our TE's up to very high standards. Subsequently, I don't know of anyone who has seriously broken a TE template nor had their right removed (at least since I got the mop). Granted, most used-by-millions-of-pages templates are (more or less) in their "final" form and never need to be updated, so echoing the above sentiments I don't think we really need to downgrade any existing protection just because it happened to be employed before the TE right existed. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to leave the biggest, most-visible alone (navbox, infobox, and CS1, not all-inclusive) given their visibility and their (intended) stability (CS1 changes but also has an involved user base). There are a few others in the millions that might reasonably be downgraded (wikiproject) given their somewhat-lesser visibility. Perhaps this should be a full RFC on WP:VPPRO or WT:Protection policy given the current lack of guidance. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• I did a while ago lower protection on some fully protected templates from full to template, using a rough cutoff of one million transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additionally, for templates that have millions of impressions due to being part mediawiki transclusions, full protection is often warranted. I find User:AnomieBOT/PERTable to be a good temperature gauge for this need - it rarely has template based backlogs in it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Cascade protected

I realized belatedly that the requested template is also subject to full cascade protection via Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. So downgrading it would also mean removing if from that page. That page is interesting as there does not appear to be a clear threshold for what is or is not included other than a subjective declaration that something is very high risk. Dragons flight (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

In past discussions on TP, when trying to define such a threshold, there was a diversity of opinions. It seems that if you take a unilateral approach like Jo-Jo Eumerus without discussion you are likely to be successful and not come under scrutiny. Samsara 15:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't like this approach all that much. Perhaps it does say that the exact protection level is something only few people care about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

bears watching

User:NWO Globalist Slayer has an incredibly obnoxious user page. I don't know that it is against any Wikipedia rules, but it is certainly against Wikipedia traditions. It could just be viewed as "these are the 3 politicians I support." But it could also be viewed as threatening to many editors, especially those in the Philippines.

For the record, I'm one of the Wikipedia editors who occasionally expresses political opinions on my user page and sometimes on others talk pages, e.g. I have a "Register and Vote" poster on my user page. But I see a huge difference between that and User:NWO Globalist Slayer's user page.

My only request for action is that admins keep an eye on this user. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

Thanks,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And their only edit is to ask that anti-Semitic nonsense about George Soros be added to his biography. Pretty clear case of someone not here to constructively contribute to an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What I wanted to add to the Soros article is not 'anti-Semitic nonsense'. I happen to be Jewish myself. I just want to add content related to what is an official White House petition that has now generated enough citizen signatures to require a presidential response. Please do not attempt to classify all Soros opponents as anti-Semitic. That's a red herring. NWO Globalist Slayer (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The user page has been tagged and deleted. The next edit from this user would probably result in the hammer. Alex Shih^Talk 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Bears watching? I better keep an eye on my pic-a-nic basket then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) In all seriousness, I saw the user at UAA, and seeing their edits was considering a block for WP:NOTHERE to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, my user page was indeed just 3 politicians I support. Duterte and Putin are often portrayed as bogymen in the Western press. However, the truth is that they are populist leaders with widespread popular support in their respective countries-- probably the 2 most popular elected leaders of major states. As you mention, you have your political opinions expressed on your user page. It should not be any different from me as a new contributor. Please restore my user page. NWO Globalist Slayer (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef, a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE, and likely a sock anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

110.77.210.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))  Proxy blocked. GAB^gab 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist

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

---

I've asked admin Materialscientist a question about a block he made, and did not get a response. I asked a few more times and still haven't received even an acknowledgement that he is aware of my request. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this thread. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Didn't see the previous notification. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You should probably be rather more specific about what block you're inquiring about, and directly link it. As best I can tell, you're asking about this block from March, which was for "Persistent addition of unsourced content," which is, indeed, quite worthy of a block. Competence is required, and if a user ignores repeated requests to provide sourcing for their additions, a block is merited. I see a number of talk page posts to that user providing advice, caution and warnings, and no evidence that the user had any interest in responding to those posts and addressing their behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A) I put the notification template on his talk page. B) Whether or not the block and length was valid, there is an issue with the lack of notification by MS which is why I asked for clarification and C) the lack of response to my queries does not conform to WP:ADMIN. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're even trying to get at. The notice was placed on the page of the user he blocked, 24.178.2.82 (talk). 24.178.29.47 (talk) was blocked by Berean Hunter. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Pretty basic admin stuff. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Maybe something else is afoot. Regardless, this discussion should be happening where this discussion was started. And even if everything is aboveboard with the block and notices (which is why I started the discussion in the first place) why is MS failing to respond to my questions? I'm afraid none of you can answer that with any degree of certainty.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You're not reading the responses you received here, thatMan? MS didn't make the block. Are you trout fishing? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Appears not? Have you even looked at the talk page that is littered with previous blocks and warnings? Questions about the template {{anonblock}} Should be taken up there and not with the admin who is using it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading them just fine. There are at least two ip addresses involved here. [9] is where this discussion should be taking place. At issue here is MS not responding whatsoever to my questions. Please stay on topicThat man from Nantucket (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you trolling? I find it hard to take this seriously. That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Already shown why. It has nothing to do with the administrator, and he did add the anonblock template. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. All you have to do is check the IP's edits and they will show you why it was blocked. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Yes. Directly on the talk page. Maybe something else is afoot. No, you literally have no argument and are confusing IPs.

If you have a question about the block for 24.178.29.47 (talk), then you need to speak with Berean Hunter, as they are the only person to block it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll kindly ask you to stay out of this if you won't even bother to take the discussion about the various blocks to the correct location. At present issue is MS not responding as his duties per WP:ADMINACCT. Nothing anyone here can say except MS can answer this. Perhaps he didn't see it, I've no idea. I asked a reasonable question about a block which is related to multiple ip addresses. He should take the time to at least respond. I'm willing to assume AGF, you should do the same. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Take the discussion to the correct location? Really? I'll look to see who opened the discussion here shall I. Oh, wait. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with AGF. And no, I won't stay out of it. Multiple users now have explained the rationale for the block as it is obvious. Your insistence that he "answer for his actions" is disruptive considering no one else is wondering why the block was made. WP:ADMINACCT only goes so far. Your complete insistence that everything be explained to you multiple times is disruptive. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And you, an admitted drama watcher is creating drama where there should be none. Wikipedia. I ain't asking you or anyone else to explain a damned thing. Because none of you even have the sequence of events down correctly, which is precisely why I don't want to "relitigate" the blocks with the denizens of the peanut gallery. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To the complaint that MS has not responded per WP:ADMINACCT, they haven't edited in 7 hours. It's very possible they aren't even AWARE this issue was brought up yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I've asked multiple times on his talk page over the past few days because I was told his pings are off, and I should post my query there. It's not like I rushed here to file a grievance. I'd still just be happy if he engaged, which is ironic because that is what these ips involved were blocked for.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist may have seen you pointed to a block by Berean Hunter, and figured BH accurately answered your questions for both questions. We are all volunteers, so while MS is required to explain his actions to those he blocked (which he did), he probably feels your questions were answered appropriately. I would recommend this thread be closed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) modified 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a waste of time and has adequately been explained on all fronts. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: If you wandering, I made report on this IP early this month, and you can see why That man from Nantucket making a big deal about about the blocks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring too. Is it elsewhere? One could speculate about "perhaps" until the cows come home. Admins have an obligation to respond to reasonable inquiries. If they can't, they should resign their adminship. Peanuts, please don't. No one is seriously considering unblocking that ip. Your articles are safe for now.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your articles are safe for now. What is that supposed to mean? And if you're going to make suggestions about MS resigning over this isolated case, what do you propose should be done about the massive workload he bears? Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Mr Peanut has some ownership issues over some rap (music) relates articles. From what I gather it's mostly MOS related things that he doesn't want touched. Since both the ips are now blocked, it can't edit those articles. I think Peanut is concerned about the ip being unblocked, and I wanted to assuage him that wasn't going to happen. Regarding Materialscientist: No one at Wikipedia is irreplaceable. That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• On the one hand, although I hold Materialscientist in high regard, ADMINACCT seems clear that you have to explain your admin actions to anyone who asks in good faith, not just the person you blocked. On the other hand, because I hold MS in high regard, <wild ass assumption of what's going on> I can empathize with the frustration of someone demanding an explanation for a block that (a) expired months ago, (b) seems to be widely agreed to have been reasonable, (c) has essentially already been explained by others, and (d) is one of dozens (hundreds?) of blocks that MS has made this year, which uniformly help the encyclopedia, and I can imagine all bleed into one another after a while. </wild ass assumption of what's going on>

I think the best solution would be for TMFN to understand that ultimately everyone seems to agree that MS's block (and the subsequent BH blocks) was legit, and not force someone who might be frustrated to answer, even though he is entitled to one. That seems unlikely. The next best solution would be for MS, when he logs back on, to provide a short 2-3 sentence explanation, and if everyone except TMFN thinks it's an adequate response, then this can be closed. But empathy or not, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest closing the thread before MS responds, if TMFN insists. ADMINACCT is a pretty big deal to non-admins, and closing this unresolved just widens the divide between admin and mere mortal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it should be noted that TMFN's lack of clarity in this thread has made it difficult to determine exactly what questions he is asking and what answers he is seeking. There's something about multiple IPs and blocks without the admin's name in the template, but he's been vague and difficult to fully understand. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, the problem here is the ne'er do wells who took all of 5 minutes to decide, when they couldn't have understood the progression. That's ok, because it's what I expect of noticeboards. I didn't want to come here to argue about the block itself, but simply because I want a response from MS. I looked at his logs and MS makes a lot of blocks. If I had to bet, most of them are probably good. People shouldn't get their panties in a twist because I'm insisting he explain an administrative action he made. If someone points out a dubious block, MS might learn something and be a better admin for it. However, I've never seen an admin just not respond whatsoever to a question before, which is why I came here. I've left open the possibility that MS didn't see my question, or saw it and he meant to get to it later, etc. If that's the case, then no problem. I'm hoping that's the case. If he felt that another person explained it adequately, he should say so. But if he feels like he is not obligated to give a response he should be desysoped. Any admin that fails to follow policy should not be allowed to enforce it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  Are you upset because you've not received adequate information about the block, or are you upset because you haven't gotten the exact satisfaction you need by getting someone to follow your orders? If it is the former, please indicate what information you seek. If the latter, I suggest you drop the matter, because you're probably not going to get such satisfaction. Near as I can tell, the block has been fully explained above, MS is under no obligation to elaborate if all he is going to do is repeat what others have already said. Hearing him repeat what others have said already serves no purpose. I too, would have liked him to explain better in his own words, but the block itself has been adequately justified. I don't see that there is anything to be gained by demanding desysopping because he doesn't follow your orders. --Jayron32 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog at UAA

Hello, just wanted to let the admins know that there is a backlog at WP:UAA, going back to 13:00 UTC. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 01:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange Korean links being added by anonymous editors

Over the past few hours, I've been noticing the occasional IP like 210.105.148.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 61.75.205.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Each one adds links in the format

http://[domain].kr/cloud/[domain]_[word]_[number]/[number]

and then vanishes for a little while. All of these links lead to pages with the text "홈페이지 수정작업 중입니다.", apparently meaning "The homepage is being edited" or something of the sort in Korean. I'm not sure if the intention is to improve these sites' search engine rankings, replace the content with (e.g.) malware at a later date, or something else. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely up to no good. Add 210.105.150.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 61.75.205.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as 211.216.79.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and there's probably some range blocks to be had. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There may not be enough of them just yet to formulate one properly, not without being heavy-handed anyway. 210.105.0.0/16 and 61.75.205.0/24 seem deserving of attention for now. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've seen plenty. From what I've seen these are the relevant ranges so far; everything from these ranges for the last month has been this spam, and there's been no other edits for a long time:

61.75.205.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

210.105.144.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

211.216.79.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added \.kr/(?:cloud|software|board)/.+/\d+ to the spam blacklist. This should catch all the variants I saw, but I'm somewhat concerned about collateral damage. MER-C 10:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Independence Cup

Hi Admins! I don't know why there is a little fight between me and a user is going on for the edits on this page. I tried to message the user too, but the response I got wasn't helpful. Can anyone please help what to do to resolve the fight? Thanks! M. Billoo 07:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: This board is mainly for conduct issues, and that seems like a content dispute. Please see WP:DISPUTE for more information. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

HostBot malfunctioning

Sorry to do this, but I've just blocked HostBot as I noticed it placing welcome notices on the talk pages of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets, which seems highly inappropriate to me. I am about to be away from the computer for a bit, but if some admins review this and find it inappropriate then please feel free to unblock and reactivate the bot. Pinging Jtmorgan as a courtesy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

From a quick pick around on github, it would seem that this line could be passing the user's ID instead of username into a function that checks for blocks based on username. However, I'm not too sure how the db queries and invitee variable work, but it's a place to start. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Ivanvector. Can you provide an example of a particular user that HostBot invited, but shouldn't have? I'll need at least one false-positive to debug. @The Voidwalker: I'll start by reviewing that function--thanks to you too J-Mo 23:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Muchglobing seems like one such. I'll go see if there is anything else. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Suva Declaration, User talk:Blarkin16, User talk:Sourav hansda, User talk:HarodsStore, and User talk:JODWA were also blocked (and sometimes templated) prior to an invitation. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Muchglobing is the one that came up in my watchlist. The bot left an invitation roughly two hours after a Checkuser blocked the account and I created its user page with the sockpuppet template. Apologies for not leaving a link to the account in my original post, I was in a rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @The Voidwalker: I've fixed the issue with block detection. An outdated Python 2 module I imported was throwing an error that caused the API call for block status not to run. I have an earlier step in the process that detects blocks that happened a while before the invite script runs, and those blocks were being detected and addressed, but more recent blocks (anything less than a few hours, depending on the current state of replication lag on the public logging table) were not being caught and those users were being invited.

In the process of addressing these issues, I've found/introduced other (unrelated) bugs with the bot that need to be addressed. I won't be able to start the bot again until I fix those bugs. So I don't know where that leaves us now: what do I have to demonstrate before the bot can be unblocked? Unfortunately, I may not have time to fully fix HostBot for several weeks. When I'm ready to test the bot again, who should I talk to about lifting the block? J-Mo 00:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: I'll be mostly inaccessible for most of the next few days. In my opinion, if you believe you've fixed the bugs, then go ahead and unblock the bot yourself, or ask another admin and point to this comment as my endorsement-in-lieu. Thanks for taking care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use automated tools (regarding a community sanction imposed in July 2017)

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

---

I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to me two months ago ([10]) to use automated tools from my main account. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: What tools are you referring to ? You usually do not have to ask permission here. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I am under two(?) sanctions that prohibit me from using automated tools from my main account. The first was imposed to me two months ago and I am able to contest this since September 7 which I am doing here. The remedies second is from an ArbCom case. At this time it seems that both sanctions are in place while they seem to ovelap each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious now, my query is moot. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: To be honest, using tools that are provided from the Wikipedia enviroment like Hot-Cat also makes total sense. These tools do not allow any automated editing. But after all this drama I am lost in which place to post my request. Even the initial sanction was mentioning "the community". This ould be the Village pump for instance? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Less than two weeks ago, after a long ArbCom case, one of their remedies was; "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account." I'm perplexed why you would ask for WP:AN to overturn an ArbCom remedy. Too soon, wrong venue, and 0% chance of success. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam The restriction imposed by the community had a period of 1 month and has expired. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The community sanction may have been for one month, but the ArbCom sanction is indefinite. "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account" is not hard to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam

A) Which is the correct venue?

B) Does th ArbCom santion mean that the previously community sanction is not valid anymore? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(A) Right now, there is no correct venue; ArbCom is not going to relax their remedies when they've been in place for less than 2 weeks. Eventually, the correct place will be WP:ARCA. But man, I really hope you don't do that any sooner than 6-12 months from now. It will make things worse for you to do it earlier, not better, I am extraordinarily confident. (B) The ArbCom sanction specifically superseded portions of the community sanction (it says which ones in the remedies). Are there any unexpired community restrictions that have not been specifically superseded? If so, I suppose those could be appealed here, but I kind of doubt they exist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee No to all automated tools? You could for example propose that some tools may be used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No I think the ArbCom remedy/sanction is pretty clear. And I gotta say, asking here sure strikes me as a bad idea for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth I am referring to the community sanction imposed more than 2 months ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. Frankly, this is starting to look like you're intentionally trolling ... surely, you're able to understand that the ArbCom remedy is in force, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. If you assure me that this is not valid anymore. I am OK with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. The ArbCom sanction says "Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia" and "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account". In effect, the community sanction has been confirmed by ArbCom and made stronger. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton In fact you say that the one sanction replaced the other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense or intellectual honesty could figure that out. "You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. -User:Ealdgyth". The wording of your request ("I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to [sic] me...") tells me that your were attempting an end-run around your sanction and hoping nobody noticed. --Calton | Talk 23:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton I was told to address to the community two months after the block. That's what I did. As you see there are two sanctions. You say the one is not valid anymore. Nice to hear that. Let's see what the others say. I think it's obvious that the ArbCom one should be the only activeat the moment but you never know! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth For me it's important because I had a disagreement with Headbomb whether the community saction will be valid after the ArbCom. It's good to know tthat for this matter I can't address to the AN anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to help you if you would just explain what your actual problem is up front, instead of being cryptic and/or sneaky, and link to the sanctions you're appealing, instead of expecting people to look for it themselves. Disrespectful waste of our time. So, after research, if I understand right, the community sanction against automated edits is still valid; before the ArbCom case closed, it could be appealed starting 7 Sept., but did not automatically expire. The subsequent ArbCom sanction against automated edits was probably intended to supersede the community sanction, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere (probably a small oversight), so technically they are both in force, and technically I suppose they would both need to be appealed before you can do automated editing again. In practice it makes no sense to appeal the community sanction now, because it would have no real effect, and because you're starting to piss off people who up to now might have felt bad for you, so I doubt any editor is going to support this. Deal with this if/when when you appeal the ArbCom sanction, which again, I cannot emphasize enough, you should do in no less than 6 months, and 12 months would be smarter. At that time, ask them for clarification on whether a separate appeal of the community ban is needed or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Thanks. Exactly. This is the problem. There seem to be both valid at this point. I would like to see this one go away to have only one to deal in the future. Which makes totally sense since the ArbCom one is newer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For future historians studying this (possibly for a dissertation "The Inherent Dysfunction of Wikipedia, and Why All Rational People Eventually Screamed 'Aaaaaaaagh' And Gave Up On It"), note that Magioladitis changed his initial request. it did not originally have a link to the sanction he is talking about. That's what I'm complaining about above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

True.My initial statement made nosense for the non-experts of the case and I apologise for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of bad ideas: ...I'll probably re-run for admin in the next days. -- User:Magioladitis 22:18, 14 September 2017 --Calton | Talk 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton This is off-topic though! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note This is not a request about the ArbCom sanction. It's a request regarding only thee community sanction that was imposed before the ArbCom one. Both seem to be active at this time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I'm reading the ArbCom sanction, it includes the wording This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.. This means that the ArbCom sanction has now taken the place of the community sanction, rather than both being active at the same time. Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 Wow. I guess you are right. I am puzzled I did not notice that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Queries about looking for sockpuppets

• If two or more or several Wikipedia usernames are using the same IPA address, how often is it caused by?:-
  1. Sockpuppets.
  2. More than one person living at the same address are Wikipedia users.
  3. User:A leaves an address, then User:B moves in at that same address.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Would not choosing the criterion be a function of editing overlap, interests etc? Anyway, I have seen some users who have user-boxes mentioning of theirs' sharing IPs with other users.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia, but elsewhere a number of people share IPs because of mobile connections that run through shared IP pools. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can only generalize and speculate since I'm not a Checkuser and can't see the IP address of registered accounts, but I suspect sockpuppetry is more common than coliving in IP-in-common situations. CU can reveal more than just an IP address anyway, and two people at the same location sharing a connection but on different equipment would appear distinct. In the third case it would be somewhat unlikely that User:B would end up with the same IP as User:A, unless maybe in a landlord-provides-internet situation, and then other technical information would distinguish the two users anyway. Also, let me know where the IPA address is, it's the weekend in like 4 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 🍻

Request to administrators to look at this account

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

---

Dear Sir / Madam,

Greetings!

It is my request to administrators to look at the edits happening from this account and take appropriate actions. I am compelled to do so specially after seeing this edit where an organization has received a BLP tag. This person is not ready to read that the article itself says that it is an organization. I do not know much about roll-baking but I would even request to rollback all the edits done by this user if found needed by administrators. Thanks in advance. I have tried to behave in civil manner with this person but he is not ready to listen. He was blocked once as per the block log. Kindly let me know if I should change any of my behavior / editing style. Thanks a lot for your time and efforts. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, are you sure that this does not need a boomerang. And your in gen. behaviour seems to say so! Also, it may be prudential for you to know that semi-trolling and casting personal attacks of the sort you indulged in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashok Vaidya could quickly land you with a block.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To avoid that Sir / Madam, I will refrain from any communication with him. Direct or indirect. Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya is the person who has highest contributions in the filed of research in Ayurveda in my opinion. I am an expert on this topic. I do not care if that article remains or is deleted from Wikipedia. His respect is far more important to me than the article itself. Comparing him to a food item because of similarity in his name is surely an attempt to ridicule him. He surely does not deserve this. Especially after knowing the huge work done by him. Kindly let me know if any of things are wrong. Thank you. I am very happy that finally someone has started seeing at the account and the edits. I believe in judgement of administrators at Wikipedia and till date I have not found any wrong judgments by them. Thanking you, Yours sincerely -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He was prob. not ridiculing him and if even he has that does not authorise your actions. For a note, there exists a a quite popular vada-pao vendor with the same name and gathers (prob.) more hits than the subject.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure exactly what is being requested here, or why. Rolling back thousands of edits probably isn't going to happen here, especially not without giving a reason. Κσυπ Cyp   11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand if it is needed here. I am very happy that finally great people like administrators are taking a look the accounts and edits being made by the account. Thanks a lot. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is being said that "He was prob. not ridiculing him". I am happy and at peace if that is really true. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As for your original complaint reg the BLP sources tag, that's very likely just a Twinkle misclick, but I'm more concerned about that article, sourced just to a primary source and nothing else and Godric's example of your posts is even more concerning. And as you've asked above, you do have to change, if you think a subject is notable then show the sources, not post screeds like you did at the afd . —SpacemanSpiff 12:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues to show the references. I have always put more and more references when needed. In a case I have put more references than needed to start with because I know the importance of references. But here the particular person is putting speedy deletion tags on many articles and many are asking him to slow down on his talk page but it seems that he is not ready to listen. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that there can be 'Twinkle misclick' if it is happening at one place. I am not sure how many damages this person / account is doing to Wikipedia itself. You all are big people with great experience of editing and administrating. If you feel that no action needs to be taken on this account, not even a suggestion, then you must be right. I mean I do believe the judgement of Wikipedia Admins more than mine in cases like these. I am happy that I have brought it to the notice of admins and you will take appropriate action if needed. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep taking about damage etc but haven't provided any diffs, in fact the only diff that you provided shows you in bad light, and add to that what Godric dug and it's worse. So, cut this "you people" crap, you brought in a complaint and haven't substantiated it, simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I will need some time to study this account in detail. But if you want me to do that, I will do that. I am an investigator in scientific experiments and I do love investigations. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo

There has been an unblock request open at User talk:Hidden Tempo for a month, with no admin apparently willing to review it so far. I won't review it myself, partly because my name already appears in Hidden Tempo's block log.

The block was made by User:MastCell with a reason of "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring; repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban".

User:Bishonen offered to convert the block to a topic ban from post-1932 American politics, but that was not accepted and has now expired.

I now think the only realistic way out of the stalemate is to turn it over to the ultimate authority, the Wikipedia community, to decide. The discussion at the user talk page is lengthy, and I doubt I could summarize it fairly to the satisfaction of all parties - so with my apologies, anyone wanting to help will need to see what's been happening for themselves.

Current options include unblock, decline unblock, and convert the block to Bishonen's suggested topic ban - but obviously, anyone here is free to make other proposals. I will not offer any opinions in this discussion myself, and I'll leave it to someone else to close and implement whatever is decided. Whatever the outcome, those who contribute will certainly have my gratitude (and, I suspect, the gratitude of other admins too).

So it's over to you, folks... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am bothered by the following paragraph that they (Hidden Tempo) posted in the discussion on their talk page: Since such diffs do not exist, especially in non-AP2 articles, this poses a dilemma for a potential declining admin. I also suspect that your reluctance to dissent from highly influential and powerful admin heavyweights like Bishonen and MastCell is a common sentiment in the admin community. This sounds like FUD to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that MastCell has not provided diffs is true. Sanctions are supposed to be grounded in evidence, and if serious sanctions like indefinite editing bans are to be handed out, there should surely be solid evidence to back up them up. I find it troubling that after so much time, the original blocking admin has not provided diffs, and that it's viewed as somehow wrong for Hidden Tempo to point this out. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether MastCell did or did not provide diffs does not invalidate my concern. Besides, not everybody relies on diffs some people prefer to read a page history to get to conclusions as it provides more context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely false to suggest that I didn't provide evidence for the block. I've addressed this falsehood repeatedly, including here. I'm disappointed that some people continue to repeat it, and would ask that others don't accept this falsehood uncritically. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In the post you linked, you did not provide any diffs showing what was supposedly problematic about Hidden Tempo's behavior since his return to editing on 2 July 17 March. If it really is a falsehood to say that you have not provided diffs, then please correct the record and link to a post where you did, in fact, provide diffs detailing Hidden Tempo's behavior since 2 July 17 March. You've spent a lot of time calling this a falsehood, during which time you could have actually linked to such a post, or provided diffs. I've looked through the history of this sanction, trying to find where you posted diffs, and I haven't been able to find it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

MastCell pointed to the "Trump-hater" comment, which goes back to this edit (or maybe an earlier one), and the edit-warring that followed it, and the entire godforsaken thread on the Stephen Miller talk page where Hidden Tempo is just digging a hole. "Cosmopolitan bias" is indeed what Miller said, that's indisputable, in this ridiculous exchange, so this has no merit (Politico's "It’s a way of branding people or movements that are unmoored to the traditions and beliefs of a nation, and identify more with like-minded people regardless of their nationality" was well paraphrased as "deficit of nationalism"), and merely leaving Miller's insult to Acosta, without much context, is indeed undue if not an outright BLP violation. So that entire talk page thread is based on a false assumption, plus it shows what others have noted and what I will call (sorry HT) an uncollegial tone ("bud", and the rather patronizing pointing at some diagram). Muboshgu gives an insightful analysis, albeit brief, on the problem with HT's edit (look for "It's Miller's POV/spin"), and TheValeyard, early in the thread, makes an IMO correct observation: "You aren't being attacked; you're being called out for making poor-quality editing choices, and attempting to edit-war to keep your poor-quality edits in". Rjensen reverted HT too, and I've not seen Rjensen at the weekly dispersal of Soros checks. It seems to me that any admin who looks over that discussion sees what led to the block. (BTW I'm glad the Colbert nonsense was removed from the article--thanks HT.) Drmies (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
Drmies - it appears that you are now addressing the content dispute itself, rather than discussing the validity of MastCell's diff-less block. You will probably not be surprised that I entirely disagree with your view that the Politico op-ed was sufficient for the material. You may remember that I was once blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for referring to an 11% trustworthiness rating as a "feeble" number[11], since the RS I used (not an op-ed, by the way) did not also use the word "feeble." This is why I believed the imaginative and very loose interpretation of the op-ed to be a BLPVIO, and required its removal (see FT2's explanation below). Additionally, even if the material passed mustard, that page is a BLP and therefore editors must not reinstate contested material that had been removed, without building consensus on the talk page. I have no clue what Rjensen's views are on the activities of one George Soros, and fail to see how they're relevant to WP:BLPREMOVE policy, which really couldn't be more clear. But this AN report is not a forum to debate the content. This is about my diff-less, evidence-free block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry you misread my comments. I wasn't commenting on content as much as explaining why your article edits and talk page contributions were clear enough indications of blockable behavior. In my opinion, of course. BLP exemptions, by the way, need to be reasonable, so it's not like the mere claim of a BLP violation suffices. Moreover, there are two living people involved, and the contention is that one of those edits of yours was a BLP violation of the other person, so to speak. I hope that clears it up.
Sorry, failed to look at the "feeble" thing. RexxS is a pretty straight shooter, and this edit summary indeed was not your best moment--one can argue, I suppose, that you've had it in for Marek since then or even before, but that's neither here nor there for now. I'm not quite sure why you want to point me to a discussion where you were blocked for a BLP violation, and unblocked on the condition that you grasp the BLP, when that's precisely what we're discussing. User:Boing! said Zebedee, of course, is the one who got this whole discussion going for you in the first place, so again, why would you want to rag on them right now? I'm asking because I just don't understand the tactics here--if I were you I'd be making friends, not pointing at old things that don't make you look good, while criticizing those who have been good to you. Now, if this is only about paraphrase, I've been teaching paraphrase for 20+ years, and I think that was a pretty good one. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't see the above comment about my block as anything more than just a statement of fact. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're now starting to make the case that MastCell has refused to spell out for the past month. If that case justifies a topic ban or an indefinite ban on editing altogether, then it should be made after this situation is cleared up. The problem here is that we are dealing with a month-old ban in which the blocking admin has very conspicuously not provided evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies: Less than a week ago you dismissed the following commentsfrom another participant in the Miller thread (made elsewhere): "You pulled that out of your ass", "for fuck's sake", "Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake" as merely "feisty". Here you identify HT's use of "bud" as a problem. Can you understand why some may think different standards are applied to different editors?

The content HT removed has since been removed by consensus. That should tell us what we need to know about who was on the right side of the edit even if they were not on the right side of policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, I don't know why others think what they do. "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't demeaning to the person. "You made a mistake" is an attempt at a factual statement; it can be right or it can be wrong--similar with "bullshit excuse". "For fuck's sake" is an expression of exasperation for which one often cannot blame the speaker. Or one can--it doesn't matter. None of these three are attacks on a person, though one may well say they're not really polite in all circumstances. (If I had to take issue with anything it's with the imperative...) Are you with me so far? Drmies (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: This is getting comical. Without a hint of irony, you're trying to argue that "bud" is more "uncollegial" than "you pulled that out of your ass." Your attempt to even argue this point seriously calls your impartiality into question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As the real Thucydides said, with age comes wisdom. I hadn't gotten to "bud" yet. You are welcome to actually read my words, and then our policy, which has the keyword "personal" in it. Besides, I'm more interested in James's response, though I'll gladly entertain you while I'm waiting. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, don't get so hung up on ass. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
Jo-Jo_Eumerus - I and others welcomed the blocking administrator multiple times to provide the diffs showing the behavior for which I am blocked. He declined each and every time. They were never produced by MastCell, or any of the other administrators who took a passing glance at the UBR. If you believe my quote: to be an example of FUD, my invitation to supply diffs showing this pattern of WP:TEND-behavior since my TBAN remains open. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock per time served. I read the entire history, I see the past bad behavior, but per WP:ROPE I think we can safely say that anything, and I mean anything, resembling poor behavior will lead to an immediate indef block with nary a chance for appeal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Accept TBAN, oppose unblock without restrictions Oppose unblock - The mere fact that no admin is willing to close this request is an indication of the time-drain presented by this editor. The editor appears to believe that disagreement with their positions is clear evidence of bias, or worse. There exist numerous examples of the editor’s tendentious editing, snarks, condescension, edit-warring, POV-pushing, rejection of reliable sources, and unwarranted accusations of bias. Indeed, WP:CIR is suggested by the striking claim that a block didn’t mean you couldn’t register a sock. Like MastCell, I do not want to provide diffs as I have a life and don’t want to be sucked into unending arguments. After all that has occurred, HT still appears to think this is about the actions of other editors/admins, instead of the editor’s own actions. I don’t see how an unblock is warranted even as the editor continues to strike out at admins. IMO, Bishonen’s offer of a TBan was not only generous, but could have been beneficial to the editor. Should the prevailing view of the community suggest a TBan, I would probably not argue against it. Although, I think we’d probably be back here or elsewhere at a later date continuing discussions of their behavior yet again. Objective3000 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page are so convoluted is because lots of editors have time to make comments but few have the time to provide diffs. Let's try to avoid duplicating that problem here. D.Creish (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

More than adequate rational was provided for the block. Objective3000 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've already chimed in on the talk page, so I'm not sure whether a bold vote here in this section too is appropriate, but in general Jo-Jo Eumerus has it right, I think. They say FUD, I'd say Chewbacca defense, but it amounts to the same thing. I don't understand the desire to give sockpuppeting political POV pushers endless final chances in the topic area; 3 chances (or 4, depending on how you count) should have been enough. Serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
  Floquenbeam (only pinging for courtesy) - Again, I am not "sockpuppeting." I made 10 edits to two talk pages with a sockpuppet in February. It was a mistake, I admitted it, and it's done with. Still no diffs for the "POV-pushers" aspersion. Your qualifier "final chances in the topic area" is the lead, here. The unblock is a no-brainer. The real question is to TBAN or not to TBAN, which is an AE issue. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mandruss and Boing! said Zebedee: could you guys decide on just one way to transfer comments here? As it is, I've now been pinged 3 times for the same comment. The original ping on HT's talk page, this inline copy/paste, and the bottom section copy/paste. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't spotted that Mandruss was copying the comments across, so I've reverted my copy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Very sorry for the inconvenience. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN but oppose unblock without restrictions (my opinion has changed, see subsequent comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC) - I haven't time to review that entire page, I doubt most editors would. I reviewed the latest unblock request and on its face it seems sensible; Hidden Tempo has addressed the issues leading to the block much more rationally than the vast majority of unblock requests I've ever seen and so I trust they understand why they were blocked. However, I'm also reading some quite recent WP:NOTTHEM and so I'm wary of letting them go straight back into the topics where their edits led to a block. Thus I endorse Bishonen's topic ban proposal - even though it's "expired" there are many administrators already suggesting HT take the offer (add me to that list) but I cannot support unblocking without restrictions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock without conditions. This is very simple: MastCell did not provide diffs to back up their characterization of Hidden Tempo. Indefinite bans cannot be handed out without evidence. The argument that Hidden Tempo is a time-drain on the community is especially troubling. Banning an editor without evidence, and then accusing them of wasting time when they defend themselves is just Kafkaesque. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The total amount of discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page is overwhelming. FT2's summary of the situation in this section (User_talk:Hidden_Tempo#Review_of_block) is concise and covers the relevant points. D.Creish (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock without conditions. I agree with Thucydides411. The blocking admin continues to fail to provide the diffs, all while accusing another editor of failing to answer one of their questions. We already have one admin currently hauled before ArbCom for repeated failure to provide evidence. Add to that the fact that MastCell returned from a 1.5 month hiatus right before handing down an indef block, and I get the strong impression that Hidden Tempo has not been treated fairly. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
  MastCell makes the claim that he has provided "evidence" for his reasons behind the indefinite block (""tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring"), after being confronted once again for his refusal to provide diffs of the post-TBAN behavior in question[12]. However, as every reasonable editor understands, a link to an ANI discussion in which I was tangentially involved and an AE appeal from last December is not "evidence" of the indef-worthy post-TBAN behavior which he is claiming. MastCell has not provided diffs of the behavior in question. Period. I admitted to the 3RR violation (as a result of removing BLPVIO material). The other three claims are catchall, vague, highly general and subjective accusations for which there is no evidence, which is why MC either a) can't find any diffs or b) has the diffs, but refuses to provide them for some unknown reason. I leave it to the community to decide which possibility is more likely. Hidden Tempo (talk) 11:24, Today (UTC−5)
• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated. Mastcell has provided a sufficient rationale at the time of the block, and subsequently to explain the block, and its clear from HT's editing history the topic ban prior to the block served its purpose in preventing disruption. Regardless of if HT accepts a topic ban or not, he can be unblocked and have one imposed upon him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• A couple of points:
  1. It isn't fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs or rationale for the block. MastCell blocked from an open thread at ANI and provided a rationale there (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Sanity_break) and then when challenged, MastCell gave more detailed rationale here and here and here.
  2. "Indefinite" block does not mean forever. The block lasts only as long as it takes for the user to recognize the problem and make a commitment to fix it. That's the reason no admin was willing to touch the unblock request. Hidden Tempo clearly doesn't recognize there's a problem, and instead spends their time attacking the blocking admin and any others they perceive as enemies.
  3. In my review of the editor's history after having been pinged to the talk page, I found what appeared to be a history of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. Part of the problem is that the user seems to categorize editors into camps based their contributions to political articles. (You can see a small sample of this by going to the user's talk page and doing a Ctrl+F for "editing pattern", or for a longer read, read the sentences where HT uses the term "AP2".)
  4. I would have been happy to unblock the user myself if I had seen anything resembling a serious commitment to fix the problem. I didn't.

Based on this, I think the best path forward would be to implement the topic ban as proposed by User:Bishonen. It would have been better if the user had accepted that themselves, or proposed a suitable alternative, but the time for that has passed I'm afraid. ~Awilley (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
Awilley uses the same rationale as MastCell - contending that a link to a pre-indef AE appeal and a link to Nfitz's ANI report (also pre-indef) is sufficient evidence for a pattern of post-TBAN "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" editing. It's not. A sanction as severe as an indef block requires detailed, clear, unambiguous diffs of my edits, showing the claimed editing pattern. Intentional or not, MastCell muddies the waters and poisons the well by going on and on about pre/mid-TBAN behavior. "He was TBANNED last December...he edited a talk page with a sock last February...he got into a heated content dispute at Stephen Miller..." That doesn't cut it. If I had the diffs, then I could see the problem to which you and MastCell are referring, view the specific edits in question, and then address the problem and rectify the editing pattern. But of course, we never saw the diffs. Ex: Awilley is an employee and comes into work, but is sent home because Awilley is not compliant with the company's dress code. Awilley must be told explicitly and specifically how he is violating company policy, or else Awilley will come into work day after day, and be sent home day after day, until Awilley figures out the correct wardrobe combination. Is Awilley being treated fairly? Does this scenario indicate a productive, efficient process of remedying a problem? That is what is happening here. I addressed each and every single block reason in my UBR and followed WP:GAB to the letter, and I did it with diffs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Awilley wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK YOU BOSS" or something like that? Drmies (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, in certain circumstances it's quite clear. In others, not so much. If my boy gets sent home because he has pants with belt loops but is not wearing a belt (OMFG yeah we have those kinds of rules in America), I can complain because in kindergarten you are allowed pants with belt loops but without belt. And if he gets sent home for some stupid infraction I may well ask why, since his sister and I do our best every morning to make sure we're following all the pissy little rules. But if he shows up with a t-shirt that says "Jesus is a ****" (I won't write this common British insult, but the shirt exists) I am not going to be surprised if he doesn't make it into the classroom. And my arguing that the shirt actually had the proper school colors is not going to help him much. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but that belt analogy didn't really make your t-shirt analogy more clear (on my end, at least). I believe you're contending that my alleged post-TBAN pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" is so immediately apparent, obvious, and unambiguous that MastCell is completely exempt from WP:ADMINACCT and is thus not required to provide diffs (outside of a few non-sequitur links to an AE appeal from last year and somebody else's ANI report)? If I've gotten that right, then why the need for a very polarized AN discussion? Several editors have rallied to my defense here (for which I am extremely grateful, by the way), echoing my sentiments about evidence-free sanctions being permitted to stand, and observing none of the behavior that MastCell believed to be so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block in order to protect the project from my film, sports, and yes, even my AP2 edits. If what you're saying is true, no discussion would be required. To stick with your analogy, perhaps Awilley would be arriving to work without a required red pocket square (even though Awilley is wearing one), sent home without being told why, and refusing to give a reason after being asked for one repeatedly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
My point was that the reason for your block was pretty clear. No, that doesn't mean no discussion is ever required. What it means is that not all cases are the same--some are easily nailed with a diff or two, others are shown by an overview of a particular discussion and a few other pointers. That so many admins (and other editors) agree, and that no one except for Boing, who is a very kind individual, and FT2 have chosen to even engage with you should be a pretty clear signal too. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: It is fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs. Looking through the ANI post you linked and the three subsequent explanations, the thing that strikes me is that MastCell did not provide diffs showing a pattern of problematic behavior since Hidden Tempo had returned to editing American Politics. The diffs that MastCell did provide were simply rehashes of the previous sanctions. MastCell's rationale appears to boil down to: you were sanctioned previously, so I don't need to provide evidence that your current editing is problematic - I can simply declare it to be so. MastCell has had plenty of opportunities to provide diffs showing that HT's post-sanction behavior is problematic, and they have, for whatever reason, not done so.

As far as I'm concerned, this refusal to provide evidence should render the sanction invalid. If sanctions are warranted, any administrator is free to gather evidence in the form of diffs, present it to the community, and propose new sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock while restoring the topic ban I've said it from the beginning when I was pinged by HT initially and I will repeat it again. The only way to move this forward is to enact the first step, which is to unblock the editor and restore the topic ban. Only then we can have discussions about the validity of the ban and the administrative actions – these discussions cannot happen concurrently. Therefore, I agree with Ivanvector and Awilley, endorse the offer proposed by Bishonen even though it has expired. Alex Shih^Talk 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban is a minimum. I agree with Awilley, Bish, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by reviewing admin: I was pinged by Alex Shih on 23 August and reviewed the block, so I'll not opine on the unblock request itself (I said I would defer on that to others). I would like to draw the community's attention to my summary findings. 1/ HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc. During July 2 to 1 Aug he was not on TBAN and there were again no adverse issues noted. This suggested that a full indef might not be needed to protect the project. The sole issue since was a BLP dispute in early Aug, where HT may in fact have been right per policy (the reinstater must demonstrate BLP is complied with for negative reinsertions and HT's concern was not addressed). I did see CIV/AFG issues but the user was evidently trying to improve in those areas.I asked for anything else adverse since March/July showing the behavior in the block, and none was provided. Against that, the few respected admins who did opine, such as Bishonen, felt there were concerns as evidently did the blocking admin. I remain concerned on the question of whether too much reliance is placed on stale conduct and whether it obscures a lack of recent and as-claimed conduct. Also about the blocking admin's handling (I felt the block was 'sloppy' and could have been improved by good handling). My review is on HT's talk page if wanted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock With Indef TBAN "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" is an accurate summary of his behavior. Switching from a block to a TBAN including American Politics seems reasonable. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unconditional unblock. MastCell was well within his discretion to make the block, and it was adequately explained and well supported. Agree with Awilley, Bish, Drmies, that indefinite topic ban from American politics is a minimum. I have to say that HT's reaction to the unblock is really illuminating. It would be one thing if HT took an approach along the lines of "I understand that my conduct here was not ideal for X and Y reasons, but I can be a productive editor and going forward will commit to do X, Y, Z." Instead he took a more confrontational approach: bashing the blocking admin, refusing to admit fault or error, and declining the initial, generous offer to convert the indef block into a topic ban. Neutrality^talk 00:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Neutrality - this is the first time I've ever seen a diff-less block earn the characterization of "well supported." Of course, my indef is probably the first time I've seen a block without diffs period. A block given without diffs, with multiple refusals to provide these supposed diffs that may or may not exist can never be described as "adequately explained and well supported." You go on to say that I did not acknowledge that my conduct was not ideal or say that I can be productive. Did you read my UBR? If you had, you would have seen this, this, this, this and multiple other edits where I explicitly acknowledge violating 3RR policy (even when taking WP:BLPREMOVE into consideration), accept fault for the violation, and lay out my reasons why I can, and continue to be a productive editor. You also used very imprecise language (as others did) to describe my critique of the blocking administrator: "bashing the blocking admin", when that's not at all what I was doing. I'm sure MastCell is a fine person and admin. I have no personal qualms with MastCell. My problem is with his application of this sanction without the required diffs, especially with his AP2 editing patterns and highly irregular and alarming timeline surrounding his 10 minute review of my user contribs. Finally, when someone says this, and then suddenly decides I am in need of an indef TBAN, we really need to take a step back at some point and decide if the full story is on display, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• This again shows no insight at all. The implication of impropriety by MastCell is completely meritless. Multiple editors (Drmies and MrX among them) have produced multiple diffs. Take diff 1 - do you think this is acceptable? Or diff 2 - do you understand why others (like MrX and me) think that this was an abuse of BLP? Saying "oh, I violated 3RR" does not show acceptance of responsibility. You've acknowledged no problems with the substance of the edits. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  Neutrality - at least four editors and one administrator have requested diffs from MastCell, to no avail. Your thesis seems to be that a link to a declined 2016 AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report satisfies WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It does not, as the extremely divided response to MC's indef shows. MrX provided diffs pre-2016 TBAN. Bishonen warned me and subsequently TBAN'd me partially due to those diffs. The TBAN expires, and after ~1.5 months, I receive an indefinite block, for edits after the TBAN. This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window. We are asking for the post-TBAN diffs that show the post-TBAN problematic editing pattern, which have not been produced by MastCell, Drmies or any other Wikipedian. We are not here to debate 2016 pre-TBAN edits.

  I understand that you have a different interpretation of WP:BLPREMOVE than FT2 and I, but I admitted to 3RR (as anyone who read my UBR already knows): "[I] made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting[1] to come to some conclusion.","I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur","While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so [per WP:BLPREMOVE"],"3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat.". So my first ever 3RR vio has been handled. We are now asking for post-TBAN diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing in AP2/non-AP2 areas which definitively show the need for an indefinite block. Please, Neutrality, stop perpetuating demonstrably false narratives without reading the talk page discussion. I cannot acknowledge problems with the "substance of the edits" if ZERO post-TBAN edits have been provided. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock Looking at HT's replies above and to admins on his talk page doesn't fill me with confidence that they even understand why they were blocked in the first place. Usually the first thing you have to do to get unblocked from indefinite is to explain how you handle these situations if they arise again. I don't see that happening here. Valeince (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Valeince - how much of my UBR did you read? I addressed each reason point by point. However, I can't get into specifics because MastCell refuses to provide diffs of the behavior which he alleges occurred after the TBAN. If MastCell would show us some evidence, some diffs of this pattern...perhaps then I could explicitly address those edits. Until then, we can only speak in general terms and make guesses as to what MastCell thinks is "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing. Also, take a look at my UBR. I explicitly said numerous times that should another WP:BLPREMOVE issue arise, I would take allow my NOR posting to resolve before removing the contested BLPVIO material. Please fully inform yourself with the facts before commenting on this discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock I don't see that this is a stalemate. It's not a conundrum, it's a block. Seems warranted. Standard reinstatement framework should apply. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Favor indef block; oppose any unblock without indef TBAN. Christ Almighty that was an infinitely long history to read through on his talkpage. Bottom line, the user has demonstrated multiple bad-faith behaviors, including socking to evade a TBAN, lying about that pretending not to know that was wrong, and then endlessly wikilawyering and evading reality/facts in the discussions on his talkpage and here (why are we letting him endlessly disrupt the conversation here?). Given the discussions I read, I do not think this editor is a net positive on Wikipedia, and I personally believe they will probably continue to be a disruptive influence and timesink if they are unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Softlavender - you are more than entitled to your own opinions on my editing, and whether or not my UBR sufficiently addresses the diff-less grounds for the indef. What you are not entitled to is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I already had to correct this falsehood when it was uttered by Floquenbeam, so it appears you did not read through the discussion very carefully. I admitted to the sockpuppeting immediately - I did not "lie" about it.[13][14] An editor of integrity would immediately strike such a glaring blunder of this magnitude and distaste, and I would again ask that editors refrain from commenting further before actually reading through the discussion (not skimming) and clicked on the diffs. I understand it is extremely long and involved, so nobody would think less of you should you choose not to read through it, and therefore not attempt to offer an uninformed opinion on my fate. Editors are welcome to suggest unfavorable outcomes, but rubbernecking and spouting off a few bytes of random text is dreadfully poor form. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I misspoke; what I meant to say or refer to is what Floquenbeam noted on HT's talkpage (User talk:Hidden Tempo#Thoughts that might break the block review logjam):"HT was topic banned from politics earlier this year, and created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, pretended not to know this was wrong. It is simply not possible that he didn't know that was wrong": [15] (bolding in original). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock without indefinite topic ban - To me, the clearest indication of the problematic nature of this user is what happened the last time they were topic-banned. On 2 December 2016, Bishonen imposed an AP2 topic ban. Between that date and 2 July 2017, the length of the topic ban, Hidden Tempo made a grand total of 63 article-space edits, along with a ban-evading sockpuppet. That is not indicative of a user who has, or who intends to, learn anything and improve their behavior during a topic ban by constructively and substantially contributing in other, non-problematic topic areas. Indeed, immediately upon the ban's time-limited expiration, they returned to tendentious, combative editing in the same topic area. There are several million other topics on Wikipedia to contribute to besides ones related to American politics after 1932, and if this user is truly interested in contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to pushing a single political POV, they should take a year or so to edit those other topics, learn how to work constructively with other users and then ask for the restrictions to be lifted based on that new track record. If they have no interest in other topics, then they are not really here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, but if unblocked must be with indefinite topic ban - per NorthBySouthBaranof. I find the explication of the editor's behavior while under a TB a convincing argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've altered my vote above based on HT's comments in this thread. I don't think this is an editor we really need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock for time served – This block was justified by edit-warring on a content dispute regarding Stephen Miller, wherein the blocked editor asserted WP:BLPVIO to repeatedly remove some phrasing, while others disagreed. Meanwhile the disputed text at that article has been removed/reworked into a neutral statement, so that the warring is moot. An indef block is unnecessarily WP:PUNITIVE. Arguments for indeffing rely heavily on past sanctions and do not take into consideration the numerous positive contributions by the blocked editor and his consensus-seeking attitude demonstrated in talk page conversations. Given that a month has elapsed, I suggest an immediate unblock for time served, with no strings attached. Naturally, future editor behaviour will remain under scrutiny, especially in the AP2 domain. — JFG ^talk 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocks are not a prison sentence. Time served indicates that the block has served its purpose. HT, as numerous people have pointed out, has given no indication he will not continue to be disruptive in the AP area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - This user has given no indication that they are here to improve the encyclopedia and conduct themselves collegially. I am familiar with their reprehensible history of talk page participation[16][17][18][19] but was not familiar with the sockpuppetry. That, and the well-documented personal attacks, BLP violations[20], single purpose POV pushing, edit warring[21], tendentiousness[22], and dishonest abuse of policies[23] convince me that Hidden Tempo should be limited to read-only status on this project.- MrX 12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Question/Comment - Would someone be so kind as to point out the policy or guideline that indicates that a 10 month editing history in a topic area (in this case - post-1932 American politics) is some how not relevant? I can't find anything. What I do see in this unblock request is a single administrator, out of the close to a dozen who have commented, suggest the pattern of editing just prior to the 7 month Tban is "stale". If there is no policy/guideline indicating a 10 month history (which seems to be continuing within 30 day of a 7 month topic ban being lifted) is too long, then it seems a whole lot of text in this appeal seems to be devoted to a false narrative. CBS527^Talk 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Previous behavior is relevant when it shows a continued pattern. I don't see that. I see an editor who was blocked for referring to a politician's trustworthiness ratings as "feeble" on a talk page, for BLP, because that precise wording wasn't in the source, learning from that that text not directly supported by the source is a BLP vio. And that's exactly how we hope a block will work, the editor will learn what's allowed and what's not allowed.

Then I see them taking that lesson and applying it to Stephen Miller, where they removed text not directly supported by the source from the article page, and getting blocked for that. So, add BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked; remove BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked - I don't know what we hope the editor will learn from that. D.Creish (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cbs527: I don't think that anyone is saying that 10-month-old edits can never be considered when weighing sanctions. The issue is this: several editors have pointed to Hidden Tempo's behavior 7+ months ago as justification for the recent block that HT received, but HT was already blocked for that past behavior. Unless HT did something after returning from their block/TBAN to justify a new sanction, then the new sanction is unjustified. If MastCell would care to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that justifies new sanctions, then HT's block history could be taken into account when deciding what sanction is appropriate. But a user can't be blocked once for some particular conduct, serve their time, and then upon returning to editing, be blocked again for the very same previous conduct. They have to do something new to justify a new sanction. To me, the amazing thing is that MastCell has refused to provide diffs justifying the new sanction, and that it's taken this long for an evidence-free sanction to come under review. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the sixth time you’ve posted this here in a touch over a day. The best result of repetition here is that other editors will ignore you. Further, your claims that MastCell did not provide evidence is simply false. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but Thuc disregards the fact that sanctions escalate with repeated violations, as they indicate that previous prophylaxis was not preventive. To be candid, I find this kind of self-serving, since Thuc himself has more than one American Politics sanction under his belt and has a kind of vested interest in obscuring the escalating blocks thing. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite a bit SPECIFICO, coming from someone with their own prodigious block history, and edit warring using BLP as a pretext - the same thing HT was just blocked for - only with far more dubious pretext [24][25]. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's a very interesting point, User:Cbs527. The single admin I presume you allude to, User:FT2, also doesn't seem to think Hidden Tempo's actions during the 7-month topic ban December 2016—July 2017 matter very much. I'll quote FT2's summary above for you: "HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc.". FT2 passes rather hastily over Hidden Tempo's sock puppetry during the topic ban, when he used both an account and an IP, and FT2 may not even be aware of Hidden Tempo's pushing at the limits of his topic ban on 25—26 May 2017 ("Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc."), which I and others discussed with HT here. I'm not sure whether FT2 is suggesting only disruption after the topic ban had ended in July ought to "count" towards a block. Probably not, though Hidden Tempo himself is insisting it should, with much bolding: "This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window.". For my part, I think HT ought to have seen himself as on probation when the topic ban ended in July, especially because of his conduct during the topic ban (socking; editing logged out; using his userpage for ban-violating editing, and then, after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me, as so often; and blaming Doug Weller, of all people, for the whole thing, per my link to the discussion above). Instead he continued his tendentious editing after the ban, with CRYBLP wikilawyering like this. Incidentally that link, from 5 August 2017, is one of the links MRX posted above, and a link to the edit warring history in August is another, which hasn't stopped HT from claiming MRX's links are all "pre-topic ban", i.e. from 2016. And now, not to my surprise, HT is bludgeoning this discussion, giving everybody who can't face reading his endless talkpage a useful window into his style of argument. I agree with the block. But if the community decides to convert the block into a topic ban, as was originally suggested by myself, I hope they also take on the specific features I suggested: an indefinite topic ban with an appeal allowed after one year at the earliest. We shouldn't have to look forward to this kind of energy-draining circus once every six months. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

Thank you User:Bishonen, User: SPECIFICO, User:Thucydides411 and User:D.Creish for your response to my question. The responses have help clarify my concern. CBS527^Talk 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Not going to respond to every Bishonen claim here, in the hopes that folks will actually click on the diffs and verify if what she says is in fact true. As I had previously stated, nobody would think less of anyone for not educating themselves with the facts of the talk page discussion, and thus recusing themselves from voting/commenting. I don't remember anyone informing me that I may not correct false claims or respond to aspersions in the AN discussion. The 3RR vio (which Bishonen sees as a WP:CRYBLP issue) has been discussed and resolved. The fact that the only diffs editors can find are of pre/mid-TBAN behavior, rather than the alleged behavior for which the block was given, speaks volumes. Instead of showing us diffs of this supposed "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing pattern, a few users, which now includes Bishonen, continue to regress to pre/mid-TBAN diffs. But of course, the pre-TBAN diffs are NOT the reasons for the block, and a first 3RR vio block would have expired long ago. This "circus" could have been avoided if the right thing was done in the very beginning: do not indefinitely block editors without giving a warning, and especially do not do it without diffs (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). Thuc got it right: banning editors without evidence (no, a 2016 declined AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report is not "evidence") and then accusing the editor of being a "time sink"/"time suck"/wasting time when he defends himself is quite Kafkaesque. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock for time served Hidden Tempo was indefinitely blocked for edit warring to remove a questionable interpretation of an opinion article from a BLP and behaving mildly uncivilly in an uncivil environment. He's been blocked for a month which is more than enough. D.Creish (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, D.Creish, but there was nothing questionable about that interpretation, it wasn't a BLP violation, and besides the "mild" incivility ("bud") there was a whooooole bunch of wikilawyering to the nth degree of exasperation. I can't accept your summary. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with 1 year appeal, oppose unblock without restrictions - After having the misfortune of following this thread over the past couple days, and many things that I don't need to rehash in detail, it's pretty uncontroversial that HT has been an overall time sink, and there's probably been more characters spilled by other talking about HT than he has actually productively contributed to mainspace. But apparently a TBAN is a de facto block anyway, since they have little or no current interest in editing on much else. If that's the case, then fine, an unblock and a TBAN effectively change nothing, and nothing will change in a year upon appeal. But if they can find themselves interested in literally anything else in the world, and find a way to be productive, then they can try it, with hopefully a widespread understanding that the community should be reprimanded if another block comes around, and we set ourselves to this obscene level of debate over someone who, as far as I can tell, has given us no indication that they deserve it. TJW^talk 21:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock is my first choice, but my second choice is unblock with indef TBAN on American politics. I was asked to look through the discussion on HT's talk page a while back and I did; I read the whole thing as it was then, and I checked all the diffs provided (the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit; MC has pointed repeatedly to plenty of evidence and anyone making still making that claim has absolutely no excuse for continuing to push it). I'm convinced that the block was justified, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that the behavior which caused it will not resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  MP - I am going to AGF and operate under the assumption that you are offering your completely unbiased, neutral, and objective opinion. However, I noticed that your AP2 edits have the identical overarching theme of MastCell's, MrX's, SPECIFICO's, and Objective3000's AP2 edits, and recently uttered this without a hint of satire or jest, yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision. Today, you said this: "the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit". There is some nuance here. Did he provide diffs to justify his indef? Yes, he linked my 2016 AE appeal of a TBAN and Nfitz's ANI report. What he did NOT do was provide the most critical and relevant diffs: edits that showed a pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing after the TBAN expired. A couple out-of-place diffs does not satisfy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Nobody has been able to find these diffs, including MastCell, which is why so many of us have concluded that they do not exist. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hidden Tempo - "yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision." You certainly can't be suggesting that MjolnirPants does not have a right to express their opinion. In case you missed User:Boing! said Zebedee explanation "here"., WP:AN is open to all editors who are not currently blocked to support any solution they wish. Neither you not anyone else can dictate who comments here. You are not helping your cause by continuing to repeat ad nauseam that Mastcell has not provided an explanation to the block or that Mastcell needs to provide post TBan differences. So far you have contributed over 12,000 bytes of text to this AN discussion alone, the large majority of it devoted this point. We all get it, anybody who reads this certainly gets it - You and some other editors think that Mastcell's justification is not enough. Other editors think that it is more than enough for a TBan. Mastcell has clearly provided his justification for the block whether you agree with it or not. I'm certain editors who read this AN will take both opinions into consideration and form their own conclusion. CBS527^Talk 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: I'm sure you are offended and irked by a great many opinions with which you don't agree; this is part of the reason that led to your block in the first place. As to your reading of my editing history: you're cherry picking edits that support your preferred narrative. As to the specific diff of mine that you provided: if you disagree with it, or (god forbid) think it ridiculous in any way, then I'm quite sure that's evidence of a very different reason to indefinitely ban you from editing. Also, stop responding to everyone who doesn't !vote your way. It's not very helpful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated per Only In Death and a few others. Indef is overkill. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock without conditions - it's remarkable that a single instance of edit warring after months of good behaviour from an editor with a poor history could justify an indefinite ban, and it's dismaying that the ban has stayed in place for this long. Cjhard (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - This is a user who would better serve Wikipedia as a reader -- their time as a beneficial contributor has passed. They have fought the process every step of the way: Bishonen offered an incredibly reasonable topic ban/unblock proposal which, remarkably, was denied. Hidden Tempo has not outright taken responsibility for all the reasons he found himself blocked nor has he presented their post-unblock plans to the community. For those reasons, I cannot even support an unblock with a tban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  TGS, I've already responded to this claim multiple times, so I would direct you to those replies. The takeaway is: I cannot "outright [take] responsibility for all the reasons" (a "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" post-TBAN editing pattern) if the blocking administrator can not or will not provide diffs showing this editing pattern. I have outlined my post-unblock plans in my UBR (did you read it or just skip to the "opinion voicing" part?) and I've addressed each alleged block reason in a general sense. However, all of us are being asked to critique the Emperor's new clothes. Unsurprisingly, many editors aren't letting the absence of diffs and facts stand in their way of having an opinion and sounding off, here. A correlation has emerged between how the community votes, and whether or not they've noticed that MC has not provided the specific blockable post-TBAN diffs that we have repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to pry from MC. If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you want to argue at such length to avoid a, in comparison to the scope of the project very narrow, topic ban makes me consider whether you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, or here to argue politics. TJW^talk 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the "Trial by Water" doctrine of jurisprudence. "The fact that you're protesting your innocence proves you're guilty." Or we could use its closely related cousin: "By not admitting your guilt, you're proving your lack of remorse." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are currently 60,000 articles within the scope of US politics, many of which are not covered under the proposed TBAN. There are currently well more than five million articles. Do the WP:CALC. I don't care about innocence; I care much more about any indication that they're actually here to build an encyclopedia. TJW^talk 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't care about innocence." Then what are you doing posting here? We aren't pondering whether HT's interests are sufficiently broad. We're discussing whether the evidence warrants sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is a noticeboard a courtroom. No one has a right to edit here, we are allowed to contribute on the sufferance of the WMF and its designees, the en.wiki community, which can set up whatever standards it wants to weed out undesirable editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard, when used for this purpose, has testimony, requires evidence, and produces findings of guilt or innocence. It is (or should be) grounded in longstanding principles of fairness and justice. That's close enough to a courtroom to make "this is not a courtroom" a very dubious statement, especially when made without any policy or even good reasoning to back it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above about Trial by Water. This is an appeal of not only the sentence but the finding of guilt. Since it was opened by an admin I assume it's a legitimate appeal. Therefore it cannot presume guilt, and degree of remorse cannot be a factor. Making it so unfairly ties the defendant's hands. I'm not taking a position in this case, only voicing a narrow objection to comments like those of Timothyjosephwood above. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It can presume whatever it wants, as it's not the application of Anglo-American jurisprudence, it's a Wikipedian determination of consensus, a very different thing. There's no "defendant", not "prosecutor", no "judge" and no "trial", and as long as people keep thinking of it using that analogy, they're going to be confused about what's going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll continue thinking of it that way. It's worked fairly well for many centuries of Western civilization. Beats hell out of mob rule, fancy words for it notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your choice, of course, but perhaps you should bear in mind that the Anglo-American Common Law system is not the only one, nor is it the oldest -- and I'm not talking about Trial by Water or Trial by Fire. Other cultures see value in their systems as well. Here, we too have a different system, the communal determination of consensus, and although it may superficially appear to be similar to Common Law, it really is a different animal, and it is vary decidedly not "mob rule" – which is, by the way, the very same canard applied to direct democracy by the vested interests who felt threatened by it. So, if you find yourself making these same kinds of objections to consensus discussions in the future, you might consider that your view of the system could be part of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideas of fairness, rules of evidence and a concern for innocence or guilt in judicial proceedings aren't some quirk of the Anglo-American Common Law system. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment This thread, and all the WP:BLUDGEON replies copied from HT's talk page, and all the personal remarks on his talk page -- I was stunned to see two bits about me, since I don't even recall having interacted with this user. But HT's BATTLEGROUND approach and discourse laden with personal- rather than content- focused comments [26] [27] and many others, confirm that as others have stated, HT is NOTHERE. Sadly, HT's conduct in this matter has cemented his place in the annals of WP. He should begone, but not forgotten. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. HT, who has only the barest of interactions with me in the past, has suggested in his reply to my !vote that my !vote shouldn't count because I made basic, factual statements about communism and Antifa, that just so happen to contradict views commonly held by individuals of HT's political affiliation. That is personalizing things to a -frankly- ludicrous degree. There were further personal comments made about me by HT on their talk page, but fortunately(?), they felt it would be more prudent to erase then than to allow them to be read by the wider community, here. And that's just me. I've not read through this entire thread, but I shudder at the thought of the sorts of things HT has probably said about users who've been in conflict with them more regularly in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• oppose unblock HT was given the gracious offer of TBAN with unblock, and went for "all or nothing". So nothing it is. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I'm as uninvolved in this as it is possible to be. I have read the entire discussion on the talk page, and the linked material, and I support the block. The partisan, ad hominem argumentation and the relentless, copious, endless wikilawyering are astonishing. Implying that editors with disparate opinions should not have their opinions "counted" is brazen, I'll grant you, but utterly unacceptable. The bludgeoning replies to commenters here are just continuation of a seemingly insatiable need to argue and "refute" every single point over and over again. Sanctions short of an indef block have been tried, and are followed by instant recidivism (or evaded). This kind of tendentious editing is what can make some areas of wikipedia such unpleasant places at times, and we would be far better off without it. -- Begoon 02:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Byte count: In case you were wondering, as of this writing there are now 220,000 bytes of text devoted to this on HT's talkpage, and 140,000 bytes of text devoted to this here on AN. Mostly, in my opinion, due to HT's endless (and endlessly wordy) bludgeoning and wikilawyering and refusal to drop the stick and observe the first law of holes. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• If we're doing byte counts, the more relevant counts are number of bytes by HT and number of bytes by others. People can't comment in large numbers and at length in these threads and then use the length of the resulting threads against the defendant; it defies both logic and principle. I counseled HT against BLUDGEON in this thread, but that was more realpolitik pragmatism than principle. In this situation, dropping the stick means walking away from Wikipedia editing; we are not discussing a trivial content issue. As far as I can tell, HT would accept the indefinite topic ban, so the best way to stop the growth of this thread is to close this appeal ASAP with that result. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The discussions on both pages are only as large as they are because of HT's continued disruptiveness and lack of cooperation, so there's no point in dissecting how much participation is uniquely his. Additionally, nowhere else on AN or ANI, in my immediate recollection, have I seen comments/rebuttals from the blocked editor being replicated on the AN unblock discussion. Lastly, it is not your place to either speak for HT or try to direct the outcome of this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Under the current rules or lack thereof, one man's disruptiveness is another man's vigorous self-defense. Indef me for reasons that I perceive to be unfair and see how much cooperation you receive from me. I assume the same is true for you. I see no consensus here that HT's behavior in this appeal has been disruptive, so nobody can fairly state that as anything more than their opinion, clearly identified as such. In fact, doing so could reasonably be called disruptive. Lastly, I speak for no one but myself, and I tend to respond negatively to lectures about my "place". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Close ASAP because HT would accept an indefinite topic ban? Surely not, Mandruss. I did propose such a topic ban to him on my single admin authority, as a commutation of the indefinite block; HT had two weeks to accept that offer, and did not. This AN review should run an appropriate length of time, whether or not people like the amount of bytes it's generating. If it doesn't, HT could reasonably complain forever more (and vigorously) of frontier justice. A weekend is not an appropriate length of time IMO, as it's pretty common from what I've seen that people don't edit during the weekend. Please keep this open for at least the full Monday in all timezones. Stopping the growth of the thread can't be our foremost goal here. That it's open doesn't mean everybody has to keep talking, but people who haven't been heard from should have a little more time. That said, I don't think Mandruss was trying to direct the outcome of this discussion — merely giving their opinion, like everybody else. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

• In case it isn't obvious, my summation of the byte counts was not in order to request, or even imply a request, to close this thread anytime soon. It was to quantitatively portray how much time and attention the community has spent on this one user these past six weeks. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender: If the comment wasn't meant as a another criticism of HT's degree of participation in his own appeal, my apologies for misinterpreting it.
  Bish: Fair enough. So we'll stop with the talk about byte counts and about a quick close. Although you didn't address it, I still think we should refrain from accusations of BLUDGEON when an indef block is at stake. I think your last sentence should go without saying; I lack the authority to direct the outcomes of discussions, and Softlavender knows that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock, support TBAN of 1-6 months. I've been reading this thread for some time and hadn't made up my mind until recently. HT was blocked after repeatedly reverting at Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor) and invoking BLP to justify the reverts. I don't think HT should have edit warred while invoking BLP - something they acknowledged above. However some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above - have themselves invoked BLP in recent memory to edit war with far more dubious justifications ([28],[29],[30],[31],[32]). In HT's case, they opposed an addition [33] that links Miller's comments to the far right. I tend to agree with Marek that the content should (or at least could) be added, though other editors have pointed out that the BLP concern isn't simply nonsense. For instance in that discussion, HT recommended that if the content be added, Miller's response be included. That's totally reasonable. Otherwise, HT has been generally civil (given the toxic environment on these pages), and has repeatedly and productively contributed to compromises, for instance at Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey. The reason I think HT should be topic banned for some defined period is that they should have some experiences editing outside of American politics, which is a not a healthy place to learn how to edit. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Based on Darwinian Ape's comment below, I'm withdrawing my suggestion that HT should be topic banned. I don't think a single person has attempted to demonstrate that HT's BLP concerns were invalid, and given the total absence of comment on that question - which is the center of this whole discussion - every vote to block or topic ban looks like mob vengeance over HT's political views. I'm not going to support that.-Darouet (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, removing one sentence which wasnt in the source as quoted and which alleged criminal activity on the part of a living person is 'dubious justification'? I believe you can take that argument and stuff it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ha." If by "stuffing it" you mean linking the source, sure, I can do that [34]. Note that the wording and sense of the source were conveyed exactly in the content you removed, yet then, and now still, you erroneously claim they don't. You edit warred over this and are now asking HT to be TBANed for something you've done yourself. -Darouet (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

1. The quoted text was not in the source period. 'the wording and paragraph sense are conveyed exactly' is not sufficient. 2. The text was in itself, false. It stated he 'admitted giving false testinmony', which is a crime, not the actual situation, which was Clapper admitted giving information that later turned out to be erroneous. That you (and the person who inserted the material) cannnot see why that is a problem in relation to the BLP policy is your issue, not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Only in Death, I think your inability to grasp this simple point - that you don't even read a source, edit war while erroneously claiming a BLP vio, and then ask to ban HT for edit warring over somewhat more legitimate BLP concerns - reflects very poorly upon your arguments here generally.

1. The source [35]: "Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans..."

The content you removed: They also wrote that given James Clapper's "false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans," and...

Do you not see the exact correlation between those words in the source, and what is quoted in the content you removed? As to 2-3., calling BLPvio on content attributed to Binney and McGovern about Clapper admitting to false testimony, when Clapper stated "my response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize,"[36] is as thin as it gets. Again, you pulled this worse than HT did, and now you'd like to ban them, but are not suggesting anything similar for yourself. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good, I am glad we have clarified you do not understand the difference between giving false testimony and giving testimony which turns out to be erroneous. I have explained twice now. You do not get a third time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol, what happened to "The quoted text was not in the source period."? -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Darouet:, when you say "...some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above...", you seem to have dragged VM's name through the mud without taking the time to check. "An accusation without any diffs", one might be tempted to say. VM has not posted "above" anywhere in this thread. As far as I can tell, VM has not commented on HT's block and (potential) topic ban anywhere at all. Why would you assume that he had commented here? Or worse, why would you say he had, knowing that he hadn't? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Was wondering if anyone would notice. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you for that important correction. I was thinking of Marek because they were involved in two of the discussions HT was heavily involved in before getting blocked (here and here), one of which led to HT's block. @Volunteer Marek: I'm sorry for wrongly dragging your name in here and hope you'll accept my apology. I've struck your name in my comment (showing that I made the comment but was incorrect to do so). -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any action - User has not demonstrated anything to suggest they are anything but WP:NOTHERE. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock entirely - to be clear, my opinion is that Hidden Tempo should remain indefinitely blocked. I mentioned in an earlier comment that WP:NOTTHEM was in play here, but at that time HT had not commented in this thread and I had not taken much time to review the situation. Although HT made a very elegant unblock request appearing to explain the reasons for the block and how they would avoid those behaviours if unblocked, all of their commentary since then has been wikilawyering about how MastCell's block had no justification and was improper. As Awilley pointed out in a comment above, MastCell explained the block at the time of blocking, and has explained further in incredible detail the justification for their action. Repeating the disruption that led you to a long block and topic ban so soon after that ban is lifted does show a pattern of recidivism, and if HT's belief is not that their behaviour needs to change but that the block is simply improper, then they don't understand what this block is about and they shouldn't be editing here until they get it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand an indefinite block, it can be lifted at any time, should the party provide assurance that what led to the block will no longer be an issue going forward. This user does not appear to acknowledge wrongdoing and instead blames the blocking administrator for a wrongful action, which is plainly an accusation without merit. The removal o this one user from the politics articles has reduced the tension dramatically, in my opinion. Things are still testy at times, even heated, but the sustained rancor has gone down a few notches. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - and support topic ban in the event that they are unblocked. Enough editor time wasted on someone trying to wikilawyer their way out of what was obviously a reasonable block. I endorse what others (especially softlavender, jytdog, and Valarian) have already written above. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment edit:Support unblock I have reviewed the whole discussion in HP's talk page, and read through the comments here, and it is unfortunate that I have to conclude this proceeding is not being governed by logic, reason or evidence, but by -conscious or unconscious- partisanship. It is no surprise that most who support sanctions fall on the opposite side of political spectrum as HT, while most who support "no sanctions" are on HT's political camp. I see above me, lots of comments on how HT is NOTHERE and he is disruptive and such, what I don't see is someone providing answers to the only impartial and detailed review of the block by FT2 I will copy the most prominent part of their review here:

;As an uninvolved admin:

I feel at present the evidence I could see doesn't support the block. But there may be much more I didn't see. We need to know these things from the blocking admin or others who know the situation:

1. Is there more to this or other evidence claimed to suggest bad editing, apart from his involvement during 2 - 6 August on Steve Miller's page? (meaning since March 2017 when his block ended)
2. Has any formal or focused discussion taken place anywhere about the user's conduct any time since 17 March 2017, apart from this thread?
3. Has the BLP issue he was concerned about ever been calmly looked at (to determine if better solutions exist or if the BLP claim is an obvious bad-faith game), or is it basically "the loudest voice determines Wikipedia's view"?

And FT2 continues that we "need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago." (emphasis mine)None of the editors above has provided anything to answer the questions posed by FT2, instead they continued with the same vague statements, and when HT tried to respond to these comments and condemnations, they complained that it was WP:BLUDGEON without a shred of empathy towards HT and how frustrating this must be to him. My conclusion of this is unless someone bring clear evidence that this user was being tendentious after his block ended, he should walk free, so to speak. I don't think that will happen though, I think in these forums, you live if you have enough friends and HT doesn't have that. And the sheer size of the discussion will deter anyone who is willing to impartially review it. I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)I didn't !vote, because I don't believe it will make any difference, but here's to nailing colors to the mast. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The last block I supported was for an outspokenly liberal editor who is as close to an "enemy" as HT could have here, so you can take your bad-faith speculation about my ulterior motives (and those of everyone else who's supported the block) and shove it. I find it beyond reprehensible that you would sit here and accuse an entire group of people of gaming this noticeboard for the purpose of pushing their political views into WP just because you couldn't check off a box on a list that pretty much every other admin involved says doesn't need to be checked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't read that as an outright accusation of gaming, which is a conscious and deliberate act. In fact it includes the words "or unconscious". Possible or probable straw man (which can also be unconscious, so I'm not accusing you of bad faith either.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss: When someone is accused of working to ban an editor simply due to that editor's political views, that is -in my opinion and I would suspect in the opinion of a large number of other editors- the same thing as an accusation of gaming and POV pushing. It's gaming because the accused is supposedly using WP behavioral-addressing systems to further a large-scale content dispute (the dominance of right-wing vs left-wing editors, and thus edits), and it's POV pushing because said content dispute (right-wing vs left-wing politics) is clearly a POV issue; regardless of one's political affiliations, any reasonable editor must acknowledge that both liberalism and conservatism are defensible political views; there's no "correct" answer. Such an accusation, without a shred of evidence, is also unambiguously a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Darwinian Ape - Did you read through the this discussion and check the links provided? Probable not, or you would have notice that FT2's (not TF2) questions have been answered (and links provided) and FT2 is the only administrator out of roughly a dozen who has this opinion.

In almost every response HT has made in this WP:AN discussion HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken. There is no time limit on when previous infractions can be used both by precedence and guidelines. Remarkably, the WP:APPEAL is one of them. "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past." (my bold). See "Abuse of the unblocking process".. With no disrespect to the editors who feel that there has not been a continuing problem with HT's edits (and who, for the most part, understand the guidelines), the large majority of editors feel that there is sufficient evidence for a block or TBan, not because of your rather insulting statement, "I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible." but because they actually took the time to read and understand this process. CBS527^Talk 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, screw you I got mild dyslexia.^^ And secondly, yes I did read the whole discussion on HT's talk. What I see here is an editor who has violated policy in his past, granted a second chance, then went months presumably without any policy violations -which is where we need evidence because if it's not the case and HT was tendentious/disruptive after his ban expired, I wouldn't be objecting to his indef- and what we have is an edit war over a content which HT believed to be a BLP violation after months of, again presumably, good behavior. On top of that, whether the BLP concern was valid or not, we have HT acknowledging his mistake and his promise not to engage in edit wars even if there is a BLP violation, which is the wise thing to do regardless. In light of the evidence provided to us, I don't believe HT needed to be indeffed. Of course a block of some length would be understandable, I would go with a harsh TROUT/admonishment but an indeff block is way too harsh, it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As for people who take offense at my comments, I am not accusing anyone of GAMEing, merely suggesting that perhaps you should pause a bit and reflect when you find yourself on the side of the majority, because confirmation bias is a plague to all of us and we all need to keep it in check from time to time.(Note that I'd be shouting with them if the same kind of block happened to any one of them.)Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC))
Cbs527 - I'll only address this remark: "HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken." I'm not sure if I've been unclear with the point that many of us have been making, or if our wires were crossed somehow, but that's not at all what I have been trying to communicate. The point is that MastCell claims the indef is for "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," and tacks on the "edit-warring" at the end (note that the editors I edit warred with, who were reinstating the contentious material without consensus received no warnings or sanctions). MastCell stated that "the behaviors in question [tendentious, hyper-partisan...etc.] appear refractory," indicating that this editing pattern has continued after the TBAN expired. So it's either a) MC is blocking me for something I've already done time for, b) MC is indef blocking me exclusively for an alleged first-time 3RR offense, or c) MC is indeffing me for post-TBAN edits, for which he is withholding diffs. In all three cases, the block is invalid and should have long-expired for a first-time alleged 3RR offense in the process of abiding by WP:BLPREMOVE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't intend to say much here, because this block had already been reviewed and discussed to death before it was brought to this venue; I've already said my piece, repeatedly, and I'm not a big believer in repeating myself endlessly. That said, HT and his supporters/enablers have taken this discussion on a frankly bizarre detour from reality. They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. [37]). It should be obvious that, lacking any evidentiary support, a block would not have stood for a month through review at WP:AN/I (the single most public projectspace venue, where I placed and announced the block) and by numerous admins on HT's talkpage, but here we are.

  HT was blocked for edit-warring and violating 3RR on a political article. There is no actual dispute about this; HT has admitted to the edit-warring, so I find the repeated demands for diffs a bit dishonest. You see the game he's playing? He's admitting the edit-warring and asking for leniency points for remorse, but at the same time aggressively disputing the evidence for the block. It's sort of like saying: "Go easy on me: I stole the TV and I know it was wrong—but also, you haven't proven I stole the TV!"

  But I digress. The point is that HT was edit-warring, which is grounds for a block. The question then becomes: a block for how long? This is where admins typically take context into account. HT was blocked in December for a BLP violation; he was then topic-banned from American Politics for 6 months for further disruptive and tendentious editing; he then evaded his topic ban using an IP and a sockpuppet account and got caught; and once his topic ban expired, he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area. That pattern of behavior is typically more than sufficient to justify an indefinite block. (In fact, HT has been treated unusually leniently; in many cases, the deceptive sockpuppetry and ban evasion would have resulted in an indefinite block, especially given the absence of any mitigating positive contributions to Wikipedia). He was given a last, last, last chance which he promptly abused. Hence, an indefinite block.

  All of this is clearly supported by appropriate links. All of it is easily verifiable by anyone. And all of it has been detailed, repeatedly, in response to claims by HT and his enablers that the block lacked supporting evidence. Now, one could argue that this evidence does, or does not, justify an indefinite block. But one cannot simply pretend that no evidence exists. Yet that's exactly what HT and his enablers keep doing, here and elsewhere. It is absolutely dishonest, and reflects very poorly on them.

  In terms of an unblock, it's hard to look at HT's postings and see any evidence of real insight, or any reason to think he'll behave differently if unblocked. Read through his talkpage. There's a bit of perfunctory stuff about how he realizes now that edit-warring is wrong, etc. But his real passion is reserved for attacks on me, and secondarily on anyone else who's supported his block. Just looking at today's output, I'm "vile", "elitist", "tone-deaf", etc. I'm bemused that we're seriously considering an unblock request that consists of one part dishonesty (the repeated falsehoods about lack of evidence) and two parts personal abuse against the blocking admin and anyone else who gets in the way.

  Finally, to leave you with a flavor of what we're dealing with, take a look at HT's response when he got caught socking to evade his topic ban: [38]. Somehow, he tries to turn the fact that he was caught socking into an indictment of the person who reported him. I'm not sure what else you need to know. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. 50)." I'm sorry, but you're the one repeating the falsehood. In your original statement about the indefinite block for HT, you accused HT of "edit-warring to repeatedly remove properly-sourced material, using a variety of dubious, WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, or outright specious rationales" but cited exactly one diff. You didn't address why the WP:BLP claims that HT raised were "dubious" or "specious." Afterwards, when asked for diffs to show that HT's editing pattern since returning from the prior topic ban was problematic, you repeatedly stated that you had already provided diffs (which is false), and refused to link to diffs.

This case shows that we need a complete overhaul of how sanctions are handed down. The whole process above makes a mockery of any basic principles of fair judicial process:

1. The evidence has not been presented clearly, and the blocking admin, MastCell, instead of just linking evidence, only links to diffs of themselves claiming to have presented diffs. Normally, the accused has the right to know the evidence being used against them.
2. When HT tries to rebut the accusations made against them, they're accused of WP:BLUDGEONING the conversation. The accused normally has the right to respond to accusations.
3. Many of the people commenting, including admins, are hopelessly involved in this dispute. We need impartial adjudicators who not only have no conflicts of interest, but also no appearance of any conflicts of interest.

I personally resent the idea that this sort of kangaroo court has jurisdiction over disputes on Wikipedia. It's a joke, and we need something better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged? In any case, I agree with you about one thing: this case does show that we need to overhaul how sanctions are handled. If it takes this much time and effort to deal with one obviously unfit editor—who's pretty much standing on a rooftop waving a red flag that says "I'm unsuited to edit a collaborative encyclopedia"—and his handful of enablers, then we're pretty much doomed. Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment; there seems to be wide-ranging acknowledgement that HT's behavior is inappropriate, including from many editors and admins whom I don't know from Adam. I don't think conspiracy theories are what we need right now. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There are larger and more important issues at play here than one editor's editing behavior. As has always been the case since I've been around, the focus is in the wrong place. If the system is acknowledged to be seriously flawed, the appropriate thing to do is to stop and work to improve the system, but nobody has the time to do that because of the seriously flawed system. That qualifies as group insanity in my book. (If you want others to refrain from mischaracterizing your position, please don't refer to those who hold a different view from yours as "enablers".) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged?" You're aware that WP:BLP calls for immediate removal of offending material, and for it not to be added back in until it's clear that there is no BLP issue. HT has said that they shouldn't have chosen to remove the material after it was added back in, but their BLP concern wasn't obviously wrong. They had a reasonable concern that defamatory text from an opinion piece was being restated in Wikipedia's voice. Here's how FT2 summarized the issue:

"Right now this thread has a lot more "heat" than "light", not much focus on the core points of conduct and BLP. The main evidence of poor conduct seems to be a finger pointed at a set of blocks 8 months ago that were evaded 6 months ago plus an unsupported claim of continuing tendentiousness without recent diffs, a single 3RR that's been apologized for, and a disputed removal that may or may not have been aiming to fix a BLP vio and may or may not have been in good faith."
— [39]

FT2 specifically asked you for diffs showing that HT's editing has been problematic since returning from a TBAN ("We need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago. That would allow a more fair and considered discussion which isn't dominated by 'heat'."), and in your response, you argued that you didn't need to provide diffs ("Saying that he had a 'clean record' since March is like looking at someone who's spent the past 2 years in jail for theft and then stolen a TV the minute he was released, and concluding: 'Hey, he went 2 years without stealing anything!'").

If you'd addressed the BLP issue at the outset, rather than ignoring it, then we might all have been spared these proceedings. Instead, you've come back again and again to tell everyone you provided diffs (which you haven't), instead of just addressing the core point: whether the removals were justified by BLP, or could be reasonably considered to be good-faith attempts to comply with BLP, and whether they are part of a pattern of hyper-partisan, tendentious edit warring since returning from the TBAN.

"Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment." When an admin is arguing, with a straight face, that "bud" is uncivil, but "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't, then I can't, with a straight face, pretend they're impartial. My capacity for cognitive dissonance runs out somewhere before there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you should take away from this, MastCell. I've often read admin comments that they're under pressure from all sides when they make executive decisions, and I'm sorry about that. But when you first blocked HT at AN/I, you would have done better to slow down, explain your reasoning, and link more than just one diff [40]. In doing so you might have also explained why this article HT objected to - linking Miller to antisemitism - really presented no legitimate BLP concern. Yes, HT has admitted to edit warring over the content. But really demonstrating HT was CRYBLPing was crucial, because all your subsequent posts about HT's past behavior ([41]) are irrelevant if you shouldn't have blocked them for this edit.

Given all this, you don't help things by calling people who disagree with you "enablers" or "supporters" of HT... you come off looking exactly like the "BATTLEGROUNDy" editor that you say you were correct to block. Is anyone who disagrees with you guilty of being "BATTLEGROUNDy"? Should they expect the same kind of summary justice? Lastly, partisanship is as old as "dim Eden," since you referenced Adam. Maintain you are impartial - if you are sincere that does come across - but to claim that a reference to partiality (in the midst of a massive AN pile-on) amounts "conspiracy theories" is itself ludicrous. -Darouet (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional consideration

Given that HT is currently not currently under a topic ban, but is under an indef block, which can theoretically be lifted at any time - taking into account the replies to the above section, I am suggesting that regardless of the discussion above regarding unblocking, HT is placed under a community topic ban, not appealable before 6/12 months (state preference) after their return to editing - whenever that may be. Because given the discussion above, its entirely possible they wont be unblocked at all (or no-consensus) and we will be having the same argument in 6 months time. This way at least the topic ban gets taken out of the picture and simplifies the discussion. If anyone has a better idea feel free.

• Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my rationale above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support minimum 12 months to appeal after Tban commences. Tban to commence immediately upon any unblock. (I do not, however, support unblock, per my comments above.) -- Begoon 17:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support 12 months. Everyone who runs afoul in one area should be given a chance to edit in another topic area to see if they can still be of benefit to the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support 12 months - A good idea to make this clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any topic ban should be supported by evidence. The fundamental problem in this case remains that evidence has not been presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously needed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although the longer this stays open, the more likely the block will remain. Objective3000 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support proposal (indef topic ban, appealable after 12 months). Neutrality^talk 01:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with a sockfarm

The Air India article, and others related to it, are currently the target of a large sockfarm run by Modern Fire. Would it be appropriate to place the article under extended confirmed protection? Pinging admins MilborneOne who has been keeping a weather eye on the articke, KrakatoaKatie and Widr, who have been dealing with dirty socks for their opinions. Other editors opinions equally welcome. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes, this is ripe for ec-protection. The sockmaster seems content to create and autoconfirm many sleeper accounts so semiprotection will be ineffective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - No telling how long this could go on for. Genuine edits can be made via the {{requested edit}} system. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've set the page to EC Protection. It's unfortunate that the page had to be set this way, but the sockfarm is persistent and not going away any time soon. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. As I said, that was the main article they were targeting, but others related to it may be affected. Presumably they can be dealt with in the same manner if required. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since it's already done I can say this without prejudicing the discussion. EC protection against sockpuppetry should be used extremely cautiously. Malicious users who deploy sleepers already know how to make a series of junk edits on unprotected articles to gain confirmation, and there's indication that some will go to the effort of doing the same to become extended-confirmed, sometimes using automated tools. That's a lot more disruption, and the likelihood of a malicious user behaving this way should be weighed against just dealing with it in one place. We do have an edit filter to detect this behaviour but edit filters are not perfect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended confimation requires a higher level of non-noticeable activity for them; they're less likely to be able to keep it up for long. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Imagine that you create a sleeper to vandalise an EC-protected article — either you'll make good edits with it (so the encyclopedia benefits), or you do downright problematic stuff (and you're likely to get caught before you reach 100), or you do silly stuff like adding and removing a period on a userspace page. If you do vandalise the article, someone will check your edit history in all likelihood, and as soon as they see that you've been doing silly stuff, they should know that you're a sock and know to request checkuser. Unless there's some other option that's not coming to my mind, all your options either benefit the encyclopedia directly or make it easier for us to catch you. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - I realise that EC protection needs to be used with care. That's why I came here to ask, rather than steaming in and doing it myself. Never hurts to have a second, third or even fourth opinion. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've definitely already seen users who create a subpage of their userspace and repeatedly add and remove a . from it, for example. I think we have edit filters to catch that now but we didn't always. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't know that. But even if you don't get noticed by the filter, a human who sees your vandalism should check your contributions, and vandalism plus period-adding will easily be enough rationale for {{uw-voablock}} and {{uw-sockblock}}. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Constant NPOV pushing by User_talk:Samankamal

User_talk:Samankamal has been constantly pushing a particular NPOV in contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy across multiple pages and in particular the page on the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine. This is seen quite clearly in his most recent diff [[42]] where he changed the infobox in reference to type to for-profit from well-established norm for private universities. Other users have also expressed concern about his NPOV push on this particular subject matter [43] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, User_talk:Samankamal has been involved in NPOV push on particular subject matter. Cossde (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Previous ANI Their is a previous ANI on this users conduct on Wikipedia, it appears this issue dates back to May 2017--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sockpuppet Investigation Also their is currently an on going Socketpuppet Investigation into the user, however I do note no determination has been made on the investigation as of yet. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit to fully protected page

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

---

Can an admin please make the changes requested at Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#First part? The request has been open over 24 hours, and has consensus from editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Request to close discussion

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Proposal_concerning_JohnVR4, a proposal was made to address a long-running issue with that editor's behaviour. However, the discussion was not formally closed one way or the other and the discussion was archived. Might an administrator close the discussion formally, please? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Since there is an active proposal in the thread which was commented on by numerous editors (myself included), and since it was archived by a bot [44], I've removed it from the archive and restored it to AN/I. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the thread Buckshot, and issued the topic ban met by consensus on the user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs)
• AN thread regarding user
• Previous instance of Indef block over deletion of a 39 byte draft: Damaging Wikipedia is a capital crime. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- Taku[45]
  • When the Indef was lifted: Actually some problematic users like RH don't deserve respect; they need to be expelled from Wikipedia so actual editors can get to the work of building the encyclopedia. I will retire for time being but hopefully, I can will come back when the project becomes more hospitable to content creators. -- Taku[46] (Edited by Alsee)
• Previous instance of block for disruptive editing
• Previous cautioning by editors regarding disregarding DRV
• Warning regarding disruptively making points
• Recent Edit Warring Noticeboard report
  • Block as the result of the Edit Warring Noticeboard thread
• Returning back to the page for which they were just blocked on
• Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Brainstorming on an RfC - In which Taku continues to argue that CSD:G13 does not apply to Draft space after recieveing multiple editors reconfirmations that "Yes it does" including several reminders that the question is still too early to be re-called.
  • Attempt to forum shop to canvas a precieved supportive consensus.

For these reasons I am at my wits end, therefore I propose the following:

TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace broadly construed. He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace broadly construed. He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability broadly construed. These sanctions shall be appealable in one year from enactment and a failure to successfully appeal the sanctions shall reset the one year clock.

The goal is two fold: To prevent further disruption by this user who has demonstrated over two years that they have a significantly divergent purpose than the general community (see previous blocks/warnings/cautions/requests), and to allow this user some productive contributions. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't argue G13 doesn't apply to the draftspace. But apparently an attempt to have a discussion the use of the draftspace turns out to be too controversial so I can agree for the other users more knowledgeable in policies matters to weight in. (A kind of a self-topic-ban?) -- Taku (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at this point self-topic bans are not going to cut it for me as you've demonstrated in multiple instances since the previous AN thread closed you cannot be allowed to discuss anything with Draft namespace. Even on your own talk page you agree to walk away and then immediately jump aback into the same arguments that have been rejected repeatedly. Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, I agree that I will not start a new thread on the draftspace usage, including an RfC. But I do strongly believe some kind of RfC on clarification, not on G13 but on the usage is more productive than having discussions on editors' behaviors. I was merely trying to start a conversion (not on G13 but the usage) but it is clear by now that that was a bad idea. But I would like if someone else can weight in. -- Taku (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support enough is more than enough, [47] and he continues in this thread to play dumb and "debate" the purpose of Draft space/G13/various angles. I told him I may just hat his disruption [48] but he continues. Just look down his "contributions" if you can call them that. I believe Taku is a very bright person who can contribute in many useful ways here but this has become a game for him. He admitted that somewhere recently the game was more fun then writing math topics. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  I do agree that I'm more on a content-guy than a policy-guy and I'm getting a bit tired of these disputes. So I strongly prefer if the community can establish some explicit rules on the draftspace usage. (Again G13 is just a procedure and doesn't address this matter.) -- Taku (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)If your last sentence is true, and your characterization of it accurate, then we should be considering a full ban, not just a topic ban. —Cryptic 23:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  I found the diff [49] and the rest of that post User:Cryptic - is my characterization fair?. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  No. At least, not in the sense in which I read it. —Cryptic 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose  I see I've already posted five times on this page between 20 and 27 August.  I think that things would calm down very quickly if we limit Legacypac and Hasteur to three edits per day in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And I wish that you'd be sanctioned for the unfounded personal attacks against us, but I'm just going to have to be disapointed. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This last post as well as this thread itself should be flagged as evidence of an attempt to silence anyone opposing some personal views on how the draftspace must be used. -- Taku (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Damaging Wikipedia is a [[capital crime]]. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 03:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[50] illustrates the level of passion Taku has been bringing to the draft issue. They have been asserting disruptive levels of OWNership regarding three-year-abandonded drafts containing no more than a sentence fragment. They have been persistently and disruptively seeking to combat, evade, or bizarrely-reinterpret consensus regarding drafts. The most recent discussion at WT:Drafts#Brainstorming_on_an_RfC descended into nonsense. I do not believe the "Alternative suggestion" below will be sufficient to reign in the problem here. Alsee (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Christ. I hadn't planned to go one way or another on the original suggestion, but after that diff Alsee provided where Takuya said someone had committed a capital crime (e.g. they deserve death), I support anything up to and including an indefinite block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support with Boomerang the edit-warring on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 is extremely troubling. As a Straw Man proposal, I think a block that would end this dispute would be to ban Legacypac and Hasteur from the WP:MfD page until the G13 debate is resolved, and to ban Taku from the draft space indefinitely, with an exception for moving "his drafts" to his own user space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I was trying to stay out of it because I'm so tired of this fucking Taku draft thing but seriously? Wikipedia is a game and "I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite fun than writing terse math articles)."? Deleting single-line drafts is "damaging Wikipedia" which "is a capital crime"? We are being trolled, and trolled well, if the amount of bytes and brain power devoted to this one single person over the past few months is any indication. Like Rob, I support anything that will cause this disruption to cease, up to and including an indef. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as unfortunately necessary, and like BU Rob 13 and PMC, I'll get behind anything which will put a permanent stop to this craziness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with note - With the capital crime thing, I will support anything up to and including an indef. If Taku stops this madness and apologize sincerely, then I will not support more than a 2 week block. Hopefully this will stop the drain on the community's time that this has become. We could have spent this time reviewing AfCs or writing FAs. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support TakuyaMurata has become an SPA dedicated to wikilawyering WP:NOTWEBHOST to conclude that sub-stub drafts can be kept indefinitely—that is, anyone can store forever a few lines at Wikipedia provided it plausibly can be called a draft. Valid points can be made on both sides, but the WP:IDHT one-way discussions have to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Let the waste of time end. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of the merits of his argument, this has now reached ridiculous levels of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT from Taku, to the point at which the above posters are correct, Taku has essentially become an SPA, disrupting Wikipedia with needless, timewasting discussions and editwarring to keep their sometimes barely one sentence stub drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support for consistently wasting everyone's time and ridiculous gaslighting in this thread. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hold on - no opinion from me yet, but note that the "capital crime" comment occurred in January 2016, nearly two years ago, and the targeted user and two reviewing admins agreed that the comment could not reasonably be perceived as a death threat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With respect, the capital crime was not presented as current evidence, but rather as part of a pattern of hyperbolic reactions and WP:IDHT that the user has consistently shown. I am attempting to set the stage to demonstrate how TakuyaMurata's conduct has not improved even after multiple brushes with sanctioning. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's what I assumed, I'm just pointing out the timeline since a few comments here seem to think it was a very recent comment and/or more than 0% serious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support with sanctions as well for Legacypac and Hasteur. With respect, the discussions around the various draft policy/guideline pages have been polluted for some time by the (justifiable) assumptions of bad faith amongst all three of these editors, and I think it's warranted to extend the proposed sanction to the other two editors as well, as power~enwiki proposed. I'm against the wording that would prevent Taku from participating broadly in individual MfD pages, that's far too broad and unjustified, but I support all of the other wording regarding draft-related project discussions. (To be clear, the sanction prevents commenting on a draft guideline, but not commenting on an MfD where such a guideline is being discussed by others). I suggest that sanction apply to LP and H until the conclusion of the present G13 discussion (it's basically concluded, though) and to Taku indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Struck the parallel sanction suggestion, that other discussion is effectively over and just waiting for someone to close it (I can't for pointy ideological reasons). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Taku. This whole thing is a monumental waste of time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen. No sanctions for Hasteur or Legacypac are merited as far as I can see. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It is clear that my participation in discussions regarding the draftspace has ceased to be productive; the latest RfC thread (WHICH WAS NOT ABOUT G13) is the latest example. The original sanction seems to be severe but I can agree to move on as long as there will be the same/similar sanctions on Legacypac and Hasteur. By now, their modus operadi have been well established: getting their opponents banned by any means. That's very unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. Obviously it's not fair to let Legacypac and Hasteur off the hook and I will fight until/unless they receive the same or similar punishments. I will just move on to developing the content (I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as it is beneficial to Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The time for bargining is over. Your actions are at cause here. When you refuse to follow standard operating procedures and refuse to accept that you are wrong, we have no choice but to remove you from the equation. Please recognize that what you've posted above is a bald faced incivil comment and very close to a personal attack. Wikipedia is not Fair, nor is it Justice, nor is it a Democracy. Your promise that you will fight until/unless Legacypac and I recieve same or similar punishments (again with this fundamental misunderstanding of policy after many years) only demonstrates that you should be blocked indefinitely right now as a clear and present danger as you have demonstrated no interest in participating constructively. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: There was an edit conflict and the above is the response to my previous comment. Anyway, let's stop the fight. I don't care if you win or not. I promise to complete my drafts within the 6 months window (in addition to the proposed sanction). Can we just stop interacting with each other? I think that's the best. Or you can't stop unless/until I'm completely gone? -- Taku (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What do I want? I want you to stop all editing and have a thorough review of the policies (including but not limited to WP:OWN, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:CIV, WP:N, WP:MERGE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, WP:5P, WP:POINT) and have a good long think about your editing history and all the "discussions" you've participated in and what your contributions have done for them. At that point each time I'd want you to ask the question "What would an Administrator do in this case?" If you took time out, we wouldn't have the pointy DRVs where you try to overturn a MFD debate on a technicality, Edit warring over policies, instructions, commentaries, and thousands of bytes debating a 32 byte submission. We wouldn't have you hiding behind "I am not proficent with english"/"I need more time because of a deadline"/"I didn't know that policy meant X". I think you are a specialist in graduate level abstract mathematics, however at the end of the day it's looking at what benefit you bring to the community measured against the disruption your contributions bring. Hasteur (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: I'd like to see you focus more on general math topics (maybe Limit (mathematics)) than on trying to explain Grothendieck's terminologies to non-mathematicians. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Wait a minute. You think your action is not disruptive then? I didn't have to participate any of those discussions as long as you didn't try to impose your personal view on how the draftspace must be used. I will let you RULE

Userboxes

This user is a new pages patroller with Twinkle!

9This user has been drug to the Administration Noticeboards 9 times.

This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy.

Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker.

This user lives in or hails from Dallas.

Editor from the Dallas area of Texas.

I may post from User:HasteurMobile. Know that has the same force of weight that this account does, but is for cases where I am editing from my tablet or phone and do not want to accidentally click on a link that i normally have access to.

My (personal) Inclusion/Deletion policy

Much like Justice Potter Stewart in the landmark case "I know it when I see it" is how I look at articles. Either they belong, deserve the benefit of the doubt or are so beyond hope that deletion is the best remedy for them.

Personal Declaration of Conflict of Interest

The items I post and write about here are exclusidely my indiviudal thoughts and do not represent any organizations or employers.

I declare, of my own volition, the following conflicts of interest:

• MMA based articles: I am so heavily invested/involved in the MMA article space that I will only make recommendations regarding articles/editors involved in the Mixed Martial Arts space
• Blizzard Entertainment/Video Games: I am involved in the game in addition to doing a podcast about the topic. As such I will only make recommendations regarding articles.

Notice

As of this diff there was an involuntary interaction ban between myself and another user. The interaction ban was appealed here.

To Do List

• Start working on auto-updating templates for Sphilbrick

Hall of Pride

 God, you're such an asshole. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[51]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I hereby award the Barnstar of Diplomacy to Hasteur, for his sterling work at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Because of your efforts, Wikipedia is a much nicer place to edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good catch on restoring original wording on Gordon Ramsay, as I missed the first of two edits. 78.26 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job! 19maxx (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your work on the List of Wars dispute. I was at my wits' end with those two, and I think you found what was probably the best solution. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A Bunny for You

I see seven or so experienced, thoughtful Wikipedias who all see eye to eye. That sounds like the community speaking. I trust the community more than I trust my own view. You are all probably right and I am wrong. I hope you find a lasting solution, as wasted keystrokes on back pages is one of the great tragedies at Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you one day when we are both paddling in the same direction. Much respect and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this, which actually caused me to laugh out loud (not in that bogus "lol" way people throw around). Equazcion (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	i just wanted to say thx for all your hard work and it would be my honer to give this special award and thx for all u have done but it would mean everything in the world if or when u get this message can u message me back and i am a just arriving or new coming new bee and thx so please message me back thx and bye wwecenarules 06:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		For knowing when to say enough is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

... For shutting down that pointless DRN thread... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	Best wishes for the festive season and happy new year! Surturz (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are a remarkably exemplar editor. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified! You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

 --My76Strat (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Hasteur! You're receiving a Brownie because you reviewed 26 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Awarded for your comment here. I've seen so much vitriol lately between editors on Wikipedia's pages that when I saw your courteous/kind/affirming post it stood out to me. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For trying to draw my attention in a non-combative way to the silliness that I exhibited in welcoming a bot to Wikipedia, I officially award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar (and a wet trout)! Way2veers 14:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Hasteur! You're receiving The Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 65 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Thank you to everyone who helped in the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! In total, we got 7054 articles reviewed and out the backlog during the event. Thank you and keep up the good work! And let me know if I missed anyone's Barnstars! Mdann52 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2013

		The Progressive Barnstar
		I couldn't find a barnstar that would adequately thank those involved in making the template editor user right RFC a reality, so I created this new one. The Progressive Barnstar recognizes those courageous enough to work towards a vision for change at Wikipedia. Thanks for participating in the drafting process. I consider the proposal a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome. equazcion (talk) 06:28, 18 Sep 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for the help regarding multiple G13 questionsSPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Hasteur! You're receiving the AfC Barnstar because you reviewed 281 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down.You are also receiving the Teamwork barnstar for re-reviewing over 25 reviews! We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

	spotting
	Articles for creation/John Carr (writer and scholar) I don't know why this remain, it was converted to a "proper" article and later amended by others to John Carr (writer) please remove the article for creation page thank you Alan from Wakefield Alanfromwakefield (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Hasteur you are an angel. Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[52]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For all the leg-work Hasteurbot has done at AfC and the hard work put into your future bots. Green Giant (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkadam has given you Baby food! Baby food promotes WikiLove through tastiness and hopefully this baby food has made your day better. Baby food can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else baby food, whether it be someone with whom you've had disagreements with, a good friend, or a stranger.

I hope you enjoy this baby food! Thanks for the help on IRC today :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Spread the goodness of baby food by adding {{subst:Baby food}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 175 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 11:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

		Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 3
		For diligent, high quality service at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
		This award comes in five grades: Base Grade (no stars, awardable to DRN volunteers or to individuals involved in a dispute) and Grades 1-4 (1-4 stars, respectively, awardable only to DRN volunteers).

Thank you for the image for Ebola virus cases in the United States. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your continued technical assistance at the DR noticeboard. Many big thanks!! — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Getting the DRN Clerk bot working again. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

the draftspace. That's what you want in the end, period. I can give you that. So now back off. -- Taku (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

I find it unlikely the community will enact a topic ban as broadly construed as Hasteur has suggested. Having said that, Takuya above agreed that it would be appropriate for him not to start any new threads about draftspace usage. I suggest we formalize that as a topic ban "on starting new discussions related to draft space, broadly construed". I'd suggest applying this as an indefinite sanction, with possibility of appeal after one year (and every year thereafter). This is even supported by the editor who would be sanctioned, so I don't think this should be too controversial. Hopefully this ends the dispute. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect BU Rob13, this does not deal with the currently open discussions where Taku has called the same question again suggesting that G13 is not validly construed as community consensus recently after their topic ban has expired for which multiple editors have told him that his interpertation is invalid. This does not help his trying to forum shop over at WT:CSD to try and canvas a overruling consensus to the previous statement. I predict, that if your proposal is enacted, Taku will chime in on (or get well intentioned editors to start) threads so that they can continue to spray the FUD position that they have consistently held for over a year. Nonetheless, I would conditionally support (as second preference to primary) this as long as you agree to be on hand to slap down each time Taku attempts to WP:WIKILAWYER around the wording of the sanction. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm not suggesting this because I think it's guaranteed to work. I'm suggesting this because I heavily doubt the community will support your proposal and this is more likely to work than nothing. If he continues to wikilawyer after this sanction, that would be a strong case to ask for more. It's very unlikely the community is going to agree to three separate topic bans on an editor when they couldn't get anywhere in the Takuya discussion before (which hasn't even been archived yet). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: the part of the problems, as it seems, stems from my lack of understanding in Wikipedia policies (my expertise in math, I suppose). Consequently, I'm not the best person to start a thread like that, as it turned out. But, as I wrote, I still believe the rules on the use of the draftspace are not so clear; i.e., which draft page can/should belong to the draftspace. I thought the answer is any draft but the others disagree. So, for the record, I would really like if the community can set clear rules on the use of the draftspace. The vagueness is a problem because, oftentimes, MfD discussions of the drafts turn to be on the use of the draftspace. Having some global rule is thus preferred than various piecemeal discussions. -- Taku (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a global rule, it's just every time we try to apply that rule, you fight tooth and nail to argue the rule doesn't apply for some nitpickey sub-argument. There never really is a hard and fast rule, because Consensus can change, however when the same types of debates resolve the same way, that kind of sets up a precedent for which it's harg to argue against. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: Why does every single edit of yours in this section mention your disagreement with G13 when the subject is your behavior? Why is this gaslighting acceptable? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  Gaslighting?? How? I do not disagree with G13 (in fact, I even supported the expansion for God's sake.) A nomination is not the same as deletion; good useful draft pages need to be preserved and, in my opinion, an admin should decline the G13 nomination of an old but useful draft or do something about it. Also, there is REFUND; so an editor can still find a way to preserve inactive drafts. -- Taku (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  You didn't answer my question. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  Because this is ultimately a policy-question not the behavior one. (I'm aware that User:Hasteur wants to make this as a behavior matter since they cannot win a policy debate.) I suppose Hasteur needs to be somehow warned of repeatedly bringing up the dispute here instead of engaging in the policy debate. -- Taku (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  I gave up trying to make policy points with you because you refuse to accept any position except yours as valid. Since you've blocked content related disputes and continue to disrupt Wikipedia, conduct related disputes are the next way to elicit compliance. I would also note that in this same period I've provided suggestions on a great many AFDs and various other wikipedia projects. I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge, but I can help Wikipedia function well. All you seem to do is look for loopholes and try to continue being a disruptive force. @Nihlus Kryik: This is TakuyaMurata's modus operandi: Look for a minor imperfection and use that as a wedge point to allow them to continue causing disruption. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with additional suggestions - if this ends this subject and gets Taku to get stuff out of the draft, then I think that it is a great idea. I do want to add that I think there should also be a ban from enacting consensus (ie closing RfCs on the subject) and changing policy pages that relate to the draftspace, except for minor changes such as grammar and spelling. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  As far as I know, I never altered the policy pages or instruction pages except reverting the contested changes and updates like removing AfC (and I'm not planning to do that in the future.) Also, there was a proposal in the previous thread that we move math-related draft pages to WikiProject math. I'm willing to accept that compromise if the community decides that inactive drafts do not belong to the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ummm Taku's "I never altered the policy pages or instruction pages except reverting the contested changes and updates like removing AfC" is an alternative fact: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] and that is just this month. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Boy, you have too much time and I'm supposed to be working on my paper :) Anyway, all I can see is my attempt to bring the pages to the status quo. I do believe in establishing some consensus before making controversial policy changes. -- Taku (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as inadequate, which I guess is a support if stronger measures do not pass. Alsee (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The original proposal is preferred, although this would be acceptable as a second choice if the first doesn't pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as inadequate although would support if the first proposal is not successful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Second choice- per my rationale above. Additionally, Taku notes his "lack of understanding in Wikipedia policies"- no excuse for an editor who has been around as long as he has, but also if you don't understand the policies, perhaps you shouldn't be editwarring to change them? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I see no reason to believe preventing Taku from starting new discussions will really help anything so long as Taku is allowed to jump into open discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 checkuser and oversight candidates

The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2017 appointment round will run from 18 September to 29 September. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man prohibition amendment

The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

support: Opabinia regalis, DGG, Doug Weller, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Callanecc, Kelpastick
oppose:
recuse/abstain: Newyorkbrad

For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Rambling Man prohibition amendment

User:199.101.62.55

So this discussion popped up at WP:BLPN, see section on AllieX. The IP (who identifies as Andrew Nichols/Andrew McDonald when signing posts) seems to like editing biographies using a combination of primary documents (publically accessible birth records etc) and original research. Both of which are a big no-no. See contribution history. This has been explained to them but they do not appear to be listening. Coupled with their fixation on editor's identies (see User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0 for more info) and their references to publishing 'research', as well as asides into lawsuits over Tara McDonald (possible relation?) I suggest its time to show the IP the exit, or at a minimum, severely restrict their ability to edit biographies via a topic ban. Pinging editors who are have been involved with the IP recently Oshwah (talk · contribs), Karst (talk · contribs), SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs), Tornado chaser (talk · contribs). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Notified Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-month topic ban on adding or editing any material related to living people, broadly construed. MPS1992 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

See also the recent discussion at [[68]]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I support the topic ban as proposed by MPS1992, as this IP seems determined to add OR to BLPs, I have no confidence that they will not continue to cause problems and need to be indeffed, but I think a temporary topic ban would be the best thing to do now, but making it clear thet continued OR will lead to an indef block/ban. Also does this belong on AN (here) or ANI? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI is for immediate attention, AN is for stuff that needs attention but not necessarily urgently. In this case as most of their problem edits are being reverted this is the more appropriate venue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Also support a topic ban, perhaps to be extended of three months. I cannot see the individual adhere to policy, if anything he flouts it continuously. As was shown today when with this edit, again no sources were given. Karst (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

what Karst failed to see about my edit to Almeda is that i gave sources. In my first edit where i put it under incidents, i put it there, but, I remoced it from incidents and moved it up to reception. IN my original edit I gave several links. I can't add the references because the captcha does not lode for me at all. then again that's because my wifi can be good but it also can be bad. I re-added it and put in the summary the links, this way someone who can load the captcha can put them in.

Andrew Nichols.

Permission error on talk page for user with fullwidth forms of Latin letters in username

While attempting to leave a message for User:Nk24ｙ, after the page curation tool threw an error (-1) when reviewing Kunihiko Nohara, I received the following error message: You do not have permission to create this talk page, for the following reason:

The page title that you have attempted to create contains fullwidth forms of Latin letters. Such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace them with the normal letters (try putting your input method in half-width mode - on a Japanese keyboard, press the 半角/全角 key) and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: I've created the (empty) page for you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-SA Violation?

On http://thedailynewnation.com/news/147398/rakhine-was-an-independent-state-and-it-should-remain-independent.html, they clearly copy the article "Rakhine State" (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rakhine+State&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0) and http://www.thesangaiexpress.com/the-genocide-next-door/ did that as well, without saying that wikipedia was the source. Is this a CC BY-SA violation?

• The community can't do much about it. People rip off Wikipedia all the time. You can always drop a note to legal@wikimedia.org but admin aren't in the business of enforcing our policies on external sites. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)