Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive305

Tagging categories for deletion

My apologies if this is a wrong venue. Could a friendly bot owner please tag the categories in this list, User:Number 57/Elections/Categories, in total about 9000 categories? If the list has a line [[:Category:Foo]] to [[:Category:Foo1]], it means that Category:Foo gets a template {{subst:Cfr-speedy|Foo1}}, similar to the top category in the list. Courtesy pinging @Number 57:. For the background, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current requests and User talk:Ymblanter#Speedy CfD. Thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, try WP:BOTREQ? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if @BrownHairedGirl: could help with AWB? I know she took part in the outcome of the RfC on the page moves. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Lugnuts.

I have an AWB module for such things. I'll take a look at @Ymblanter's list and see if it fits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No prob (I hope). Will do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot to all involved. I will also try to remember about BOTREQ for the next time (strange that I read Wikipedia:Bots and could not find a link).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Test edits successful([1], [2], [3]), so now I will do the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BHG! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57, Ymblanter, and Lugnuts: Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I was topic banned on 1 May 2018 for being aggressive on caste related topics. Since then, I have been a good contributor without involving in any arguments and I have made good contributions in other areas. I request you to life the topic ban on me and I promise I will not repeat my previous behavior. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support- I don't see any violations of the ban in your contributions, but quite a lot of productive edits. And you didn't get upset even when the ban prevented you from objecting to a PROD placed on an article you'd started. That counts for a bit in my view. Unless someone can show issues since your 24 hour block in May, I support lifting the ban. Reyk _YO! 17:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Looks to me like the topic ban was placed back in May and then immediately breached. That's disappointing, but what lead me to vote to support here, was your reaction once blocked. Back in May, you stepped back, reconsidered your approach, and changed your editing. This bodes very well for you, and I'm happy to see you've been fairly active since then. Unless anyone shows you've significantly breached your topic ban since then (and it does not appear you have, when I looked), I support lifting the ban. --Yamla (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• A ping to Bishonen since she imposed the topic ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. As I said on 1 May, I topic banned the user for "relentless caste promotion and misuse of sources". Their first appeal of the ban, on the same day, was very unpromising, with the kinds of attacks on Sitush that caste warriors typically make.[4] I feel this current appeal is a little vague, and would like to ask Sharkslayer87 to concretely explain what types of sources they would use in this area going forward. With a good answer to this question, I would agree with lifting the ban. Pinging @Sitush: too. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC).
  • Reply I believe I took my ban in a positive manner and I changed my editing habits. I have been doing productive edits and have never been involved in any wars since the ban. I have apologized to other editors in case of any mistakes on my part. I did not resort to any wars since my ban and that can be verified from my edit history. I have read WP:RS thoroughly and I will not compromise on any rules set by wikipedia and continue to be a good editor. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You're not answering my question. No more generalities, please. Please concretely explain what types of sources you would use in this area going forward. Give examples of a source you would use, and a source you would not use, and say why. Do you know the page User:Sitush/Common, which is about caste sources? Do you intend to follow the section [5], or do you have any criticism of it? Bishonen | talk 17:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC).
      • I would use sources that comply with WP:RS. I would not use sources like Gyan which are not considered reliable by wikipedia. I would also not use sources from British Raj era which are deemed unreliable. I will use only sources that comply with WP:RS. I know about User:Sitush/Common. I intend to follow it and I don't have any criticism of it. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • An example of a source I would use is, it should be reliable. The author should have decent citations. I will avoid using self published sources. I will avoid primary sources. These are a few examples. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I support lifting the ban. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaints

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello admins. This IP address is my community college's IP that is assigned to computers throughout the campus. A year ago, there was an edit war between two different users and I have to admit, a six month block is unfair. I asked another admin and he declined the unblock. In August 2018, just another (only one) unconstructive edit was made resulting in a year long block. I consider this unfair. I hope there can be feedback about this IP since I don't want another declined unblock request. I also feel that admins are discriminators who don't care about their editors (unless they are administrators), and I ask you for help. This makes me a user who is nicer than admins in general.

I'm asking for it to be unblocked because there were no warnings given after the block expired. There should have been warnings. And I put in discrimination because of reading on WP:ANI and other admins' talk pages, I have to agree with the editor. Everyone has the right to edit but my college's IP address is not allowed to just for one edit. I haven't been that active and won't be until there is an "admin reform". I notice a lot of admins violating WP:CIVIL and they have done that for years. Some admins are never friendly. And they lie, too; there have been constructive editors on that IP address, including one who restored warnings, some other user just removes them when they pop up. There has also been constructive minor edits from that IP.

Also, I read on WP:ANI (archived) and Gizmodo that some administrators are just plain bad, so bad that it makes some editors want to do self-harm. I don't know why you don't take care of administrators being so rude. They use such a strong tone to hurt someone. Why do you not take care of that? They might have done something but stop biting them. There are multiple policies taking care of this. And some editors complain about admins not following them. I don't want to see an editor commit suicide just because of the incivility of administrators. Do something! Pinging other admins such as @Acroterion, Doug Weller, Drmies, Floquenbeam, GeneralizationsAreBad, Only, Primefac, Ritchie333, TonyBallioni, and Widr: I'm just listing examples, but calling every admin out. Reported users may do something wrong, but can't we all learn to get along? This is why we can't have nice things. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

See this. GAB^gab 18:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The discrimination is not towards a group of people but to innocent editors who seemingly did not get enough chances of warnings. Sometimes a block may be unnecessary but the warnings and blocks are often unjustified. The complaining is mostly on #7 of the revision. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not ping me any more just to make sure I read your incoherent rant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

See, I'm referring to this kind of incivility. Calling it a rant? Really? Come on, you know better. I reported you to WP:ANI. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm Dolfinz1972 why do you ping me? Am I good or bad, in your book? Srsly, your long missive doesn't make very strong points. Sure, some of us are assholes, but Floquenbeam's alright, and vandalism from schools remains a serious problem. Don't know about the self-harm--I do know there's plenty of admins who've torn out all their hair by now trying to deal with vandalism of many kinds. And this suicide and discrimination stuff: if you want to be taken seriously, take things seriously. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:, you're fine, but I don't agree about Floquenbeam, calling it a rant was disrespectful af. That's why I started this discussion. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dolfinz1972: This isn't unusual; be glad it isn't a longer block. My school IP (which I will not link for privacy reasons) is currently subject to a 2-year block, with varying other blocks since 2015. The pattern in which school blocks are applied is not consistent with standard AGF, and it never has been; it's probably a good idea to accept that and move on. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Okay, but I am also complaining about how admins treat non-admins. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dolfinz1972: I have no comment on that matter; I rarely interact with admins. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty rare for school vandals to read talk pages. Or to be deterred by warnings. In any case they can create an account and edit. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I found this had been hatted when I eventually decided to stick my oar in; well, shoot me. Disgruntled reports that there are bad admins here are also normal. But I think we should consider treating tertiary education institutions, including community colleges, differently from elementary schools when weighing whether and for how long to block rather than lumping them all together under "school blocks". Yngvadottir (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Some distinction should be made when blocking secondary schools and colleges. Miniapolis 22:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I see wildly different block lengths for schools. I cannot, really, decide which ones should be blocked for how long and on what basis. I'm starting to not block for extended periods of time anymore. Ha, I noticed, while I was doing "article improvement" on the elevator, that Materialscientist had blocked my campus for six months--and going through the range I suppose he had good enough reason to do so. At the same time, it might be a good idea for us admins to get together and throw all of our reasons and arguments on the table and decide on some guidance/guidelines. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Why, and how, should we make blocks different for schools and colleges?

IP blocking is a very mild restriction. It still permits account creation. Account creation should only be locked if that in turn has become a problem. If the difference is that the pupils are older and wiser, then that should lead to less vandalism. If it didn't, then we still have the same preventative need. I see no reason to relax any blocking policy here, on either schools or colleges. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Contact details

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an Admin please delete and revdel Draft:ALOK RAJ THAKUR. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted it, but it's best not to highlight such things on such a widely read notice board as this, as it says in the big pink box when you edit this page. You should find an active admin and ask them privately, or email the oversight team. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have now also emailed the oversight team to request suppression. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done OS'd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TNT's Retirement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anyone know what's going on here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: This would suggest it's just a personal matter. General Ization ^Talk 20:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, this "retirement" is only temporary. We have been loosing far too many top notch editors. Though I am sympathetic to the demands of the real world and the amount of fertilizer that we have to deal with here. It can make one want to walk away at times. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, agreed, TNT is a significant asset to the project. Lately, I don't think we show enough appreciation here for those who are truly helpful in whatever way they are, and instead tend to focus too much on when mistakes are made. Home Lander (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• While I am sad to see this, I think it is best that we respect TNT’s decision here. If he comes back ever, I will be very happy, but part of respecting him as a person is letting him leave quietly. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of diff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In not entirely sure where to put this, but can this edit be deleted? I don't care about any edits after this that show that this edit was made but I didn't realise that adding this information was actually illegal and I don't want to be liable for anything.  Nixinova  T  C  19:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the The Rambling Man arbitration case be amended as follows:

In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph 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.

and the third paragraph is amended to read:

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.

A note will be added at the top of the Enforcement section highlighting the special enforcement requirements of remedy 4.

The following is added as a remedy to the case:

9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:

1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above.

For the Arbitration Committee,--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

Bradv appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Bradv (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Bradv appointed trainee clerk

Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following text is added to the "Modifications by administrators" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications:

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

For clarity, this change applies to all current uses of standard provision, including in closed cases.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications

Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson#Request for comment (RfC)

This is a request to review the close by User:Objective3000 at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson#Request for comment (RfC) to determine whether the closing process was appropriate.

• The closure was not made by an uninvolved editor, but rather by an editor that was inextricably involved in the previous discussion. The talk page reveals that the closing editor was repeatedly and strenuously opposed to inclusion of the material, invoking arguments that are not part of WP policy (e.g., "impact on career") and attempting to establish a different editorial standard for this biography, which is why the RfC was opened in the first place.
• The closure on this sensitive topic may have been premature (opened 17:35, 5 December 2018, closed less than 60 hours later 01:36, 8 December 2018).
• Although the outcome of the RfC is correct (material must be included per WP BLP policy and per consensus), the closer added substantial editorial comments that do not seem to represent the consensus nor to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion.
• Despite extensive discussion about reasonable and appropriate wording for inclusion in the biography, the closing editor continues to insist on further discussion at the talk page before inclusion of the material and states "Arguments against any addition can still continue."

Thank you. Serpentine noodle (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So reopen it. I said in my edit summary that I wouldn't mind. But, there is only consensus to include -- not on language and that must now be discussed. O3000 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The talk page reveals that the closing editor was repeatedly and strenuously opposed to inclusion of the material... Actually, this is kinda funny. Filer claims I was "repeatedly and strenuously opposed to inclusion", and yet I closed for inclusion. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Serpentine noodle and Objective3000: I've moved this discussion from WP:RFCL to WP:AN, as this is the proper venue to challenge a closure under Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging other closures. — Newslinger talk 06:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - I haven't looked into the NdGT situation, so I don't know how I would have !voted, but it's perfectly clear that O3000's close was a correct evaluation of the consensus of the RfC. Maybe a minnow to O3000 for closing while involved (even though they closed against their own opinion, it would probably have been best to leave it to someone else, who would have inevitably closed it in the same way.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The close seems reasonable to me although IMO it was probably a mistake to make an involved close even if it was against the editor's initial opinion. There was no point leaving it open anymore, it doesn't seem likely consensus will developed against the inclusion and the complainant isn't arguing for that anyway. There's no way that RFC was ever going to develop consensus for a wording, it wasn't structured for that. It would indeed be better to concentrate on developing an acceptable wording. People are still free to support or oppose any specific wording. Of course any oppose for some suggested inclusion solely because the editor opposes inclusion of any mention is not going to count for much since we just established consensus for inclusion although if done reasonably it's not likely to lead to a block or topic ban.. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Close was fine. There was an overwhelming, uncontroversial consensus that you yourself are not disputing. The user was technically involved, but there's no case being made that they had a COI that unfairly influenced the close, in fact, you're saying that the user argued against the closing consensus they formalized. The close was quick, but it was seemingly a WP:SNOW situation anyways. You say the "editor continues to insist on further discussion", but they're not wrong there. The RfC simply asked "should it be included?" More discussion to hammer out the details is obviously needed. A 60-hour up or down decision is not going to be the end all, be all of discussions. Also, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE instructs you to bring concerns to closers if you have any issues, and only bring it here if you're at an impasse. It doesn't look like you've made any effort to raise any issues with the closer. WP:IAR, WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5 are all fundamental principles here, and this is a prime example of those principles being exercised correctly. There's nothing controversial here. Move on.  Swarm  {talk}  15:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@ResultingConstant: has reopened this RfC with an accusation of WP:GAME. O3000 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Although I agree with the WP:SNOW situation of the prior close, objections were raised by @A Quest For Knowledge: saying "Any text added to the article without consensus will be reverted. I suggest that for those who are in favor of adding this to the article begin by addressing the arguments against inclusion first" and "RFCs generally run 30 days and are usually closed by someone uninvolved in RfC. Neither of these were followed so that makes the close out of process.". Additionally @Masem: said "Yes, agreed the RS is there, just up in the air in whether inclusion is needed at this time" - but this is ambiguous as to if he is discussing inclusion of the content at all, or inclusion of a particular point. the WP:GAME in this thread is pervasive and obvious, policy standards are being created from the void, goalposts repeatedly moved, and sources being repeatedly obtusely misinterpreted to protect someone from exceptionally well sourced content. The objectors objections were well founded when this was nothing but a blog. It isn't that way anymore. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My comment was related to the use of a BuzzfeedNews article (someone said it wasn't an RS, I pointed out BFN is good, BF alone is not), but still had skeptism if the 4th person in the BFN article was needed to be included. (I am broadly against any inclusion at this time, but wasn't looking to overturn the RFC that supported some type of inclusion). --Masem (t) 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

None of what you say is grounds for reopening the RfC. And your continued claims of WP:GAME amount to WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior. Please stop with the odd accusations against other editors and concentrate on consensus for the text. O3000 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• As I said on the talk page, RfCs usually run for 30 days and are closed by an uninvolved editor. The close was out-of-process as neither of these things happened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

And, as you can see, that was discussed here and the close affirmed. The reopen is a waste of editor time. O3000 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand English and macrons

On the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board, there is endless discussion going on about whether or not to use macrons for words of Māori origin. Even the country's largest newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, has written an article about the affair (see media notice on top of the page). Macrons have been discussed at length in two separate entries (1 and 2) and to me, there is now consensus but that there are two editors who are in an opposite camp. I'm not sure that us Kiwis can resolve this ourselves and maybe it needs uninvolved parties to come along and analyse for us what's been discussed and what can be concluded. Of course this isn't a formal RFC and you may conclude that such a formal step is needed. Either way, it would be good to get some outside assistance on the matter. This page isn't on my watchlist so please ping me if you'd like further input from me on discussions here. Schwede66 17:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations

Am I missing something, or all drafts in that category must be speedy deleted as copyright violations? There are several dozen drafts there, I have seen some a month old, and apparently it is customary to decline AfC as copyright violations without rolling the copyvio back and asking for speedy or revision-deletion? Please tell me there is something I am missing here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are missing that many copyvio declines get speedy deleted but some get cleaned and the record of the copyvio decline stays on the live page and then in the category. The other case is occasionally pages are declined for minor copyvio with a request to reword. Anyone is welcome to work that category and help AfC out. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not check all of them but the couple I checked seemed to have major copyvio issues which have not been in any way addressed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If they are clearly copyright violations, and there is no prior clean version to revert to, they should be deleted per WP:G12. Otherwise, if a page has been AfC declined because of a copyvio and the page has subsequently been cleaned, they should end up in Category:AfC submissions cleaned of copyright violations. So where's the breakdown: is it a tagging issue or are we not cleaning up copyvios? (I don't have time to investigate today but this does seem to be an important thing to figure out) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess the related question is: are AfC reviewers identifying copyright violations but not doing anything about it other than declining? We can't host copyvios in draft space either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, my impression from a very limited sample is that some AfC reviewers decline submissions as copyvio but do not follow up either by CSDing the draft or by cleaning the copyvio and asking for revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot that I have also seen cases where the text was free but not attributed. Whereas this is technically copyvio, it can be easily fixed by attributing the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not an expert in this - is a revision which contains material copied from a free source without attribution also a G12/RD1 copyvio? Or do we just supply the attribution in a subsequent edit and move on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The best practice is to provide attribution in a minor edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Who knows exactly. The AfCH script has a box to check to also G12 the page and a place to fill in the source copied from. It's an optional thing in the script and like everything, there is some range of practice among reviewers. Similarly last I looked there were 3000+ advertising declines, sampling of which suggests 90% are G11 worthy. AfC stops a lot of inappropriate pages and anyone willing to help delete them is encouraged to help. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not here to accuse AfC reviewers in anything, I think most of them are doing an excellent job. However, there is a difference between G11 and G12. It is strictly speaking illegal to keep copyright violations in the project in any form, be it articles, drafts, userpages or talk pages. For the advertisement, well, it is of course not good that we have a lot of drafts which are just advertisement, but it is not illegal to host them, and also revisions containing advertisement do not get revision-deleted. If there is a systemic problem at the side of the reviewers (which I am still not sure about) we probably need to discuss what is the best way to modify the process to make sure copyright violations do not stay in drafts for a long time.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We all agree copyvio should be deleted, the question is at what urgency. Thousands of other declined but not yet deleted AfC pages are likely copyvio but declined for other simplier to assess reasons. There are also thousands of undiscovered copyvio pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts The ones in this AfC category will be swept away in 6 months or so regardless and are at least tagged as copyvio already. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like indeed we have different perspectives on the question how soon copyvio must be deleted after it has been discovered, and it would be good to have more opinions, but unfortunately this topic so far did not attract too much attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I tag for deletion 100% of the time, but the script makes it optional and the cat exists with pages so evidently there is a range of opinion and practice. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I decline a massive number (proportionately to my AfC work) of CV drafts because I use ORES to specifically look for them. In about 85% of these cases I speedy it. In the other 15% I clean it. In 1 case I declined then decided I wasn't sufficiently sure in a complicated case so I sent it to the appropriate board for consideration. Since they're deliberately sought out I sort of fall in the "immediate" category by default, and I think I would back that position in any case. As to how much effort should be expended on making other AfC reviewers act on copyvio more rapidly (beyond declining), I'm unsure. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 99% of the copyvios that I find in drafts are entire pages with no other salvageable content. As soon as I find one, it gets tagged for speedy, and usually, if the draft has been submitted, I'll also take the time to decline it so it leaves the usual schpeel on the user's talk page. In my opinion, tagging for speedy is most important; then if the draft has been submitted, I'll decline it. Home Lander (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

UTRS downtime

Due to T204565, there will be required downtime for UTRS between Dec 15 20h00 UTC and Dec 16 05h00 UTC. The database will be locked and the interface will be shut down or not responding during this time. I will post here once the downtime is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaQuad (talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This is now complete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Help request for page move from Autonomous cruise control system to Adaptive cruise control

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Help request for page move from Autonomous cruise control system to Adaptive cruise control. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autonomous_cruise_control_system#Rename_to_%22adaptive_cruise_control%22 for more info.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Porny spammy

There've been a few tonight; User:Desmond09Y is the most recent one I've seen. Maybe some of you with some technical skills can have a look. I blocked one earlier, and so did Materialscientist. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably a spam bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one, User talk:BruceCochrane42, just blocked by Materialscientist. Can we filter out the underlying URLs? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone reach out to User:Anthony E. Lahmann and/or sort through his edits?

We have a new user who is making a bunch of edits that are not making sense to me. Perhaps he needs some mentoring. I have gone through some of his edits and undone some of the more obviously unhelpful ones, and have left messages on his talk page, but I will not have time tonight or tomorrow to investigate further or follow up with him. Can someone who's good with new users please help? 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: I have just been working through some of them right now. A very unusual suite of edits for a newly registered user, and their recent post to the Teahouse about page protection being akin to vandalism has successfully drawn attention to them. They are suggestive of someone who has obviously edited before, presumably under another IP address and, whilst I'm currently trying to assume good faith, I am finding a few of them somewhat disruptive. I was going to reply on the WP:TH page, but will place something on their talk page instead. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @28bytes: Indeed, multiple edits are disruptive, particularly redirects like this which I reverted. This creation spawned me to think they might have edited over at Simple, but their account is not registered there. Home Lander (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Under that username, this person has only ever edited en.wiki and made one swiftly-reverted edit at it. wiki. See here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He has now created a new account, User:Anthony Lahmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and starting up with similar edits. ~ GB fan 21:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've ifdef blocked both accounts as obvious socks and WP:NOTHERE -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both accounts blocked by RoySmith and I tagged them accordingly. Home Lander (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for taking a look and acting accordingly. I had hoped we could establish a dialog with him, but if he's going to just hop to a new account and make the same sorts of edits rather than responding to anyone's legitimate concerns, a block was inevitable. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Policy on schoolblocks?

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Complaints, we probably need to discuss current practices and see whether we need a policy on what is the duration of schoolblocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally, if I block an IP for vandalism (and for this, vandalism must be persistent, not just one edit), I add the talk page to my watchlist. If I see other user posting vandalism warnings, I check the contributions, and if I see IP has no constructive contributions, I progressively block up to a year, and then for a year. I never check whether this is a school or not. Possibly other users have better practices than mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I look at the block history of the IP and the edits. If there is a substantial pattern of vandal edits and blocks, I will escalate to the next longest length of time in the block, especially if the edits are on the heels of a block being lifted. With almost all of the blocks not having Account Creation turned off, this still gives an avenue for legitimate edits, through an account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My practices reflect the above. I will, first, check to see if the IP address belongs to an obvious educational institution, but even if it doesn't if there is a pattern of frequent vandalism with no intervening good edits, I block (allowing for account creation) with progressively longer blocks. --Jayron32 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't dogmatically always progressively increase block lengths, and am not always particularly impressed when this is done. Actually I'm not impressed when any admin behaviour is based on previous admin behaviour. If there's been, say 2 edits in the last 2 years, then I might block for a day or two. If they soon return then they'll soon be blocked again. If a school is always problematic then I don't see a problem with blocks lasting several years. I'll often stop account creation, having seen many checkusers adjust many schoolblocks in the past. But related, I think you need to distinguish different types of school IP. Elementary schools are just going to be stupid when the kids are around but you can probably actually allow account creation. Some secondary schools are usually well behaved apart from one or two idiots who will be caught and punished. Others are just obviously places of eternal anarchy. So no automatic increases for me - take a look at the evidence as a whole. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Pile on here. I don't automatically increase the block length either. I try for the shortest period that will stop the disruption. Particularly in April or May, when the school term is likely to end in North America, I'll only block for a month or two because there's no point in having an IP blocked that won't be used until August or September. However, if there's disruption coming in short order off a six-month block, with a block log as long as my arm, I'll block for a year. Katie^talk 22:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Complaints is not a reason to consider anything about policy. You had users edit warring through the same IP with one of the user's asking for it to be blocked. 1 That doesn't fit the normal situations. It was also an anonblock and the complainant had an account but was choosing not to use it. He doesn't make more than a handful of edits per week and nearly none of it is academic in nature. He had no real need so he can edit as anon from home or use his account at the school. The pretense of schools having a different status would be based on academic edits which does not apply here. That complaint is not the impetus for policy changes. Deny the drama.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a temporary measure to assist in protecting the Main Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As many Wikipedians have noticed, several accounts have recently been compromised. Three of these compromised accounts have been administrator accounts, and all three compromised admin accounts focused on vandalizing the Main Page, the public face of the project. The most recent compromised administrator account is that of a highly active administrator. I am part of the team investigating this series of events, along with stewards, other checkusers, and WMF Security and Trust & Safety staff. There are several actions taking place in the background, mainly for security and/or privacy requirements, that will not be discussed in this thread.

One proposed temporary measure to mitigate the damage being caused by this vandal is to restrict editing of the Main Page to administrators who also hold Interface Administrator permissions. There is rarely a need to edit the Main Page itself — almost all of the work is done in the background using templates — so the impact of this temporary measure is minimal.

As noted, this is intended to be a temporary measure that will give both the community and the investigating team some "breathing space" to focus on the vandal rather than the impact of the vandalism. It was suggested that we bring this change to the community for discussion prior to implementing it. Does anyone have any feedback on this proposal? Thanks for your participation. Risker (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it technically possible? The Main Page itself may not need many edits but the templates transcluded on it which are cascade protected are a different matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Adding a protection level is relatively trivial to do in the MediaWiki back-end. Just needs consensus. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This can be done by private filter from what I’ve been told. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear: Is this possible without all the templates transcluded on it also becoming it-protected? Because that would be hefty collateral damage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: what @TonyBallioni: said been added. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support enough is enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Take this c**t down. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support could be done in MediaWiki, or possibly with an edit filter. --Rschen7754 21:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• As the front page of the site, the Main Page is arguably an interface page in spirit. Reasonable protection mechanism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - and once this current outbreak has died down, an RfC should be run to make this change permanent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yup, filter please - TNT ^💖 21:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x4 Support No need for this nonsense. (Please make sure there are some intadmins checking out the errors page every once in a while.) Natureium (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, even with an option of protecting other higly visible pages such as Donald Trump for a short time.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  This was already done earlier. Killiondude's account compromise rendered it useless. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly my point. I mean moving these pages into mediawiki namespace so that only interface admins can edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: sysops can edit MediaWiki pages already. The only pages restricted to interface admins are cascading style sheets and javascript pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, and as an interface admin on three projects I should have thought well before writing this. Anyway, my point is that the main page can be protected such that only interface admins can edit it (e.g. by adding a new protection level), then other highly visible pages can only get similar protection for a short time.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Striken the option. In view of the office action requiring TFA for all interface admins, it is absolutely not ok if only users who can afford a smartphone (or at least a laptop) will be able to edit articles such as Donald Trump.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but I'd like to hear that the cascading protection issues have been fully considered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose (temporary position), it's clear from some of the objections that the cascade issue hasn't been fully considered, and that this will either prevent updates to the main page or won't be at all effective. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support all reasonable measures to protect the encyclopedia against this vile attack and similar incidents in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. This is not what the interface admin right was introduced for and the talk of this measure being temporary is already being subverted above. So far as I can see, the recent incidents have been handled just fine, with no significant impact or press coverage. The main page says that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Limiting access to a tiny handful of people is blatantly contrary to this fundamental principle. Andrew D. (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's already restricted to only admins. How is restricting access to intadmins "blatantly contrary to this fundamental principle" if limiting it to admins isn't? Natureium (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Andrew, please. I'm glad you have an opinion on everything, but that these very incidents happened means things are not "just fine". Drmies (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• At least temporarily some additional WP:BEANS controls have been added, these are far from perfect but may help and should not be in the way of daily workflow. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seriously Andrew, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean "continually replace Donald Trump's article with a picture of an ejeculating penis". I think just about anyone knows that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I disagree with Andrew Davidson's comment. The Main Page already isn't editable by 99.999999999999% of the world's population; what will restricting access even further do anything more to the fact that the Main Page already doesn't fit with the whole "anyone can edit" philosophy? As for how the incidents have been handled, you may very well commend our team of stewards for acting quickly to stop further disruption, but in the case of admin accounts getting compromised it seems to be a better solution to prevent such events from happening in the first place rather than having an "oopsies" moment when the Main Page is replaced with Commons porn, even if it's reverted within ten seconds. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – fairly obvious, really. SNOW-close, please. Bradv 22:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but let's not let "I need to edit the Main Page" become a new reason to hand out intadmin rights. What the attacker could do with an intadmin account is much, much worse, and I'd like to keep the number of such accounts as low as possible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Didn't really think this one through. I'd oppose but I don't know how to explain my rationale without getting BEANsy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support solely for the main page; I agree with the comments that due to the nature of transclusions, that page is already similar to an interface page (and assume that transcluded pages would not be affected). I don't think this will be effective for other pages; rationale withheld per WP:BEANS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some discussion that this would also affect transcluded pages. In that case, I'd only support if it was a separate permission from INTADMIN. Ideally, it would be a permission that could be given to trusted non-admins, specifically The Rambling Man. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Regardless of what the best approach should be, there are times when one has to use whatever tool is at hand, and build better tools later. Perhaps we should start looking at a scheme of progressive protection where "anybody" can edit at the bottom of the pyramid, but increasing experience and trust are required to move up to vital or more developed pages.

As a side note, I have long thought that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – which isn't even true – should be changed to "the collaborative free encyclopedia", emphasising working together. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the WMF uses that tag line anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support (x10,000). Porn on the main page by compromised accounts is a severe problem. We have active interface admins and as others have mentioned, the main page itself doesn't need editing frequently, so I think this would clearly do more good than it would harm. But is there a way to protect a page with cascading protection at a certain level, but then have a higher local protection level? If it isn't possible, then I definitely would not support intadmin-protecting all pages transcluded onto the main page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  We've done that now, but it is more of a speed-bump than a road-block. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been an admin for 11 years, and never needed to edit it (well, apart from this evening, and someone even beat me to that by fractions of a second, so thanks for that). Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yeah and... an inability for an admin to unblock themselves would be useful as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: You may want to check out this proposal I made at VPR. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support temporarily as proposed for the Main Page. -- KTC (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a temporary measure (but how would this work? A new form of protection, since this isn't in the MediaWiki namespace?) ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also, I don't think using an edit filter will be completely effective, not saying the weakness per you-know-what, but one could figure out what it is. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support The attacker is doing us a favor by highlighting the weaknesses. They will move on to the next weak link but protecting the main page is obviously required. Re "how would this work?": developers can do anything and they will quickly fix the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, since I just got back from dealing with this guy. GAB^gab 01:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't dare to touch it, anyway. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't mind if this is a permanent change; the Main Page itself doesn't need editing very often. funplussmart (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support  temporary measure. Orientls (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Support, Sensible measure. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Upon further reflection, I understand this will not solve the problem without cascading and with cascading, it creates bigger problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as if I'm reading this right, only the actual Main Page will receive this additional protection, not T:DYK etc. I'd be willing to support this as a permanent change, too. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support I think Andrew's comment is being wrongly ignored as the discussion above seems to be the creation of a new level of page protection which I do not think should exist or be used on this project except for this specific instance. I do not think having or applying IAdmin protection to anything except javascript pages is something that I would ever want, and the only reason I would be in favor of this is because of the recent security concerns. I do not think we should ever have a protection level that restricts editing to 14 people. For comparison, twice as many people are in the staff group (a little over 30), allowing them to edit superprotected pages, than are IAdmins on enwiki. The admonition against WP:CREEP should be taken more seriously and the temporary nature of this use emphasized. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • My weak support has now become Oppose given a lot of the subsequent discussion. Jimbo's account has been compromised before, IAdmins can be compromised, and restricting editing to these few people, while more likely to prevent abuse, will make resolving any actual abuse more difficult. I'd rather greater risk but quicker response than less risk and slower response. I also think this whole thing has turned into a catch-22. I'm opposed to cascading protection for the Main Page, since it would turn IAdmin into something it was never supposed to be, but not cascade protecting the main page would result in the vandals moving on to the templates themselves. I really think this is just generally a bad idea the more I think about it. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have been busy so I'm not up to play. I'm not opposed to the idea although I'm not sure this will help a great deal from what's been said. I appreciate per BEAN etc that maybe details can't be discussed for this very reason so maybe there can be no clarification. But I don't think what I'm saying here is likely to be reveal anything not already obvious to prying eyes. It sounds like the plan is to still allow admins to make changes to the templates without requiring an interface admin to approve them. In that case, it seems like the vandal will just move on to vandalising the templates. I mean they're probably already working out what to do. While I appreciate they have been directly editing the main page so far, they haven't had a reason not to. And while trying passwords from previous leaks (which I assume is probably what's happening) is not really that technically demanding if you only have a few to try, it seems unlikely to me anyone capable of this won't figure it out fairly fast. Again maybe no comment can be offered, but is it believed the templates can somehow be protected against this vandalism in ways the actually main page can't? Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support only until a stronger solution is determined. The attacker (or an attacker, maybe not this one) has already demonstrated they can compromise 2FA-enabled accounts. Restricting access to intadmins reduces our security exposure, but will just focus the attacks on a different class of user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait which 2FA account got hacked? I hope what you're saying isn't true, it would mean that even 2FA isn't enough to stop the attack. funplussmart (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know which accounts specifically. 2FA is a good solution but it's not perfect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Hi, none of the accounts compromised in this attack had 2FA. We currently believe all compromises in this attack were due to people using the same password on other websites which presumably got hacked. 2FA is of course not a magic bullet - it won't fix every security problem (e.g. If someone steals your computer well logged in, 2FA is not going to stop that. If you add malicious Javascript to your special:mypage/common.js, 2FA can't stop that) but 2FA would have stopped this attack if the admins in question had enabled it. I strongly encourage all admins to enable 2FA. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, come on. Really? I'd much rather have compromised admin accounts announcing themselves to us by editing the main page than do other things. As it is, I don't think this is worth anywhere near the community time or consternation we have all spent on this. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ^^^This. Compromised admin accounts used to be immediately detectable to every other logged-in admin on the site back when they announced themselves by making "Main Page" go red on every page. Now that it isn't deleteable because of the same sort of technical measure being proposed here, they have to "settle" for goatseing it. Some improvement. The last thing we want to do is make them settle for one of the couple dozen ways you can cause real and/or irreversible harm with a sysop bit. —Cryptic 11:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose int-admin cascading protection, but I do support a MediaWiki imposed int-admin protection to the Main Page itself, and perhaps a few others, as is the status-quo with filter 943. The filter was an emergency measure. Using interface admin isn't really the right way to go. I agree with others below that there shouldn't be non-technical people in the technical user group. We either need a new user group, or only int-admin protect the main page itself, and not the pages transcluded on it. Better yet, phab:T210192#4771932, phab:T150826 and phab:T150576. Sorry if I misled anyone — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support until other security measures can be implemented or the vandalism subsides. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in contrast to the discussion about removing the unblockself permission this would create a real problem if one of the accounts with interface-editor were to be compromised, it would leave us with little means to reverse their actions. For this to work it would also need to be cascading protection as otherwise something could just be added to a page transcluded to the main page, that severely restricts the number of people who can put anything on the main page. Fix that by adding more people to the usergroup and we're back where we started. We should be looking at a technical solution to solve the problem, maybe some sort of double confirmation by two admins to put things on the main page (similar to pending changes in a way, but without auto accept). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Callanecc:. It seems to me you're opposing based on wrong assumption that: the protection must propagate (cascade) to all transcluded pages, DYK, ITN etc... thereby limiting placing items to only less than 10? techadmins. But from what I understand that's not what will happen. Only the "Mainpage" will be protected with this above-admin level, this will be done via MediaWiki backend and question of "how" is beyond the scope of this discussion. What's is just needed is the consensus. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for asking Ammarpad, my point was that the only way for protection like this to be effective would be to protect transclusions at the same level. I'm opposed to protecting the transclusions so also to protecting the main page in this way. However, maybe something like pending changes for admins to edit the main page (or transcluded pages) where it required two admins to make a change (one to initiate and one to approve) would be a good solution. In the meantime the status quo should prevail so that we can more easily deal with any further compromised accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  The notion of there being less ways to revert vandalism is one of the only reasons I'm partially reconsidering my support vote. However, I do think that if we have a mandatory 2FA enabled intadmin account hacked, we have more on our hands than just the main page being changed, and the person behind these attacks know this. Unless they just want to make a statement for publicity, they can do a lot worse (which is why intadmin exists in the first place). Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Anarchyte, There are a number of ways a 2FA-secured account can become compromised - and while I won't list them all here, physical theft of device (most likely a phone or chromebook/laptop) would be the first one that would come to mind for me. SQL^{Query me!} 01:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  @SQL: I'm aware. I'm saying that given WMF Office has now forced all intadmins to enable 2FA, if they get hacked we have something bigger on our hands. An intadmin can do real damage and I'm sure that's what a hacker would do with one, unless they only want to change the main page for publicity. An admin account can do a lot but we can no longer truly break the site. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not "opposing" but I would just like to ensure this is thought through fully before being implemented.

1. If the protection cascades then we have an issue:

a) The existing small number interface admins will be responsible for all DYK, OTD, POTD, FA, FL updates. this is clearly not going to work, so:

b) We will have to make a bunch of new interface admins. Not a good idea, the whole idea of the role is to minimize the number of people with that kind of access.

2. If the protection does not cascade then it's not actually going to prevent a compromised admin account from vandalizing the main page, without specifying details, and in fact might make it harder slower to track down and resolve the problem.

I think rather than misuse the interface admin permission, which sounds like a neat idea in principle but a bad one when considering the detail, something else would need to be done. I am not in favour of uncoupling admin permissions, because we have a small pool of administrators anyway and adding further obstacles to admins who (for example) have never edited the main page but want to help when they see a backlog or an issue arise will silo things up even more and make things less flexible. I don't have the right solution, but I have concerns about the proposed one for the reasons above. Fish+Karate 09:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Non-essential admin area and page that generally requires minimal change. Restrict to those who actually need it. talk to !dave 14:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have the same problems that Fish and karate has. Everything on the Main Page – DYK, ITN, all of it – is cascaded. We're about to make a very small group of people responsible for carrying out all the updates to the Main Page, If those people are prepared to do that, including updating DYK however often it has to be updated, I'm fine with it. If not, we either have to make more intadmins, which kind of defeats the purpose of having intadmins in the first place, or find another solution. Katie^talk 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per all supports and K6ka - FlightTime (open channel) 17:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - For starters, this is not what the intadmin permission was intended for. And when one of those accounts becomes compromised (intadmin isn't a magic flag that makes your account unhackable), there will be even fewer around that can undo the damage. Additionally, Fish and karate makes a fantastic point about narrowing who can work on the main page. SQL^{Query me!} 18:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose if we keep the cascading protection then you will need to be an interface admin to work on WP:DYK, WP:ITN/C, WP:ERRORS, etc. This massively restricts the pool of people who can work on those processes. The people who are interface admins were chosen for their technical skill at HTML/CSS/etc and don't necessarily have any interest in or ability to deal with those processes. We could appoint a load more interface admins to do this work, but that would rather defeat the point of the proposal. On the other hand if we turn cascading protection off then we make the whole of the main page much less secure, and even if we manage to manually protect everything transcluded on the main page I'm sure the attacker is capable of going after one of those pages instead. People I talk to about Wikipedia in real life usually have little or no idea that the main page even exists, I don't think it's a huge problem as advertised. Hut 8.5 18:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support if temporary. Should be reverted to be only admin when the compromised accounts are taken care of. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This creates more problems than it solves. I think Callanecc is on the right track with a modified PC. Crazynas ^t 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support but via the already made EF. Optionally support int-admin to MP by way of the same backed protection system that prevents move/delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  And if anyone wants to say but what about EFM issues - I think we should make EFM be along the same process as int-admin, including expiring it from admins that haven't actually used it in a while. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Agree on both counts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support would support this as a permanent measure --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, however oppose practically until the casacding issue described below is resolved. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from the bits that I'm seeing below, about admins being able to edit the component content (or requiring interface-admin rights to edit pages like On This Day), remember that Jimbo's account was compromised two years ago and used to vandalise the Main Page. (Admin-only link, and someone appropriately uses rollback on that edit.) Even super-admin accounts with rights like interface admin or founder can be compromised, and when it requires super-admin rights to edit the Main Page, it will sometimes take a good deal longer to revert vandalism: it's easy to find an admin to revert vandalism to a protected page rather quickly, but finding an interface admin or a steward may take a good number of minutes. We mustn't pretend that interface admins, stewards, or founders are 100% immune from compromise, so we shouldn't imagine that restricting Main Page editing to them will prevent this kind of vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: Though "super-admin" accounts like int-admin and founder are much less likely to be compromised, since int-admins are required by the WMF to use two-factor authentication, and Jimbo probably uses 2FA (does anyone know this for sure?) ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. After reading this through, I'm unable to see a resolution to the cascading protection issue. I would support the main page being protected without cascading protection being applied, to slightly reduce the target for any potential vandals, but I doubt that would do much. I suspect the best option here would be to create a new user group and new protection level intended purely for the main page and its constituent elements. I would also support making 2FA mandatory for this group. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, beyond the measures already taken. The cure is worse than the disease here; while I'd be willing to help out as an intadmin with maintaining the Main Page, there just aren't enough of us to go around, and increasing the numbers of intadmins to do off-mission stuff like this defeats the purpose of spinning intadmins off in the first place. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (go PC) - the cascading issue is too major. Int-admins are, by design, a tiny group (they didn't even let in 4 trusted technical non-admins). Without cascading we don't really do anything. With it we'd need far more to cover everything, including blocking certain areas that were the main reason some admins actually joined up. Additionally, it seems bold of us to add such a job to the int-admin remit without at least half of them saying yes (this is a secondary concern). Getting an admin-only Pending Changes approach seems much better. Obviously more than 1 admin can have their account compromised but it should significantly reduce the frequency of issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A note - an alternate mooted strategy of main-page admins (functionally granted on request, though presumably after a delay to stop immediate requests than vandalism) would seem less preferable because of a patient vandal to abuse. That said, it would also be an alternate potential method. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Oppose per Andrew D. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose until someone comes up with a solution to the cascading problem and allow timely updates to ITN and DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my comments below - in essence, concerns about DYK and that the Main Page remains vulnerable thorough its various templates and that this is WP:CREEP. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Split vote. I was almost swayed by the original proposal but L235 convinced me otherwise. If an admin account is compromised, we want it to be obvious. I strongly oppose cascading IAdmin protection of Main Page itself cascading IAdmin protection on Main Page, because that's exactly the opposite of what IAdmin is for: protect interface, don't protect content. We've finally managed to move WP:Geonotice to a space where all sysops can update content and now we want to stop admins updating content? No. I would weakly support non-cascading IAdmin protection of Main Page, with cascading standard full-protection (argh, full protection is no longer the highest level of protection) for things that are directly transcluded onto Main Page, considering that the Main Page itself is basically an interface container rather than content. Deryck C. 18:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose abuse of the IAdmin right. There are many other ways for compromised admin accounts to disrupt Wikipedia while creating a large impact other than vandalizing the main page, protecting the main page is only going to encourage hackers to move to other areas. I agree with SQL's concern as well. feminist (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral - permanently move the Main Page to Mediawiki namespace, but remove the cascading protection and manually template-protect the individual MP templates instead. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 23:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Lojbanist, Why would we move the main page to the mediawiki namespace? SQL^{Query me!} 01:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose vandalism would shift to transcluded templates. Protecting the main page won’t stop ompromised accounts. Stephen 05:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without cascading, protection would be toothless and they could just vandalize the transcluded templates. With cascading, well, that's totally not what the interface admin role was designed for. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yet another slippery slope eroding WP:EDIT. If even admins are not allowed to fix problems or improve content in certain pages of Wikipedia, who will be denied editing next? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 06:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - If transcluded pages are also protected, it makes fixing WP:ERRORS impossible. If they aren't transcluded, compromised admin accounts will simply abuse those. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 13:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the hacking of the compromised accounts was carried out by someone who new how a) Wikipedia works to a certain extent and b) is "fluent" enough with computers that they were able to hack several accounts. Just protecting the Main Page will just make potential vandals, who have hacked into a administrator account, focus their vandalism over to the templates and subpages (which in this proposal won't have the protection the Main Page would). Although protecting the Main Page is a good idea in theory, to implement the idea properly and to stop vandals who can hack accounts, these templates and subpages would need IAdmin protection too. This limits updating the Main Page in its entirety to IAdmins and IAdmins are limited in numbers. Many admins who maintain the Main Page (and would want to continue to) would also need to apply for IAdmin permissions, which is something which requires an admin to use 2FA before the right is granted (which for several admins is infeasible per comments by admins in this RfC on admin inactivity).

In short, I in theory support the idea of IAdmin protection for the Main Page, but for this to be effective subpages and included templates need to be also, which stops non-IAdmin admins maintaining the Main Page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – people are bringing up a lot of good points here, especially those about the proposed changes making the number of people who can fix these problems as they pop up even smaller. Sadly opposing. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – If it doesn't cascade to templates, all the templates can get hit instead. It's unclear to me that's much better. If it does cascade to templates then it blocks routine work. However more significantly, we're assuming a case where an admin account is compromised. Under that assumption, the proposal merely diverts them to do something less obvious. It sucks if the main page gets hit, but it's going to be spotted rapidly, it will be reverted rapidly, and the compromised account will be immediately identified. The actual impact of the main page being hit is just some brief annoyance/embarrassment/offensiveness. Are we really sure it would be preferable if we divert a compromised admin account to be abused in some other manner? Alsee (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Not a good solution, especially since vandalism can, and will shift to the transcluded templates. -FASTILY 08:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How temporary?

There seems to be support for the measure above but several supports are predicated on it being temporary. Seems like it would be worthwhile to have some form of consensus of how long temporary is prior to any implementation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty good question, Barkeep49. I think it can be said for certain that this change would be reverted as soon as it's fairly certain the vandalism issue has been resolved and the editing restriction is no longer needed. It's difficult to predict this; we've only been working on it for 72 hours, and it's a long weekend for US WMF staff (who have been very responsive), so the investigation is in its very early stages. Once we have more experienced eyes looking at things, including those who have the knowledge to suggest other options or methods for addressing the issues we're seeing, it's possible that a different/less intrusive option will be identified. It's also possible that after we've tried this for a few days, we find out that it's not really working. There's also the possibility that it becomes necessary to consider a permanent solution, either because no other less intrusive means has been identified to prevent this kind of vandalism, or because the efforts at vandalism haven't abated. Would it be reasonable to suggest that, if it still seems necessary to keep editing of the main page very restricted by 7 January 2019, it would be time to have a further community discussion about what options are available? These situations often take a few weeks to resolve, and there will be some extended holiday breaks in the next six weeks, so early January feels right. I'd be happy to hear other suggestions. Risker (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. The problem with emergency/quick fixes to a crisis situation is not coming back to it once the urgency is gone. I think we have enough editors watching this to avoid that. And, incidentally, thanks for keeping us informed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• 07/01/19 seems a reasonable time - so long as it is agreed that the consensus appearing for this is not a consensus for a permanent introduction - i.e. if the problem hasn't been resolved or an alternate solution proposed, a new RfC must be introduced in January to retain this mechanism Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

While there is some support for having this as a permanent fix, I don't believe anyone would accept that without further discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• As far as the EF goes, any arguments for not leaving indefinitely? For an analysis of 2018's MP edits see my notes at Wikipedia:Interface_administrators'_noticeboard#Int-Admin_Main_Page_Proposal. This part should not have any workload issues for int-admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• People are identifying negatives, and there are things efforts are being put towards in the interim - like reducing the number of admin accounts that keep being compromised. Also you are making a functional assumption. Generally it is always better to trial something than require a majority to turn it off again. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

How long do we have to debate this before it's implemented?

This has nearly unanimous support and it's only a temporary change. What are we waiting for? Natureium (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

First, it has to be open for at least 24h, and possibly, since now it is a weekend, possibly longer. Then it needs to be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Then some technical issues need to be implemented, for which a fabricator ticket should be opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: From the technical side - as an emergency measure I can implement it as soon as (if) you all agree that its the right thing to do (weekend or not). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, this is good to know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@BWolff (WMF): can you clarify whether, if this is implemented, admins will still be edit pages transcluded onto the main page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Answers to some questions and statuses that keep coming up:
  1. We have already done something about edits to the Main Page.
  2. If a new "higher" protection level is applied and cascading protection is enabled, then all of the cascaded items will be protected at the new level. Tested at testwiki:Main Page2 and its template testwiki:Template:MPtemp1 using the "centralnotice" protection level
• — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. So we're either going to need a bunch of new interface admins or check in with the existing ones. This needs to be done before implementation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: "A bunch of new interface admins" would be a step backwards in security. Would it be possible to create (yet) another protection level (call it "Main page protected"), and another user group ("Main page editors"), then quickly add the ITN/DYK/etc. regulars to that group? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also pinging @Xaosflux and BWolff (WMF): Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't disagree; I'd also point out that one of those admins in potential new user group was compromised 24 hours ago. I'd want to see 2FA compulsory for whatever is implemented, which I think needs a little more thought. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, all these things are possible. We don't have automated ways to require 2FA for a specific group, but its definitely possible given a list of people in a group to manually check which have 2FA enabled. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone know if the MediaWiki software could be changed so two protection levels could be applied simultaneously? (int-admin, non-cascading protection for just the Main Page, with full cascading protection for protecting transcluded templates) We've never had to deal with anything similar, since cascading protection with anything lower than full-protection is impossible and we haven't had a protection level higher than full-protection. With one infamous exception. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 02:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I fell that the language used here is too relaxed. A: If a new "higher" protection level is applied and cascading protection is enabled, then all of the cascaded items will be protected at the new level is only a definition of cascading. B: Tested at ... is only checking that cascading is correctly implemented. C: If this is implemented, will admins... is a question that should be answered by: the proposal is to enforce this and that, and the result for this_kind_of_people (should the proposal be applied) will be this and that while the result for that_kind_of_people will be this and that. A great advice about this kind of wording is RFC2119. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)/ modified Pldx1 (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• A note - while an early close probably would have been justified on, say, Sunday, there have been a fair number of recent opposes plus 3 conversions from support to oppose. I obviously have at least some bias (since almost all participants have cast a !vote I suppose that's fairly universal here) but would say it's worth leaving open at least another 48 hours to see if that's a sea change or a blip. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Post (initial) closure

Clarification of the closure requested. I'm not seeing the mechanics of this finalized, especially in light of active discussions about them still taking place. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This also seems a bit rushed. Regarding the 2FA notes for interface admins, WMF is going to deal with that for now under OFFICE rules. I'm also a bit concerned about greatly increasing the number of interface admins and forcing 2FA (via the OFFICE rule) on to people that want to maintain things like DYK and ITN can have negative impacts: (a) non-technical people with technical access (b) removal from editorial tasks for admins that can't or don't want 2FA at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closure review requested as this was a very early closure while discussion was still active. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Given the nature of the proposal concerning yet another security incident, third one in the last 60 days, and the near unanimous support after 24 hours of the proposal as worded, I felt it appropriate to expedite closing this proposal. If this is a mistaken thought, I will happily reverse the close.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think the early responses here are enough to give credibility to what is going on with filter 943, but that's it so far. For example, do we really need User:DYKUpdateBot and its operator to also become 2FA required int-admins right now, every contributor to Template:In the news, etc? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I re-opened it again. If there is concern with this close, I'd rather just re-open it, as I'm headed to bed and don't want to leave it as is.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm probably harping on the point by now, but if this proposal results in more intadmins, we're doing it wrong. Either the existing intadmins need to take up all the main page responsibilities, or we need a new "Main Page Editor" right. I suspect maybe 1/10th of admins will even express an interest in this, so even without any 2FA requirement, this will do away with 90% of the attack surface. We can talk about requiring 2FA later. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Again I don't disagree, though it still wouldn't have prevented the latest attacks and it would have prevented any admins fixing it in a hurry. Another alternative, which I'd prefer, is a bespoke software solution similar to how admins can't delete or move the main page, without all the cascading issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the slower response, but I don't see evidence that Esanchez7587 or Garzo had ever edited anything MP-transcluded, so it would have prevented 2 of the 3 latest attacks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now had some coffeee and a chance to think this through a bit, and I can see how this could work without a software change. We already have a number of main pages lying around which cascade-protect the main page content. I don't properly know how the system works, so someone will need to confirm, and we'll probably want more. So then we basically remove the cascade from the main main page, and apply the new protection level to the main page only without cascade. This would leave the main page content editable by sysops, which doesn't really provide any benefit. So we once again return to the question of how to protect the main page content whilst keeping it updateable without making security actually worse. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think at this point, the most likely feasible idea should be a new protection level roughly based on what Callanecc said above. All edits to Mainpage directly and templates it pulls from (ITN, DYK...) should be subjected to four eyes principle; that means they must be approved by another admin before going live. It will be very hard and unlikely for a vandal to get two different admin accounts solely to bypass this restriction. Its efficacy will be the same as if all admins enabled 2FA. And with this protection level, we can safely apply the cascading and simultaneously allow all admins to edit the Mainpage and its templates normally. And the vandal's edit... will surely be caught waiting to be "approved"–Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You're basically describing a version of WP:pending changes. Is it feasible to implement an admin-only version of that? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I am. If you know the basic framework of PC2 you'll know this is feasible, though I don't know how simple or hard that implementing it will be. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Q: How many of the (currently 13) human interface administrators stand ready to take up the workload that will be created? –xeno^talk 19:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Xeno: as an int-admin I think its safe to say most of us would have no issue dealing with formatting of the wikitext on Main page or certain included templates (via edit requests). I know I don't want to do things like manage the "content" (e.g. placing the Featured Article, updating DYK, updating ITN, etc). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  FWIW the current EF is already enforcing that. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Xeno, I will answer any edit request that comes by.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: (and anyone else who believes IntAdmins will be able to handle all main page content): With respect, you're greatly underestimating the number of tweaks made to the main page every day. There have been 40 edits to the various main page sections in the last week alone: most of these are fixes or clarifications of some kind, that need to be made fairly quickly. Many of these are also not quick tweaks but require assessing consensus, at ERRORS or ITN/C or WT:DYK or elsewhere. I suspect that if the 13 IntAdmins are the only ones able to make these changes, we're going to have some trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Resigning to fix ping. Vanamonde (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• You would also need to grant additional permissions to the DYK update bot, as mentioned above, which might have some technical hurdles and also comes with the discussion of if we want to have a bot with interface access. Such a plan also would have to look at protecting the DYK queues which could be edited a minute before the bot switches DYK. In general with this proposal, I understand and agree with the goal of increasing security but highly doubt that this would a) remain temporary, and b) stop the issue without major collateral damage. We are a wiki, and with a project our size and the number of admins we have, there will always be an attack vector. I'm active in Main Page and DYK work when I am around, but fully acknowledge I come and go. There was a period for months when I promoted almost every queue to be sent off to the Main Page, and while I'd like to think my fellow DYK admins and editors find my, currently somewhat sporadic, work helpful, I doubt I would be granted a new "main page" right or interface editor with my current activity level. I am also concerned that the interface editor right seems to be being expanded beyond its original intent to a new class/level of administrator instead of just a technical safeguard. This is a game of whack-a-mole, as we lock down attack vectors, attackers will move further up the chain. The next logical steps for an attacker are the MediaWiki interface generally, scripts to mass perform an admin action, going after an interface administrator directly, etc. We need to win 100% of the time to prevent an attack, an attacker need only "win" once in unlimited attempts to get through. While we should absolutely reduce the attack surface, increase security, password requirements, etc., mathematically it is clear what happens in the long run. I am also concerned that if we concentrate major, time sensitive, responsibilities from our approximately 500 active admins (any one of whom can jump in) to a group of just over a dozen interface admins that things will be delayed, and we will almost certainly burn out users - not to mention potentially drive away trusted users who work in this area. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Cascading

One of the three main oppose reasons is the cascading issue - I thought it worth splitting out the issue of discussing whether this Int-Protect would cause knock on protection to be implemented, if those qualified to discuss such could answer. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly following your question @Nosebagbear:. In the current software if "cascading" protection is applied whatever level is applied also gets applied to everything transcluded. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a query in the discussions above on whether all the constituent aspects of the Main Page (DYK etc) are going to have to have this int-protection (presumably enacted via cascade) for the main page to actually be safe. It is disputed, but I wouldn't say it is made precisely clear. Since the MP is primarily made up of a bunch of transclusions, presumably more than just the MP itself will need this protection level. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is answered in the section just above, and we have a choice: Without cascading protection, admins can still edit the content, so there aren't any real benefits to the new protection. Using cascading int-admin protection will greatly reduce the number of people able to edit ITN/DYK/OTD and other things which are regularly updated. Alongside this is a really bad idea - increase the number of int-admins. An alternative has been proposed which is to create a new user group, and a new cascading protection level, which only allows editing content displayed on the main page. No decisions have been made, and it's not always clear above exactly what people are agreeing to. The proposal itself contains this sentence, "almost all of the work is done in the background using templates — so the impact of this temporary measure is minimal", but with cascading protection that's simply not the case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, clarification is needed. Adding lots more intadmins to handle all details of what is transcluded on the main page would be very dubious. Further, some templates/modules are used frequently and often appear somewhere on the main page, and people would need an intadmin to update them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Closure

Could an uninvolved admin please formally close this? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seraphim System mass deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a heads up, it appears that Seraphim System is rage quitting, and in doing so, she is requesting the mass deletion of all her articles per WP:G7. Many of these requests were already tagged and/or actioned by CSD patrollers before her self-block, and she has requested that the deletions be completed. While I'm not sure her intent is "malice" per se, I would argue that these requests should be declined and the actioned ones overturned, as there is a 'good faith' clause in the CSD that would seem to have the intent of preventing incidents such as this. Regardless, I think the community should determine whether this mass deletion attempt is appropriate or not.  Swarm  {talk}  01:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is highly inappropriate and selfish, and an escalation of the WP:PRAM they immediately displayed above (take away my page-mover right and I quit [6]). As I said on Swarm's talkpage, the fact that Seraphim System consequently CSDed all of their own articles out of sheer spite, not caring that they might be useful to readers, is further evidence that the user has a major attitude problem. I recommend halting the process somehow, and allowing anyone to request a WP:REFUND of any of the already deleted articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I've undeleted several of them: two because they had significant edits from other users (thus they didn't qualify for G7 in the first place), and the rest with a citation to this section. I've intentionally left several others deleted, because I question the notability of the subjects; they're cited to blogs, places like YouTube, and primary sources, and (unlike several of the undeleted pages) they're ordinary biographies, not geo-governmental entities or individuals passing WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to call this request "in good faith", and allow any deletions that otherwise meet the G7 criteria. (after e/c: I'd assumed the admins who already deleted some checked that SS was the only significant contributor, I see from Nyttend above that isn't accurate, and those were correctly undeleted). If someone wants to recreate the articles, they can. If there is not a consensus for this approach, I'd settle for not characterizing it as "spite" or "bad faith" or "rage quit". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was wrong to say "rage quit", and like I said, I'm willing to assume there's no malice here, but even if we don't get hung up on whether it's a "good faith" situation, I think this is still what we would nowadays call a "high maintenance" way of quitting the project, and I'm not sure whether a mass deletion of articles accompanying a user's retirement can be classified as a reasonable request, even if it's not directly motivated by spite. The user's reasoning for the mass deletion is that they want a "clean break" from the project, but even if we do assume good faith and accept that explanation, per WP:OWN, we don't even recognize the notion that a user is inherently connected to the articles they create, so it's not really legitimate or appropriate to suggest that one's created articles are some sort extension of oneself, and casually perform blanket deletions in response to an author's own disillusionment.  Swarm  {talk}  03:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Any articles of value should be kept, regardless of whether SS was the sole author. I think we need to write in an exception to G7 for these kinds of situations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (replying to you, BMK, but not really directed at you, if you know what I mean.) We have approx. 6,908,584 articles. If we allowed everyone who wanted to do so to take advantage of the G7 "loophole", we would have (to 5 significant figures) approx. 6,908,584 articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Floq: Point taken, no "fix" for G7 needed, but I still think we should keep any article of value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, too many admins don't pay enough attention to the "in good faith" part of G7. If someone is throwing a shit-fit they are definitely not acting in good faith and their requests should be declined en masse. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• If they're valid G7s, delete them. I went on a G7 spree a night or two ago, clearing out obsolete templates I'd created in 2010 that were no longer being used; it shouldn't have mattered whether I was angry at the time (I was not), because the G7 criteria do not (and should not) take such things into account. What a nightmare a "but not if the author is upset" exclusion would be. 28bytes (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • But isn't that essentially what the "good faith" requirement is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not how I read it. Being upset at the way you've been treated (whether rightly or wrongly) does not mean you are no longer a good-faith editor. Anyway, how would we police such a thing? What if they're only "kinda" upset, do we delete half of them and decline the rest? Or hold a !vote to determine on what line of the "too upset" threshold the author's current mindset falls? When the kind thing to do (let them delete their work if no one's significantly edited it) happens to coincide with the policy (which says the same), why would we do anything else? 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Why would we do anything else? Because this is an encyclopedia, and it is for the readers, and it is the readers we should think of above all when editing Wikipedia, and if content is valuable to readers, then it should not be deleted, unless created by a banned editor in violation of their ban. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • So... the readers should only be given consideration if the author is upset? Or are you arguing for getting rid of G7 entirely? 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • My opinion is readers should always be given first consideration. The only exception I find reasonable is ban-evasion editing; in that case, automatic deletion is a deterrent to ban evasion. If you are asking my opinion of G7, I think it's good to have it for userpages and subpages, non-articles, etc. In terms of articles, I think G7 should only be used for the most egregious and/or useless content. In terms of someone deleting a bunch of stuff as they leave Wikipedia, that's common in administrator rage-quits, but they only do it to their own userspace stuff and non-article stuff, never to articles. I don't think mass deletion of articles should be allowed when someone is leaving/quitting; not at all. In my opinion it harms the project, and in my mind it violates the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, including the TOU cited by BusterD below. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
            • In many cases, a G7 request will be for someone who created a page and then realised that there was a mistake. I normally write articles offline and copy/paste them into my browser, and I've requested G7 in the past (or just deleted something myself instead of requesting it) where I accidentally posted a half-written draft instead of a completed article. We don't want such content in any namespace, and it's pointless to have a debate for a rather useless page when the creator knows it's useless and wants it to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes, that's exactly what I indicated: "In terms of articles, I think G7 should only be used for the most egregious and/or useless content." Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • This is not one of those cases (or kinds of cases) where we should try and judge intent. "Good faith" doesn't automatically mean "in the best interest of our readers", as far as I'm concerned, and an explanation was offered which we, pursuant to WP:AGF, should accept. I hate seeing decent content being deleted, but it is what it is. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Drmies, but I disagree with you. Content created by our editors may still be legally their property per copyright, but they have licensed it to us in perpetuity by posting it here, and we are under no obligation to delete it at their request. Softlavender is exactly correct in saying that our responsibility is to the reader -- and the quality of the encyclopedia -- first, and everything else is secondary. When it comes to a conflict between obligations to the content creator, and responsibility to the reader, it is crystal clear to me what we should do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Beyond My Ken, I didn't say we were obligated to delete. But the thing is (well, one of the things) that this applies to all cases of G7, and we (admins) really don't want to be considering intent etc. for all the cases of G7. BTW, no, not "legally" theirs--they sign that away the moment they press "Publish changes". Anyway, sure, we can consider whether something is worth keeping, but the default, practically speaking and given what G7 says, is always going to be "delete", unless other factors (like here) complicate matters. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Actually, I think you may be wrong about the legal part. My understanding is that what editors agree to when uploading their contribution is to license their content to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA or GDFL, and that license is non-revocable, but the actual copyright to their content remains with them -- this is why it's so important to keep an accurate record of who contributed what, because each editor owns the copyright to their contribution, even if Wikipedia (or the WMF) owns the copyright to the composite whole. At least, that's the way it was explained to me. This means, for instance, that I can write a paragraph for an article here, and still upload the same paragraph elsewhere if I want to, because I own the copyright to that material, and the license to Wikipedia is non-exclusive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
            • I just checked WP:COPYRIGHT and (1) I struck the part above about Wikipedia or the WMF owning a composite copyright. It turns out the only copyright they own is on logos, etc. (2) WP:COPYRIGHT says, explicitly: "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses.", so I believe I am correct on my main point above. Of course, I'm not at all certain that this rather novel conception of copyright has ever been tested in a court of law - maybe someone knows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reading this discussion I'm reminded of the statement under the edit summary window I see every time I save an edit: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." When I submit an edit, I agree the work isn't mine anymore. I've released it trusting the community to deal with it appropriately. In pointy cases like this, I'd be inclined to keep everything even if covered by G7. But cases like this are why you admins make the big bucks... BusterD (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why G7 should apply to article space at all as their work doesn't belong to them anymore --Shrike (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Shrike, see my comment above about articles. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  We do have some moral obligations to our editors, that's why. Incidentally, G7 says "provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author" is this the case for the deletions requested here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, I checked a couple of the still-deleted articles such as Meese-Brennan debate, BioBee, and Iris Zaki, and Seraphim System was the sole editor. G7 also specifies "If requested in good faith", though, and taking your ball and going home is not really a good faith reason for deletion. Fish+Karate 11:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• The very first five words of G7 are 'IF REQUESTED IN GOOD FAITH'. 'I misused a tool, had it removed, so I am going to spit my dummy and get all my content deleted' is not even close to being a good faith request. This is far from being the first instance editors when upset or sanctioned in some way have decided they want all their contributions nuked. Its also irrelevant to G7 if some of the articles fail notability as that is not a criteria for G7. Its a good faith request and sole author. Thats it. These requests didnt fulfil that and should have been declined en-masse, if anything just so when the editor calms down later and has second thoughts it doesnt make more work restoring it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Folks, can I please suggest you have a read of the latest comments from Seraphim System on their talk page before you bang on further with criticism of their actions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• We should take Saraphim System up on their good offer to keep the ones wanted. And perhaps change G7 to formalize a denial for wanted articles: 'Any admin may discretionarily deny G7 for a generally policy compliant article, if they determine a keep is in the best interest of readers') . Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think that needs to be formalized; it's implicit. Anyone is free to remove a G7 tag if they want to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps change the template because it does not say that, and it probably does not say that because that is not how G7 is written, and it would obviate the circumstance for having 'what do we do discussions' like this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I mean, it's implicit for CSD as a whole, not just G7. I don't think it's any more or less true for G7 than for any other CSD criterion, and so it seems a little silly to explicitly say that just in this one tag (which might imply that it's not true for the other tags). I doubt it would change whether conversations like this happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Then explicitly say that in CSD as a whole, and change the templates - so, people are not confused, since according to your alleged implication it's not suppose to be only for people who claim to have unsaid knowledge, it's for anyone who wants it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • While it might be implicit that anyone can decline a CSD nomination, I think it is also implicit that a valid decline is only for nominations that do not comply with the specified CSD criteria as written. For example, if someone went around declining valid G12s, I'd expect them to be stopped from doing so pretty quickly - and the same, surely, goes for declining CSDs that comply with the criteria generally. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't generally agree. Many of these criteria are "it's expected nobody would object"; G7 falls under that IMO, kind of a speedy PROD. If someone objects, they remove the tag. G12 is not one of those: either text is a copyvio or it isn't, but even so sometimes a G12 results in a large revdeletion rather than deleting the page. Admins are supposed to exercise some clue in evaluating these, not just take all speedy deletion requests at face value all the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  As for G7 in this scenario, I generally agree that we should put a higher bar on G7 requests in article space, and especially that we should not honour requests from a user to delete all of their article creations really for any reason, per the license (someone wrote this already in better words than I have this morning). I also agree we should probably talk about this somewhere else without it being framed as an issue with one user who seems to have quit (per 28bytes below). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy deletions (all of them) are specific by design and there is supposed to be as little room for interpretation as possible - and G7 is very explicit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• The tag basically says do not remove, unless the G7 criteria (sole author request) is not met. I suppose it also covers 'good faith' but that's a problem because you actually have to accuse someone of bad faith and find bad faith to refuse, rather then just saying, good or bad faith, this article is worth keeping. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that Seraphim System seems to have agreed to rescind the deletion requests for now, I think this can be closed. Discussion about G7 in general can be done on the appropriate page. Kudos to Floquenbeam for approaching the editor with kindness on their talk page and treating them like a human worth empathizing with. 28bytes (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And given that we really don't have any repeat problems with G7 nominations, I see no need to revisit the policy. If it becomes a repeat problem, sure, but it would be an over-reaction to just one (already resolved) case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've restored most of the rest and there are no outstanding G7s. Unless somebody wants to rescue any of the following, I agree this can be closed:
  • List of foreign companies with operations in Turkey
  • BioBee
  • Arrest of Dov Haiyun
  • Meese-Brennan debate

– Joe (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nmatavka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that in the previous thread where Nmatavka (talk · contribs) banned from creating pages in his userspace (for creating porn galleries in such area), there is a link to a subpage of his userspace, titled "Prawn", that contains exactly the type of content that got him edit-restricted (and later indefinitely blocked). I would like someone, not necessarily an administrator, to have this subpage and any similar ones deleted, whether by MfD or an applicable CSD – I do not wish to do so myself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. ♟♙ (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"exactly the type of content that got him edit-restricted"? It was a picture of a prawn/shrimp. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And the user was blocked in 2012. Fish+Karate 13:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikid77

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikid77 is a frequent commentator at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I have given this editor an indefinite block for "espousing racist revisionism in support of slavery." I gave them a shorter block a few weeks back for similar behavior. Since Jimbotalk is the closest thing that we have to a free speech zone on Wikipedia, I would appreciate a community review of this block. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: this user's history on Jimbo's talk is setting alarm bells ringing for me, and their polemic there is genuinely problematic. Given that this comment (which I assume was the trigger for your block) is essentially revisionist polemic, I think they needed to be blocked. That said, they've made constructive contributions elsewhere, so I don't think we're at the point of a NOTHERE permablock: but I wouldn't accept a "sorry I won't do it again" unblock request either, because the tendency to peddle this sort of crap runs deep. As such, I think we should discuss a topic ban from racial issues and slavery, broadly construed, as a precondition for any unblock. Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

His numerous disturbing, hair-raising, and thinly disguised hateful/racist posts on Jimbotalk have come up before. I'd be curious what if anything his unblock appeal states. I think one condition of any unblock should be a topic ban from Jimbotalk. The community has put up with enough of his spewing hatred and nonsense already. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Where will he post instead? Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How about dev/null? -- Calton | Talk 07:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar with Wikid77's comments on JIMBOTALK, Wikid77 has also complained about not being able to use the N-word; I quote: "In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more)."

While OTOH they do do some constructive work on the 'pedia (their last 5000 contributions are almost entirely citation fixes with the remaining mostly being comments on JIMBOTALK); however I at-least don't particularly have a desire to someone who espouses such things unblocked (although if so, certainly a topic ban from race and slavery and/or from JIMBOTALK should be imposed) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding. "hardworking servant"? You can't make this shit up. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I wish I was.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good block. Perhaps their pointy redirects from Negro slaves and Negro slave to Free Negro instead of for example Slavery in the United States or Atlantic slave trade should be retargeted as well? In any case, either keep blocked or only unblock with clear topic ban on anything related to slavery and to race. Fram (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC
  • Fram, I am going to celebrate the fact that I agree with you. Thank you for pointing at those redirects. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Can you provide diffs of their pointy redirects from Negro slaves and Negro slave to Free Negro? Wikid77 did not edit either. According to the page histories ([7][8]), the only editors who touched those pages were JzG and Joe Roe . Am I missing something? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, the original redirects by Wikid77 were deleted. Fram (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @David Tornheim: You know, if any other editor were met with something like the above I would expect them to strike their original post and apologize for the misunderstanding; can we expect the same of you? Your doing so would go a long way to dispelling the increasingly popular perception of you as an editor unwilling to admit to an error but instead preferring to double down and continuously push for something that has already been proven wrong... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Indef--I firmly believe that he is squarely in the NOTHERE territory. A cursory look at his t/p (after Cullen's first warning, few months back) including this thread and Primefac's warning followed by the two blocks of Cullen (which were both for JIMBOTALK; though) leads me to firmly believe that he is peddling his revisionist-theories in mainspace. And there's some mostly-pointless gnoming.∯WBG^converse 12:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block - Jimbotalk may be a free-speech zone but that still doesn't give you the right to say things like that, If topicbanned I genuinely believe he'd simply go elsewhere and the pointy redirects certainly don't help, Personally I would say he's just over that NOTHERE line. –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block. We're far too tolerant of "casual" racism around here. He was blocked three weeks ago and returned to the same behaviour; he may once have been a good editor, but what he's doing these days isn't just white supremacist revisionism, it's actively creating a hostile environment for non-white editors. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block, and turning into an effective community site ban (which I endorse). The word "nigger" is just a term for a hardworking servant and not at all a term of racist abuse? Just, wow! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block, endorse ban if anyone proposes it. I nearly indeffed him a couple of weeks ago for this, but hoped it was just a blip or misunderstanding. It's now obvious that it's a pattern. As I've said before, I have no issue with white supremacists (or people with any other fringe views) editing Wikipedia if they can keep it to themselves and not let it affect their work, but when someone is repeatedly spouting racist views, particularly on high-visibility pages, it creates a chilling effect that discourages others from getting involved. Jimmy Wales is no longer the God-King of Wikipedia, and that he personally tolerates racists doesn't mean that the rest of us are obliged to. ‑ Iridescent 15:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, please strike your last sentence which is unequivocally a personal attack, unneeded and a false characterization of what happened in that thread. His stated viewpoint is 180 degrees from what you have just stated here. Either strike or produce diffs which support your assertions.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Like hell will I strike it; Jimmy Wales has tolerated over 2000 posts from Wikid77 on his talkpage and as far as I am aware has never once even challenged his views. (The idea that he hasn't seen them, or doesn't feel it appropriate to challenge views with which he disagrees, doesn't hold water; Jimmy is more than happy to censor posts from his talkpage when he disagrees with them.) Show me a single diff of Jimmy saying anything along the lines of "Wikid77, please don't post racist comments on my talkpage" and I'll reconsider. ‑ Iridescent 16:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I see, using your logic the failure to challenge must mean that one tolerates racism/racists. Very well, have you challenged Wikid77 on this before? You stated "I nearly indeffed him a couple of weeks ago for this..." but I don't see any warnings from you on his talk page or in that thread. I also don't see you in his block log either. Have you challenged him on racism before? If you haven't, should we apply your logic to mean that you tolerate racism/racists because you didn't take action even though you saw the above?
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, it didn't take me very long to find him disagreeing with some of Wikid77's views so "as far as I am aware has never once even challenged his views" means you haven't looked.
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
        • So I take it that's a "no"? Your strawman argument that because I haven't challenged Wikid77 somehow means I endorse his views as well is laughable; we're talking about Jimmy's talkpage, not mine. If he (or anyone) were to post garbage like to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro or remember the reports of adventures, joy, and slaves moving back to their owner families on my talkpage they'd be ejected from my talkpage faster than you can say WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Iridescent: I second the request to strike. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have no problem with Iridescent's post. Jimbo isn't fragile; people have said hundreds of worse things about him without incident. And Jimbo has allowed Wikid77 to post thousands of racist posts on his talkpage, without ever removing any of them or asking him to stop. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Thousands" is over-doing it; Wikid77 also went through a phase of posting regular Florida weather reports on Jimmy's talk (for no apparent reason) which accounts for quite a few of his 2005 posts. ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dude, you have misled me. I have forever lost faith in you and your guidance. I will never drink your kool-aid again. Softlavender (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Question: How often does Jimbo block/ ban problematic editors? Or even engage with cranky editors to any depth? Someone here with more facility may be able to find a number of, and for what reasons he usually (if ever) "throws down" with other editors. (scary quotes for effect only) I myself am more inclined to ignore obnoxious comments and let them stand on their own "merit," unless the comments are overt attack edits to the mainspace or on talk pages directed at an identifiable target. That's never cool, agreed? In the case of such comments at Jimmy's talk page, other editors are more than happy to "take out the trash" when needs be. We do it for love. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

​The last time someone tried to "take out the trash" on Jimmy's talk, this was the result. To repeat myself, since that's generally one of the first userpages external visitors and new editors look at, and when it looks like this (permalink to the current revision of the page at the time of posting) they're quite reasonably going to assume that if this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Jimmy Wales, this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Wikipedia as a whole, and that this isn't a site with which they want to have any involvement. Because of Jimmy's position and his constant self-promotion as "the public face of Wikipedia", his talkpage is a de facto public-facing page. ‑ Iridescent 06:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What I see at the top of that section "Prescient comments" are a couple of declarative statements by Jimmy that go to the heart of his feelings on the matter of racist commentary versus racism in the historical context of articles included in the project. My reading of his comments then, and in the present are clear, and they should provide direction to any editors interested in maintaining the integrity of the project. I cannot comment in any depth on the particular editor who has generated this notice, I am only really familiar with them from their comments at Jimbo's talk page where I felt he was merely a fringe type of revisionist whose comments held very little weight. Forgive my intrusion here, but I was compelled to comment on this matter, as a poster to the thread which has caused part of this ongoing commentary. I shall burden you no further with this, except to say, I wish someone clever would go over to that talk page and put up a picture of a goat tied to a stick. Go ahead, it's my post. You have my permission. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Site ban or topic ban?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since a number of people have mentioned both possibilities, I'll go ahead and propose them both, and let's see where that leaves us. Note: I've added "ethnicity" to the topic-ban as a preemptive measure against potential arguments that some related topics are about ethnicity and not race. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban: Wikid77 is site-banned from the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after a minimum of six months.

• Topic ban: Wikid77 is topic-banned indefinitely from race, ethnicity, and slavery, broadly construed. They may appeal this ban after a minimum of six months.

Pinging @Cullen328, Softlavender, Legacypac, Calton, Galobtter, Fram, Winged Blades of Godric, Davey2010, Guettarda, Boing! said Zebedee, and Iridescent: from the above discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as first choice, per my comments above; but if there is no consensus for a topic ban, I would prefer a site-ban to nothing. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Switching to supporting a site ban because of the complete lack of situational awareness demonstrated in Wikid77's post below. This was always a somewhat borderline case; I was in support of a topic-ban based on the hope that they would be able and willing to make constructive contributions in other areas. They show no signs of wanting to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban, first and only choice. We'll have a de facto site ban anyway if the result above is a community endorsement of the indef block, so any topic ban would be in addition to the effective site ban (which wouldn't make a lot of sense). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Well, theoretically any admin could still unblock: the topic-ban is to address that possibility. If we're explicitly endorsing the block (and I started the proposal partly to make it explicit) then a t-ban is obviously not required. I'm inclined to give them this chance, but I'm not going to be particularly upset if the more draconian sanction is preferred. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  With the current consensus that a community-endorsed indef block effectively equates to a community site ban, no, I don't think an individual admin would have the power to unblock without community consultation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: That's only once a formal endorsement has been made, though, which is what this discussion is for; and theoretically, the community could prefer a t-ban over a site-ban. I agree that community sentiment above is reasonably clear—I suspect I'm somewhat more willing to give second chances than most—but I think it's important we go through the proper motions when politically fraught issues are concerned. Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with going through the motions (as a sewer worker once said to me ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban (or indefinite block on the understanding that no admin will lift it without community discussion, which amounts to the same thing), first and only choice, per my comment in the section above; for a Wikipedian to be openly racist creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating. In the case of a fantastically good editor it might be worth spending a lot of time and effort trying to craft a way in which they can continue to edit in a way that doesn't provide them with an outlet to espouse their views, but looking at Wikid77's recent editing history I'm not seeing anything remotely constructive; just a mixture of racist commentary and largely pointless minor edits. (Because he refuses to use the "minor edits" checkbox, it makes looking for any actually constructive contributions in his history difficult, but I'm not seeing anything in either his contribution history, the "articles edited" section on his userpage, or his most-edited pages that makes me think "this guy is so indispensable, we need to compromise our principles to try to keep him".) ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Topic ban from all race related topics, broadly construed. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - Having just seen this (which was posted by Galobtter above) - That post as well the defending of the actress's actions alone warrant an indef, They may well make great edits here but that doesn't give them the right to make racial comments, There are just some things you don't say and certainly don't defend ..... –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• A note about topic ban: My recollection is that Wikid's crazy disinformation posts on Jimbotalk are not confined to race issues. IIRC, he spews all kinds of alt-right nonsense. So a topic ban from race-related issues is not going to cut it in my opinion, which is why my topic ban proposal was a topic ban from Jimbotalk.

  I support a site ban, particularly in view of Black Kite's comment below. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. I was just going to say "Topic ban", but last night, after a block and multiple warnings, creating Negro slave and Negro slaves, both as redirects to Free negro?? Seriously, that's a goodbye. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:I can't see these actions, either in the redirect history, nor the user's contributions. Am I missing something that only admins can see? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: The first versions (which did indeed direct to Free negro) were deleted before the current ones were recreated, so only admins can see them now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Both. If he somehow appeals the site ban, he should also be prohibited from editing any areas relating to race. These are not mutually exclusive options. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per Black Kite. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Either, but preferably site ban. He's been trolling JIMBOTALK for ages. In fact I was going to bring this here if Cullen328 hadn't. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Both per Ian.∯WBG^converse 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Curiously, does Jimbo still have the power to unilaterally grant un-bans?∯WBG^converse 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• In theory yes, in practice no. He hasn't exercised his power to unban since he tried to unblock Vote X for Change in 2011, and if he tried to overrule the community nowadays it would probably just result in the 'founder' userright being revoked. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban I don't see enough reasons to allow any editing. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• ¿Por que no los dos? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban, per Iridescent. I do not want to work in a joint where we allow such racists to work as well even if they're confined to a couple of the floors of the office building. And now I remember having commented on this user's ridiculous ideas before, at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_228#Battle_for_freedom_of_speech_re_Roseanne. Scroll down to my (rather inane) comment to see what another editor came up with, under the guise of "Maybe I am dumb". And speaking of my inane comments (I did that again the other day, in the thread on Jimbo's page that got us here, thank you Cullen328: you did what I should have done but for some reason couldn't. Maybe I'm still too much in denial, too much in "you can't make this shit up" mode, as if this isn't quotidian enough. I need to step up: thank you for showing the way. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• First choice is topic ban from everything slavery and race related and Jimbotalk. As usual I prefer a solution that addresses the problem directly and allows for constructive editing elsewhere. Second choice is both. ~Awilley (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Wikipedia is not a political forum. We are a collaborative community dedicated to writing and maintaining an encyclopaedia. This requires collegiality, and others have explained above the chilling effect that comments like these create. While editors are traditionally given a degree of latitude on Jimbo Wales' talk page, it is not a "free for all". If, after six months or so, Wikid expresses a desire to return to contribute to the encyclopaedia rather than use Wikipedia as a platform for polemics, it would be reasonable to consider an unban with restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Both and anything else we can do to him. I have no use for racist trolls. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's be careful, we aren't site-banning an editor, merely because we don't like his/her beliefs. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• He can believe anything he wants. He may not post just anything he wants on Wikipedia. We block/ban people all the time for postkng ads, spam, hoaxes and yes, racist rants. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• They aren't "beliefs", they are delusional polemics and racist POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Editors can believe whatever they want. Where it becomes an issue is when an editor is stating a public position of hostility to members of a particular group to the extent that it has the potential to discourage members of that group from contributing to Wikipedia themselves; at that point, we need to start weighing the opportunity cost of lost editors vs the opportunity cost of losing the racist/political-extremist/sexist/homophobic/whatever editor. In a case like this, where the racist comments were posted on an unusually sensitive page like Jimmy Wales's talkpage, the problem is exacerbated, since that's generally one of the first userpages external visitors and new editors look at, and when it looks like this (permalink to the current revision of the page at the time of posting) they're quite reasonably going to assume that if this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Jimmy Wales, this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Wikipedia as a whole, and that this isn't a site with which they want to have any involvement. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban - Wikid77 already has one topic ban logged at WP:Editing Restrictions, once you start to consider multiple topic bans its obviously not worth the effort involved at that point. And yes, its perfectly fine to ban editors who have beliefs that are actively damaging to a community. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - net negative to the project, as above. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site Ban - Only choice. Racists go fuck themselves.--Jorm (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikid77 was one of the very first Wikipedians I had a meaningful exchange with more than 10 years ago, but this is deeply troubling. In addition to the Irish slavery comments that started this, there are others like:

• this thread is shocking, it has been partially quoted above, but that wasn't the only problem there
• continuing the argument regarding Roseanne's tweet on her talk page
• various arguments/myths in defense of the Confederacy
• strange non-sequitur about the shift of language 'from "negroes" or "colored people" then "African-Americans"' (though it's possible I'm reading that wrong)
• starts off with "After many questionable claims of U.S. police "bias" against blacks (not proven by facts)..."

If this were a one-off, I'd be straining to AGF while looking for some explanation and assurances. This, however, looks sadly like a pattern and is incompatible with the environment we want to create here. Thus, site ban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Argh. I came back to revise the above. I had given it some thought and figured it would make more sense to issue a broad topic ban on all race-related content on any page, with a possible fixed-term block on top of it. Now that I get here and start typing, however, I see this thoroughly tone-deaf comment on Wikid77's talk page. Thought about swapping out "site ban" for "indef" but he just isn't showing any signs of getting it such that the potential for harm here is too great... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Topic Ban My first impression was that this was just another racist troll that needed to be shown the door. But an examination of their editing history clearly shows they have been around for a very long time and they have a solid record of non-controversial contributions. I think banning people because we find their opinions/beliefs to be offensive, even odious, sets a dangerous precedent. No one should be blocked for their beliefs. We block only to stop disruptive behavior, not to punish those with differing views, no matter how repugnant. See WP:NOPUNISH. Given Wikid77's talk page behavior on this subject I think Cullen's block was good. But a T Ban seems a better fit for an editor with their record. This is not a case of NOTHERE. That said, barring some kind of dramatic conversion which would need to include a formal renunciation of their racism, under no circumstances will I support lifting the T Ban. If such an appeal is made I give permission to any editor in good standing to log my oppose and reference this statement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my mind the only way a TBan is going to work is for the TBan to include both race, ethnicity, and slavery, broadly construed, and Jimbotalk. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, where are you seeing this solid record of non-controversial contributions, as (per my post above) I looked fairly hard and can't see it? Going over his recent edits, I can see a lot of pointless minor edits (adding/removing whitespace and the like), the racist trolling that prompted this thread, regular weather reports for Florida posted at Jimbotalk (baffling, as neither he nor Jimmy lives in Florida so I'm not sure why the interest), and virtually nothing else in recent years. ‑ Iridescent 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He has been here since 2006, amassing 61k edits. 73% of those are in the mainspace. Approximately 5% are on user talk pages. I haven't any means of breaking down what percentage of those are clearly disruptive but I am guessing not more than half. And those obviously being on the subjects of race and slavery. This is not a case of NOTHERE. Their disruptive editing is clearly limited to a handful of specific topics and represents a very small percentage of their over all contributions. In short, this is an editor who has some seriously F---ed up opinions which do not appear to be a major component of their work here. So again, unless we are punishing them for their views, I think the argument for a site ban is pretty weak. This is what T Bans are supposed to be used for. However, I will agree that any violation of the T Ban should end with an immediate indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, he may once have been a productive editor (joined more than 12 years ago!), but he has not been for the past several years. Where are any constructive contributions from the past few years? Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has been here since 2006, amassing 61k edits. 73% of those are in the mainspace is true but extremely misleading. He has a high percentage of mainspace edits because he makes so many of the minor edits I mentioned earlier (have a look at his recent history and see for yourself), and because he generally refuses to engage with other editors so he has few talk/usertalk contributions (he has twice as many contributions to User talk:Jimbo Wales than to every other user talk page combined, including his own). As far as I can tell, since the sockpuppetry in 2010 that earned him his existing topic ban, he has almost no substantive edits, and those that he did make seem to be things like this which were promptly reverted as inappropriate. Per my remarks above, for someone who's an obvious positive it's potentially worth wasting the time of everyone else trying to find ways in which a racist can still contribute without being in a position where their racism creates a chilling effect for other editors, but the onus is on those making "we can't afford to lose him!" claims to demonstrate that this is someone we actually want around. As I said above, because he refuses to use the "minor edit" checkbox it makes it difficult to search his contributions for anything positive, but thus far nobody has provided a single example. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: A relevant recent quote from Bbb23 regarding another user: "If a users needs two topic bans to be a constructive contributor to the encyclopedia, the waste of time of other editors permitting them to do that is fairly obvious." -- Softlavender (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with broad topic ban that includes Jimbotalk and race, ethnicity and slavery.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Literaturegeek, I have no idea why you are repeating yourself under my post (you already !voted here), because you missed the entire point of Bbb23's statement. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am not repeating myself for the simple reason that I did not define the scope of the topic ban in my vote. Your comment quoting bbb23 is indented and thus part of a threaded discussion and higher up you suggest the scope of the topic ban if one is applied. I replied to your higher comment saying I agree. If you wanted Bbb23’s quote to be entirely separate from above comments then you should not have indented it, I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• My comment is indented to nest under the post I was replying to, this one. Your post is indented to nest under my quote from Bbb23. What or which post are you actually attempting to reply to or refer to? You should add one more colon to the number of colons in whatever post that is. Ideally, your statement should be moved to simply be an addition to your !vote below, as it in its current form and placement it appears as if you have !voted twice. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, yeah, I can see where I erred. Thank you for pointing out my mistake @Softlavender:. I was replying to and agreeing with your viewpoint in your message above dated 21:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC). Have a good one User:Softlavender, cheers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site Ban In 2018, this shouldn't even be a question. I don't care if they have been around a long time and made some good edits. ♟♙ (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban but oppose site ban and feel block should be lifted. I largely agree with Softlavender Ad Orientem. The problems are specific to a topic area. He has a clear history of productive non-controversial edits outside the topic area. Siteban is therefore unjustified.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Softlavender is arguing for a full site ban? ‑ Iridescent 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hah, I messed up. I misread threaded discussion and misinterpreted Softlavender’s response as being the author of Ad Orientem’s post. Struck and corrected. Thanks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban Although I've seen Wikid77 around, I never thought that they would venture into WP:NOTHERE territory like that. Amazing how racism will drive someone off the rails (or maybe drive them to reveal their true colors). Miniapolis 23:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• No block, no ban - What the hell is wrong with you people? Are we now enforcing ideological correctness??? Guess what? Some people are dumbasses about certain subjects — but they are useful and positive in other realms. Figure out how to rein in the dumbassery. Terrible block, Jim. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. Count this as an advisory for TOPIC BAN, since we've already decided to burn the witch... Carrite (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Figure out how to rein in the dumbassery would be justification for the suggested topic ban. And rejecting the belief that all humanity is on some level equal is rather counter to the assumptions that are behind the goals of this encyclopedia: if humanity is not equal then some races cannot be trusted to improve the site and some races should not even have access free knowledge. It's not simply political correctness, stop enabling racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic example of a strawman argument there, with a little PC sloganeering tossed in for good measure. Well done! Carrite (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Await comment from colleague whose talk page it was posted on - Jimbo Wales the community would like your opinion on this discussion. No one appears to have pinged you and directly asked for your input. I would like to hear from you as a fellow member of the community. I have my own opinion, but as a matter of courtesy it would be proper to hear from you, as the post(s) occurred on your talk page. Many of us I suspect would be grateful for your views. Simon Adler (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you pinged a blocked user not User:Jimbo Wales Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ooops. It proves how much I hang around J'Ws talk page. I don't even know his name! Simon Adler (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nah, the behavior has spilled over to content edits which are thoroughly reprehensible. This is way beyond Jimbo's purview at this point. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that aspect of the situation Softlavender. However, as comments were posted to a colleague's talkpage, I think the talkpage trustee (we don't own T/P's obviously) should be invited to give his views on the comments posted there. Simon Adler (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was pinged here but have nothing further to say about the substance of this editor's behavior. My action speaks louder than any words I might write now. The community is also speaking quite clearly, and I am grateful that most of my colleagues seem to think that I did the right thing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban Their defense is literally "I have black friends"..really? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban – in addition to the above comments, there's a long-term pattern of attitude problems, as exemplified by his RFA back in 2013 (particularly see opposes 1 and 10). Also, I can't resist the temptation to post a little light relief. Graham87 09:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - racism and other attitudes that rank people based on external characteristics are far beyond "dumbassery". We don't need editors who spread hateful propaganda designed to exclude groups of people. From what I can tell, their other contributions are at best marginally positive, but if they should ever successfully appeal their site ban they should be topic banned from making any edits that in any way touch on race, ethnicity, and slavery, in any namespace. --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - Took a while for me to get aroound to looking nto this. Yes, a site ban is appropriate, per Black Kite and Iridescent and others. At this time Wikipedia is essentially under attack from neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and racists of all kinds, most of whom appears an non-confirmed IPs, but others of which have managed to hang on to become autoconfirmed. The last thing we need is an extended confirmed racist stalking our pages. Per Guiy's question below, if a site ban does not gain consensus, a topic ban is the minimum sanction required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I can't believe you people are working up to ban somebody from Wikipedia over this comment (so it says above). He referred to a redlinked black slaveowners article, so I wasn't sure ... but at least Snopes says that this is true. [9] Since when did Wikipedia become about banning people in "free speech zones" because they cite inconvenient facts?! I mean, he didn't even cite some random study trying to support racial differences here, but only raised some issues regarding unusual aspects of slavery that some people think could be used by racists. I mean, it's like gun control for historical information! History is weird - I still can't get over the case of Jews offered the Iron Cross by the Axis during the Continuation War (fear not, it's in the article!) - I think it is a theorem, well at least a conjecture, that in every conflict there has to be some central point where the global contradictions inherent in the conflict all come together in utter absurdity. We should treasure whenever Wikipedians guide us to that point, from which it is easier to see the entire conflict in context. Now you do drag up some more dubious quotes from the past, but this was something he was already put through ANI over, according to this conversation. I am sick and tired of this bait and switch ANI tactic where people complain about something that's not really a problem, then use it to impose a harsher penalty than they already did for the same thing. In the past I have felt that conservatives exaggerated the degree of liberal intolerance relative to their own, but seeing what I have here forces me to reevaluate that. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about denouncing wrong ideas (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it were) but about collecting and sharing knowledge! Wnt (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Plenty more reasons have been found in this thread if you'd bother to read it. The rejection of the belief that humanity is on some level equal is fundamentally incompatible with this site's goals of allowing anyone regardless of their race to contribute to or learn from this encyclopedia. Stop enabling racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You, Ian.thomson need to stop hectoring your opponents in this discussion and to stop spamming the same self-righteous slogans to multiple people. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Opponents? You need to stop enabling racism -- racism isn't righteous, opposing racism isn't self-righteous. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't be !voting, because at least two of the prior discussions show me directly addressing Wikid77 on this (one of which I did not remember), but I think Wnt has misrepresented the issues. Wikid77 seems to posit that the weight of facts of slavery's history are somehow a slur on the "white" race, and/or a slur on the Confederacy. He also seems to object to people calling those and similar comments "racist", when yes, those comments are racist, and people do have a right to call those comments racist. As for those Wikipedians of "mixed race" in Wikid77's latest comment, well that seems to be an attack on those of us who may be of "mixed race". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. The re-directs created mentioned by Black Kite are the last straw. This is the third serious instance of racially disturbing behaviour we have seen in under a week. The problem seems to be getting worse. Simon Adler (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site Ban, period/full stop. And maybe a trouting to the editors above who are indulging in ridiculous "free speech" posturing, especially User:Wnt's rationalizing. --Calton | Talk 16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban like Carrite. There is no policy-based reason for site-banning for some imagined speech code. Yeah, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum but Jimbo's talk has always been one. This certainly shows the dangers of discussing politics and sensitive topics such as race there. Also, not a really defence for Wikid77 because he states he's American on his user page, but it is worth noting that the English Wikipedia is very much an international community and what is considered inappropriate political speech waries wildly in different countries. For instance, several European countries have a burqa ban and it isn't very controversial, but I believe some some American state-level politician got massive media controversy for proposing this. So what is considered politically correct varies a lot. It is not completely obvious to me why using the word "negro" would be considered bloody murder as black nationalist organizations still themselves use the word. Oh, and some more cryptonite for the people who were offended about the prospect of Irish slaves: white Christian slaves were popular with the Ottomans: Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. --Pudeo (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pudeo, are you seriously trying to claim that the word "nigger" isn't considered racist in the United States? ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

??? That's not the word he used above! "Negro" has also fallen out of favor (though not as far!), for reasons that aren't very obvious to me. Still, it seems fair enough as it goes - I wouldn't use "Caucasian" to mean "white", after all, since you'd think I meant someone from the Republic of Georgia. Returning to the use of simple shades (in English rather than Spanish, I mean) may even be a way to help put the racist toys back in the box. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you even read any of the diffs here? This isn't a discussion about Pudeo using the term "negro", this is a discussion about Wikid77 (among many other things) complaining that he's no longer allowed to call black people 'niggers". "In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more)." ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This site rather requires the assumption that race or ethnicity in no way inhibit or disqualify one from learning from or adding to the encyclopedia -- an idea that is simply incompatible with racism. Stop enabling racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. At some point the time & effort spent cleaning-up after a POV-spewer weighs-down the project and becomes an overwhelming net negative. Shearonink (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any block or ban. If I were an African-American, I would be offended by all of these self-appointed "protectors" of African-American Wikipedia editors trying to ban another editor because of some of his comments (none of which were rude or pushy or based on ignorance). My guess is that none of the editors trying to ban Wikid77 are even African-American. African-Americans are not so weak or fragile that they need this kind of "protection". I also feel that any African-American good faith editor of Wikipedia would enjoy collaborating with Wikid77 more than collaborating with the editors who are trying to ban Wikid77. Jrheller1 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So a Confederate sympathizer who doesn't think the N word is racist is exactly the sort of person black people love to hang around with? Now, my home town is only 42% black but that's generally not been my experience. Racism doesn't need your protection. It isn't simply about protection but common decency -- maybe you could try showing some. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That's quite enough. Everyone is well aware of your stance. You don't need to bludgeon every comment, and assert moral justice in a thread that's already heading toward a site ban. If you want to fight to good fight, go write an article on an underrepresented group. That's the kindof thing people who actually give a shit are busy doing. Opinions are cheap, and the last time I tried to put together a spreadsheet, I believe only about 3% of our featured biographies were about people who are black. GMG^talk 19:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

People who defend racists often think their hands are clean of racism. They need to know their hands have just has much burnt cross ash on them, even if they otherwise keep their noses clean. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes. And an order of magnitude more people feel that publicly expressing personal outrage washes their hands, and absolves them of doing anything that might actually address the problem. Plenty of people talking round the dinner table, nobody showing up for the city council meeting. When you get done expressing your feelings, gimme the diffs, and I'll let you know how many articles that makes about the 42% of your neighbors who apparently need to be a professional athlete or win the Nobel Prize in order to get a featured article on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because something doesn't meet your ideal doesn't mean that it's worthless. I could reverse this and say that writing articles is a waste compared to off-site actions (while implying that you're doing nothing there with just as much evidence as you have to imply that's the case for me) but I'm not as interested in a "I'm helping more" dick-measuring contest as you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You can certainly reverse it, but if you want to argue that writing articles is a waste of time, then you shouldn't be here. Goodbye, and you're welcome to come back when you feel otherwise. GMG^talk 22:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban — A few editors need to get their head out of their arse—not sorry to say. This is not about disliking his “beliefs” or being “politically correct”, this is about offering every editor—whether they are white, black, or any other color of the rainbow—an environment to collaborate. Racism as open and unapologetic as this discourages collaboration and gives me no confidence in the editor’s ability to be neutral—or even rooted in reality.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban, per WP:NOTHERE. This diff is really something [10]. "Be thankful for the black slaves who worked to protect the Confederacy (...) who then returned to Dixie to rebuild from the ruins and mourn their owner families..." & "Well, check the facts of imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans, who actually often lived in the master's house..." -- what in the world? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• No action per Wnt and Carrite. We could consider taking strong action against an editor who posts talk page comments that are so problematic that they need to be removed, also from the edit history of the page. E.g. an editor who has the habit of getting into disputes with others and then starts to insult his opponents, makes legal threats, posts personal information etc. etc. But Wikid77's behavior on Jimbo's talk page is nothing of this sort. His comments can still be found on Jimbo's talk page and Jimbo is quite strict with removing inappropriate comments. Wikid77's comments violate the hypersensitive US social norms on racial matters. He may indeed be wrong about some issues, his overall attitude is similar to going to Saudi Arabia and advocating atheism there. Now, however we dislike the way he discusses topics related to race, we have to acknowledge that he isn't a racist himself. It's actually the attitude of society to be hypersensitive about discussing race openly that has led to the former racists to use their methods against other targets. The problematic behavior underlying racism is tolerated in the US. Gays were the victim until recently, it was ok. for politicians to make discriminatory laws against gays. And when gay rights were settled, the former racists move on to transgender people, inflicting great damage to their cause with impunity. Poor people have always been fair game, not only are you free to insult them, you can make laws that makes it impossible for them to get health care. The politicians responsible for doing that are not formally racists because they don't talk about race, but their actions do end up killing many people of backgrounds they don't care much about. Wikipedians defending these people will not be banned or blocked. No, the real Adolf Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power, you'll be kicked out of Wikipedia based on BLP violations if you dare to call a spade a spade on such far more relevant issues. Count Iblis (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, the real Adolf Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power... Would you care to explain that statement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Children are indoctrinated by their parents and the educational system to accept the values of society as they exist today. In a free democratic society we allow dissenting opinions, we can have vigorous debate and disagreements, but within some large margin all opinions and views are considered to be legitimate opinions that reasonable people can have. This means that a slow drift of the values that society sticks to, can on the long term place old values of society beyond the boundaries that are acceptable in the new society. It may then look like your great great great.. great grandfather was a racist homophobic misogynistic person. Formally these adjectives may be correct, but we normally use these adjectives to refer to persons who live in today's society where you would have been educated to stick to today's values. If 150 years from now there exists a Wold government and dividing the World up into countries is seen as a method of rich countries to enslave the inhabitants of poor countries, then the people living then browsing the archives of Wikipedia, reading this very page may have a difficult time understanding the disapproval of Wikid77's comments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, that's pure twaddle. It neither explains your comment that "the real Adolf Hitlers are always respected" nor does it in any way explain Wikid77's comments. You've put together a bunch of words, but you've said absolutely nothing of relevance. David Tornheim put a lot of words together too, and I disagree with them, but at least they had meaning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Count Iblis: 2018 is almost over. You've made 294 edits to Wikipedia. Of them, exactly five have been to articles. Five edits out of two hundred and ninety four - that's 1.7%. I suggest that you express your opinions less, and improve the encyclopedia more, or move on to another hobby. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Directly threatening the editors who disagree with you for expressing their opinions. Is that how Wikipedia establishes "consensus" nowadays??? It seems emblematic of the kind of Wikipedia the people who want this ban are working to create. Wnt (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Wow" indeed, Writ. Your facts are as askew as your opinions. I am not an admin, and therefore cannot "threaten" Count Iblis with anything except my disdain. Count Iblis has been a boil in Wikipedia's butt for a long time, a fact recognized at various times by ArbCom and at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wnt, BMK is spot-on. I will go to the extent of saying that he can be quite-rationally blocked for a prime candidate who is NOTHERE. He needs to find another socializing-hobby; very soon.∯WBG^converse 17:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I made a large number of edits to the Ref Desks in recent years, but they are all flagged as talk page edits. Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Ref Desks are right HERE at Wikipedia. I know that many editors don't like the Ref Desks, they think that this doesn't belong to Wikipedia, but as things stand now, they are part of Wikipedia and therefore anyone who makes 99% of his/her edits to the Ref Desks should not be flagged as someone who is NOTHERE. Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• (REDACTED by power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)). Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. Disgusting. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Topic ban -- I am changing my position because I see that he had been warned and for some of the others diffs provided here and proof of the strange redirect of slave -> free negro. I do agree with others below that he misused the Davis source, and should have owned up to that, especially now that it has been pointed out quite clearly that his conclusions defy what is in the source. If he showed some apology for the behavior and addressed the concerns and promised to follow the WP:RS in the future, I might cut him more slack. But I am not seeing much desire to change or acknowledge the problems. I am not seeing him taking this proceeding seriously enough, giving only this reply. If he continues to edit these areas with this attitude, then that is a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No action from Jimbo's page:

I agree with Wnt.  Those who are so eager to have Wikid77 site-banned for making "racist" comments, might want to consult the definition of racist.  From our article racism:  "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity."  A similar definition for "racist" from Google is "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."  Do you have any diffs where you can show that he (or the material in his comments) either: (1) believes that one race is superior to another -or- (2) has shown discrimination or prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity?

Although I certainly disagree with some of his comments (especially his apology of Roseanne Barr's racist joke and his desire for "free speech" here) and find some of his comments either naive or insensitive (e.g. [11]), calling his comments so racist as to site-banning him is a stretch. 

Many of his claims about the Confederacy he posted on Jimbo's talk page in the section "Prescient comments" he backed up with WP:RS. I do see some level of Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism, but what I believe is most important in our discussions at Wikipedia is sticking to the best sources and following WP:NPOV, which I believe he thought he was doing. I did not see any of those who attacked his comments as "racist" as providing better sources that disagreed; instead, I believe the objections are based primarily on editors' feeling that the statements are racist based on what they have been taught about the Civil War--possibly from unreliable sources--rather than doing the harder work of looking at the sources.

One of the sources Wikid77 used was Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America written by William C. Davis who is described as a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history with Civil War emphasis. Our article on Davis has no controversy section one would expect of a Neo-Confederate historical revisionist.

Besides, if the comments are so offensive, why not simply remove them?  Then the discussion could be over whether the comment violated our rules.   --David Tornheim (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. My oppose has nothing to do with free speech--more fully explained in my answer to Beyond My Ken immediately below.--David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Once again, as often happens, Wikipedia, a private website whose purpose is to build an encyclopedia, is being confused with government action in a public place.
  In the US, the First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Speech in the public realm, and most other countries have such guarantees, at least on paper, even if some of them do not enforce them. It's different here. No one has a right to free speech on Wikipedia, which is clearly explained at WP:FREESPEECH, and the WMF and the various Wiki-communities are perfectly free to regulate speech in whatever ways they see fit. The WMF forbids pro-pedophilia speech, and we routinely block and ban anti-Semities, pro-Nazis and racists for expressing anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi and racist opinions. It's our privilege to do so, as our primary concern should always be building an encyclopedia, and when obnoxious, dangerous, and insulting opinions such as these get in the way of doing so, becoming disruptive and making it more difficult to do the necessary work of encyclopedia-writing, it is incumbent on us to remove the disruption, without giving the least consideration of whether the individuals causing the disruption would have the right to do so in the public realm.
  This obviously invalidates any "oppose" !vote which is based on a free-speech rationale, and they should be rejected out of hand as not being based on either policy or actual practice. Whether the opposers like it or not, that's the reality of a privately-owned website, and it's never going to change. When the community consensus is that expressed opinions are disturbing and onerous enough to be disruptive, the community not only can get rid of the problematic editor, it actually has an obligation to do so, to protect the development of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• FYI. My oppose has nothing to do with free speech. If Wikid77 was repeatedly making demonstrably racist comments, I would urge action--the Roseanne Barr discussion was the only evidence I found troubling. I did not see any evidence of him talking down to other editors he perceived to be of a different race or ethnicity. I did not see him making comments designed to offend people from other races. He may raise uncomfortable truths found in WP:RS that are troubling because they challenge the "indisputable facts" we have been taught in Northern schools (and in documentaries by Ken Burns*)--but isn't that what Wikipedia is about?--providing the best quality sources and presenting material in an WP:NPOV fashion? The chilling effect is not allowing editors to discuss articles about race using reliable sources if they go against the house POV on the subject. It undermines the encyclopedia to let editors' opinions and biases replace the material found in the best, most reliable sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(*)Note: Ken Burns's The Civil War with 39 million viewers is criticized by historians (e.g. "Faced with the choice between historical illumination or nostalgia, Burns consistently opts for nostalgia.") I believe many in the U.S. get their information about the Civil War from sources like these or worse. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia is not "about" "raising uncomfortable truths", Wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources say, and where there are differing opinions among reliable sources, what the consensus of reliable sources say. We can mention WP:FRINGE ideas, but we do not given them undue WP:WEIGHT. And we do these things in our articles, with proper sourcing for everything, not in personal opinions expressed on talk pages, that is what creates a chilling effect, and it needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources say, and where there are differing opinions among reliable sources, what the consensus of reliable sources say. Where do you get that? Are you saying when there is a disagreement among experts we choose the most popular one (or the "best" view), and can leave out all the other significant minority expert opinions? Are you saying we should dispense with the Second Pillar of Wikipedia and the policy Neutral Point of View?

The Second Pillar of Wikipedia says:

We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence...In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". [Emphasis added.]

The policy Neutral Point of View echoes this:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." [Emphasis added.]

It seems to me you are giving editors the green light to omit minority opinions in reliable sources that make them uncomfortable. Is that true? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that you're conception of how Wikipedia works is in direct contradiction to reality, but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend the time to teach the ABCs to someone who should know better. In any case, you're wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is and was nonsense to use Davis that way, and it is nonsense for you to defend it. Davis wrote in that book: The secession and the Confederacy's existence was predicated on slavery, on preserving and defending it against containment, as virtually all of its founders from Robert Barnwell Rhett to Jefferson Davis declared unashamedly in 1861 . . . That preservation of slavery and the control of the black in Southern society was interwoven into almost every new significant feature of the Permanent [Confederate] Constitution should hardly have been a surprise to anyone . . . As the framers in Montgomery [of the Confederate Constitution] declared time and time again, it was founded on the bedrock doctrine of racial inferiority. William C. Davis, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America (2002) p. 130 -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I saw some quotes like that too. Why not post that on Jimbo's page to challenge his writing rather than call him a racist? I believe that is how we should argue material on Wikipedia, not based on our personal beliefs. What I saw Wikid77 doing was showing the side we typically do not get in the Ken Burns version of the Civil War, that there were some moderates in the South in high positions. That Wikid77 claims that Confederacy was moderate with regard to slavery certainly does not jive with the whole of Davis. I agree. So yes, I do see cherry-picking from Davis to try to make a conclusion not in Davis. Mostly, my position is we should argue from the sources, point out the problems with use of sources, rather than just calling someone a racist for an opinion that looks wrong. At the same time, I do agree that we are not here for personal opinions or WP:OR --David Tornheim (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No. I should not have to follow this nonsense around to reply to it. It's gross misuse of sources, and of Wikipedia, and then you pop up to defend it because apparently to you it's just great to misrepresent clear and obvious racism -- what's not to understand about, "it was founded on the bedrock doctrine of racial inferiority". Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not defending his behavior and posts. In fact, I said that I do not agree with many of his statements, and I am critical of them. I'm opposed to the knee-jerk reaction of site-banning this long-term editor for some recent objectionable posts rather than (1) making him correct, strike, or delete his posts by adjusting them to be based on what is in the best WP:RS (2) asking him to remove posts that are racially insensitive (3) asking him to refrain from polemics on race--including on Jimbo's page if Jimbos dislikes it--and focus on editing or the other work he does on Wikipedia.

This very much reminds me of when a liberal African-American professor was banned for instructing students (as part of WikiEdu) to edit in his topic of expertise--environmental racism. His belief is that editors here are uncomfortable in talking objectively and factually about race issues. I agree. I am very curious what he would say about this if he had not been banned. See Racial bias on Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, you 'are defending him, and at great and tedious length. I don't know if you believe the stuff you're writing, or if you just enjoy being a contrarian, but I think we've heard more than enough of your defense of racism in the name of free speech -- which despite your denial, is precisely what it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You specifically defended his misuse of Davis, and apparently his misuse of Davis also misled you to defend what he was saying (how many others were so misled by his misuse), nor do you seem to have done the study of why his comments on 19th-century American and Confederate slavery are racist, because if you had done the study you would know racism was in the warp and woof of the institution. Now, you say I should follow him around to clean-up his misuse of sources, I suppose so you won't be misled. Seems he should be stopped from misleading you and others in the first place, because I and others can't and won't always be there to actually read the sources for you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

With the reply to your comments above and my reply elsewhere (that I assume you've read), we're left with the question of what does Wikid77 base his opinions on? Certainly nothing that qualifies as a secondary reliable source for article purposes. I've been involved with debating neo-confederates long before I started on wikipedia and, with the exception of the Irish slave crap, 77 is providing nothing new. Like Alanscottwalker and many other editors who follow the slavery, civil war, etc articles, we know what the reliable sources are and can, and do when appropriate, argue from them. You and 77 have not shown that you have the knowledge or willingness to do so.

His opinions are fringe and have little value as guidance to writing useful wikipedia articles. Community consensus is, and should be, against him. There is certainly evidence that he writes things that people expect would come from the mouths of racist -- in fact they do come from other racists. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia if he is allowed, without consequence or even acknowledgement from 77, to tendentiously mouth the words that most people here are finding to be racist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am very glad that the U.S. government is founded on a principle of free speech, because it is an inalienable right and a good idea for running any organization. But to suggest that therefore this is only of relevance to them is a basic categorical error, and obviously in conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:N and other Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia needs free speech for much the same reasons as the U.S. does; because without it, you have a dictatorship. And how do you organize volunteers to do collective encyclopedia writing in a dictatorship??? To be sure, the association of the U.S. with free speech ideals has some relevance -- Wikipedia started here for a reason. I hope it's not racist to say that. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban their Jimbo-talk comments have been unconstructive for quite some time, and their edits in mainspace (apart from technical reference fixing) are POV-pushing. Historical revisionism and the pushing of deliberately misleading narratives (such as their most recent bizarre rant, which seems to ignore the undisputed historical facts of chattel slavery in the 1800s entirely) is also not welcome on any page of the project, including Jimbo-talk. I see no reason to believe Wikid77 can be a constructive editor on this project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban Sorry, but Wikipedia editors saying that slavery was good for African-Americans brings the project into disrepute about as much as pedophilia advocacy and Holocaust denial, in my book. (I'm not comparing this to either of the other two qualitatively or quantitatively, just pointing out that all three bring the project into disrepute and all three need to be stamped out with site bans.) I also find it incredibly disturbing that some other editors think this editor has done nothing wrong and this warrants no action -- David Tornheim, in particular, really should have been indeffed himself a long time ago for this and similar behaviour elsewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I argued at quite some length on Jimbo's page against banning "pedophilia advocacy" for much the same reasons. At the time there were some countries like Yemen making the news for having radically different opinions from the U.S. on the topic, and I didn't want to set up an official Wikipedia standard that their country was "wrong", though wiping it out with famine, cholera, and bombs works also. As far as Holocaust denial ... if Wikipedians can't defeat a Holocaust denier in fair and open argument we ought to just pack it in. And the very, very last thing we need is some notion to generalize censorship to anything and everything that a person with a different opinion says is "disreputable". Wnt (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wnt: But we're not talking about defeating a Holocaust denier in fair and open argument -- we're talking about a Holocaust denier regularly sneaking references to how the Jews keep pretending like the Holocaust was a bigger deal than it actually was and people are falling for it because they control the media into discussions, while posing as a reputable member of the Wikipedia community. We don't engage such individuals in open argument, but rather show them the door. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If that is what you were talking about, I wouldn't be opposing this motion. There is nothing all that unusual about showing anyone the door when they lie about what the sources say in an article in order to push their own point of view. The problem is, here you seem to be pushing for action against this editor because he made some comments, a bit strange but apparently largely true, on Jimbo's talk page. That's just a bad precedent I don't want. Nor do I want to see the editor penalized more harshly for things that previously went to ANI because that would be transparently a way of doing the same thing. I am not even eager to see him punished harshly for acts of frustration like this, though it is hard to argue that it was a useful redirect. (It is also hard to argue that we really needed the old version deleted so that only a clueless automatic tagging robot and an old-fashioned honest Logs feature not yet fully adapted to keep the doings of the gods to themselves give any indication of the untoward comment) I do admit a suspicion that we are being manipulated here, for example that there might be a "good hand" account doing new mainspace edits while this one goes out in a martyr's glory, but I can't prove that, and the most straightforward way to not make martyrs is, well, not to make martyrs. Please, just stick to policy and don't make this about sending a message that "racism is bad". Because the message you really send when you do that is that "racism is suppressed, so who knows if they're right?" It may seem counterintuitive, but fascist beliefs thrive on fascist policies, no matter who they are directed against. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

And, is defeating Holocaust deniers (or any other kind of revisionist bigot) "in fair and open argument" part of the purpose of Wikipedia anyway? We should be challenging bigotry by providing proper unbiased articles based on reliable sources, not by giving bigots a platform and debating with them in a way that suggests they deserve any respect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely that's part of the purpose! It's not good enough for Wikipedia to know that the Holocaust happened -- we have to be able to prove that it happened, to explain everything about it, and to debunk those who say it didn't. If someone wants to zealously collect a bunch of misleading arguments against the Holocaust for us, it doesn't even really matter if their motivation is pro or against -- they've simply given us grist for the mill. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In articles, with discussion of sources and consensus, I agree, within limit. But not through the poisoning of the well at high profile pages like Jimbo Talk (which, as Iridescent has pointed out, has been painting a horrible picture to newcomers in recent months with Wikid77's being allowed to go on and on with no rejection by the page's proprietor). And even in article debates, I still think the platform we should give to bigots should be limited - as they're the kind of people who will just keep coming back with the same hateful bilge again and again, and it's repetition that gets the hard-of-thinking on their side. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another comment after reading your other comment above - We are talking about someone here who lied about a source to try to claim that the Confederacy was really quite a nice cuddly place that was really kind to slaves, and who doesn't like that he can't use the word "nigger" in what he says is its proper respectful way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is inherently unfair to make an argument that someone deserves negative repercussions by putting a sarcastic twist on their words and imply they said them, rather than actually quoting them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Go read his odious words yourself. He's clearly trying to push a white supremacist meme that slaves were treated well and that slavery wasn't so bad, and trying to whitewash that shameful era in history. I'm really surprised that you can't see that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah. So, this is a matter of my lack of vision to see that Wikid is a "white supremacist." How about we stick to rational debate, rather than try to make a case that there is something "surprising" about my calling out your not doing so?

Nothing unfair about using sarcasm when appropriate. I assume anyone that is commenting here has read the thread and is perfectly aware of what is being discussed. Is "cuddly" really so out of line to refer to language from Wikid77 such as:

Well, check the facts of imagined "ill treatment" of African Americans, who actually often lived in the master's house, or had private rooms in the servant quarters of the mansion, or whose children played alongside the owner family, blacks with white children, or were given manumission liberty when the master died, etc.

All the reliable sources that make it clear that slavery, from the slave's perspective, sucks are wrong and it's all in my imagination? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about the suckery of slavery, we're talking about a simple statement. I believe that the statement you take so much offense to is true. Some slaves "lived in the master's house, or had private rooms in the servant quarters of the mansion, or whose children played alongside the owner family, blacks with white children, or were given manumission liberty when the master died." Is it wrong to speak of mitigating facts about slave-holders because slavery is inherently wrong? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You ignore the context and deliberately do not discuss the language that sets the context. Specifically you ignore, "Well, check the facts of imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans". What you claim are facts are presented to support the premise that slaves were not ill treated. Why did you ignore this essential part of the sentence that you claim, w/o any qualification, "is true"? If the statement by 77 is unqualifyingly true, why did you use "some" when 77 said "often". Bottom line, would you like to retract your unqualified support for 77's claim, that it "is true" that "ill treatment" is "imagined"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not ignore the first part of the statement; it is simply not something I can speak on outside the context of the discussion in which it is made, unlike the fact that came after it. And "some" is not a variable of "often." "Some" refers to a quantity of a noun, "often" refers to the frequency of an event. Both terms are highly subjective and not mutually exclusive. Provide some context for why I should retract rather than twist what I said. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

So you have no idea of the context of the statement? How is it, then, that you said elsewhere:

"Not that I necessarily think that the things he's said warrant any ban; I also think its wrong to say that on their face they are racist statements and to call him a racist, but its appearing that the reason he's saying them is to provoke, rather than discuss"

when you apparently haven't read much of the material that has been discussed? Have you read anything from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Horrors of a POV-fork page and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#How to mention political groups in a page? Let me know when you have. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also check out User talk:Wikid77#Previous warnings and block which points out the fact that the statement we are discussing was a prime cause of 77's block. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that when someone is trying to make a case that someone should be banned, they provide the evidence. I evaluated the evidence provided. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-responsive. You had said, "I believe that the statement you take so much offense to is true" and I said, "Bottom line, would you like to retract your unqualified support for 77's claim, that it "is true" that "ill treatment" is "imagined". You asked for context on the statement we're discussing and I provided three links that show that context. So do you still stand with 77 in saying that the universal acknowledgement that ill treatment of slaves existed in the U.S. is actually nothing but imagination? In the absence of any reputable scholarship that supports 77's take, what other than racism could inspire him to say such a thing? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not going to answer the question you asked because it twists the statement Wikid made. I looked back at the context of his statement: "Well, check the facts of imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans" It started out as a discussion of the Irish Slaves myth article. Wikid's statement was a response to this statement: "No doubt Irish people were treated poorly at times, but there's just no comparison at all and there's not a serious debate about the subject - just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans." Wikid made the mistake of following down the path he was being led, rather than challenge B's assertion that discussion of the treatment of the Irish is "just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans" No, the treatment of the indentured European servants is its own story, regardless of whether or not it is being currently being exploited to hammer blacks into "getting over it" The discussion devolved from there, with others leading Wikid further down the path by putting words in his mouth ("Then again, seeing as how you already said that you believe that blacks enjoyed being slaves") ending in Wikid's rambling dissertion that basically makes the point that the history of the relationship between blacks and whites has been and still is complex and cannot be summed up in words like "ill treatment." So, no, I do not see obvious racist intent in Wikid's statement, just someone who is trying to bring another point of view to the table, but expressing himself poorly. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

77 has had plenty of opportunity to claim he was tricked or clarify his meaning, but he didn't do so in the discussions, never commented on his recent 48 hour block for racist comments, and continued to make similar comments. Absent the best possible explanation (a convincing argument from 77), I'll go by what he actually wrote. Your comment that "the history of the relationship between blacks and whites has been and still is complex and cannot be summed up in words like 'ill treatment'" is certainly true, but says nothing to justify saying that ill treatment is imaginary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"I'll go by what he actually wrote." Ah, well that is progress then, if you would actually do it. "imagined ill-treatment" does not mean the same thing as "ill treatment is imaginary" "imagined ill-treatment" does not deny the existence of ill-treatment, but is leaving the attributes of it open. In this case the "imagined ill-treatment" would be B's since he is the one that brought it up, but did not define it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You really should do some reading if your honest response to B is, "What is this mysterious 'ill treatment' of which you speak." 77 accepted the challenge of what B said and responded to it. What is clear is that 77 felt the way to refute B was to try to claim that (1)if the small number of slaves that lived in the manor house may have got treated better than the vast majority that didn't (2)then no mistreatment occurred. No reasonable person can believe that a slave is not being ill treated by the very fact that they are a slave as long as they might be freed when their owner dies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We're getting closer, but you still insist upon twisting the words. Now, let's go back to the context. B stated: "just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans." Okay, so what ill-treatment did B "imagine" there? Not that it was imaginary, but if I said to a crowd of people "imagine the ill-treatment of African Americans" everyone would probably have a different perspective. So, what was B's "imagined ill-treatment?" He didn't say. Wikid responded by making the point that some slaves were treated as well as white servants. It was you and others that put the twist on it that Wikid was "refuting" B by trying to make a case that no mistreatment occurred. If Wikid assumed that B's "imagined ill-treatment" was how masters treated black slaves relative to how they treated "Irish people," his response makes a lot more sense. Basically, he made the same mistake all of you are doing by responding without getting clarification of what was an enigmatic response. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, again that time Wikid77 misused and abused sources, a source he attempted to rely on specifically said: "In recent years, right-wing whites have inundated social media and cyberspace with the lie that Irish ‘slavery’ was worse than that suffered by Africans." and "In contrast to those of African descent, the Irish were never legally nor systematically subjected to lifelong, heritable slavery in the colonies." (emphasis added) When this was pointed out, Wikid77 attempted to argue against or ignore his own source, and arguing against or ignoring your own source is textbook POV-pushing, and that ultimately led up to Wikid's "imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans" comment. Ill treatment, imagined? Come on, what part of reading history says ill-treatment of African American's in slavery is "imagined", unless it's racist history, because slavery itself was a racist system according to the sources, even for house slaves. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is validity to the idea that white indentured servants were treated worse than black slaves. Someone who bought an indentured servant had a limited time to make a return on their investment, so they extracted the maximum work from them and gave them a minimum of care. A slave owner had incentive to take care of his slaves. But again, you are making the accusation, you have the obligation to do a better job of supporting it. You haven't even supplied a link to the supposed POV pushing. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You believe. So you have an unimpressive POV. It does not change the facts that the source says and said, the "lie that Irish ‘slavery’ was worse than that suffered by Africans." And pretending you don't have the link to the discussion around Wikid's "imagined" comment is just bizarre, they have been supplied several times.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that the totality of the discussion revolved around one source. This article states: "According to Rodgers, masters sometimes worked servants harder because they only possessed their service for a limited time, and this fact underscores 'the complexity of making comparisons' between slavery and indenture."Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? So, you are unaware of the very details of the Wikid77 comments and the sources there that you claim to be commenting upon. There, he cites only two sources (not one) in his OP, one on the "myth", and one discussing the "lie". Your quote from a Wikipedia article does not change or even challenge the sources he posted -- that a comparison is complex would not mean there is not lie nor myth about it. At any rate, this CBAN discussion is pretty much over because the CBAN has functionally already been endorsed, and whatever your arguments where you somehow see mistreatment of African Americans in slavery as imagined are rather pointless, if nothing else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your attack on my comment. And your attempt to characterize what I have said is that I "somehow see mistreatment of African Americans in slavery as imagined" is another example of the way some of you here lead less chary editors down paths they do not mean to wander. Fie! Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment was attacked? That does not even make sense. Perhaps, you should stay on topic when discussing a series of Wikid77 (or another editor's) posts. At any rate, only you are responsible for the paths you trod down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

All that stuff you hear about downtrod paths is imagined. EEng 19:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that AlanScottWalker has voices in his head? Just clarify so that he can properly respond. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No need. Probably, it's just the case that, on this page, the paths you have chosen to trod down are imaginary, and winding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• No block, no ban. There ought to be no speech codes on Wikipedia. If people make contributions supported by good refs, what does it matter what their personal opinions are, even if we don't like them? Wikipedia ought not to be a place where wrongthink is deemed to be doubleplusungood and consequently terminated. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The "if" in "If people make contributions supported by good refs..." is a big one. If you've actually read these discussions, then you will know that it has been demonstrated that Wikid77 will play fast and loose with references. If you've read about 77's claim that there really were Irish slaves and then go to the article Irish slaves myth, you should be able to realize that 77 has provided no reliable secondary sources to support his claims that there really were actual Irish slaves in the U.S. Not to mention his claim discussed right above that the ill treatment of slaves is imaginary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Systematic misrepresentation of sources is a terrible thing and should not be tolerated. While I choose to be legally precise and refer to indentured servants as such, the Wikipedia article you cite makes it clear that "Some books have used the term Irish "slaves" for captive Irish". It adds: "for centuries, Irish folklore or various books had referred to the captive servants as Irish "slaves" even into the 20th century". Does citation of these sources, or use of what for centuries was day-to-day popular language not couched on precise legal terms, now entail banishment from Wikipedia? Were sources actually systematically misrepresented on Wikipedia entries by the person about to be made an unperson? XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You cherry pick. Both the article title and the article lede makes it clear that the article is about a false ahistorical claim (i.e. that there were Irish slaves). The lede says:

The Irish slaves myth concerns the use of the term Irish "slaves" as a conflation of the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries. Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the chattel slavery experience of Africans and their descendants, have used the myth to attack contemporary African American efforts for equality and reparations. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.[1]

The myth has become increasingly prominent since the 1990s and has been prominent in online memes and social media debates.[2] This has led a large number of historians to publicly condemn it.[2][3]

77 wants to cherry pick the same language you did and ignore the 99% of the article (and the reliable sources that supports it) that refutes it and give equal time in the article (which would have "myth" stricken from the title) given to the white nationalist view. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Horrors of a POV-fork page for 77's own words.

I go back to the part of your original post above that I originally questioned ("If people make contributions supported by good refs..."). 77 wants an article that with elevate fringe pinions and minimize the "good refs'. In answer to your question ("Were sources actually systematically misrepresented on Wikipedia entries by the person about to be made an unperson?"), that is clearly 77's intent here and in all the other instances cited in these discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I question wheter 77 or for that matter anyone could get away that will "elevate fringe opinions and minimize the "good refs'." From your response it looks like 77 has not engaged in systematical misrepresentation of sources at all. Banning should not be cleanup. Looks like 77 is being punished for having an unpopular opinion. Banning 77 will reduce diversity of thought and accelerate the creation of a monoculture on Wikipedia.XavierItzm (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Tom (North Shoreman) references the wrong article. Irish indentured servants gives a much better overview of the subject. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not true. If you read the links you asked for that I provided you, you would realize that 77's arguments deal with the myth article. His position is that there were actually white Irish slaves. He argues that that this position, promoted most vigorously by white nationalists and neo-confederates, should be given equal space with those reliable secondary sources that are the backbone of wikipedia. The article you reference is based on those sources which is why 77 finds it insufficient for his agenda. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

XavierItzm, LynnWysong just so you both know 77’s original indefinite block has been upheld. This current discussion is pretty much inconsequential because he has shown he lacks the skills to acknowledge what he did wrong; hence an appeal will almost surely be unsuccessful and he will remain blocked long-term. Do you both really need to make a stand for a Confederate apologist who insists the mistreatment of slaves was “imaginary”—that slaves actually loved their masters and the Confederacy; is that the kind of shit that belongs here?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Slick. I see that your own recent justified indef block has made you an expert on whether someone else "lacks the skills to acknowledge what he did wrong." When you were indeffed, I made a statement on an off-wiki site that you certainly should have known better, and the fact that you are here now should make you a bit more humble towards those facing the same fate. Instead, you are doubling-down. Tsk Tsk. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

LynnWysong I find it a bit disturbing you had nothing better to do but talk about me outside this site, but that is besides the current issue. And a bit funny that you can have a condenscending tone against me while defending a staunch racist and historical revisionist. I’m not “doubling-down; go ahead and defend him—the real “lost cause”. I see racism will not die with 77 from Wikipedia—you made that apparent enough.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Slick, I would not want to infer something that you did not mean to imply. Are you accusing me of being a racist? Because if you are, your denial that you are doubling down needs to be re-evaluated. In fact, you should be the one reading the Lost Cause article. It is the inclination of people to not be introspective and take responsibility for their part in conflict and the consequences of conflict that causes them to be embroiled in conflict again and again.

I don't know if Wikid buys into the Lost Cause mindset, but I do know that the subjects he touches are complex and fraught with controversy. I also know that the impulse to squelch discussion of those subjects with screams of "Racism!" is what will prevent racism from dying on Wikipedia because racism is not actually being dealt with. It's a lot easier to focus attention on someone with unpopular views than to really deal with Wikipedia's problems. So quit flying the Wikipedia banner. It's starting to look suspiciously like the Confederate flag. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

What prevents racism being minimised (it will never be eradicated as there is no shortage of racists) on Wikipedia is that editors who engage in bullshit like wikid's are indulged by a small number of apologists and it gives them the (false) impression their views are welcome and deserve a platform. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

On behalf of me and my fellow "apologists": Fie on your labels!Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• No ban per Wnt and others. As long as the discussion is not a directed personnel attack, nor a massive BLP violation, and the language is not completely whacked out BS of their own design, it is within reasonable talk page guidelines, and a ban or block is unacceptable. Maybe the speech is bitter and different to accept but sometimes you have to discuss hard truths. Unfortunately, too many experienced editors want to drown out any challenging speech because it doesn't meet their views, which is 100% unacceptable. --Masem (t) 04:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: too many experienced editors want to drown out any challenging speech because it doesn't meet their views, which is 100% unacceptable To whom does this refer? I haven't seen anyone explicitly say they want "to drown out challenging speech because it doesn't meet their views", so unless you can provide evidence for that kind of accusation it would seem you are the one engaging in unacceptable actions here. That's a pretty foul accusation to make against any experienced editor, let alone several unnamed ones, and accusations without evidence are personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Too many experienced editors" is a broad statement, I have no specific names only that discussions in places like here, ANI, AE, and elsewhere which is frequented by admins show an alarming state of the larger problem, which is a trend overall WP is suffering from. Even in this discussion, several of those supporting the site ban seem to be on the reason they don't like what was being said. It doesn't seem disruptive (on Wales' page which tends to be an open venue), not BLP or NPA related, so barring any other extraordinary reasons, the only reason to see out remedies would be to quiet a voice that is in disagreement. --Masem (t) 15:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I would call redirecting this to this disruptive, and certainly not in a "hard truth" kind of way. That's what tipped the scale for me, and it seems like people are missing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruption on mainspace is actionable, but I'm not reading that from those supporting a ban above but instead supporting the ban based on what was posted to Wales' talk, given this all started with a block based on content posted to Wales' talk. --Masem (t) 15:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, having seen the mainspace effects, do you think they are disruptive/actionable (especially with the additional context of the edits to Jimbotalk)? From your vote, I assume not. If that's a correct assumption, why not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hard truths," Masem? I suppose you're right about this. But it's also true that sometimes we must confront hard nonsense. And sometimes, to my mind, extraordinary measures (such as site bans) are appropriate responses. Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

77 argues that the ill treatment of slaves is imaginary and falls hard for the white nationalist promotion to diminish African American slavery by falsely claiming that there were actually Irish slaves who suffered the same indignities. Those positions certainly meet my criteria for "completely whacked out BS". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban per NOTHERE. He doesn't seem to do anything worthwhile except hang out at Jimbotalk. He should just join a discussion forum somewhere else.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban Wikid77 has a few folks lawyering for him that want this to be about free speech. In deciding whether 77 belongs in the wikipedia community, the main question is does he help or hinder us from writing an encyclopedia. It has been demonstrated that he argues for fringe theories -- not minority but fringe -- and cherry picks and distorts reliable sources. It's impossible to collaborate with an editor whose every word needs to be fact checked. Some people are waiting for Jimbo to join the conversation, but this [12] statement on a slightly related matter seems to be on point:

The bulk of the discussion below forgets the simple fact that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. We have the right and the ethical responsibility to ban people who bring evil world views to Wikipedia, or we are very likely to find ourselves with insurmountable problems. I have not looked into this specific case, but I think that in general, this notion that we can't ban people unless they break some already-written rule of Wikipedia is not consistent with our heritage or values. We can ban people for being awful human beings, and that's that.--Jimbo Wales

77 is bringing ideas about race to a very visible discussion page that are very arguably evil. These discussions have been going on for awhile now and 77 has posted on his own talk page, but he has not addressed the core of the argument against his continuing presence in this community. The only one who can possibly convincingly say what needs to be said (i.e. I had good intentions, screwed up, and won't do it again) remains silent. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a small class of editors who polarize and divide the community, about whom there is no consensus from the community, but who then continue to cause division and hard feeling. This editor is one of them. The community has really only two alternatives. The community can decide to stop the division by Site Banning the editor, or the community can [[punt (gridiron football)}punt]] the case to the ArbCom and strongly urge the ArbCom to take the case for deliberate quasi-judicial action. If the community cannot conclude that this editor is a net negative, the case should be sent to ArbCom. Therefore:
• Site Ban with the alternative of:
• Send to ArbCom Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Why do you always want to escalate these things in that very specific manner? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Two options are on the table: site ban and topic ban. Site ban is unambiguous, topic ban requires clarification. My reading is that the decision is between:

1. Unblock
2. Topic ban with the scope: race, ethnicity, slavery and Jimbotalk
3. Site ban

Questions:

1. Could anyone supporting topic ban above, who does not agree with #2 above, please clarify here what scope you would prefer?
2. Since the original question was either/or, could anyone advocating site ban but not discussing topic ban, please clarify if the topic ban would be sufficient?

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Given that I said Site ban (or indefinite block on the understanding that no admin will lift it without community discussion, which amounts to the same thing), first and only choice, I'd like to think it's clear that I don't think a topic ban is sufficient. As I say above, if this was an editor who genuinely had something positive to contribute, it might be worth discussing ways in which everyone else could waste their time monitoring his edits to allow him to continue contributing. Since not a single one of his defenders has responded with even a single example to my repeated challenges to demonstrate any constructive recent contributions from him (contribution history, "articles edited" section on his userpage, most-edited pages, if you want to have a go), I see no reason why we should go out of our way to accommodate someone who publicly espouses views that are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's core values. ‑ Iridescent 12:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• I support the topic ban I proposed above. I do not think a t-ban from Jimbo's talk is necessary; a race/ethnicity/slavery topic-ban covers the really problematic content; we don't need a t-ban to cover other forms of trolling, because you don't need to be t-banned from trolling to be blocked from trolling. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've not commented above,but I think topic ban will suffice for now. Their last block —before this —was about eight years ago, and although violation of topic ban was the cause for that block, I think we should give them one more last time for them to reconsider their behavior. If they violates the ban, then we've more reason to believe they should go than now, and if they comply with it, then it is a win-win situation for all. As per as concern with the scope of the topic ban, it can be as broad as necessary for it to be effective which will in turn constraint them to either reform (a win for the Project) or to hasten the siteban by violating the topic ban (still a win for the Project). Re: @Iridescent: No one needs to monitor their edits, I believe if they indeed violate the topic ban, someone must see it. I don't think that's an issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've not commented above, but based on what I've gleaned from the diffs and the discussion at Jimbo's page, this whole affair is having a chilling effect. WP is supposed to be uncensorsed - it's where we discuss issues, not site ban editors for expressing their views of history during a discussion. We can't sweep the truth under the rug - we need to discuss it so those atrocities will never happen again. I haven't had many exchanges with Wikid77 but they never came across to me as a racist. Good heavens, let's hope we haven't reached a point that simply discussing race has become taboo. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Forgot to add that I oppose 2 & 3 based on the evidence. 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme don’t pretend being a slavery apologist, downplaying the racism behind the word, “nigger”, and excusing it with the ol’ “my friends are black, so I cannot possibly be racist” trope is all in the spirit of “simply discussing race”.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue with you - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - WP is an encyclopedia and we don't ban editors because their views do not align with our own on a user talk page. If that were the case, we would not have any editors. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: In fact we do - pro-paedophilia activists, for example. The issue is that advocating for the Confederacy involves both being defiantly wrong, indicating an inability to properly follow sources, and creating a chilling effect, a hostile environment where people of colour may feel unwelcome, thus reinforcing systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: One of the sources Wikid77 used was Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America written by William C. Davis who is described as a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history with Civil War emphasis. He cited to it on Jimbo's page in this section. Our article on Davis has no controversy section one would expect of a Neo-Confederate historical revisionist. Are you saying that is an improper source? If so, please explain.

Also, if you are going to accuse an editor of improperly using sources, please provide diffs. I do not see those above. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? Read the Jimbotalk comments. After checking the facts, the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation and a series of confederate-apologist cherrypicking. David Irving also cited valid sources, it was his conclusion that was the problem. Same here. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation cannot be sustained from the material he presented and would require some strong sourcing, which I doubt there is. Without it, it's no more than WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. And as Alanscottwalker correctly pointed out here the same source contradicts his conclusion. So, why not ask Wikid77 for a source that gives that conclusion and/or use Alanscottwalker's quote? And if he gives none, then ask him to strike? It seems to me far more productive and creates a better editor than banning someone for articulating an opinion that can't be sustained by the WP:RS.

And for the record, I do think his polemics are unnecessary. However, I have seen many people get away with polemics about their personal opinions about all kinds of subjects on Jimbo's page and elsewhere without admonishment, saying things I know are patently wrong. I say, let's correct them if they have the wrong facts, wrong conclusions, etc. I think the problems can be handled without calling him a 'racist'. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We do ban editors who post hate speech per WP:HARASSMENT. This user has posted problematic things on his userpage during this discussion. Without a site ban this will never stop. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I just learned something I was only partially aware of, but then I was not aware that this particular editor fell into that mold. Atsme signing off. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Answer to question #1: I support the topic ban as proposed by Vanamonde93 on 16:16, 14 December 2018:

"Wikid77 is topic-banned indefinitely from race, ethnicity, and slavery, broadly construed. They may appeal this ban after a minimum of six months."

I do not see any need to ban him from Jimbo's talk page as long as he follows the topic ban. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• One month topic ban on the subject of American Slavery and the Confederancy. Not that I necessarily think that the things he's said warrant any ban; I also think its wrong to say that on their face they are racist statements and to call him a racist, but its appearing that the reason he's saying them is to provoke, rather than discuss. Even if I'm wrong about his motivation, I think he needs to spend some time reflecting on how he could have been less provocative in the way he makes his points Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• oppose block and ban as with Carrite and a few others, a sunday teacup storm of internet indignance, unblock him, tell him to watch his words and all get back to work, Govindaharihari (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Response from Wikid77

Copied by request from User talk:Wikid77... (Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC))

• Response from Wikid77: User:Wikid77 here. I'm sorry for all the confusion, and Cullen328 has posted specifics now about the various concerns over my remarks (see talk-page diff: [13]). In the case where my remark was termed "racist nonsense" about "yard work" then I should have linked the entry ('yard': [14]) in Oxford Reference (from Oxford University Press) to describe the workman as differing from a house servant as one working in the fields, but even then I saw many people did not want that issue discussed on Jimbo-talk as being too public a forum, especially for those unaware the field worker was a historic term, not a pejorative. In the 2nd case, I should have linked more sources, such as page "manumission" for how slaves could buy their freedom with regular payments, especially in Cuba. However, now after reading concerns at wp:ANI, I realize many people do not like discussing slavery on Jimbotalk and instead reach consensus on an article talk-page.

  "I honestly did not realize there were Wikipedians still here who had checked dozens of books about slavery and wanted to present only the majority viewpoints, rather than present a topic from a range of various sources per wp:NPOV even years ago. I had thought the missing page "Slave weddings" was a tedious omission, to summarize over 10,000 antebellum weddings from U.S. government records, but now I suspect various pages were purposely omitted from Wikipedia, and I need to learn who is doing this and what can be done to bring Wikipedia forward. I had imagined when discussing these pages at Jimbotalk, then someone might say, "Hey, ask at Wikiproject:Weddings" or such, but instead got blocked for "racist revisionism" [15]. Apparently all these slavery topics are tangent to WP racial problems or opposition to wp:NPOV. That might be why WP is decades behind in covering those topics. So tell friends to read specific outside sources, when Wikipedia omits a particular topic. --Wikid77 (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Someone is not aware of the Law of Holes. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That was precisely my thought, though I admit I was initially left speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

For me it's not the racism but the stupidity. A racist editor's relatively easy to spot and fence off. But stupid just keeps going and going and going. EEng 02:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Fact Check Wikid77 claims, "I had thought the missing page "Slave weddings" was a tedious omission, to summarize over 10,000 antebellum weddings from U.S. government records, but now I suspect various pages were purposely omitted from Wikipedia, and I need to learn who is doing this and what can be done to bring Wikipedia forward." Using what some people call the "Google Machine" I searched using "slave weddings wikipedia" and the fourth result was Jumping the broom. From that article:

Slave-owners were faced with a dilemma regarding committed relationships between slaves. While some family stability might be desirable as helping to keep slaves tractable and pacified, anything approaching a legal marriage was not. Marriage gave a couple rights over each other which conflicted with the slave-owners’ claims.[28] Most marriages between enslaved blacks were not legally recognized during American slavery,[29] as in law marriage was held to be a civil contract, and civil contracts required the consent of free persons.[30] In the absence of any legal recognition, the slave community developed its own methods of distinguishing between committed and casual unions.[31] The ceremonial jumping of the broom served as an open declaration of settling down in a marriage relationship. Jumping the broom was always done before witnesses as a public ceremonial announcement that a couple chose to become as close to married as was then allowed.[32]

Incidentally the first search result was Slave breeding in the United States. Clearly sex and marriage of slaves is covered -- another conspiracy theory bites the dust. Of course, the real reason this was even mentioned by Wikid77 is that he wanted to imply that somehow 10,000 sanctioned marriages was further proof of how great slaves had it.

There is an interesting article by a Princeton history professorat [16] that offers a perspective on what 77's POV probably is. In it she starts by writing:

WAS slavery an idyllic world of stable families headed by married parents? The recent controversy over “The Marriage Vow,” a document endorsed by the Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, might seem like just another example of how racial politics and historical ignorance are perennial features of the election cycle.

The vow, which included the assertion that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President,” was amended after the outrage it stirred.

However, this was not a harmless gaffe; it represents a resurfacing of a pro-slavery view of “family values” that was prevalent in the decades before the Civil War. The resurrection of this idea has particular resonance now, because it was 150 years ago, soon after the war began, that the government started to respect the dignity of slave families. Slaves did not live in independent “households”; they lived under the auspices of masters who controlled the terms of their most intimate relationships.

Using the same method as above, with this edit [17] 77 created a red link to black slaveholders black slaveowners which at least one of his supporters feels is significant. 77's obvious (to me) intent is to muddy up the waters on the link between slavery and white supremacy and pretend that wikipedia is ignoring the subject. What he obviously ignores is that black slaveholders is discussed in the main article at Slavery in the United States#Black slaveholders. Was this omission intentional or a sign that, for all his posturing, he hasn't even read the main article on the subject he is pontificating on? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question So what's the point of continuing this discussion? There is consensus that the indefinite block by Cullen328 has been endorsed: unless there's a successful appeal, anyone who unblocks Wikid77 is in violation of WP:NEVERUNBLOCK and may well be desysopped for the incident. There's no practical difference from a siteban. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Wikid77 has not submitted an appeal. There is no reason to reverse Cullen328's original decision until an appeal is submitted. We should probably suspend all further discussion on site ban, topic ban, or let it be until we get a response. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above is Wikid's appeal (read: "the block was in error because everyone just misunderstood me"). That it doesn't read as one for most people is in itself relevant. Let's not reward being out of step with the community by shelving a discussion that already demonstrates consensus for a site ban so that the editor can appeal a much lesser sanction (indef block by a single admin, even if subsequently community endorsed) six months down the road when there will be far far less attention paid to the discussion, and it can be much more easily derailed by cheerleaders or free-speech extremists. Let this discussion run its course and whatever the outcome it will at least be the closest we can come to a real community consensus.

Nyttend I'm concerned by your argument that a lesser remedy should invalidate the need for a greater remedy. The road back from the two are quite different, and the hurdle to clear to even get each sanction in the first place is different. If the community, in a fairly widely seen discussion, reaches consensus for a site ban, that is a much stronger basis than the community merely failing to overturn an indef made by a single admin. The community may also opt to go for a topic ban (which implies lifting the indef), though that seems somewhat unlikely based on the above. Given this, what possible good could be achieved by shelving this discussion? --Xover (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

time to move on?

Wikid77's reply above has not been treated as a formal appeal; in the meantime discussions continue here. User Kover has suggested that 77's response was a de facto appeal and anyone reading this should, IMO, read his post carefully. It seems the community has four options:

1. Do nothing and see if 77 decides to make it clear he wants to appeal. This appears to be what we're doing and it seems like the ongoing debate has about run its course.

2. Have an administrator treat the above as an appeal and take appropriate action on the appeal.

3. Have an administrator direct 77 to [18] which will show him how to submit the normal template to request an appeal.

4. Close all the ongoing discussions and treat the indefinite suspension (the original issuance of it was determined by consensus as appropriate) as the final word. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikid77 appealed or not is irrelevant. This is verbatim from WP:CBAN:

Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

So,

(1) Wikid77 was indef blocked by Cullen328

(2) The indef block was considered by the community, and was upheld

(3) Therefore Wikid77 is now "banned by the Wikipedia community"

There is no need for an appeal, formal or de facto, and no need for any further discussion. If Wikid77 decides to appeal his community ban, the community will consider it, not any individual admin, and the community will decide whether he should be unbanned, and if so, under what conditions. Invariably, this discussion will be referenced, and someone will bring up the possibility of a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page. That's all in the future, though; right now Wikid77 is most definitely community banned. To this effect, I will be closing this discussion. Please do not re-open it unless there is a policy-based reason for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reduce a block I placed

Six years ago, I found a proxy IP address, User:87.97.157.121, that was indef-blocked, and since we generally don't block IPs indefinitely, I replaced the indefinite block with a block of a define length: 9 decades, 9 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 49 minutes and 12 seconds. But now I'm informed that we shouldn't place long definite blocks either. Could someone reduce this block to whatever the normal time is for a proxy? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Creative abuse of policy! ;) I've unblocked, the IP address no longer appears to be an open proxy. Of course anyone is free to re-block if it turns out I'm wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Open_proxies suggests "several years" as a typical maximum. it's past the statute of limitations, but replacing an indef with a 100-year block is a :/ from me Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) : I edit-conflicted trying to unblock it. My research shows it is not an open proxy. 6 months would have been in any case more than sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I see that I misread something (I placed the indef), but regardless :-) Good to see that it needed the unblock. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper, this address seems to have belonged to a now-defunct ISP, so it may indeed have been an open proxy when you blocked it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

According to my calculations, this IP still belongs to the same webhost, and a neighbouring server, alpha.root.bg (http://87.97.157.120) is still up. That said, I don't see any particular need to keep it blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This thread is ironic. Last evening something led me to this page - Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs - and I messaged a few admins who had placed blocks within the last year. The responses were mixed, ranging from "yes, that was accidental" to that it's fine to leave proxies blocked indefinitely. Is there actual policy that these should not be indef? If so, there's a lot of work to do. Home Lander (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:PPP, I'd say; I've never seen it written out, but we've never indef-blocked IPs (as far as I'm aware), except open proxies and truly exceptional abuse cases, and it runs in my head that we've stopped indeffing open proxies in the last few years. (Otherwise nobody would have created the indeffed-IPs report, for example; there's no such report for accounts, as far as I know.) Maybe it could be added to policy, but I don't quite see the point, since policy would have a hard time encapsulating the oddball situations that really do need indefinite blocks. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's an enormous amount of work to do. There has been for many years. Policy (practice), I think, is fairly well established these days. And the written policy doesn't actually outright forbid indefinite blocks, or blocks lasting 100 years, but it sure discourages them. So any help clearing up these historical issues is welcome. But I'll tell you where there's a sticking point with some of the existing blocks - a number of indefinitely blocked open proxies are still open proxies, or at least webhosts, many years later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Closure of RfC: Nikola Tesla's birthplace

I would like to challenge the closure of this RfC: [19]

My reasoning is the following:

1. I feel that this RfC was closed prematurely. The closing editor also gives some grounds to that complaintment. To quote him: "The one objection that could be made is that the discussion was closed too early...". I indeed think it was closed to early, as no previously uninvolved editors had time to notice the discussion and join in. Only the editors that I have canvassed have participated.

2. I unintentionally made a case of canvassing here, and if you read the discussion, you will see that even the editors who disagreed with me in the discussion have pointed that out. I feel that it would be a good idea to have an opinion of a few previously uninvolved editors to fix the problem that I have created.

3. Although the RfC started by me posting one source, it was soon agreed by me and other editors that this souce can be viewed as OR or SYNTH. Other editors have asked for a specific source that I need, but when I have provided that source, it was hardly discussed. It would be a good idea to have some more time so this new source can be discussed. I see that almost no one reflected on the 2nd source, now when I'm rereading.

4. The closing editor didn't reflect on the new source at all, but had closed the RfC on the arguments other editors made about the 1st source, SYNTH, OR. The reason he missed to reflect on the second source may be in the chronological order of posts. If you read from the top to bottom, the discussion may look a lot different than when you read chronologically.

5. I feel that the request made by this RfC is pretty simple and it is my opinion that there shouldn't be that much opposition. I have tried to summarize my stand in the last post, maybe you can read that post first and then the whole discussion (if you don't feel that this would temper with the chronology) Bilseric (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• The RfC closure should stand as is. Bilseric indulged in original research to bring in a source that doesn't mention Tesla at all. And the source talks about something that did not happen until after Tesla left the area, so it doesn't apply to Tesla's life there in the Austrian Military Frontier. Bilseric should be aware of the danger of WP:BOOMERANG as his behavior has been disruptive, falsely portraying strong unanimous consensus against him as an unsettled dispute between two editors. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• It seemed an appropriate close to me; it was in SNOW territory and the close adequately reflected the comments of the participants. I get the complaint about people ignoring the second source you added later on, but you can hardly blame them. Modifying an already garbled RfC after it's been running for some time rarely produces the desired effect. In the future it will help if you make the RfC shorter and clearer with just one specific question. ~Awilley (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. It's my mistake, because I'm not that experienced. But what was really frustrating is that they were saying:"what you need is this and that source", and when I spent my time providing it , they didn't reflect on it. I can understand your explanation, but if the RfC was opened for a little more time, new editors would notice the new source. It is still frustrating to see the above post where the user User:Binksternet is reflecting to the old source, and neglecting the new one. If I could redo it, I would put the purposal as I put it in my last post. Would it be possible to leave this RfC closed and open a new one which puts a clear single purposal as I did in my last post? No one reflected on the 2nd source anyways in this RfC. Bilseric (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly possible, but not necessarily advisable to do it so soon after the first RfC. If I'm reading the situation correctly a lot of editors are getting fed up with all the noise you have been making about this. ~Awilley (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with everything you said. It is my fault for altering the RfC. That caused no one to put opinion on the alternative purposal (the 2nd source). I did it after I have accepted valid objections about the 1st source. I would really like that the alternative purposal is discussed, but I agree that opening this bulky discussion would be just be confusing to new editors. A better solution would be another RfC which is just putting forward the 2nd source that wasn't discussed in this RfC. I really am not in a hurry. It can be opened in a few months. It would be even better if someone else would open it, not me, if anyone would be willing to do it.Bilseric (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you have correctly observed that I was "neglecting" the second source. After your RfC purpose became clear to me, your arguments became unimportant to me. In a non-neutral manner, you want Wikipedia to describe a strong connection between Tesla and Croatia. Looking now, I see the second source has two problems: it's an outlier, different in its terminology than other books on the same subject, and the author says a page later that "the Austrians continued to operate the province as a military frontier." So it contradicts itself in calling the province both Croatian and Austrian. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please. This is not the continuation of the RFC. You don't need to repeat yourself or continue with the dispute. But, how can you argue that "The RfC closure should stand as is" and in the same time say this: " your arguments became unimportant to me.". If the 2nd source and my arguments were unimportant to you, we should definately allow others to participate. You are now basically arguing that only your opinion is important and that we don't need other opinions. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Bilseric (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Bomberswarm2

Bomberswarm2 (talk · contribs) has been blocked by 331dot as an apparent sock of Drowningseagall (talk · contribs), based on this diff. Bomberswarm2 claims that this is not the case. 331dot has given the go-ahead to lift the block if a mistake has been made. As I don't see any evidence of WP:GHBH, I feel the block is unjustified, but would like more opinions before lifting it. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 10:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Already investigated and unblocked; the evidence does not show any relationship between the accounts. Happy to explain my reasoning further if needs be. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not the correct place, but I just checked Drowningseagall (talk · contribs)s' talk page again (where he has again claimed that he is me) and it appears to me he only has a temporary ban for vandalism or something. As I said in my appeal, I couldn't find an appropriate place to report him when he started harassing me earlier this year, So I'd like to request here that he be sanctioned for repeatedly harassing me, stalking me and targeting and reverting my edits and claiming he is actually me.Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this obvious, actual sockpuppett of his just posted this on my talk page just minutes ago, I better report this to you before I'm banned again for no reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bomberswarm2#Now_THIS_is_EPIC Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The ref desk troll is out in force. Per usual all of the desks need protection and the edits need r/d as well. Any help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 09:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks taken care of already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenging close of WP:BLPN#Gavin McInnes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I challenge the close of the discussion at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard about whether the category "White nationalists" should be added to the article Gavin McInnes. I do not believe the closer, a non-admin with limited experience (3 years and 3,800 edits), properly assessed the consensus of the discussion. I request that the discussion be re-opened and closed by an admin or an experienced editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - It's a competent reading of consensus and the closer has sufficient experience. I would have also closed it as no consensus, not that that really matters.- MrX 🖋 00:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree on both points, but especially on the editor's experience being "sufficient". These was bound to be a controversial close, and should have been made by an administrator or a very experienced editor. Do you think that the closer's 3,800 edits in 3 years would have been sufficient for them to pass an RfA? Almost certainly not, and neither is his experience sufficient to close controversial discussions.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Serious question: how would you have closed it? Bradv🍁 05:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to answer, but first: why do you ask? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I ask because I don't see consensus there either, and not sure how else it could be closed. No one had edited the discussion in a week, so there's no indication that keeping it open longer would have helped. I'm wondering how you see it differently. Bradv🍁 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, erase the drive-by votes, which mostly came in at the end - do you see a consensus then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I see marginal support in favour of the category (especially if you include the non-bolded !votes and discount the blocked editors). But what I don't see is the requisite support in reliable sources for the category. Lots of search results for Gavin McInnes white nationalist, but we're lacking the is. Bradv🍁 06:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Can you cite why they closure may have been incorrect and what are the actual points that you are challenging made by the closer? Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, given the slight majority in favor of adding the category, and the fact that several of the "oppose" votes were essentially drive-bys, the factor given by the closer as determinative was the quality of the arhguments, and I think they simply got that wrong. To my eye, the arguments were relatively equal, if not slight better on the "support" side. If the arguments are equal in value, then the slight majority should have determined the close. I could be convinced that a close of "no consensus" was warranted, if the closing rationale made sense to me, which this one doesn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - Agree with MrX. The arguments are near evenly split between "he founded a white nationalist organization and sources call him far-right or racist (hipster racist apparently)" on the one hand, and "but they don't call him a white nationalist" on the other. I do question the choice to include [i]n my view, the opinions in group (b) and (c) are more strongly aligned with policies and guidelines in the close, particularly since no policy/guideline is cited alongside it. Despite that, I can point to several support rationales (Jytdog's most prominently) that don't come close to providing a policy/guideline basis or sources for inclusion. Jytdog cites two sources in support of his rationale, neither of which call the subject a white nationalist. Hell the Vox one out-and-out calls Richard Spencer a white nationalist, but not the article subject one. Moreover, sources have been provided showing he disavows white nationalism (e.g. Nblund's !vote) to counteract the claim. There isn't a consensus here, and "a slight majority" is a red herring. Discussions are closed on strength of argument, not number for/against (ideally that is). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• A subject's disavowal is hardly terribly relevant. How many racists walk around saying -- in public, to the media -- that they are racists? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse that actually looks like a good close to me. In summary while the subject's views can reasonably be described as white nationalist nobody was able to point to any sources which actually use the term to describe him. The relevant guideline says that a category shouldn't be included unless there is verifiable information in the article to justify it. As we are talking about a highly pejorative label on a BLP, we have to be particularly cautious (WP:BLPCAT). Given that I think the close is fine on strength of argument. Hut 8.5 12:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• (acknowledging my obvious bias: I commented in the discussion opposed to adding the category) Though I know such a close would definitely not fly, I think this honestly could've been closed as consensus against inclusion of the category, because "He's obviously a white nationalist" which a large portion of the support arguments boiled down to is not an argument based on sources, policies, or guidelines but clearly an interpretation of his statements (that I'd personally support but that doesn't matter) that thus violates WP:OR and even more importantly, WP:V, which is a fundamental policy. But a no consensus close that results in exclusion of the category is perfectly reasonable here, especially considering that the WP:ONUS is on those who want to add the category and there are BLP issues here, and even ascribing equal quality of !votes a slight majority isn't generally considered to be a consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• It is quite possible that the category in question is an appropriate one. However, the support !votes do not present this argument as convincingly as they could; certainly there are far fewer sources presented than I would have liked. I could not justify any other close here. Given that the article is a contentious one, yes, a non-admin ideally should not have closed it, but reversing a close purely for that reason is unreasonably bureaucratic, and I'm not going to do it. Vanamonde (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Given the community input here, I'm withdrawing my challenge to the close. Thanks to all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DCsghost‎

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

There's an outstanding unblock request requiring review at user talk:DCsghost, where Bbb23 just removed TPA. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a note at Bbb's talk ("is this what you meant?"), since removing talk page access and not-handling an unblock request don't normally go together. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy pinged me and Nyttend left messages on my Talk page. Hence my comments. I revoked TPA because of the disruptive unblock requests. At the same time, it takes more than what Dcsghost is doing for me to remove the unblock request, and as the blocking admin, I can't decline it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I've declined the request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it possible to change the name of my account so that it doesn't end with "Temp" please? 13:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Fieldhouse Temp (talk • contribs)

@Matthew Fieldhouse Temp: yes, but the easiest way is to just create a new account with your preferred username. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I tried but it wouldn't let me as it's similar to an editor without any edits. Matthew Fieldhouse Temp (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In that case, things become a little more bureaucratic. You should probably try Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom election results

They're in for anyone not watching that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Friendly discussion welcome at WT:ACE or user talk pages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies is a sad puppy. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Sorry Mr. Dr. mies💵Money💵emoji💵💸 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Oh my... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Is that "they" as in "the results" or "they" as in "not Drmies and especially not that other guy"? SemiHypercube 22:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Yeah, withdrawing from the election after that particular fiasco might have been prudent. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)Also, for your amusement, look at the net votes for GorillaWarfare. SemiHypercube 22:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC) As I said on Drmies' talk page, the results don't quite make sense to me, by which I mean that I understand the methodology used, but when I look at the raw numbers, the results do not seem to correspond well to my intuitive take on who the "winners" should have been given those numbers. This is the first year where, for me, I question whether S/(S+O) is the best metric to use; other years the results have made sense. It may be time to rethink our criteria for election. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Interesting...I only missed one in my win-place-show line-up. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Can we have a re!vote ? .... I'm genuinely surprised Drmies wasn't reelected tho ....–Davey2010Talk 23:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC) I think the key concern is the failure of Isarra to be elected Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Benjaminzyg Appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should you guys let Benjaminzyg welcomed back because he stopped sockpuppetery and he want his account back. I wish for lot of support on this one because I don’t want any bad comment on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.159.52.47 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks but no thanks. Tell them (haha) to go to their earlier account. User:Jenulot? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drmies, that account is globally locked so no one may log into it and they cannot send emails from it. Same thing for the account that he wants back. I imagine that he might could pull a Lazarus and be resurrected on the MrSunshine83 account which isn't locked....for what that might be worth.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aha. Thanks. Let's see if he's paying attention. Also, hell no. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that I can transfer my account into MrSunshine83 but will it be the same as Benjaminzyg account? I think a move is a very good idea.2001:8003:DC1C:9E00:D044:2E68:DF56:D78A (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Which-moron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Username probably violates policy and not sure he's here to edit Wikipedia. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2019:

• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Courcelles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2018:

• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining both CheckUser & Oversight)
• Euryalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining both CheckUser & Oversight)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining both CheckUser & Oversight)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2018 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Euryalus, Newyorkbrad

  Oversight: Euryalus, Newyorkbrad

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of Euryalus and DGG at their request.

The Arbitration Committee thanks DeltaQuad for volunteering to join the arbitration clerk team and appoints her a full clerk effective from the completion of her term as an arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 12:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 Arbitration Committee

Proposal to replace "Consensus Required" on American Politics articles

Since its conception in 2016 the "Consensus Required" rule has been applied to at least 123 pages in the American Politics topic area using the template {{American politics AE}}. The rule was originally meant to be (and is still) applied as a companion to a regular 1RR restriction. In its current form the rule reads:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

I propose that it be replaced with a less restrictive rule:

Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.

Rationale: The Consensus Required rule prevents some negative behaviors, but at the expense of blocking legitimate dispute resolution techniques like making new "bold" edits that address the concerns of the reverting editor. (See the "cycle" portion of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and the paragraph titled "However, don't get stuck on the discussion".) Freezing all reinstatements of similar material and requiring a clear talkpage consensus bogs down dispute resolution and article development, and it can even reward poor behaviors like being intransigent and refusing to compromise on talk pages (paraphrasing User:Aquillion [20]).

The bad behavior prevented by Consensus Required (slow or tag-team edit warring) is some of the easiest behavior for admins to identify and sanction, requiring only a glance at an article's history; the tendentious talkpage behaviors rewarded by it are much harder to identify and sanction. I think the Consensus Required rule would be better used as an alternative to topic bans or blocks, to sanction individual editors who regularly engage in 1RR gaming or tag-team edit warring.

Option 2: Another option is to simply remove Consensus-Required and leave just regular 1RR. If you prefer that please indicate so in your !vote. In any case I hope to make "Enforced BRD" an optional parameter in the {{American politics AE}} template.

~Awilley (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have pinged via edit summary all the admins I can find who have created the required edit notice templates while placing the Consensus Required sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried to ping the admins in that edit summary, but apparently you can only ping up to 5 people at a time via edit summary. Here's try #2: User:Lord Roem User:Zzyzx11 User:El C User:Ks0stm User:Doug Weller User:TonyBallioni User:GeneralizationsAreBad User:JzG User:Laser brain User:Ad Orientem User:Beeblebrox User:KnightLago ~Awilley (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support proposal per my comments in the previous discussion. The consensus required restriction has had some benefit, but it has also been used to WP:GAMETHESYSTEM. The BRD requirement is a good alternative that will allow articles to be improved while fostering discussion. Option 2 would be a distant second choice, but still preferable to a strict consensus required rule. 1RR alone could be abused by POV pushers and editors acting in bad faith, but those instances should be infrequent and can be dealt with at AE if necessary.- MrX 🖋 16:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• On the face of it, this seems to be an improvement, so I support it, but is this the right venue for this discussion? I would suggest it may need a wider audience. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG, it's either here or WP:AE. I raised this idea in a thread there a couple of weeks ago and it got comments from 7 editors and zero admins. As for audience, I pinged every admin I could find that has ever placed the sanction. (I'm assuming you're here because you got the ping?) ~Awilley (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had taken it to WP:VPP, as I counseled you to do at the time, you might have gotten more feedback. IN any case, this is not merely an admin issue; the community should be involved in this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right about getting more feedback at VPP, although it would have had to eventually bounce back here in order to effect any change. ~Awilley (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (I'm not an admin, but I don't believe this is an issue for only admins.) There is no rush. This is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need breaking news or the most up-to-date US politics. If it takes a week or a month to obtain consensus, that will likely make the article better both by discussion and the emergence of a wider range of secondary sources. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why 24 hours? This assumes that everyone required for consensus is on WP every day. Why not a week? Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the 24-hrs pairs nicely with WP:1RR and because most disputes can be resolved faster than a week ad don't need the input of all the editors of an article. BRD works well for resolving disputes between just two editors and any consensus formed by them can be examined and modified as other editors log on. ~Awilley (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support per above rationals. That said, Guy has a point and I'm not sure this is the best venue for the discussion, though it's not a major issue for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I may very well be 100% wrong on this assumption, but I was under the impression that edits in wording to Ds-related templates had to go through ArbCom first. I also echo the comments above that WP:AE would be more appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The process for changing these sanctions is outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Modifications_by_administrators. It gives 3 options: (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. Because these sanctions (including the template) were created by individual admins (not by ArbCom) it's not necessary to go through ArbCom to modify or remove them. ~Awilley (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I might be reading it wrong, but it seems the new wording could be gamed by an editor going to the talk page, engaging in some pro forma arguments, then reversing the reversion once the 24 hours are up. That sounds like a recipe for slow-moving edit wars. While imperfect, requiring consensus for new additions/changes, especially in sensitive topic areas, aim to encourage the kind of collegial editing environment we're striving for. If the concern is an editor would stonewall and refuse to budge, functionally trying to use the restriction and their objection to veto a change against consensus, then we have discretion to restrict said editor's involvement in the topic area. In short, I'm not convinced there's anything we're losing by maintaining the template wording as-is, and potential risk if updated as proposed. For those reasons, I'd currently oppose the new text. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: You you are reading it right: it does allow for the possibility of a slow-moving edit war, and that is precisely what I was talking about in paragraph #2 of the Rationale. (i.e. Slow moving edit wars are much easier for admins to identify and sanction than stonewalling on the talkpage.) Have you ever tried to sanction someone for refusing to compromise on a talk page? I haven't. It takes too much time reading through reams of bickering, and then you have to make subjective judgments because there's no bright-line rule. I think it's better for us to implement rules that naturally encourage compromise instead of rewarding stonewalling. ~Awilley (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I guess my sense is that the proposed change wouldn't achieve those ends and there's no evidence presented that the current wording has been detrimental. For sensitive articles in disputed topic spaces, 'freezing' or slowing down rapid change to await discussion and consensus, while definitely a lengthier process, is by all means a healthy one. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the consensus required sanction can be annoying but it’s clear what it means: be cautious and don’t just keep doing stuff without discussion. I like it better than any other formula that has been come up with to replace it as you are less subject to gaming or other types of disruption and if I come across American politics articles, I always intentionally use it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• I think the usefulness/necessity of consensus-required varies. On low-profile articles, it is not necessary, and it hampers article development as indeed one tendentious editor can stop article development, so I Support for most of the 123 articles the removal of consensus-required (preferred) or reduction to Enforced BRD (or even remove 1RR and all restrictions); there are quite a few low-profile articles on that list that IMO really don't need the restriction.

However I Strong oppose for Donald Trump per my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243#Rethinking consensus-required. The consensus-required restriction has granted a great amount of stability to the article. This seems to be criticized as "freezing article development"; however the Trump article does not need to be changed greatly on a day to day basis. What this would instead leave the door open is to more discussion and RfCs, because old disputes that have been settled are reignited as someone can now change, for example "false and misleading" to just "misleading" or "lies", without violating DS, prompting yet another talk page discussion. Or: the benefit of consensus-required is not preventing slow tag team edit warring but granting stability and preventing constant needless changes and disputes on a very very high-profile article like Donald Trump; and the system of Current consensuses with fixed wording that is hammered out over lengthy talk page discussion works quite well. After all, articles are meant to represent consensus and single editors should not generally overturn a consensus garnered through a wide RfC. The Trump article really does not suffer from intransigence, either; because one can easily garner a consensus within a day or two, one or two "bad" editors cannot do much to stop legitimate improvements. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, well, your comment here raises a few issues with this proposal: namely, discretionary sanctions are just that, discretionary, and even in those 123 articles, there are some where this is likely very useful. While Coffee did place this somewhat indiscriminately, others actually thought hard before applying the now standard AP2 DS in an area. Every article where I placed this on it was intentional, and I don't see any harm in keeping it, and would oppose removing them because we went a bit more active with the template than was necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly in many cases it is useful; however, I feel that in a lot of cases 1RR itself is quite enough to stop edit warring, and consensus-required adds some extra mental burden to editors editing an article that has to be justified. And certainly, determining which articles consensus-required is useful or not will require individual examination. So definitely, if consensus-required is going to be removed from some of the articles as I suggested above, it will be have to be a carefully considered some. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck strong oppose per my my comments here, which (if you don't want to read the wall of text), TL;DR down to: as long as it is clear that prior clear consensus's are binding, I'm not super opposed to changing to "enforced BRD". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning oppose I'm mindful of the problems with people gaming the system and with a small group of determined editors stonewalling or disrupting articles, but I'm also opposed to both of the so-far proposed fixes, which sends the message that edit warring is OK. We should be encouraging more consensus-building discussions, not less, and either of the above options turns these articles back to a bit of a free-for-all. The second change implies "You don't need consensus as long as you get enough friends together to ram through your edit war" and the first implies "The same thing, except wait 24 hours". I'd like to see a better option. --Jayron32 16:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not an admin, but I oppose any enforcment of something that is not a guideline or a policy. If BRD is deemed important, then it should be raised from the essay level and become a guideline. However, backdooring it into a guideline, like this is just wrong and would be a bad precedent. --Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: WP:BRD is not an essay. It is "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages" (core policy and editing guideline, respectively). The consensus-required restriction, on the other hand, does enforce something that goes beyond current WP policy or guidelines. ~Awilley (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Same difference. --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Awilley, ArbCom has basically made this proposal moot now. Most of the banners were placed by Coffee, who is no longer an admin, which means they can be modified by any admin. You could undertake a review of articles he placed under DS and selectively modify them as Galobtter has suggested. If you do, I would suggest having a workspace in your userspace where people can comment where they don't think changing the DS would be ideal. This also has the advantage of not changing the sanction en masse, especially when the admin who placed it is still active. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. My hope in starting this thread was that I could convince the admins who had previously placed this sanction of a better alternative and thereby preserve some uniformity in the topic area. In hindsight I wonder if selectively canvassing only the admins who thought highly enough of CR to appy it doomed this to go down in a pile-on. Sorry, that was rude of me.~Awilley (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those admins, I will not be removing any of the CR sanctions I have placed and will continue to use it with 1RR when I feel active sanctions are necessary. No one has come up with a good suggested replacement for it in any attempt in any topic area, and all of the proposed replacements are substantially worse (including this one.) If modifications were to be made, I think removing all active sanctions from specific articles where they are no longer needed would be much better. The issue with this sanction is that it was overused, not that it doesn’t work. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with autoblock

User talk:172.56.36.237 appears to be experiencing a cookie block. I've read through Wikipedia:Autoblock and Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking and I'm still at a loss as to how to determine where the autoblock is coming from and resolve it. Would having them clear their browser history work? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Autoblocks are anonymized so the ONLY way the user can be helped is if they follow the EXACT instructions on the autoblock notice. That notice contains information that will allow an admin to find and fix the autoblock, however the admins can only see it if they autoblocked user follows the instructions for requesting an unblock. The block notice that the autoblocked user sees contains a 7-digit number that admins need to find the autoblock. --Jayron32 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins needed

Could you please take a look at this matter --> User_talk:Borsoka#December_2018. Thank you! Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, if the admin vanishes after pulling off a 48 hour block under AE; sitting out the block is the most practical thing to do. AE blocks can't be overturned at individual discretion and a solid consensus of un-involved editors is mandatory for any amendment of the block-provision. That typically takes a few days to form esp. in non-brightline cases like this and before that the block itself lapses.

FWIW, that's a ridiculous block (2 of the 3 folks that Amanda referred to as ones who were not heeded to by Borsoka in his warring-edits, supported his unblock and wholesale-praised his editorial efforts whilst the other got rightfully T-banned in a separate thread, hours after). Hence, unblock.

Aggressive mopping in areas where nobody seems to have much of a problem among themselves is unwarranted.∯WBG^converse 21:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: your aspersions above are inappropriate. I did not disappear after the block. I posted to my talkpage and to Borsoka's talkpage, and as much as a WMF Labs server move and sleep allowed me to, I responded. Also, you only need to look at what the mess was before I got involved to understand that this is not "where nobody seems to have much of a problem among themselves". Also I have unblocked the editor at this point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir:, thank you for your assistance. I think DeltaQuad misunderstood the whole issue from the beginning. First of all, DeltaQuad did not recognize that two new editors (who had surprisingly detailed knowledge of WP policies) stirred up the edit war months ago. Instead of applying a topic ban, she tried to force other editors to build a consensus with them. Actually, I tried. I ignored their absurd restructuring proposal, but otherwise I took into account their remarks about the text. Secondly, DeltaQuad obviously believes that two of my edits are related to each other and I made the second edit to secretly undo a revert. However the two edits are totally independent, and they were independently discussed on the Talk page, nobody but DeltaQuad made a connection between them. Thirdly, I am convinced that both the two mentioned issues and her always changing explanations for the sanction against me suggest that she was at least negligent. So I would like to achieve the cancellation of the sanction, because it can any time raised against me. I also would like to persuade DeltaQuad to undo her revert: for the time being I cannot undo it, because I would be sanctioned again. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Experienced users got blocked but malicious activities by provocateurs left untreated for months. No one cared that the newly arrived users tried everything to ruin this article. They started endless content disputes (check the talk page history) and edit warring. The opinions of experienced users were totally ignored by other editors/admins and it seemed that the now topic banned provocateurs' aims were even pushed forward by accountable users. Let's take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_170#Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article how our opinions were completely silenced by User:Robert McClenon. After witnessing this ignorance and incompetence I have to say that I am slightly disappointed with Wikipedia.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was sympathetic to the editors who wanted assistance in "restructuring" the article on Origin of the Romanians and went to lengths to find them one moderator or two or three moderators. I thought and still think that this case illustrates the stupidity of the decision to close down the Mediation Committee. However, now that I see that my efforts to help are only drawing insults, I also see that User:Fakirbakir appears to be the sort of editor who leaves a wake of wreckage behind them. If anyone here is willing to try to mediate a dispute about Origin of the Romanians, mediation may still be an alternative to discretionary sanctions. However, the fact that there had been a suggestion that the mediation should be between two Hungarian editors and two Romanian editors maybe should have been an indication that the parties were looking for a compromise between nationalisms rather than to set aside their nationalistic tiff. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a Romanian, but I do not have advanced knowledge of the issue. I just know that there is an equilibrium/truce/stalemate between the competing theories. So I cannot be part of mediation. I saw my task as teaching the newbies the WP:RULES. Thereafter they could indeed cite policies and guidelines, but I really doubt that they have understood these. If they would have understood our rules, they would have behaved. They would have understood that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Also, some of their edits were pretty ridiculous, pushing extreme views and pseudoscience to the extent that I had suspected that they are Sockpuppet (Internet)#Strawman sockpuppets. Their aggressive, uncompromising attitude just does not make sense for Wikipedia insiders. I warned them about two months ago that they are WP:SPAs and they still did not tried to change that. I am also harsh and uncompromising, but only in respect to vandals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I highly appreciate your mediations and I am personally grateful to you for your hard work. However, I must say now that your above remark was offensive. You implied that all editors involved in the debate are narrow-minded nationalists because one of them (who had meanwhile been topic-banned) made a stupid, nationalistic proposal. Please remember that all other editors refused his proposal and I explicitly stated that if a two-to-two situation were required, I would choose a Romanian editor ([21]). On the other hand, I am grateful for the same remark to you, because it demonstrates an attitude (and bias) which enabled two trolls to play their games for months. Administrators who were approached either refused to intervene ("this is a content debate (among Eastern Europeans," they added in their mind) or started to throw discretionary sanctions without investigating the issue ("we administrators can apply discretionary sanctions, because you are Eastern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans are well-known nationalists"). Are you administrators sure that your power to apply discretionary sanctions relating to "Eastern" European articles still helps to improve WP, or it is only a pretext for you to ignore your duties in connection with the same articles? Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I've seen this same problem crop up in the past during my involvement in articles related to the Ukrainian crisis. There is a very strong tendency on the part of administrators to either refuse to enforce DS, for fear of getting involved in a dispute that's more trouble than they deem it worth, or try a 'both sides' approach, where hard-working longterm editors are forced to try and compromise with POV-pushing SPAs, regardless of what horrible effect that will have on our articles. It's for that reason that I supported shutting down the Mediation Committee...it attempts to force unnatural compromises to satisfy 'both sides', without bothering assess the value of each side's approach in line with our policies, resulting in articles that have a WP:FALSEBALANCE and are otherwise of poor quality. It is also for that reason that I submitted the AE request that I did, and I thank the administrators there for responding to it. However, what should've happened, in my view, is that the relevant SPAs should've been topic banned at a much earlier juncture. Specifically, Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) had the ability to topic ban Iovaniorgovan, but instead tried 'conditional unblocking', which was based on seeking a "consensus" that could not possibly be formed because of the nature of the changes being advocated by that user. The user was blocked again by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), but no one bothered to try and topic ban him. It took my AE request for that to happen. Administrators in these topics areas NEED to be willing to assess the nature of the advocacy of users like this. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. When unacceptable positions are being consistently advocated, when disruption carries on for months, administators need to avoid treating "both sides" in such a dispute as equal, when they are clearly not. That's my opinion...but, in the meantime, what's done is done. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, RGloucester, it sounds like bringing your request to AE was the right move to get attention to this problem. Admins frequently only know about problems when they are flagged and brought to their attention through a noticeboard. Personally, I understand editors and admins keeping their distance from areas of the project that seem prone to disputes that can be intractable. I agree that admins need to assess the motives (as much as one can) among editors pushing a POV, but it can often seem like a no-win situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I know it was 'right', but it was also somewhat of an absurdity. I have no involvement at all in this topic, and was only made aware of the dispute by Mr McClenon's posting at the Village Pump. Unfortunately, AE is so Kafkaesque in its workings that I fear that the average editor has trouble approaching it...or, perhaps, is afraid of receiving the treatment that Borsoka did. That's why I made an AE request...because, as an uninvolved party with AE experience, it was possible for me to do so...but given that administrators were actively patrolling this page and instituting various remedies to curb disruption there, I would've hoped for a more thorough response at an earlier juncture...and by that, I mean evaluating the effect that these SPAs had on the article. The whole so-called 'dispute' originated with them...and yet, the remedies used didn't address the source of the problem, and instead treated the situation as a 'content dispute' between two equally valid 'sides'. That's the problem that I've seen. But, in any case, I think it's time for us to put this behind us, and hope for more constructive editing at that article in future. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Do you have your admins right? I didn't block Iovaniorgovan. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, I meant Vanjagenije (talk · contribs). RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

All I want for Christmas is a troll blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Contributions/Icanseebob is a new sockpuppet/troll who's only substantive "contributions" have been to insult me. Appears to be WP:NOTHERE so can some Admin give him a lump of coal please. Merry Christmas. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Your Christmas wish is granted. -- The Anome (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you much. Spend enough time at AfC and Mfd and someone will get annoyed at having their work rejected or deleted. Merry Christmas. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/Ghgreen He made a new account Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tillusee and another Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PP 30 500 request

Please could Template:Pp-30-500 be added to Joseph's Tomb per ARBPIA. It has been the subject of a recent IP vandalism campaign. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• It’s a  Declined from me. Out of scope.  Swarm  {talk}  23:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Swarm, the article already has an ARBPIA editnotice, complete with You must be signed in. Do you believe that editnotice should be removed? Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: the last paragraph of the lead explains just how relevant this is to ARBPIA. It is a highly disputed site. The edits at hand ([22][23][24][25]) are someone changing the location from West Bank to Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in from the "other side" - the site is very much conflict related, with a number of battles/gunfights in the past 3 decades and a strong dispute over turf.Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It definitely falls within the remit of ARBPIA. Fish+Karate 10:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: You're right, my bad.  Swarm  {talk}  20:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Swarm. There has only been three IPs show up on this article within the last three days. That's it. The protection log shows that no one has even semi-protected since 2012. The current situation would get the article semi'd for 1-3 days at RFPP but no more. Why jump to asking for 30/500 level when nothing else has been tried?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  Swarm's argument is based on the article being out of scope for ARBPIA, not the fact that that there has been minimal vandalism to the article. I think it is in scope, but I agree there hasn't actually been much vandalism, and that to me it boils down to whether the extended protection should be applied preemptively or not - we do not usually do so. Fish+Karate 12:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  Note that the 30/500 protection decision, which appears in the penultimate section of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, actively prefers this protection level as a way of preventing IP editing (without any reference to whether the article's lately gotten disruption), and it links the appropriate use of this protection level with the appropriate use of {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}. This editnotice is already used at the Joseph's Tomb article. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  We may not go around protecting things, but usually someone pointing out an article for protection is enough for doing so, so I've protected ECP; additionally, while there hasn't been too much disruption/IP editing, that's because there hasn't been much IP editing period, and of whatever IP/non-500/30 edits there are, nearly all of them have been ARBPIA disruption; and Doug Weller already imposed the restriction here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 stipulates preemptive protection - not only that any IP or non-ECP user editing is violating an ARBCOM decision and may be blocked. The general prohibition is a prohibition of non-EC edits - disruptive or not.Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Move Sami language articles back

An editor unilaterally moved Lule Sami language and Southern Sami language to Lule Sámi language and Southern Sámi language. There was no discussion about these moves, but I think there should have been one. Now some of our articles use the spelling "Sami" and others "Sámi". I don't seem able to move these pages back to their original names, can an administrator move them back per WP:BRD? Rua (mew) 13:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Inari Sami language, Pite Sami language and Ume Sami language were also moved. Rua (mew) 13:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

'Now some of our articles use the spelling "Sami" and others "Sámi"' was already the status quo ante mess, but much worse. It's severely disingenuous for Rua to suggest I had anything to do with that mess, and my stark obvious intent is to eliminate that inconsistency in one direction or another. Rua was already informed [26] that I'm opening a WP:RM discussion about this, so this is basically just WP:DRAMA-mongering and pre-emptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Rua has yet to provide any policy- or source-based argument for why they prefer "Sami" or "Saami", and will have an opportunity to do so in that RM. "Sámi" was already the spelling used for the majority of our Sámi-related articles, but the spelling within them was veering around (even in the same article) between the three versions. I thus began routine WP:CONSISTENCY and MOS:CONSISTENCY cleanup.

A day later, Rua has raised a (very unspecific) objection that seems rooted more in failure to understand WP:EDITING and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policy than anything substantive, so I'm just proceeding to RM per normal (an objection is an objection, and I know better, of course, than to proceed with further related manual moves even if the objection hasn't been made clear yet). There is no administrative issue to resolve here. Rua clearly does not understand that WP:BRD is an essay and is not a mass-revert rationale. RM is the proper process and everyone else already understands that. PS: I really don't care what spelling is used, as long as it's consistent; I picked "Sámi" as already our majority usage and that of current reliable sources ("Sami" seems to be primarily a journalism expediency, like most dropping of diacritics, and "Saami", though more familiar to me, appears to be increasingly disused in current RS in English).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC); revised: 15:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tropylium: as someone who knows more about Uralic languages than I do. Rua (mew) 13:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

AN is not a forum for content debates. It's strange to me that you've been here since 2006, but do not yet seem to have a handle on the difference between an administrative noticeboard and an article talk page, or between a policy and an essay, etc. You've made a rather "content-free" procedural complaint, after being informed that procedure (the proper one) is being started already in response to your concerns, yet you don't seem to actually get WP:Process is important. That is, you haven't absorbed which process is what, and which ones matter for what reasons at what stages.

Next, subject-matter expertise about a language family has nothing to do with typographic compliance with the CONSISTENCY WP:P&G pages. Whether to use Saami or some variant of Sámi/Sami is a WP:COMMONNAME policy matter; if the latter, whether to use the diacritic is a standard RM matter (we use diacritics when RS tell us they belong there, and when RS in English use them with some frequency; we omit them when high-quality RS in English almost always do so). To present an argument pro or con any of that stuff, the RM discussion is the proper place for it, not this page, and pinging more people to "come to your aid" isn't going to do anything useful. If I were an uninvolved admin, I'd be closing this with at least a warning under WP:BOOMERANG against further misuse of administrative process pages to try to WP:WIN content disputes you haven't even made a case for.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Done - Regardless of the merits of the underlying content dispute (which should be reserved for the RM discussion itself), this does seem to be a perfectly valid technical request (though it should have been submitted via WP:RM/TR). While "needs discussion" is not usually a valid reason to revert bold edits by itself, it is not unreasonable or uncommon to object to and request community oversight regarding wide-ranging changes being implemented unilaterally, such as an attempted standardization of article titles in a subject area.  Swarm  {talk}  21:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Cameron11598 appointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Cameron11598 (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cameron11598 appointed full clerk

Huge backlog

at WP:RFPP. IWI (chat) 00:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleared it/responded to the open requests. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Uploading files without summaries and/or licences continuously

• Itsbasicallyaidan (talk · contribs)

Are there any practices in place for editors who continue to upload files without the respective copyright summaries and/or licences? Especially those who have received dozens of notifications on their talk page and still continue to upload them without the correct non-free rationale? The above user's talk page has 25 such notifications since March (that I can tell), and is still receiving such notices after they don't pay attention to them. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted contributions, I think a topic ban from image uploads is in order. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped them a final warning about bad image uploads. If they do it again, let me know and I'll indef them -FASTILY 04:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for that; I've got their talk page on my watchlist, so I'll let you know when I know. -- Alex^TW 06:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it might help to talk to this guy in text if the templates don't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have already posted on their talk page in a discussion manner concerning this topic, and the editor has edited since without replying to the message. The editor is also known for their disruptive editing, such as mass removals then going in the opposite direction the very next day with oversized additions, and adding unsourced information just because other editors have done it. Looking at their complete contribution history since January, they have only ever used a talk page (their own) once. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. >1,000 edits, one talk page edit, ever (and that was not a comment, it was the result of him moving a page), and only two edits to user talk, ever. This person is not engaged with other editors at all. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from image uploads. Looks like we have no choice. Miniapolis 22:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from image uploads - seems a fairly clearcut case. TBAN to remain for the longer of "1 month or when editor engages, indicates understanding of the issue and agrees to obey the requirements" Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• The easier thing to do rather than messing about with a topic ban would be to block the user until they acknowledge this issue on their talk page. Fish+Karate 12:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User has more than 1300 edits. They have uploaded 21 images which have been subsequently deleted (if I can count today, I ran out of fingers/toes, so it got complicated) and none in the last week. Blocking would certainly be easier, and I'm not wholly against it, but the topic ban seems more commensurate with the offense. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue has continued with File:MIB official poster.jpg. -- Alex^TW 00:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Report to the English Wikipedia community with respect to compromised accounts

Over the course of the last two months, over 60 accounts have been compromised by a known vandal. Amongst the accounts compromised were three administrator accounts. While there have been some variations in the behaviour of the vandal, the most common pattern is to log into an existing account, identify an image of male genitalia on Commons that does not appear on the Bad Image list (or alternately, to upload a new image of male genitalia to Commons using a non-specific image name) and then insert the image into a variety of articles that are either linked somewhere on the Main Page, or are otherwise high-interest articles. There is some evidence that the compromised accounts were "secured" with passwords that had been used on other websites that had been hacked.

Most of the accounts that were compromised had not edited in over a year; however, about 10% of them had edited within the previous 3 months, and a few had edited within the past week. While most of the compromised accounts focused on English Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons, a few of them also similarly vandalized or otherwise disrupted other projects.

While it appears that the vandal has *currently* returned to IP or new-account vandalism, there remains the possibility that this pattern could be seen again. Please note that the vandalism pattern itself is not unusual, and has been seen many times before.

What steps have been taken to minimize the impact of this vandal

• Administrator accounts that are blocked are no longer able to unblock themselves if someone else blocks them; this has been applied globally to all Wikimedia wikis. Steps have been taken to reduce the impact of "first mover advantage", which has the potential to be especially problematic on projects with few administrators: blocked administrator accounts can block the local administrator account that blocked first.
• The Wikimedia Foundation has instituted its planned changes in password requirements.
  • Effective December 13, new accounts now require a password that is at least 8 characters long, and is not amongst the 100,000 most commonly used passwords.
    • Please note that existing non-admin accounts will not be forced to change their password, but any future password change will need to meet these requirements.
    • All editors, regardless of whether or not they have additional permissions, should ensure that they have a strong password that (at minimum) meets the requirements of new accounts, and has never been used on any other website.
  • Effective December 13, all administrator accounts (and accounts with higher levels of permission, such as Checkuser, Oversight, or Interface Administrator) now require a password that is at least 10 characters long, and is not amongst the 100,000 most commonly used passwords.
    • Administrator accounts that do not meet these requirements will be required to change their password.
    • Administrators are encouraged to log off and then log back in to verify that they meet the new requirements
    • These requirements also apply to adminbots. Operators of adminbots are encouraged to log off the bot and then log it back in to verify that they meet the new requirements.
• Other local steps have been taken that have (to date) been successful in limiting the impact of this type of vandalism.

Things to consider

• It is likely that there have been other occurrences of compromised accounts unrelated to this episode, although without the same level of disruption. This is to be expected on a website with over 35 million open accounts, some going back to 2001. In most cases, the accounts would simply be blocked without further investigation. It is the frequency, nature of the disruption, and impact on administrator accounts that has resulted in an in-depth review of this specific series of compromises.
• Many experienced Wikimedians have more than one account. In many cases, this is an acknowledged secondary account that is used for testing or for specific functions, and it will not have administrator or higher permissions. In some cases, users may have accounts on a WMF-related non-public wiki or wiki that is not attached to the SUL process, such as Wikimania wikis or committee wikis, and may even use the same username on those wikis.
  • Users who do have more than one account are strongly encouraged to use a different password for each secondary or non-SUL account.
• The English Wikipedia Main Page is very rich and dense with links to the content of the encyclopedia. There are a lot of positive things to say about this, but there is also this situation-related negative: at any given time, there are over 100 high-viewership main page article targets for vandals (including this vandal) to attack. One of the ways to mitigate harm from these types of compromises and vandalism attacks is to reduce the number of high-value targets. Obviously, any consideration of changing the way the Main Page operates will take extensive community discussion and consideration, and potential for disruptive vandalism that has the ability to harm the reputation of the project is only one factor. The discussion about limiting editing of the main page to interface administrators was appropriately closed as "no consensus".

This is submitted in my personal capacity as the lead checkuser investigating these compromised accounts. Risker (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think everyone should be thanking Risker for her leadership on this issue while it was ongoing. It is hard to overstate how critical she was in our response to this and making sense of it, most of which took place behind the scenes for reasons involving the privacy policy and security. While I'm sure the community will have a lot to deal with going forward here, recognizing the effort that some of our volunteer editors have put in here is very important as well. Thank you, Risker, for this report and your efforts over the last month. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. There are several other checkusers and editors, as well as WMF staff in both Trust& Safety and Security, and a whole bunch of stewards who globally locked accounts, who were key to addressing this issue. I particularly look at the work of MusikAnimal - our paths crossed daily throughout this investigation, and he has done some really remarkable work. Risker (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My personal thanks to all those involved, especially Risker. Perhaps the WMF might consider that having millions of open but unused accounts is inherently a security problem, and that it might be better if unused accounts were automatically indef blocked after a reasonable amount of time, such as a year or two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The one thing I did notice when doing pretty in-depth reviews of all of these accounts is that many of them had good, solid edits over the course of several years, even if there weren't very many of them; in other cases, the accounts remained more active on other projects and had only a few edits on English Wikipedia. To "auto-block" unused accounts would require a major shift in the policy of the entire Wikimedia Foundation and its goals and objectives. We're a big project, but we certainly aren't the only one. Risker (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, very good points -- although perhaps a similar WMF-wide policy (i.e. no edits in any project for a set amount of time) would be something to think about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We want to try and encourage former editors to return to editing whenever possible, blocking their 'stale' accounts would create an additional hurdle to negotiate should they wish to return to editing; this would not be something I would support. Fish+Karate 10:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

+1. Fantastic write-up, though let's hope we don't have to experience this again. Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work, Risker and the WMF. Is this why I've been receiving emails for the past month telling me that someone is trying to access my account? I've seen those reports since November. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe this was a different incident. We had two instance of massive break-in attempts, in April and last month. I have never heard that any of the attempts was successful, they were probably used just to spread panic.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot also from me for investigation. Let me reiterate that in the case swift actions on Commons are needed (typically to delete an image used here for vandalism) the fastest way to achieve it is to ping several Commons admins who recently edited here (I am typically one of them, depending on the daytime).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

topic ban violation

Omegshi147 was topic banned from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, but edits articles on the topic. Retimuko (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not gonna stop anyone else from taking any action but I've left him a message on his page asking him to self-revert and to come here and discuss the matter.

He indicated on his talk page that he thought that this was a successful appeal, so I'm frankly running out of reasons to not block him.

If he does anything else besides revert his edits and come here with a good explanation, I'm blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson, I have seen the previous edits while this article was still a draft, and the work done by User:FlippyFlink was very well sourced and although contained some promotional language, could be easily fixed. When it was approved as an AfC, the article retained the previous version that was poorly sourced and was plagiarized from another website as evident from the edits made by User:David.moreno72. I believed that after all these edits, the article has a very high probability to be submitted for an AfD, scrapping the chances for a better written article from User:FlippyFlink to exist. I am sorry for my actions. omegshi147 • talk 00:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What part of that constituted a reason to violate your topic ban? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

After this, he went on to ask another user go carry out edits for him. If someone is is gonna block him, I'm not stopping them. Left a final warning that if he so much as mention cryptocurrency anywhere on the site he'll be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, this person is just not getting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this user due to the continued topic ban violations, even after the violations were brought up here and the user was clearly aware of the violations. If any admin believes I acted hastily, they are free to lift the block (perhaps with a warning that even one more violation will result in an immediate reblock). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs) 07:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The mass upload of related logos on commons confirms their unwillingness to move on to other areas of interest. c:Special:Contributions/Omegshi147 Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi, thank you for the pointer. I've deleted nearly all of their uploads; most were complex enough for copyright, and one simple one was clearly promotional. All that's left are a pair of stylized characters ("A" with two lines across it) that are in use at the Romanian Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, thanks for taking care of it. Now that most of the files are gone, the categories created by Omegshi147 are mostly empty & useless too. Cabayi (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Good reminder. I've deleted the empty categories. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of closure/input in SPI

Hi all, This may have been asked before, for which I apologise however it seems concerning that some SPIs have been left open since October(!) with no edits since, leaving the report go stale. I have asked for one I inputted in to be closed by an admin/clerk but so far nothing, but I admit it is a bit of a "new" thread at being roughly 2 weeks old, my last edit was a week ago asking for closure. Can I ask if there is any reason for this, or is it a sign on more clerks needed in this field? Thanks all. Nightfury 09:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D47817. The problem is that your evidence consists entirely of "Fails duck test", which is not very persuasive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, that can be justified in the previous reports in the archives. Still doesn't explain the mass of old reports on the main page though... Nightfury 13:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally and not necessarily to this specific case, I think it is Bbb23 who has said they wish WP:DUCK would be deleted since just citing it in an SPI with no evidence is both common and unhelpful. I usually skip all of the ones without diffs for me to look at (or at least some sort of explanation so I know what to look for when I’m poking around in contribs). I always look closer through the contribs than just the diffs presented, but we need evidence, and there’s such a backlog already that most active admins in the area aren’t going to go through a zero evidence report when even many of the ones with evidence presented take significant investments of time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Tony: Knowing nothing about the mechanics of the SPI process, what is a typical investment of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I second BMK's question, simply out of curiosity, having submitted a few different SPIs and always having found them resolved very quickly (within 2-3 days). Grandpallama (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jumping in before the CUs answer, we shouldn't lose sight of the investment of time by the report filers either. I've filed several and it takes at least 20 minutes for an easy slam-dunk report. Compiling diffs and following up on more complex ones can take hours. Just letting them die off isn't a good process. Bri.public (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've been there on the other end as well, Bri. A compiling a slam dunk report for even the most obvious ones can take 20-30 minutes if done well. If not going through an SPI, I can spend just as long looking at two accounts behaviorally before even getting to the point of doing a CU. Behaviorally, you need to be convinced that the accounts are likely enough to be the same person to merit a block. That requires comparing article interactions, edit summaries, use of language, use of talk pages, templates they like, etc. Having someone point out at an SPI what we should be looking for really cuts down on the time and is very helpful. It's possible for a complicated report to take over an hour to assess. Less complicated ones that are obvious can be done in 5-10 minutes. It depends, but because there are so many filed and we're all volunteers, it's going to be natural for us to focus on the ones where evidence is already presented. I know Ivanvector has also been concerned about the SPI backlog, and has been a clerk before, so he can probably give you a good perspective as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just closed the report, you can see my explanation there. The reason that I skip cases like this rather than closing them is that I presume another clerk is familiar with the case and will see it eventually, and that they'll know what is meant by invoking the duck test and will know what to look for. There are a handful of cases that I know very well and if someone adds a report then I know what to look for and can form a conclusion very quickly, but this is not one. I don't mean to say that the request is bad: sometimes when someone files a case they think is obvious it will pass the attention of a clerk who is also familiar, and it is actioned quickly, but it's also possible that what the filer thinks is obvious is actually not evident to whoever is first to see a case, or to anyone who is active. I suppose it might be a good idea for clerks to not skip these and either close or request more information more quickly, so that they move along. I'll consider doing that from now on instead of just passing on them.

To BMK's question: I can spend hours investigating a complex report, but first I need to see something that I think merits investigation. Maybe think of it as "reasonable prospect of conviction" although I personally hate that expression, but I'm not going to put in the time if I don't think I'm going to find anything. I don't think I can really give you a reasonable estimate of "how long it takes": some take minutes, others several hours, and I very often leave cases and come back to them sometimes days later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to both TonyBallioni and Ivanvector for the information. Is there anything the community can do -- other than making sure that SPI reports are as thorough as possible to begin with -- to help speed things up for clerks & CUs? Are there any mechanical or policy changes which would help? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Automatically rejecting any SPIs presented without diffs would help. Fish+Karate 10:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Question for Fish and karate (or anyone else with a view) - are diffs strictly required for an SPI, if the suspected socks are only editing a single article, all the edits are recent, and there are few other contributors? I've opened a couple recently (WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Flashg321 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amandeephacker) which fit this description - each of them have a couple of accounts adding identical spam links, with few editors other than them and myself reverting them. I'd assumed that it was best just to link to the article history, since it's pretty obvious; would it be necessary to actually list all the diffs where they have inserted the same stuff? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 13:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A fair point, change "diffs" to "context", you're right in that sometimes the article / user edit history is sufficient. Fish+Karate 14:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rejecting SPIs without diffs automatically, tempting as it is, would be a celebration of procedure over substance. For one thing, there are many inexperienced editors who file meritorious SPIs but simply don't know how to present them in the best way. There are also experienced editors who are unfamiliar with SPI who screw things up (I've seen admins do it). We have standard ways of asking for diffs when we want to, and if we don't get them, we often close the report with no action. Unfortunately, every case is different, and it depends on which member of the team (or an admin who patrols SPI) looks at the report. For example, someone may present no diffs, but because I am familiar with the master, I can see right away that the accounts listed are probably socks. As for Girth Summit's question, my belief is that the more obvious something is, the easier it is to present diffs. Presenting two diffs for someone who knows how to do it should be easy. Presenting contribution histories isn't particularly helpful; it's easy for us to click on the histories of the accounts involved. Finally, one thing some editors assume is that the person who evaluates a report where there is a history (an archive) of socking is familiar with that master. Filers should assume that the team member is not familiar with what happened previously.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear Bbb23, it wasn't the users' contribution histories that I'd linked to, it was the articles' histories. The cases only involved additions to one article each, and the worrying edits were all near the top of the histories; it wouldn't be a problem to link all the diffs if that's what reviewers would prefer, I just thought that in a case like that, a single link to the edit history would be simpler to follow up than half a dozen separate diffs all pointing to the same article's history. Let me know if you'd prefer diffs, I'll be happy to go back and amend the SPIs. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The presentation of evidence in those two cases isn't too bad. Diffs might make the disposition of the cases go faster. It doesn't require a half dozen diffs. If it's only two accounts, two diffs is usually enough if they're compelling.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• The time consumption of SPI case creation is brutal - the first one I did (of only two) was without a doubt the most difficult thing I've tried to do on Wikipedia. I can't imagine the complexity on the other side. Perhaps next year we should ask for some effort to be put into aiding the process for all parties involved (except the socks). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, twinkle has a module for it. It can cause issues if you have a broken template (or someone opens a second report on the same thing), but it is much easier in my experience than manually filling out the form. YMMV though. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• As long as we have the ear of a couple of CUs, I have a serious question. Almost all experienced editors have, I think, run across "new" editors that simply don't "smell" right. They arrive out of nowhere with in-depth knowledge of Wiki policies and practices, they create near-perfect articles with ease, they use all the right buzzwords in their edit summaries, and seem to have pre-established relationships -- good and bad -- with other editors. When asked, they invariably say that they edited for a long time as an IP. Pressing the issue can get one nicked for violating WP:Casting aspersions, but frequently these "new" editors don't leave an evidence trail -- i.e. they're either legitimately new, or they are very carefully avoiding covering the same ground they covered in their old identities.
  There's no evidence to report in an SPI report, and CU is not to be used for fishing expeditions, but the smell just doesn't go away. What do CUs suggest be done in those case? Just let it go? Keep a very close watch on on them, waiting for the "new" editor to make a mistake? What is best? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Here's what I recommend:
    1. set everything to paginate at 250 entries so you can see the big picture
    2. enable the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" gadget in Preferences→Gadgets→Appearance
    3. use XTools to see what the new editor's favorite articles are
    4. run those articles through the editor/article intersection tool to see who else likes those articles – or skim through those articles' history to specifically find editors who have been blocked for sock puppetry
    5. run batches of those editors through the editor interaction analyser
    6. save the most promising diffs generated by the EIA
    7. you now have enough evidence to get the entire sock farm blocked
  • For example:
    • Basilosauridae complains about RapGod2X at ANI
    • I look at RapGod2X's talk page to see what people have been complaining about, and I see he starts off suspiciously by denying that he's a sock puppet.
    • I see that RapGod2X has edited Jeff Probst recently. Don't need XTools to tell that this is an article he likes because it's one of his first few edits. He must have joined Wikipedia to edit this article.
    • JayMLGx2002 and Jasonlives71 have both edited this article recently, and their names are both crossed out (thanks to the gadget). Turns out they're confirmed socks of Fieryflames.
    • Load 'em up in the Editor Interaction Analyser: link.
    • JayMLGx2002, Jasonlives71, and RapGod2X have all made the same exact edit to Jeff Probst: 1, 2, 3.
    • Report at WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• NRP: Strangely enough, I had just gone through almost exactly that sequence of events -- the only thing I didn't do was use the article intersection tool, which I had forgotten about; I did manual searches instead -- with an editor I was suspicious of, only to turn up no evidence whatsoever. I thought I might have made a breakthrough when I found an overlap with a longtime puppet master, but when I ran that master's other socks nothing came up, so I dropped it as a dead end. I'll try the article intersection tool tomorrow and see what happens. Of course, it may be that the editor is a true newbie, but it's really hard to believe given their contribution history.
  Thanks for the answer! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

When I'm handling SPI cases, I pretty much ignore any case that says "WP:DUCK" and not much else. I often only have small amounts of time to handle cases, and given that there is always a backlog, I can handle more cases in my limited time by looking at ones with diffs rather than going digging for the diffs myself. It's nothing personal, it's just a reality of how I allocate my time. If you want your case to be handled more quickly, putting three or four diffs in (yes, that few, often that's all that's really required) will almost certainly get it handled faster than if you put too little (or, too much!) information in it. --Deskana (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

AdminBot request for editing protected users archived talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have already been using WOSlinkerBot to fix invalid signatures on users talk pages and archived talk pages. This has been mainly concentrating on pages where the signatures are changing the colours or font face and not closing the tag, so the rest of the page is in a funny font or odd colour. Now, all that is left are pages that have been edit protected, so only admins can edit them. So I'm asking for admin rights being added to my bot so that I can edit those pages as well and fix the issues with them. I could edit them with my own account but it would be better to edit them via a bot account. A few example pages with issues are: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Does anyone have any concerns? -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, yes. Every admin account presents a certain degree of risk in that it can be compromised and used to put dicks on the main page, etc. I don't think that this is worth it just to make purely cosmetic changes that have no relevance to our project's goal of writing an encyclopedia. Sandstein 10:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think that fixing the signaures of pages such as [33] is just a cosmetic edit and that you are able to read it easily without any fixes? I'm only asking for admin rights on the bot while I get those pages fixed and then I will ask for the admin rights to be removed again. I think it will be need for less than a month. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. ∯WBG^converse 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• The issue with making the changes with your main account was the high volume spamming watch-lists - how many pages remaining are protected? Knowing that would be very helpful in determining if it is necessary to have an adminbot for this; my impression from the error log when running User:Galobot was that the overall number of such protected pages with significant lint errors is in the range of few hundred (or less) which would seem too small of a volume to justify another BRFA and an adminbot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  I've got some lists at User:WOSlinker/user_lint. Ignore the items with over 100 in them as I'm still going though those. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sandstein and oppose per it being something related to bots on my watchlist, which means it is a bad idea as there is no reason any page on my watchlist should have a discussion about bots on it. BRfA is the place for this, not AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: the bot policy on adminbots specifically calls for this type of discussion at this type of venue prior to BRFA's. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess I’ll oppose for that reason every time then. VPT seems like a better place for this if the discussion has to happen. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I suppose your objections will be summarily skipped, then. Silly reason to oppose. Killiondude (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: I have great respect for you, I hope you know that, but I'm unhappily surprised by that oppose rationale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I’m aware I’m tilting at windmills here, but I think it’s worth it because people tend to overestimate the importance of bots/bot policy to the community at large. I would quite literally be fine with any bot that didn’t create articles (we have those) and doesn’t break anything. Beyond that I find discussions about the bot policy or bots outside of the pages devoted to them to be massive wastes of time that are frustrating. It’s a token oppose, but it’s a frustration worth raising in my view (and that I’ve raised in the past and will raise in the future on everything bot related I’m aware of, which, thankfully, is limited.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
          • But opposing this request which has been made in a policy-approved way because you don't like that policy seems petulant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Fair point, I suppose I can support this mainly because I don’t really care and it seems unlikely to damage anything. I would much prefer to remove AN as a venue for this sort of thing and stick it at VPT, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, rather strongly given the ridiculous nature of the opposition here. SD0001 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, subject to final ok by BRFA. Agathoclea (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Ofcourse WOS's account could be compromised but realistically what are the chances of that happening ?, I would support granting for say 3 months?. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 17:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The problem to solve seems to be rather a blatant misuse of the administrative tools. Pages like User talk:Keeper76/Archive 17 have been write-protected without any apparent reason, while policy says that full protection applies only to "articles with persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules". For this page, ADMINACCT is only a 9-letters word... from 23 September 2010. Pldx1 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Pldx1: Wikipedia:UPROT does allow for protection of userpages and these are usually given fairly wide latitude, though in general I agree that there is way too much of this, especially admins protecting their "own" talk archives. I don't think that fixing the readability issues should be avoided just because of that though. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt if there's any reason for 99.9% of these talk-pages to be fully protected anyway, so why not make a list of them and simply unprotect (or at least semi) them all using your own account (using AWB, is that possible?)? Then you can use the bot to fix them and have fixed two issues in one go. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Depends on the exact number of matching pages, I guess. It looks like there are around 3800 NS3 (User_talk) pages/subpages with protection level "sysop" and protection type "edit". SQL^{Query me!} 02:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Net positive. -FASTILY 21:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Not seeing any reason not to, hypotheticals aside. AIRcorn (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support for a limited duration - after looking at the provided examples, these should be fixed, and this looks like it should be a one time run to catch back archives from years past (if one-offs happen occasionally moving forward, we can just fix them manually/as they occur). Given that, I have no issues granting admin rights that are temporary/set to expire one the run is completed/after a certain time, which should address most of the security concerns raised above. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Black Kite's option as first choice, as I agree that the vast majority of these pages should not be protected, and the original proposal as second choice. I'd set the authorization to expire in 3-6 months. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, either solution is fine. I've done a few of these by hand before and boy is it annoying. ansh666 08:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as it's definitely to the project's advantage to fix up archives to make them readable. Just because something is archived doesn't mean it's no longer valuable, and I find it very frustrating when looking back at archives to find broken formatting often makes them very hard to follow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as someone who was trawling some archives today and was unpleasantly surprised by syntactical errors making the page difficult to read. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paddy Ashdown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an Admin please semi-protect Paddy Ashdown, who has recently died. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's a ridiculously high-volume of edits, but I don't see vandalism to justify semi-protection. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually I semi'ed it for two days in response to a request at RFPP.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:D123fo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wasn't even sure where to go with this one. This user has set up a redirect from the User page User:D123fo directly to a Wikipedia project page, Wikipedia:D123fo. In addition the user has submitted Draft:Deepak Kumar (actor) multiple times for AFC, however they are not making any improvements which has become disruptive and wastes the time of the editors who choose to review these articles. VViking_TalkEdits 15:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a SPI report. I will assess their edits.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely as not there. A number of block rationales might apply. May be a block evading sock as well.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

PS. I find it troubling when people award themselves barnstars.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For those admins using 2FA

For those admins using two factor authentication, here is an article from Amnesty International that you might want to read:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/12/when-best-practice-is-not-good-enough/

In particular, I would draw your attention to the "Fake Security Alerts Work" section.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Phishing is an issue all around the web. 2FA is designed to prevent brute force attacks and leaks, not technical ignorance or incompetence. Even then, if the phishing site isn't checking the validity of the account every ~30 seconds, 2FA protects against this, too. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent hacks (not at Wikipedia) have beaten 30-second 2FA using spear-phishing (where the emails are hand crafted from information known about the recipient in order to make the fraud more convincing). The high-quality fake websites, using https with all the bells and whistles, have fooled many victims in recent months. The moral of the story is to never enter your password or 2FA information unless you started from scratch on a computer known to be free from malware. That is, if you open a new browser window and navigate to the URL where you would normally log in, that is (we hope) ok. But never enter personal information after following links in an email or web page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Auto-selection of revisions to revdel

A discussion is underway about modifying {{copyvio-revdel}} so there's a link to the history with the checkboxes already checked. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I also just started a discussion on the talk page of that template about adding the link. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Prevent deletion of redirect

I know there's a bot that deletes broken redirects under G8 (the old R1), but what is its name, and is it exclusion-compliant? See the final section of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 22: someone nominated a redirect for deletion, and people are suggesting retargeting, but lately the current target has been deleted, and I want to ensure that it doesn't get bot-deleted before the discussion concludes. [The point is that a bot shouldn't override consensus to point the redirect somewhere else.] I've protected the redirect, hoping that the bot's been instructed to ignore protected pages on the grounds that they might be special cases, but obviously this isn't an ideal route (especially if the bot hasn't been so instructed). So how best to preserve this redirect until the RFD concludes? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The bot can delete the page even with the protection but you can use {{nobots}} to prevent so. See the conditions here. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Now unprotected and tagged with nobots. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Lojbanist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Raising this here as Galobtter raised it at WT:AfD today after a POINTy proposal to rename AfD and merge stiff with it, but I think it’s time to consider a TBAN for Lojbanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and making proposals. For anyone unaware of the background, Lojbanist has a history of disruptive behavior/fringe views as to how templates should work among other things and in the past and currently make POINTy proposals that have no chance of passing to prove a point. In the past this has included:

1. Trying to remove the stop sign from final warning templates after they were templated for using homophobic slurs in edit summaries: [34] (I revdel’d the ES, so cant diff)
2. Trying to get the speedy keep criteria changed after they nominated an article on the main page for deletion: [35] (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Painter)
3. Long-running hatred of the RM process involving templates caused by a template he didn’t want renamed getting renamed: [36], [37], [38] (background: [39], Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January
4. Proposing TfD and MfD get merged apparently because he didn’t like one of the participants at TfD: [40]
5. I have No clue how to even describe this one
6. And this proposal to delete Wikipedia talk:Sandbox

These are just the ones I’m personally familiar with, and I’m sure more examples can be found. I was originally writing this as a ban on starting discussions in Wikipedia talk space and at the village pumps, but looking through the contribs, it may need more than that. I propose that Lojbanist is banned from starting discussions in Wikipedia talk space or at the village pumps and I have no objection if anyone wants to come up with something else. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef/site ban per Marco and revi below and the nonsense on meta that has stemmed from this discussion. He's making en look crazy xwiki and causing disruption here and on multiple projects. His inevitable attempt to return should be on the community's terms, not his, and a block/ban is the only way to accomplish that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support though it is the season to be jolly, so a full ban from all editing forever would be better, given their biblical incompetence. Nick (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support They were KATMAKROFAN (talk · contribs) previously and it's the old name that readily reminds me of their subpar behavior then. This talkpage archive shows the myriad of warnings and blocks they received then before they were unblocked conditionally. Since it continues now, this topic ban is necessary as a first step. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  After seeing the latest disruptive behavior and their subsequent quitting I believe topic ban is now useless. So I am changing my Support to indefinite block. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's this: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RFC: Move stubtypes (and categories populated by templates currently on TFD) to TFD, and also at least two RfCs at CSD, and also a nomination of the TfM template for deletion. I'm mobile right now and will provide links later. All within a couple weeks, if that. I don't oppose the discussion of ideas per se, so I hate hate hate the idea of a topic ban for starting any discussion in project space. Also, I don't think one can actually do much work here successfully without the ability to do that. BUT I am very concerned that this user is not following the instructions to start a talk page discussion before jumping into an RfC. That's disruptive. I would admonish the user to start a discussion before starting any RfC or before nominating any project related page for discussion, on pain of block. Big block. --Bsherr (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I almost cited the CfD one because it looks to be a part of their long-running disruption in the project-space area around templates (see their block log or just randomly change their contributions to template/template talk and see the edit warring and yelling at people through edit summaries), and given their past with proposals surrounding templates, I suspect it has some basis in a dispute that they were on the losing side of and are trying to change the procedure to be like they want it. The CSD one is slightly better, but I think if you look at the bigger picture here, that is 4 or 5 project space proposals in a period of 2 days none of which look particularly likely to pass, 2-3 of which were POINTy proposals based on their previous template-space disruption. The bad faith disruption to good faith bad idea ratio here is way too high. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Agreed. So we need to do something about it. But this kind of topic ban has the effect of banning this user from obtaining consensus. So now what, the user boldly edits instead and waits for someone else to revert and start a talk page discussion? Or you ban the user from editing in the project space at all? Tools based bans like this always have negative externalities. It is unworkable. If you think a sanction is warranted now, go with indef. --Bsherr (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, I wouldn’t oppose an indef block per Nick, as they’re a net negative to the project in my view, but I thought we’d try this first, but if someone were to propose it I’d support with more diffs about their inability to work in a collaborative environment. It also isn’t unworkable, in my view. Are they really going to unilaterally remove well-established policies or move them on their own? I see no history of that. This also doesn’t prevent them from taking part in discussions, just starting them. I’m not sure what you mean by tools-based ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I mean tools-based as in "you're not allowed to use X on Wikipedia", as opposed to "you're not allowed to edit X subject matter". You see no history of bold edits in this user because they've used RfCs and nominations instead. But if you take those tools away, nothing prevents the user from making bold edits instead. That's why I say tools-based topic bans don't work. An example: Here's one I reported myself for a user leaving anti-WP:AGF user warnings. Over my support for a block, the community instead topic-banned from using UW templates. Now the user does this. Is this really better? And I don't think topic bans like this actually serve Wikipedia. If one can't use project talk pages properly, one shouldn't be here. That's why I would prefer a warning or block. --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indef-CIR block with SO--Esp. that he is KMF's new edition. See my posts, below.∯WBG^converse 17:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• My proposal (ahem) of a topic ban there was somewhat rhetorical but I do Support. One could narrow it to just "proposals"; i.e if they want to ask a question they can do so, but the line between what is a proposal or not seems too blurry for them to figure it out; one could exclude from the village pumps the technical pump to allow them to ask for help there. Extending it to deletion discussions would have to be considered; their record at AfD noms is not horrific but many are poor/POINTy (especially recently), as I said at WT:AFD and speedily kept, and mostly they are along the lines of "not notable". Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT-y. Topic-banning me from one of the most important areas of Wikipedia, just because I did dumb things last year? Get some Christmas spirit. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 19:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  reply the problem is the dumbness continues everlastingly. In fact, this very oppose smacks of it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Wow, just... wow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. This response on my talk really shows that they don’t get the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support These proposals are a waste of community time, and as shown by his response to this, Lojbanist either doesn't understand or doesn't care. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• support Lojbanist has made a lot of very meaningless proposal especially in XfD venue Hhkohh (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I have decided to retire from the English Wikipedia and focus more on enwiktionary and simplewikipedia. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 20:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support and suggest that the topic ban should include a prohibition from listing any page for an XfD for some period of time (say 9 months). Just by looking at Lojbanist's recent edit history I see a number of problematic XfD nominations that have resulted in or are headed for the "speedy keep" outcome. Here are a few of those: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community bulletin board, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keqin Li, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daft Lucario, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Oad. The first of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction, is particularly problematic, as, shortly after listing the article for an AfD himself, Lojbanist attempted to close the AfD (for his own AfD nomination!) as "restore redirect". At the time, apart from the nom, there were just two other !votes in the AfD, both "speedy keep". His closure was reversed, and he then withdrew the nomination and closed it again as "speedy keep". While this was happening the Social media addiction page had been nominated for GA (by an editor who expanded the page from a redirect). Lojbanist quickly reviewed the GA nomination and declined it himself, with a pretty strange rationale that does not actually address any of the WP:GACR criteria. The article was probably not ready for a GA status (and the editor who expanded it from a redirect is currently blocked for a block evasion), but Lojbanist's closure of the GA nomination with the rationale "article (ahem, hijacked redirect) created by SPA who is using Wikipedia as a web host" was not appropriate. I think that Lojbanist is a well meaning editor but rather overeager and does not have a good understanding of how some basic WP processes, particularly XfD, are supposed to work, and he is creating too many problems as a result. Therefore a TBAN along the lines proposed by TonyBallioni, plus from making any XfD nominations for a while, seems to be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point I would support a standard indef block. I also think that renaming should be reverted and links to his talk/user page from various WP namespace pages be restored. RTV was not and is not applicable here given the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:CIR and the "I quit" during this discussion does not impress me. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Really? Personally, I've NEVER seen that happen before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indef What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. - there's rage-quitting, and then there's going through all your talk comments to remove links to your user page (presumably with an unauthorized bot). I'd had my concerns with this user, but wasn't ready to support an indef. But if they're this keen to leave, there's no way back without requiring some agreement with the community when they desire to return; hence an indef is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really an unauthorized bot per se; unlink is a function of Twinkle. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment how did an extended user accomplish a user-name change?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Because renames are handled globally, and a new renamer who isn't that active on en.wiki and is not on the mailing list yet handled it (I alerted the mailing list neutrally of this discussion when I saw all the vanishing summaries and the entry in the feed, but it crossed paths.) I am personally of the opinion that he is not eligible for vanishing under these circumstances, since he isn't exactly in good standing, but it was handled before any internal discussion amongst the rename team. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I also support restoring the signature backlinks (per WP:SIGLINK) and think it may be prudent to consider having the vanishing undone per WP:VANISH's requirement of good standing (I see being under discussion of serious sanction as not being in good standing) as well as this provision "Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. [emphasis in original] It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions." as the user, in their own words desires to "focus more on enwiktionary and simplewikipedia" making the vanishing not temporary which arguably makes it to avoid scrutiny/sanctions. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm in favor of reverting the rename if possible, WP:VANISH specifically only applies to users in good standing and yet he's using it to get out of an active topic ban discussion. The fact he even stated that he wants to move over to other WMF sites makes it even more problematic. Also, we seriously need to consider limiting the backlink deletion function of Twinkle to administrators, you can do a lot of damage with it in a short time. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and/or indef. Is there a reason User talk:KATMAKROFAN was deleted? Perhaps it should be restored? Ping to admin who deleted the talk: Edgar181. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, this was a reasonable deletion — the point of prohibiting user-talk-page deletions, as I see it, is that we don't want to delete discussions, and no discussions got deleted. Here's the entire deleted history:

(diff) 20:18, 23 December 2018 . . Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0 (talk | contribs | block) (98 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD U1). (TW)) Tag: Removed redirect
(diff) 06:47, 30 March 2018 . . Jmvkrecords (talk | contribs | block) (50 bytes) (Jmvkrecords moved page User talk:KATMAKROFAN to User talk:Lojbanist: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "KATMAKROFAN" to "Lojbanist") Tag: New redirect

• So therefore deleting it would be the same as deleting User talk:Lojbanist, which has no history other than getting moved after the account was re-renamed. All discussions are still in the history of the page, which is now located at User talk:Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0. Obviously it's now a redlink in the discussion pages that link it, but so is the userpage link; I don't see any reason we absolutely need to retain it. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I remember seeing dubious proposals from KATMAKROFAN and am puzzled that there were no talk page discussions, but so be it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, see User talk:Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0/Archive 1. The user inappropriately requested that the archive be deleted (at the time, it was at User talk:Lojbanist/Archive 1, and the request was granted; I've now undeleted it and moved it to the latest title. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--I fail to see why the redirects of KMF were deleted, as this creates a lot of misleading red-links. And, TonyBallioni, (that you have the GR hat and might be a participant in any concerned privileged discussions) why was he renamed? That he plans to work at other wikis (and is still working) and that there is an express prohibition against using renames to avoid scrutiny (of which both of his two renames are textbook examples), are two solid grounds to disqualify any diva-request.∯WBG^converse 05:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• And, I note this gem. ∯WBG^converse 05:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fantastic demonstration of why they should not be able to start proposals (and they misunderstand the reason for and the scope of the topic ban being proposed too). Anyhow, I support a indef block/ban now per WP:CIR and their quitting of the 'pedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• • @FR30799386 and Galobtter:--If we are talking about his off-en-wiki exploits, check his edits over test.wiki and test2.wiki (that got him blocked months back). Also see this brilliant proposal and the same pointy behavior over here (read the 1st oppose). This idea is yet another gem and I locate the same crying about admin-abuse over meta.
  • This can be interesting as to his behavior and leaves a scope for assumption that he is not plainly trolling.∯WBG^converse 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Winged Blades of Godric, the rename request was pretty non-descript and it was processed by the newest member of the renamers team who is not on the mailing list yet. There was no discussion before it was approved. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support -WP:CIR block per [41] — fr ⁺ 08:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction while reviewing the AfD nominations of the day. I decided to take a closer look at the history when I noticed that something was off. In light of this discussion (and especially Legacypac's remark), I have now realized that every action at the page in question was wrong and disruptive. Less recently, he also started a proposal at Talk:List of chess variants to split all chess variant articles to an external wiki. Same problem as the nominations above: over-the top action.
  It also seems to be time to piece together this discussion into a single TBAN proposal, so I will start:

  Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing in the Template, Template talk, or Wikipedia talk namespaces; or from initiating or closing any proposal, request for comment, or nomination, including (but not limited to) deletion discussions, in any namespace. Furthermore, with the usual exceptions, Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0 must adequately explain, via edit summary, any substantive changes to article content, and may not mark edits as minor; an uninvolved administrator may undo any changes that he/she believes to be in bad faith.

  The proposed ban is indefinite because the user has been banned before (see the block log for details). The part about the "substantive changes" does not reflect historical behavior, but we need a way of vetting good-faith changes such as [42] and discouraging disruptive acts like [43] (which reflects the misuse of the minor edit tag); it reflects User:Bsherr's concerns about the initially proposed ban.
  I understand that this act may be controversial, but you are free to offer any suggested changes to the above. Good night. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• At this point, I'm more inclined to support the total indef block/ban with the standard offer available in six months per the norm (if he ends up going for that, we can consider a partial unban with the topic ban on proposals kept in place at that time), given the behavior shown in response to this discussion. I'm also quite annoyed that multiple global rename requests were accepted and processed, complete with local user page redirects getting deleted to further obfuscate things, despite the fact that this user has had many behavioral issues in the past. Finally, it should also be noted that he's gone ahead and requested a global account lock over on Meta, which I've noted to the stewards is in response to this discussion in case they were unaware. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  We generally do not lock account on their own request (unless some specific situation). — regards, Revi 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support (Talk, VP & RM) TBAN - I think the TBAN needs to also cause RM. I DO NOT think an INDEF has been warranted by the behaviour and evidence indicated thus far. While I think the editor has been grumpy in response to this discussion they haven't shown any of the red flags - editors should not be required to prostrate themselves to community justice to warrant the lesser of two hopefully effective actions. I could be wrong. But easier to increase than decrease our actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Rename undid per m:Special:Permalink/18737019. — regards, Revi 15:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban although a sitewide one per Revi (oldid) above. Seems WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Would prefer starting with a topic ban unless problems are larger than the noted area. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Shashank5988, he's currently trolling stewards on meta to try to get them to globally lock him since they won't and he ran a script to try to vanish in the middle of this discussion that removed all links to his signature and requested to be globally vanished in violation of WP:VANISH on both meta and en. Add to this his previous issues with interacting with people and penchant for referring to vandals and people he disagrees with by homophobic slurs (admin only edit summaries: [44],[45], [46]) I don't know what much else he could do to reach NOTHERE status. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly, what TonyBallioni says above. There have been too many recent problems with this user in too many areas. Just in the last week we've had inappropriate XfD closures, an inappropriate GA review closure, and the current shenanigans here and on Meta with violations of WP:VANISH and related issues. An indef/siteban is appropriate under these circumstances, and the user should only be allowed to resume editing on en-wiki on the community's terms, after a thorough discussion, after owning up to prior problems and explaining how he'll do things differently. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban I've held off commenting since I couldn't be bothered looking at the evidence to see if a siteban or topic ban would be best. But I've seen enough now. Editors sometimes do rash stuff when they feel aggrieved but the time this editor's actions are a whole other kettle of fish. Anyone who would waste people's time in the ways this editor has is simply not someone who should be welcome here. If they want to leave so desperately, then go ahead and leave and don't come back. Even if they've calmed down now, there's no way of knowing how long this will hold. They lack the temperament and basic concern for others that is needed for a collaborative project. Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban Just based on the level of DISRUPTIVE and GAMEey behaviour in the last few days. Inapproriate attempts to vanish that were disruptive, and then the global lock situation which is a clear attempt to evade sanctions. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban by whatever user names they're using Renaming during a discussion such as this is just too bizarre. Plus all the other bizarre acts. Too much theatrically dramatic disruption. note to subject of this discussion-- a CBAN applies to the person regardless of usernmae or nom du voyage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  This all sounds familiar in terms of absurdity. A psych major conducting breaching experiments.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban because he's become overtly disruptive with all of his dramatic nonsense. Natureium (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Need for action on en.wiki?

• I'd suggest you unclose it and get it properly concluded: he intends to return m:Special:Diff/18740244 and I can think of a reason he would create a sock. There's currently nothing preventing him. — regards, Revi 19:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lojbanist is currently blocked, which means that any IP he creates which edits will be evading that block. It seems unlikely that any admin will unblock a globally locked account, since it would seem like reasonable grounds for de-sysoping. Of course, if we need to make it official, we should go ahead and doit, but it seems a bit BUROish to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, he’s actually not blocked on en.wiki. He’s locked globally as a compromised account. Technically he’s free to create a new account under global policy, and he hasn’t formally been sanctioned here. I think this is revi’s point: under the strictest reading of policy, he could create a new account. It is also exactly why I thought he posted his own password in order to force a lock: it’s a way to try to evade formal sanctions against the person on en since the account can no longer be logged into. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the correction, I see that you are correct - I'm not sure why I thought he was blocked here. Clearly, given your explication of his actions, and the evidence presented above, action needs to be taken regarding this editor, who now seems less clueless and more deliberately dangerous then he did previously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The editor had a 31 hour block sometime during this discussion, it was why they definitely weren't in good standing when renamed). But it has expired now. Maybe that was what confused you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• That's probably it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up and block him. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that theoretically he could contact the WMF trust and safety team and get his account restored, although they'll probably have a stern talking to at minimum for him considering he got his account stolen through accidentally publishing his password during his aforementioned ragequit. I think we should go ahead and close this out with a site ban considering there's pretty clear consensus to do so considering his ongoing behavior. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need a little help with a redirect

I just moved NK Posušje to HSK Posušje in order to match the actual name of the team as used in the press, but the correct move was to HŠK Posušje - I missed the Š. If I had included the Š properly, I would have not been able to move the page because of the redirect. Can someone please:

1. Delete the HŠK Posušje redirect and move HSK Posušje to HŠK Posušje?
2. Explain to me how I can do this myself going forward?

I'd be much appreciative. SportingFlyer talk 21:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done with a page swap. For future reference, SportingFlyer, the place to make uncontroversial techical requests is WP:RM/TR. Doing this page swap yourself would require you to have page mover status. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Issue with Bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been having some issues with a sockpuppeteer under the umbrella name of Dremorasimpson16 creating socks and vandalizing articles. When I got into this creating SPIs and asking for CUs, I found that Bbb23 was the original blocking admin. Since this point, I have had to do a few more SPIs and I am required to ping Bbb23 by rules. It's annoying because a new sock pops up about once every other week, but I gotta do it. Rules are rules.

These are obvious socks, so these are easy blocks. In this last SPI (direct link: [47]) which I started on December 12, I added another obvious sock for SPI and CU. This time, it was Demorea20...obvious sock. Again, per rules, I pinged Bbb23. This was December 12. The mere mention of his username, using the {{u}} template, should have popped up a notice at the top of the screen. Bbb23 continued to edit after the SPI was started, no action was taken.

I'll be honest, even I forget about it with work and Christmas. Not until the 27th when the Demorea20 account popped back up on my Watchlist again. I again posted, using the {{u}} template, to the Demorea20 SPI asking for assistance. Nothing from Bbb23. I also, at the same time, posted to his talk page. Again, no response. The next day, Sir Sputnik blocked and tagged the sock. Clearly seeing it part of the existing SPI list.

Now, I will admit, I took Bbb23 to task after this, but I was also looking for a reason for his actions. His actions allowed a clear and obvious sock to continue vandalizing the project and he took no action to stop it. None. All I got was reverted with the edit summary "don't post on my Talk page".

Clearly there is some ongoing issue, whether it is with me or him, I don't know nor care. Unfortunately, he and I will have to work together because of this sock and these are easy blocks so our time working together will be extremely short. I'm asking for the community's help here because if Bbb23 isn't willing to stop an obvious sock and vandal over whatever issue this is, perhaps he doesn't need the mature powers of being an admin. I am really hoping it doesn't come to that and you all can talk some sense into him. Clearly I haven't been able to. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49 on December 29, 2018 (UTC)

• Just so you know for the future, there is no rule that requires you to notify the blocking admin at an SPI. Some editors ping the admin in the hope that they will get faster attention than through the "normal" process, but it's not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is an extremely useful admin and dealing with socks is a tedious and thankless task. We are all volunteers and there is no requirement that everyone be satisfied. Even if there were an issue, the solution would be to workaround it. Stop pinging him and find another way of dealing with the problem. A discussion here might find someone willing to do some long-term protection and/or duck-sock blocking. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• The answer here seems to be for you to file behavioral SPIs where more of the SPI team can look at it rather than repeatedly bothering one member of it. Admins and functionaries can never be forced to use their tools, so complaining about Bbb23 ignoring you isn’t really particularly useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I never knew that you were obliged to ping the blocking admin for a repeat offender at SPI! I share the OP's frustration to an extent though—not with Bbb23—but with the general notion that SPI is a slow process. It is very ineffective if you are caught in a "whack a mole" situation, which inevitably leads to frustration and admin "blaming". If the edits amount to obvious vandalism then I have found that WP:AIV yields a much quicker response. However, if somebody is determined to edit at Wikipedia there is very little to stop them, apart from the "nuclear" option and turning off anonymous editing. If there is a particular group of articles that are being targeted then pending changes and semi-protection are much better long-term options IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither did I. I found with SPI that eventually a number of admins and editors will pick up on the case and keep an eye out. In one particular case that kept poping in my watchlist I always found that by the time I noticed, that sock it was already blocked. Anyway never a good idea to bite the - potentially currently only - volunteer that might be able to help you. Agathoclea (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK, so it's not required to ping the blocking admin. I've always been told to ping the blocking admin per rules, but whatever, we'll table that. There is still the MUCH larger issue of Bbb23 being notified (via ping and 13 days later a talk page post) about a sock and doing nothing to stop it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:36 on December 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • Get real. If you choose to report something directly to a single admin and they don't respond, you need to take it to a broader forum. Admins are volunteers and not obliged to do anything. It's also the Christmas and new year season, when many people are away from home and/or busy with other things so it's a particularly bad time to be relying on single admins to be available. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: Did you read what I wrote or just decide to be snarky? He was online during Christmas (it isn't New Years yet, so you can't claim that) and this has been going on since the 12th (he's edited daily since the 12th as well). Also, this was part of an SPI (ie: broader forum) and him being an admin, his talk page has talk page stalkers (broader forum) and my bringing it here is to bring this entire thing to a conclusion (broader forum). So, please read the entire thing before commenting. How's that for "getting real"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:13 on December 30, 2018 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:VOLUNTEER. No position here is paid, and no one here has any obligation at all to work on any case, article, or with any editor. If you don't get a response with one admin after a reasonable period, try asking another one, or asking in a broader forum.

• • • • You simply can't compel anyone on this project to take an action. CU, admin, or editor. SQL^{Query me!} 07:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @SQL: My issue isn't that one editor didn't take immediate action, stuff gets overlooked (I even admitted I forgot about the SPI), but after a second ping and talk page mention still did nothing. That's what is concerning. Volunteer means nothing when you have active vandalism going on and you an admin and you know about it. Your "job" here is to stop that. If you don't want to do that, then you don't need the "job" you have volunteered for. That's my issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:14 on December 30, 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Count Iblis NOTHERE case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prompted by comments and responses in the Wikid77 thread I did some looking around and have come to the conclusion User:Count Iblis (Contributions) is WP:NOTHERE.

Jumbo Wales, whose talkpage is referenced herein.

-EEng

Surely you mean Jimbo Whales, EEng?

-FlyingAce

No, he meant that other one with the hat

-Martinevans123

• At the top of their talkpage we learn "Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there." and "Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds."
• They basically stopped contributing to mainspace 6 years ago. In 2018 they managed just 5 mainspace edits against 329 total edits. The previous 5 years are not much better. [48] A focus on the Refdesk [49], Jumbo Wales Jimbo Whales talkpage and AN(i) with no effort to improve mainspace is NOTHERE.
• He said: " I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. " [50]
• Comments at AN around racism are reprehensible with "we have to acknowledge that he isn't a racist himself." (except many editors have found wikid77's comments to be racist) and " former racists" have turned on other targets... link and " the real Adolph Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power" [51]. Most concerning he directly linked a Hitler speech Youtube hosts but restricts in a way I've never seen before (seems to be commentary on our NOTHERE policy).
• General stupidity about Wikipedia operation like [52] [53] and editors [54]

Propose an INDEF of Count Iblis for WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think this may be an inappropriate forum Legacypac, ANI I think would be better. The Hitler video post (WTF?) I believe could be interpreted as an 'incident'. Copyvio and other issues, like sanity. Copy and paste it there methinks. Simon Adler (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (strike my oppose; this is looking worse and worse power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)) I haven't been thrilled by some of their edits, but supporting WP:IAR and not being particularly active are definitely not sanctionable. The "he's supporting an editor I think is racist, so he's also racist" argument is also very bad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

However, Legacypac has buried the most sanctionable concern. If there's evidence that his claim I have often given fake citation is actually true, a block would be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Simon Adler (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally discussions about longterm behavior come to AN. I take him at his word he has used fake cites. I'm not saying he is racist because he supports one but because he posts racist stuff himself. If he was making useful contributions to mainspace there would be a bigger case that he has a purpose here but he does not seem interested in building the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at some of their "recent" mainspace contributions. The worst referencing I've found is [55], which links to a TV show I can't access that says it's "recent research". Edits like [56] are only slightly problematic; it's unreferenced but is generally straightforward math. The claim that this is an "ancient Indian algorithm" does need to be referenced; the "ancient Indian" part has since been removed. I'm not sure why 1 − 1 + 2 − 6 + 24 − 120 + ... is an article at all, but oh well. The Vitamin D edits do seem to be him pushing a point of view that isn't necessarily backed by sources; but none of Legacypac's comments seem to suggest anything regarding a medicine topic ban. In this case, topic bans are extremely likely to be counterproductive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Not seeing any justification for a site or topic ban. The reasoning behind this request seems to be extraordinarily weak.--MONGO (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Further elaboration seems to indicate an issue of concern so awaiting explanation by defendent.--MONGO (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I find the Hitler video and it's background context and comment accompanying it to be highly concerning. I can't view the clip as YouTube says it is unavailable in my country. But if it is footage of a Hitler speech giving an Anti-Semitic rant, with the accompanying comment of Hitler saying that Jews are NOTHERE - which appeared to be the gist of it - then I would be highly pissed off, and no doubt the community would. If it is more nuanced, such as a parody video, then it still deserves a massive trouting. It would seem to show the editor has poor social judgement at the very least. Simon Adler (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler - it is the first case exactly as you laid out, historical footage of Hitler with English subtitles where he says Jews are not here. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

yep just saw the video, I concur with LP and I am highly pissed off. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's siteban shit. It makes 77's issues look positively mild. Fuck that. Simon Adler (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted that comment by Iblis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of ANY valid reason to post a Hitler video in an AN discussion. That post is what got me looking into this user. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've watched Count Iblis' activities on Wikipedia for a long time, and it seems to me that he has never been here to improve the encyclopedia, that his only purpose is contrarian argumentation. I'm not even sure he believes all the b.s. he's spouted over the years, or if he just enjoys stirring the pot for its own sake. From his involvement in the User:Brews ohare situation back in 2008 or 2009 through to his statements in the Wikid77 discussion above, including the video he linked to, Count Iblis has simply never had the betterment of the encyclopedia in mind -- or the well-being of the community, for that matter -- just whatever perverse gratification he gets from what he does. It's really well past time that the community dealt with him in the only appropriate way, which is the show him the door with a NOTHERE indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per nom and Beyond my Ken. WOPR (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• COMMENT - I would ask any Administrators watching to check out this diff. It is linking a Hitler speech (I cannot view it due to YouTube copyright regs in the UK) with virulent Anti-Semitic content to some purile WP:NOTHERE justification. The editor seems to be making an implicit connection with Jewish Wikipedia editors. I have never seen a Nazi era video linked to a board discussion. I would ask you to examine, and take any necessary action as you see fit. Simon Adler (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems pretty clear the video was meant to show demonization of the outgroup in the extreme, as in what the commenters were doing and what Hitler did relied on the same base psychology. Supportable. Speaking of psychology I'd encourage those eager to join the latest 'Nazi' burning to research the history of witch burnings and reflect. D.Creish (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose for now. I think the outrageous comments in/around the Wikid77 thread has a lot of people [understandably] running a bit hot. There seems a world of difference between the kind of arguments that wikid77 was making and what iblis is saying. Linking to a Hitler video was a bad move, but it was obvious (to me anyway) that it was not actually an expression of support of Hitler (in the way that wikid77 actually persisted in his racist lines of argumentation) but a hyperbole/joke relating the subject to WP:NOTHERE. Bad taste, bad form, problematic... but falls far from making the case for WP:NOTHERE. I should say that I think my only interaction with Iblis was this thread a few years back, where I was arguing for him to be tbanned from the refdesks. At the time I found/find his general wikiorientation to be trying (with wikipolicy and community norms seemingly just beneath him). However, I would want to see a lot more evidence than this for a NOTHERE indef. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I want to see a smoking gun, preferably five or six diffs of it. Perhaps editors cannot deliver this because he hasn't many mainspace edits, therefore the point about tricking WP:OR warriors is quite moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What I see here is intimidation of and retaliation against Count Iblis for his testimony opposing aggressive action against Wikid77 in the above thread (permalink). I was threatened too. How can Wikipedia decisions be based on consensus when witnesses are threatened with blocks and bans for expressing an opinion not shared by the majority?

This kind of coercion is no doubt why Count Iblis made a comparison to Hitler, as explained by D.Creish here. People compare others they disagree with to Hilter so often, that one of the Wikimedia Foundation's prominent attorneys, Mike Godwin, created Godwin's law:

If an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

Now, instead of declaring his comparison to Hitler as Reductio ad Hitlerum, ending the discussion, or ignoring it, you want him banned too? Please. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That is absolutely NOT why I filed this report. I saw a Hitler video posted and found an editor that is Not Here to play by the rules of Wikipedia. Legacypac 07:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone have diffs to support the fake citations claim? That would be a pressing problem. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

From the filer who wrote:

• He said: " I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. " [57]

I do agree this is a problem if he has done it, and should be confronted about that. Interrogated about when he did it, fix them, promise not to do it, again, etc. Let's keep in mind that was posted a year ago. Why didn't anyone say something about it then? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

He posted it in a non-high profile area, and we don't know if anyone said anything. Given the low number of mainspace edits, he may be talking about the ref desk. Maybe he can explain if he is lying or telling the truth. Either way it is a problem. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is problem either way that he needs to address. If he refuses to acknowledge it is a problem, refuses to strike that post with an apology and/or refuses to correct any fake citation he made, etc., then I would support some kind of action against him until these issues are addressed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor behaves in a way that worsens division and polarization in the community. This case should not be closed out as No Consensus, which will simply come back in the future. Either the community should impose a Site Ban, or the community should punt this case to ArbCom and hope that ArbCom is willing to run with the football by conducting a quasi-judicial inquiry. Either ban this editor or let the ArbCom consider whether to ban this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - While the video linked is in extremely poor taste, it strikes me as more of a case of Godwin's law in action, rather than an actual racist tirade. Well, it has been a good 17 years, but Godwin finally got us. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block I agree with those users who interpret the Hitler YouTube link as a case of Godwin's Law rather than a direct racist comparison of other editors to Jews, etc. However, I disagree with (some of?) said editors regarding whether comparing other editors to Nazis in any capacity is acceptable. It's what (ultimately) got Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) / Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) indeffed, and what definitely should have got Catflap08 (talk · contribs) site-banned (and would have probably done so had it not been for two or three wikilawyers defending him for their own reasons). Not only is this user casually throwing out the accusation "You sound like Hitler!", but he admits on his user page to rejecting all of our policies and posting fake citations? This is the kind of behaviour I'd expect from an already-banned editor posting about Wikipedia on Wikipediocracy or WikipediaSucks.com, not here. (I should note that I believe most of the editors who are arguing that it's "Just Godwin" are merely playing devil's advocate and are not themselves at fault, but David Tornheim (talk · contribs), given his behaviour in the Wikid77 discussion and other places, appears to be deliberately ignoring the context, and I fully expect him to ignore Legacypac (talk · contribs)'s clear elaboration that the Hitler video was not the only reason this report was filed, similarly to how he ignored ... well, pretty much every other time I've seen him corrected on something, most recently further up this page with regard to Wikid creating racist redirects that had since been deleted.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction. Yep, I think that video is more a "This is what you're sounding like" comment than racist in itself (ie a Godwin, as others have said). I find it very bad taste, but is there a pattern of comparing others to Hitler or is it (along with his other comments in the Wikid77 thing) a one-off during a heated discussion? I don't see where anybody has shown a pattern, and a one-off does not deserve a ban as a first response. He says he doesn't follow Wikipedia policies? Is there any evidence that he actually does not follow polices, or evidence of a faked reference? If not, then it's just a bit of hot air on his talk page, and that does not deserve a ban either. Let's not turn this into a witch hunt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I'm quite appalled by some of the supports Wikid77 has had, but a response of trying to root out all of his apparent supporters would be a heated over-reaction here and would be getting dangerously close to an attempt to eliminate dissent (and you know who else did that, right? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Joe McCarthy? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  That's the guy ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - A few years ago, there was an editor (can't quite remember who it was) who had a swastika on his/her user-page. The community forced him/her to delete it or be site-banned. A tricky topic to be sure - because A) Wikipedians don't have rights, but only privileges & B) Were we being intolerant by not accepting intolerant symbols? GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Related to your b) point, that is covered in the paradox of tolerance. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Evidence is convincing that he doesn't need to be here anymore. --Jayron32 16:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – I concur with Boing regarding the Hitler video. As for the rest, do we actually have proof that there are any fake citations? For all we know, they could have been trolling with that post (again, not ideal, but not worth a tar-and-feather response either). –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban on the basis of the Hitler video issue, and the admission to fabricating refs. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Also their statement on their userpage that they encourage people to violate AE enforcement decisions is troubling. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boing! and others; I agree that linking to that video does not seem to have been intended as Nazi propaganda. As for the statements on their talk page, an editor is allowed to express dissent so long as they are not actively disrupting things, or actually organizing and encouraging groups of editors to break the rules on purpose (remember WP:IAR is a thing). And to the suggestion they deliberately fabricate references: I see no evidence of it. The comment Legacypac linked to seems to be in the context of providing a reference for a mathematical proof developed from referenced information which Iblis felt did not thus require its own reference: the method of developing such a proof would be verification in and of itself to someone versed in the topic (WP:BLUE but taken to an extreme). That might fall broadly into a discussion on original research (considering Iblis mentioned appeasing the "OR warriors") but does not seem to be a broad endorsement of fabricating references to support false information, more like fabricating references to shut people up. That's not great, but the worst I can say about the comment is it reads like an expert in a subject trying and thoroughly failing to explain the situation to a general audience. In summary I don't see anything that warrants a siteban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector, I'm not supporting this as I think it's disproportionate but how is Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds. not "actually organizing and encouraging groups of editors to break the rules on purpose"? ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Because they're not actually doing it. Or at least there's no evidence of such an organized movement, just the usual haphazard assortment of trolls. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, much as it pains me as I do think Count Iblis is a textbook WP:NOTHERE case. This differs from the Wikid77 case in that 77 continued with inappropriate conduct after being told it was inappropriate. In the absence of evidence that Count Iblis has done something inappropriate after being asked not to, it's too much of a jump to go straight to banning—given how long he's been doing this kind of crap without being called out on it, it's plausible to assume he genuinely thought the rest of Wikipedia considered him some kind of court jester and was deliberately allowing him to do things that would normally be considered disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• This. Count Iblis is basically a NOTHERE, largely unfunny version of EEng. I dare say that most of us don't pay the Count much attention, and he probably realizes that. Perhaps that is why his explicit endorsement of anti-Arbcom anarachy has not previously caused much angst. I think he's harmless enough that we could probably ignore him, but he's also technically disruptive enough that we would be justified in trying to rein him in. It's probably not going to have a huge impact on the pedia either way, which makes me wonder if I wasted my time writing and revising this comment. Oh well. Lepricavark (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's quite stressful being a community byword, let me tell you. EEng 09:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be an insult. I think you play the role of Wiki-jester quite well, and I believe you are good for the sanity of the community. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunset Boulevard Ready For My Close-up.png

All right, Mr. Wales, I'm ready for my closeup.

-EEng

• I would never dream it was an insult. It's just part of the cross I bear that the community doesn't appreciate the sacrifices -- the personal trainers, the facelifts, the lonely hours of practice and meditation, the mobbing by paparazzi. EEng 15:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - What next ? ... Are we going to ban myself, BMK, MarnetteD and many others for having the "Ignore all rules" banner on our talkpages ? ...., To a certain extent the Hitler comment is problematic but as far as I can see it was one comment ... they're not referring to everyone as Hitler on a daily basis ...., I'm not seeing anything that remotely warrants banning, blocking, sanctions, topic bans or anything else that I've not thought of. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of WP:IAR, which says

  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  In other words, it's not intended to be blanket permission to ignore every policy, guideline or rule on every occasion, but, instead, to make an evaluation of whether a rule is standing in the way of an improvement, in which case one is empowered to ignore it. That isn't an invitation to anarchy, it's a way to ensure that rules don't impede progress. On the other hand, what Count Iblis is saying -- and, worse, encouraging in others -- is anarchy. His statements

  Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there

  and

  Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds

  would, quite literally, if adopted by all editors, lead to complete anarchy on Wikipedia.
  Quite possibly, Count Iblis considers that possibility, of anarchy on Wikipedia, to be a good thing. I -- and I believe that vast majority of Wikipedia editors -- do not. We recognize that freedoms and responsibilities must be balanced, and that structure is necessary to ensure the continued existence of Wikipedia. We already spend much too much time litigating disputes between editors, and Count Iblis' version of an anarchic Wikipedia would increase that overhead tremendously. We'd be spending so much time ironing out disputes that no one would have any time to actually improve the encyclopedia.
  No, Count Iblis simply is not suited to be a Wikipedian, and his statements make that abundantly clear. Add to that the fact that he doesn't actually do anything to improve the encyclopedia (whether you agree with its purpose or not, there is no argument to be made that the Ref Desks improve the encyclopedia in any way shape, or form; they are purely an ancillary activity), and you've got a very strong argument for their being NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• On the face of it, this doesn't seem like such a big issue. But (and of course there's a but), this isn't the first time Count Iblis has done something like this. This discussion brings up pretty much the exact same issues in 2015, and it led to a voluntary ban from the Refdesk after it was becoming clear they would be banned by consensus anyways, which allowed them to claim no wrongdoing. I have to leave my computer now so I can't finish, but suffice to say that this incident should not be viewed in a vacuum. ansh666 19:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support some sanction short of a siteban From Editing Wikipedia:User pages:

Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit

Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence.

From Count IbIis's User page:

'Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there'.

and:

'Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds. Some banned editors have told me that they have been editing here anonymously and they are not being prevented from doing so. So, I guess ArbCom has a secret policy of tolerating banned editors here while publicly denying this to save face'.

From the above I would suggest that CI is WP:NOTHERE, as his/her statements have strong potential to influence others to grossly harm the project. We do not know if this is humour, or his/her true belief.It appears to be a gross misunderstanding of WP:IAR, either by accident or design. That would indicate WP:CIR problems with communicating and functioning in the WP enviroment. Coupled with previous ref desk issues and the continued fascination with Godwin's law, I would say the community does have an issue here. I am not advocating a siteban, yet (although it may be the logical outcome) But I do believe some consensus on sanctions should be arrived at here. Simon Adler (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis, I have removed problematic material from your user page as per the guidance which I quoted in my post above. If you are comfortable with that, and do not revert, I would be willing to WP:AGF and change my position. A lot of the posters above may well agree and we can drop this issue. Please can you comment here? Regards, Simon Adler (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• If everything asserted at Count Iblis' user page is to be taken at facial value, then

This user is visiting from an alternate universe.

proves that we have indeed a clear cut case of wp:not here, this user being an alien from somewhere else. Pldx1 (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he means from another Wiki-universe, one in which one does not have to follow policies or ArbCom sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

But are we sure he's an undesirable alien? Maybe he's fleeing something much worse? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Aliens can be spotted by their peculiar toilet arrangements... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Has CI been following through on the statements at his userpage? GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• A Joke? I see zero evidence that Count Iblis is trying or succeeding at humor. Perhaps the people suggesting that idea are trying to be funny? I never found Nazis funny. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Never? Never ever? EEng 14:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  This isn't about you. Let's not exaggerate the extent of CI's wrongdoings and let's not get outraged based on such an exaggeration. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This user Count Iblis should be given a final warning and a topic ban as stated in the bellow sub-section, instead of WP:NOTHERE. Second thing I would like to state is that this user specifically is being mocked about in this section being called aliens and other names, basically this is almost looking like the same things that had lead to the Tarage event where Tarage ended up leaving. We do not want another Tarage event, so I also suggest that talks here should remain civil. Another major important thing that I would like to say is that the user Count Iblis has not responded here yet. In my opinion and I could be wrong, is that this could almost be similar to the Tarage situation where the user is not comfortable or not clearly being understood by their responders when talking with other users. When the user stated that they have placed fake citations, has anyone confirmed that these citations were fake? It could be possible that the citations that they might have jokingly called "fake" might be actual citations, and that it may link to things on websites like CNN or other media outlets that Donald Trump has referred to as ""FAKE" NEWS". By looking at what Users have stated that this user in question has done clearly shows that either the user is not understanding that other Wikipedia users are not getting his joke and they are actually here to contribute, or this user might actually be a vandal. The only way that it can be proven that this user is an actual vandal is if someone where to provide proof that he has placed actual fake citations and other things that he has stated that violate the Wikipedia policy that he has done after he was confronted for the first time. Anything before he was confronted for the first time by another user about the edits that Count Iblis has done should not count as proof since, the User might have not fully understood the policy in a proper manner and might have violated the policy by accident. I also see that someone pointed out how long the user has been part of Wikipedia and has stated that as one reason why a ban is better, I oppose that. The age of a Wikipedia user's account never gives an actual representation of how well the user might actually understand the Wikipedia policy. A legit Wikipedia user might have a one month old account and might actually clearly understand all the rules, where as a account that is 10 years old might be owned by a user that does not even know the Wikipedia policy clearly. As I stated before we do not want another Tarage incident. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing and Ivanvector above. Particularity it bothers me that we're ignoring the context of the quote: it looks like they were talking about a routine mathematical transformation. But also, IAR is a thing. Free speech is a thing. And I wish people would pay more attention to the use-mention fallacy it helps in discernment... Crazynas ^t 05:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been no addition of false citations by this account in the past two years. I checked the six most recent citations added by Count Iblis to articles – this takes us back to December 2016. All are genuine [58][59][60][61][62]: Noyster (talk), 13:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal - Topic ban

Given that the above seems to be heading for a no-consensus result, let me propose an alternative:

Count Iblis is banned from editing outside of the article space, except for the following reasonable exceptions: 1) To discuss article text on article talk pages 2) to notify people on their user talk pages of discussions pertaining to themselves 3) to respond to discussions on noticeboards where he is explicitly named as a party to the discussion. As points of emphasis, he is completely banned from discussions on the Reference Desks, Village Pumps, Help Desks, Teahouse, and User talk: Jimbo Wales, and banned from discussions on any admin noticeboard except those that involve himself as a named party.

This should address the locus of CI's problems, remove the temptations from him, and return him (should he choose to do so) to editing article text in constructive ways. --Jayron32 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any proof, that CI has been editing Wikipedia disruptively? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Not in the article space, which is why this ban is proposed as it is. There is significant belief above that his editing at places like the reference desks and jimbotalk have been significantly disruptive however. This will allow CI to continue to edit articles, but will remove his ability to be disruptive elsewhere. His beneficial contributions to the mission of the encyclopedia would be unaffected by this topic ban. --Jayron32 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of alleged "disruptive editing" at the reference desk, Village Pumps, Help Desks, and Teahouse; warning(s) to cease said disruptive behavior; and the continuation of said behavior. I am not going to vote to topic ban him based on unsubstantiated claims by others, and I hope no one else will either. Instead, I am opposing.

As for Jimbo's page: Formerly, this was a free space for anyone to appeal and say almost anything about Wikipedia without censorship or sanction, as a public forum. It seems to me Jimbo should be the one deciding who is or is not to be banned from his page--especially with regard to long-term editors. (I do understand that he might not want to be bothered with socks, brand new IP's and other short term editors or vandals, and hence he allows other editors to delete such distracting comments. But Count Ibis is a long-term editor.) --David Tornheim (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as this will help keep CI out of trouble. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support in principal. Simon Adler (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support I would also add a ban from WP:ITN/C where over the years he has made many truly bizarre or hyberbolic nominations that are nearly always snow-closed (eg. "Russia threatens nuclear attack against Western targets over possible intervention in Syria" "Limiting smoking to one cigarette a day does not keep the undertaker away", "Donald Trump to start workday later to make room for more time watching TV and tweeting"... I can supply more examples if requested.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Although the title about Russia threatening nuclear attack is hyperbolic compared to what was in the article, I don't see the problem with the other two articles. Did you complain to Count Iblis about the problem(s) and ask him to correct it? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim They are frivolous nominations that have no chance of being posted - he has been around long enough to know this. He usually makes no attempt to update the corresponding article. I guess he is trying to be funny (see also "the CIA didn't kill Bob Marley", "Santa Claus does not reward children based on how nice or naughty they have been in the previous year") but he is just wasting everyone's time with nominations like these. I have not spoken to him about it but then I did not file this report - I am simply commenting on it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I appreciate his sense of humor. Reminds me of The Onion, which I love. Maybe it's time to start approving some of these articles and give a new sense of humor to Wikipedia's In the News? (FYI, I do not follow In the News). --David Tornheim (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Site ban is the only way. JC7V (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something in between and site ban and topic ban can work. JC7V (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for 2.5 different reasons. First, I think it's obvious that Iblis won't abide by any topic ban; this is simply a site-ban in disguise. Second, I'm not sure that his non-article contributions are worse than his article contributions. Finally, I would like to hear from @Count Iblis: here, though his lack of participation shouldn't cause this discussion to close with no action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban in disguise - TBANs should always look at the nature of an editor's work. Which this has - hence why it is leaving Mainspace alone. The problem is, the editor also leaves Mainspace alone - it would completely eradicate their editing space. It's like a conventional TBAN that leaves one topic as an acceptable space that the editor has never touched. I bluntly feel that if we are going to institute this ban we should have the moral courage to actually say we are putting in a site ban. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Everything said was about what CI is not doing. Not editing the mainspace. Not recognising the apparent augustness of ArbCom. Not supporting a ban that others did. Not taking Wikipedia sufficiently seriously. I value editors who bring irony and a little whimsy to our project. They can reign in the excesses of our community. And this editor, objectively, is not editing disruptively. I see no edits cited in this proposal, or CI's recent contributions, that singly would warrant action – let alone point to a broader problem. Oppose. AGK ■ 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• AGK, we are here to write an encyclopedia; that's our primary purpose. Speaking as someone who quite values the need for humor and finds EEng's comments to be enough-amusing; we are not a social-networking site to house humorous trolls and how does not editing the main-space does help in reigning the excesses of our community (whatever they are) in some form/manner?
• For evidences, this edit over ITNC is much more of trolling or our tastes of humor vary widely. I also note that years back, he was T-Banned from RefDesk (voluntary agreement) for some IDHT behavour. Also see this edit.

∯WBG^converse 11:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

enough amusing – Careful with that effusive praise. EEng 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from "he doesn't edit the mainspace", and setting aside the matters already resolved by the RefDesk sanction, your evidence for this proposal are two edits from a year ago. I am sure you could dig out a misjudged edit by clicking any other signature on this page. I cannot agree with applying a hefty sanction basically because the user is a crank whose edits are not to your taste. You are entirely out of line to call the user a troll without far stronger, more recent diffs. There is objectively no evidence that this user is disrupting. I oppose sanctioning unconventional editors who are not actively disrupting the project. And I want to see a far more measured, considered approach to sanction proposals than this. You need to provide supporting evidence, narrow down the proposal beyond "I'd rather they not be here", or recognise this proposal for the easy shot that it is. AGK ■ 18:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To find problematic mainspace edits we have to dig was back because he barely edits mainspace. He is not following the ref desk tban so that resolves nothing. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support with an exception - I do not think that topic banning this user from teahouse or helpdesk is a good idea. If this user ever actually needs help, he needs at least one source to get help from. Basically another reason for a topic ban is so that the user in question better understands the discussion ethics, and the "temp" topic ban would be give good enough time for the CI to do this. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is unwarranted. I'm not really sure that any sanctions are necessary at this time. Lepricavark (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Obviously the best measures to restrain a textbook case of NOTHERE candidate and give a chance to exhibit his productivity. ∯WBG^converse 11:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm just not seeing any significant disruption or any need for any sanctions, and I'm still not really understanding what's kicked this off. OK, maybe he's said a few dickish things over the years, but if we excluded everyone who's done that we'd have very few people left - I certainly wouldn't be here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems to be a helpful user, and much of this is because he linked to a youtube video? What happened to "not censored". Does Jimmy Wales want him off of his talk page (isn't the only way to keep someone from a talk page of an active user is if the user says "no mas"?)?, and, for good measure, ?. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The Reference Desk T-Ban doesn't seem to have reduced CI's tendency to dispense unsolicited medical advice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Support this topic-ban from talk pages if it is accompanied by escalating blocks, of 4 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc. In view of the disregard for rules, only blocks will enforce this ban. Otherwise we are just singing in the dark. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK and others above, and my comments above. The one thing I saw worth addressing I mentioned in the previous section here, which in no way demands a topic ban. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as second choice if a site-ban isn't happening. This editor has literally admitted to providing fake citations for no reason other than to undermine our policies for shits and giggles. It doesn't matter how old the diff was. David's claim that if it were that serious a matter something would have been done about it back then doesn't hold water since a discussion did take place on Sitush (talk · contribs)'s talk page at the time, with the page's manager saying he should be SBANned and Iridescent (talk · contribs) not directly giving an opinion on whether he should be SBANned but stating that it should be easy enough to find out if CI's claim was true. Given all of this, I can't possibly see how any experienced editor could oppose any sanction because this is "all about what CI didn't do" or something like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW: Sitush, whose edit count is seven times higher than mine but whose ANI edit count is half mine, should not be blamed for not opening a site-ban discussion last November. ANI, and to a lesser extent AN, is a hostile environment where the more evidence you present of disruption the less likely anyone is going to look at it; I edit ANI proportionally 14 times as often as Sitush, and even I am highly reluctant to open ban discussions on users I have problems with (this year alone I was subjected to five months of harassment from an editor and didn't open a single ANI thread until he had ignored my second or third warning to stop calling me insane and another editor treated me to blatant hounding/trolling pretty much nonstop for almost a year and the ANI thread had to be opened by someone else who had first noticed the problem about a day earlier), so Sitush not apparently doing anything to follow up the above-linked "You should be site-banned" is, if anything, a fault of the community or CI himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how Sitush stating an opinion on his own talkpage invalidates David's point. Don't bemoan the hostile environment if you're also going to dismiss the opinions of everyone who opposes a sanction. Lepricavark (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per self above. Crazynas ^t 05:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. For the benefit of the people commenting about the Gaussian_quadrature article, the proof that the weights are positive can be largely shortened. When $x$ jumps from $x_{i}$ to $x_{i+1}$ then both $P'_{n}(x)$ and $P_{n-1}(x)$ are sign-changed, by an obvious property of polynomials whose roots are real, distinct and separated by the $x_{i}$. Finding a reference is left as an exercise to the reader. Pldx1 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: I was working on an answer to your question--I have taken a Numerical Analysis class decades ago!--but got distracted improving minor things in the article. Maybe you can help me on this question: Talk:Gaussian_quadrature#Typesetting. Or are you just interested in the math?  :) And more feedback on improving the confusing and redundant WP:LEDE: Talk:Gaussian_quadrature#LEDE_--_confusing --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for much the same reasons as above. Just not quite convinced. That said, Iblis should really take this to heart and get with the articlespace, since the next issue to come up in any other namespace could very easily lead to sanctions/block based on this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image vandal-compromised account

Rudrozzal (talk · contribs · count). Seems to be taking up new tactics... GAB^gab 17:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Already globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrifraff101 (talk · contribs · count) + 9dfgdfyhx (talk · contribs · count) Same ones I guess. I've blocked them at Commons. Podzemnik (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Somebody want to fix Boxing Day and box the vandal (15 rounds, bard knuckles). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure that the Bard was much of a pugilist Jschnur (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Another unban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Snow consensus closure by non-admin --Light show (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to be unbanned from editing biographies. The last discussion about the issue was on my talk page, and anyone reviewing my edits after I was banned will find they were all fine. Since one area of so-called "disruptive behavior" was my even discussing nationalities, ie. Chaplin's, I can agree to simply avoid that subject. With about 500 bios on my watchlist, many can use some updating and improvement. --Light show (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Convenience links:

• ban discussion
• unban request March 2018
• what might be considered an appeal August 2018

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You were blocked for three months in mid-August. Since the block ended, you've made less than 200 edits. This is not nearly enough to begin to think about lifting your topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Since one area of so-called "disruptive behavior"...

You're describing your behavior using "so-called" AND scare quotes, so no, doesn't look like you've figured things out yet. So that's a "no" from me. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• No from me as well, per Calton. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Wait a goddamned minute, you are indefinitely banned from any edits regarding biographies. so why are there "about 500 bios on [your] watchlist"? There should be about ZERO biographical articles on your watchlist. And given your documented inability to leave things alone, I'm thinking that that should be enforced. --Calton | Talk 07:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• No as others have said, you've only been back for about 1.5 months since you came off a 3 month block for a topic ban violation and have made very few edits in that time. While I'm reluctant to require people to agree their behaviour was a problem, it's few difficult to avoid causing problems if you don't at least understand why others felt it was a problem and your opening statement suggests you don't. You've been topic banned for over 1 year now and really should have removed all bios from your watch list. Some people may be able to resist any temptation from seeing stuff in their watch list, but it's clear from your blocks you can't. You really need to completely forget about editing biographies. Instead concentrate on editing other areas of wikipedia productively for at least a year (SO may be 6 months but your history suggests this is too short) avoiding any blocks and showing us you can be a productive editor and learn what behaviour others find problematic. Note your motivation during this period should be improving wikipedia, not counting down to when you can maybe edit biographies again. If you don't, I'm guessing you're going to earn an indef soon enough from your violations. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• No per above. Like we say in recovery-- hard to address a problem until we acknowledge a problem. And I would say wait until 6 months from the expiration of the latest block before considering applying for unban.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use of the phrase so-called "disruptive behavior" indicates that this editor does not understand that their behavior was disruptive. Their behavior actually was disruptive, it was tendentious, it was infuriating, it was IDHT, and it wasted massive amounts of volunteer time. Their recent hamfisted attempt to get an exemption from their topic ban to edit Gene Hackman shows that they do not take their topic ban seriously. I would need to see a dramatic shift in attitude and behavior to support any relaxation of this topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated vandalism of the 2017 NYC Mayoral Election Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since November 2017, my information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_mayoral_election, has been repeatedly removed by user Mélencron. I have tried to resolve the issue with Mélencron, however this user is bent on creating arbitrary reasons to exclude me. Such reasons include not being on the ballot or not having media coverage:

(cur | prev) 05:24, 29 December 2018‎ Mélencron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (85,895 bytes) -119‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by 107.145.97.234: Not a ballot-listed candidate (these sections don't include extensive listings of write-in candidates, though sometimes the results tables will if a registered write-in). (TW)) (undo) Tag: (cur | prev) 13:56, 30 December 2018‎ Mélencron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (85,895 bytes) -119‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 107.145.97.234 (talk): The other independents were on the ballot, you weren't. stop it with your vanity obsession. (TW)) (undo) Tag:

1. I have had media coverage - http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/6676-candidates-for-2017-city-elections-mayor-city-council-comptroller 2. There are several persons listed under the section who are neither listed on the ballot and withdrew:

Minor third party and independent candidates Libertarian Nominee Aaron Commey, Director of Events at Manhattan Libertarian Party[31][21] Independent Candidates Bo Dietl, former Fox News contributor and former New York City Police Department detective (running on the "Dump the Mayor" mayoral line) [86][87] Mike Tolkin, entrepreneur (running on the "Smart Cities" mayoral Line)[88] Dr. Robbie Gosine, Engineer and US Naval Officer.[89]

Withdrew Eric Armstead, Security Manager[20][28][21] Scott Berry, musician, author (did not qualify for mayoral ballot)[90][21][21][87] Garrett M. Bowser, Self Employed (did not qualify for mayoral ballot)[91][28][87] Abbey Laurel-Smith, Founder of The Pilgrims Alliance Party of America (did not qualify for mayoral ballot)[28][87] Ese O'Diah, CEO of Liquorbox[92][28][93] Karmen M. Smith, Volunteer Team Leader with New York Cares (did not qualify for the mayoral ballot)[87][14] Ahsan A. Syed, (ran as an independent on the Theocratic Party)[94][28][21]

Evidently, the reasons used to delete my information are not consistent with the rules used to list others. Mélencron is clearly attacking me personally. I have notified Mélencron the via the user talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mélencron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.97.234 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

...this user is bent on creating arbitrary reasons to exclude me. Such reasons include not being on the ballot or not having media coverage

Those are pretty much the OPPOSITE of "arbitrary". In fact, I'd say they're foundational, especially the latter.

Also, this isn't the place to re-run content disputes. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, a Google search on "'Robbie Gosine' mayor" did come up with a few hits, with content like "Does anyone know anything about this guy?".

Gosine's been carrying on his "I'm being persecuted" campaign on the article talk page since November 2017, without getting enough traction to gain a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ANI Discussions

There are a few requiring admin attention that have been there all day at least. IWI (chat) 17:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

2nd RfC: The Daily Mail

The latest Daily Mail RfC is about to close. If anyone reading this has input on this, now is the time to participate in the RfC.

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Very Short Football Articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to bring attention to the articles created by NFLfan101. This editor has created 211 new pages and focuses on previous football players. I'd like to create a discussion before taking any action with these articles.

Action I'd like to take - I feel that the majority of the articles meet WP:NGRIDIRON but not WP:SPORTCRIT overall. I would like to go through all of the articles, search for possible notability and go from there..

Articles that are not notable - Move into AfD for further examination by other editors and final evaluation before being deleted. I feel that speedies should be avoided in this case.

Articles that are notable - Start to develop those articles by gathering sources that make the particular player notable. Bring in the Sports WikiProject or any other interested editors to progress the quality even more.

I'd like to also bring attention to the following examples that stuck out in this user's contribs:

Example A - Draft:Spence Fischer was moved into draft space and upon notification of that, NFLfan101 said "That's BS" on their talk page.

Example B - Leo Hart developed notability after being edited many years later per off the field coverage.

Thank you, Snowycats (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Every single article I have created the pass few days played in either the NFL, CFL or Arena Football League which means they pass WP:NGRIDIRON (the only exception being Spence Fischer who played in the WLAF which apparently isn't an automatic notable so I have decided to not create these players). I also have added the required sources to prove they played in these leagues and any other ones I can find in a quick google search. I am not doing anything wrong here and just trying to help out with notable players. It appears to me you are trying to create trouble where there isn't any.-- NFLfan101 (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

NFLfan101 I think Snowycats is just trying to help keep these articles organized, and determine which ones should be kept. Nearly all of the articles are stubs and they need improving. I know that you created the articles and that your contributions are important to you but please try to keep personal feelings out of the discussion. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are all stubs (that is why I've added the tags after a user asked me to do so) but they are all notable, which is why I don't see why this is necessary. Just look at a handful of the ones I have created and you can see they pass the WP:NGRIDIRON.-- NFLfan101 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record nearly every article I've created was previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Articles to create.-- NFLfan101 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having spent time doing NPP on over 40 of their creations on Friday, I don't see any behavior issues that would warrant sysop or community intervention. Given the fact that their creations meet the SNG (minus Fischer which I draftified given NFLfan's general following of NGRIDIRON) they did take an exceedingly long time to patrol but it's not nearly at the level where it needs an enforced remedy. Hopefully NFLfan takes my suggestions left at both his talk page and in the articles themselves, as well as that of a couple other new page patrollers who have left comments on his talk page, to heart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GoldWoodWaterFireSoil is a sock of a long term vandal

This user seems to have an obsession with East Germany and West Germany. In the past, under multiple IPs and names, they alter the map infoxboxes to read "FRG/GDR in 1989", even though the GDR existed until October 1990. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Indefblocked by Oshwah--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Starting an article for author

I would like to start an article for the author Ryan Hampton. Notable work is "American Fix: Inside the Opioid Addiction Crisis and How to End It". Notability includes several journalistic profiles in Forbes, New York Times, New York Book Review, Slate Magazine, The Wallstreet Journal, MSNBC, and others. I was referred to post on the admin board for this because the article title is currently blacklisted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sionodonnell (talk • contribs) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging MER-C, who added it to the blacklist. ansh666 07:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sock blocked. MER-C 09:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Need to undo some page moves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user (who incidentally is not allowed to edit in the subject area) made some page moves against consensus. I tried to undo but not sure it works. Can someone look at the contributions of [63] and undo the page moves? Thanks, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I got them all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Woking123

A bunch of IPV6 IPs have appeared over the last 2 weeks, all beginning 2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00 - is it possible to range block that? GiantSnowman 19:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: All of those are part of the range 2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00::/64, and the edits go back to the middle of December. Since that range is actually only one relatively static connection, feel free to block it for as long as necessary. —DoRD (talk)​ 20:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@DoRD: lovely, thanks, have done. GiantSnowman 21:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What was the reason for blocking Woking123 in the first place? Did you roll them back? Is there a Woking123 SPI case or a ANi thread about them? Any community action against this user? How many IP users have you rolled back and blocked thinking they are Woking123? What evidence is there these are socks? Has a checkuser confirmed these are socks? Have you carefully checked the correctness or errors of the IP contributions involved? Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Large creation of accounts with similar usernames

Hi everyone! I'm posting a discussion here because I have concerns regarding the creation of numerous accounts with similar usernames (see the list below for today's creations). I notice that this happens almost daily and around the same time period, and with similar usernames just like these. Are these spam accounts? A known sock user? Does anyone have any information or input that they can provide about this? Something's definitely up... What's going on here?

• User:Rodolfo Jacinto's Wife - Agnes Caroline "Tia" Cagagnes Titia Eclipse
• User:Jorge Luiz Silveira's Wife - Claudete Ferraz "Tia" Siririclaudete
• User:Érica Alessandra Pastro Correia Leite "Tia" Érica Alessandragão
• User:Maria Aurora Barion Tureta "Tia" Anaurora Titia Caracara
• User:Jovenice's Soares Husband - Walmir Bueno de Camargo "Tio" Walmija
• User:Maria Lúcia's Husband - Alexandre Rogério Rodrigues "Tio" Alexandragqueen
• User:Marli Aparecida Pereira Alberoni "Tia-avó" Marlixo Pereira Abreroni
• User:Katia Silene Nardelli Alberoni "Tia" Pepekátia Nardelli Titia Entulho
• User:Vera Lúcia da Silva Soares dos Santos "Tia" Fera Lúcia
• User:Mirtes Stênico dos Santos Soares "Tia" Mirtesão
• User:Liliane Cristina Markes "Tia" Greliliane Markes Titia Inalante
• User:Leoneti Maria Paulon "Tia" Leonetarada Titia Cheiradora
• User:Izaura Lupino Meloni "Tia" Izaurabuda Titia Crackeira
• User:Rosana Aparecida Annunciato Salvador "Tia" Gozana Annunciato Titia Bula
• User:Sandra Aparecida Margiota Salvador "Tia" Bussandra Margiota Titia Pincel
• User:Diogenes Stênico's Wife - Cláudia "Tia" Siriricláudia Titia Farinha
• User:Flávio Garcia's Wife - Cristiane Cazon Xerecristiane 2
• User:Marisa Teixeira's Daughter - Paola Boldrin Chupaola Priminha Usurpadora da Biqueira
• User:Paula Karina Boldrin Gonçalves Chupaula Priminha Fornecedora
• User:Rita de Cássia Fessel Duarte Canton "Tia" Ritarada Fessel Titia Instalação
• User:Eva's Husband - Antônio Benedito Valentim "Tio" Antônio Benededada-no-Toba 2
• User:Robson da Silva Leite "Tio" Fio-Terrobson Cadeia Titio Presídio
• User:Érica Alessandra Pastro "Tia" Érica Alessandragão Titia Cordeiro
• User:Sidenis Aparecido Ramos Nogueira's Son - Alex Ramos Nogueira Baitolex Nogueira

Any comments, input, or information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Could also be a student class.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

These have all been checkuser blocked, along with a load more (100+), doubt it would be any sort of student class in this case. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I knew something was up. There's plenty more where that came from. This happens almost daily. Now that I've seen these accounts CU-blocked, I'll just bag and tag them as I see them from now on. Easy peasy ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - No way. Not with the number of accounts that I've seen each day and in the logs. Wayyyy too many to be a class. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec x 3) If you people would stop typing so the CU could get in a word edgewise! ;-) I just laid down a ton of CU blocks – they're all created using a single mobile device with a few exceptions made with a desktop. No contributions from any of them, so I'm thinking these were sleepers in waiting. Oshwah, if I missed any and they fit the pattern, feel free to just block them or ask another CU to check. They're very easy to spot. Katie^talk 19:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess it could be a cultural thing, but I can't see why people in a class, or the person in charge of the class project, would name the holder's spouse or parent etc in the username anyway except as part of the person's name. (Maybe parent for very young children but in that case probably not the child.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't need your sass, KrakatoaKatie! :-P Yup, I know now to block them on sight and treat them like LTAs - especially given the creation of this account...on wheels... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Closure request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin (expect GiantSnowman) close this discussion: Talk:Cove Rangers F.C.#Proposed merge with Allan Park, Aberdeen as requested in WT:FOOTY? Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• This belongs at WP:AN/C.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  13:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted now, regards Hhkohh (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of Amazon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can the {{LR}} tag at History of Amazon be reinstated, or may I reinstate the tag myself? Andy Dingley removed the tag without resolving the issue, and threatened to take me to ANI if I put it back again. Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your other option is to fix the two bare URLs yourself... Primefac (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Primefac, I do not think that we should merge History of Amazon while there is a merge discussion in place. Since there is an edit war, and I am now at ANI, can we revert this change until the merge discussion is complete? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There was nothing in your original request about merging. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - Primefac, "nothing in your original request about merging" is a moot point anyway, I am recommending now that History of Amazon be reinstated, because there is a current merge discussion underway, and there are 3 users supporting that the History of Amazon be split from Amazon, with only one person opposing the split. We can decide via the merge and split discussion which pages should be kept long term. I can start a new thread on this page if need be. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  This page is not for content disputes. Please discuss the matter on the relevant article talk pages. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#Proposal to trim passenger list

There hasn't been any import for a while since 13 December, I was wondering if an non-associated admin could review and close the discussion. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've done it. That's an interesting article, or list, or whatever, and an interesting discussion. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeated protection pf pages and involvement?

I work on a regular basis on WP:RFPP, and I noticed that often I protect pages (in response to requests there) which I already previously protected. I typically do not remember which page I protected for longer than 5 minutes, so that if I get a request to protect a page I already protected a month ago I totally have no memory of it. I obviously check the protection log, and often see my name there (sometimes several years ago). (Obviously if my actions are contested, for example if I declined a protection, the page has been renominated, and I can recognize it, I do not take any action). I believe my previous protections do not make me involved as per WP:INVOLVED, and I protect pages irrespectively of whether I earlier protected them or not. However I am curious to hear opinions of other users on this issue. I believe if I interpret WP:INVOLVED very broadly (which I do not but some users do), once I protected a page I became involved even if I do not remember this anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not involved - and even if it was involved, I think it would also fall under the vandalism exception in any case. If someone disputes the protection than obviously it can always be allocated to another admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Protect away. Policy is unambiguous that you are allowed to protect as many times as necessary, and doing so doesn't make you involved. "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved" (bold mine). You are fine.--Jayron32 03:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• The only problem I have with protecting a page I'd protected before is aIfeel embarrassed at not protecting for a longer period of time. A neutral admin doing adminy things is not involvement. It's an admin familiar with the page using their judgement. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not involved, per Jayron; in fact very likely to come up. Not only do the same people tend to frequent RFPP and thus are likely to encounter the same requests, but also some people (by which I mean me) will deliberately watchlist a page that seems to have vandalism or other problems that may need repeated protection. When I see it needs protection again I go ahead and protect it, without waiting for it to be sent to RFP. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Administrative involvement≠"INVOLVED". Page protection is no different than anything else in this regard.  Swarm  {talk}  02:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot to everybody who responded. I am sure I have seen different interpretations of the policy in the past, but at least I feel myself now safe.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian username account creations

Hi. I noticed that there are a bunch of accounts with Russian usernames are created today:

• Special:Contributions/Настя_Кусакина
• Special:Contributions/Наталья_Серге́евна_Полевщикова
• Special:Contributions/Наталья_Водянова
• Special:Contributions/Валентина_Зеляева
• Special:Contributions/Еле́на_Влади́мировна_Росляко́ва)

I am not sure if these are sleeper accounts created by the Jimbo user page LTA since people seldom use Russian usernames on enwiki. Google translate shows that these are the names of Russian supermodels. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In that case, they should be blocked as impersonation. Natureium (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} Jehochman ^Talk 04:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think there's enough evidence presented here to warrant a check. At this point, it would be fishing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Then please block them all per WP:IMPERSONATION. It's beyond all probability that these accounts are all real persons with the exact same names as Russian supermodels. Why do we insist that accounts which are obviously fraudulent make edits before they are blocked? It's about time that we put Wikipedia first and the supposed "rights" of clearly false accounts last. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the first four since the names represent a famous person. The last one, as far as I see, is not a name of a famous person, and since they made no edits they did not break any rules, so that unless there are good arguments why this is sockpuppetry, I am going to leave it stand unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the last one. It’s clear sock puppetry by behavior. We need a checkuser to go find any others that we didn’t see. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In case there's some confusion, the last one is the birth name of a model we have an article for according to sources like [64] so does seem to be the same thing. (Intentionally not linking or mentioning their stage name since I'm not sure there are sufficient RS to link it on wikipedia and I don't see it's needed. Our article mentions a name change but doesn't provide full details of the birth name, unlike some other wikipedias.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FkpCascais

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

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

Appealing user

FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

template (mostly) fixed power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Here is the diff

The closure giving me a topic ban was this one:

FkpCascais is topic-banned from the Balkans

Discretionary sanction imposed:

Taking into account this thread and FkpCascais's prior editing and blocks, I conclude that FkpCascais is editing primarily to promote a particular nationalist point of view on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NPOV's conduct aspect ("Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."); in addition to several related conduct problems. Such a pattern of editing is not compatible with the mission of Wikipedia. FkpCascais was previously notified about the possibility of discretionary sanctions. In response to their conduct, and in application of WP:AC/DS, FkpCascais is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Balkans. I'm ready to consider lifting this ban after six months of productive, problem-free editing in other topic areas. This matches the recommendation by Fut.Perf. above. Sandstein 13:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by FkpCascais

Allow me ladies and gentleman please to summarise the events that lead to this. From some time ago, a group of Albanian editors had been rewriting all important articles related to Albania. As seen at Talk:Albania many editors are expressing concerns about the way the articles are being changed, and in all my honesty I opened a thread Talk:Albania#The_article_is_becoming_a_turistic_brochure because numerous problems come up as editors highlight the most positive aspects and remove or diguise the negative ones. Just as an exemple, artice Albania was full of Wikipedia:PEACOCK and exemples can be saying Tirana airport is ammong the biggest in Balkans (when it is not even top 10) or highlighting Albanian top position ammong countries with economic growth but ignoring totally to mention that for decades Albania was known as the poorest country in Europe (Google seach provides tons of results refering to it). Now, I favour that this should all be well sourced and included in context, but this articles have the problem of selective sourcing and cherry-picked content. When one tries to edit any of those articles he is immediatelly reverted by the group of editors and sent to discussion page, where, weather you present good sources and arguments, they will still menage to make you impossible to make the changes in the article simply because you are always outnumbered.

So what happened with me? I noteced that grouop reedited the article about Skanderbeg and they removed and made minimal any mention of Serbia in it. OK, one thing is the anymosity Serbs and Albanians have today, but back and 13th and 14th centuries much of inner Albania was incorporated into Serbia and their nobility part of Serbian one. Skanderbeg himself was Christian Orthodox, his granfather faught along Serbian emperor Stefan Dushan and it was Dushan that gave him the lands to rule. Skanderbeg mother is Slavic, and Skanderbeg brothers and sisters all have Serbian names. Thwe ammount of historiography speaking about Skanderbegs Serbian origin (or mixed) is vast. However, these editors that took possession of Albanian articles made a cleaver move to use one source claiming Skanderbeg possible Bulgarian origin (a totally fringe theory) and thus make a construction in which they oresent Skanderbeg as Albanian with some "crazy fringe theorists considering him Serbian or Bulgarian origin). All I wanted was that the unsourced sentence claiming both is divided, and that each claim has their source of their own. This was obviously immediatelly opposed because they perceve what they archive by putting Serbian origin with fringe theories together, so didn´t wanteds to cede. I started gathering sources speaking about Skanderbeg Serbian origin at the talk-page and I didnt touvched the article.It was them that touched it and i just revertede saying issue was not over. Important fact, all we are apeaking here is about a chapter of his early life, nothing to do with really important parts such as lede or so. But even there, they OWN that much the article that prevent any expansion of anything they dislike.

Since we were going no where and I had already 9 sources and was in process of bringing more, I asked for help at ANI. All I wanted is someone neutral just to see what sources are valid and what we have and what appropriate text we could add. This was not in other editors interest so they started olaying dirty (yes, lets speak straight). They went to my sandboxes and found a text I copy-pasted from a colleague of mine and they removed parts of it purpously missinterpreting it to describe me as racist and anti-Islamist. The text only spoke about the sad fact that Muslim populations were driven away from Balkans while ottoman army retrreated. I dont support the text, I just have it there. Important would have been if I had added some controversial content to our articles, but what someone has in its sandboxes' Come on... My grandpa has Main Kampf in his library and he is stunch socalist! Reading books or texts doesnt mean you support them.

So what happened, User:Deb was actrually driving the issue quite well, when suddently FPS (which had oroblems with me since decades) comes making crazy conclusions and then Sandstein based on his conclusions bans me for 6 months.~

I, wanting peace and no more this sort of historic debates, just asked please to allow me to edit football, but even that wasnt allowed to me. Concluding, even during ANI I apologised because I know I could have dealt better the isse, I also promised to stay away from political and historical matters, and I begged BEGGED Sandstein to allow me to edit football from Balkans because that is my specialty and never had problems with that. You can see my excellent contributions with all nationalities at my barnstars and talk-page, so how can i be racist? I had been contributing in various areas such as aviation, industry, etc, for dso long and had no problerms, just rewards, and suddently this two admins wants to make me look like some racist loonatic. I am deeply offended, soecially because I asked and explained to Sandstein I loved Wikipedia and needed it now speacially to edit football because of the transfers window.

I saw so much major disruption being just warned or even forgiven, but I am kicked off Wikipedia for half year because... because od«f what exactly? FkpCascais (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

All in all, after houndreds of articles, years dedicating to Wikipedia, after accepting Deb to help us solve the dispute, after apologising other users if I was nervous, after promising to edeit my area, football, for next months, I dint deserve any assumption of good faith because of... one revert? FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Oh but he is nationalist".. I am natrionalist by having friends from entire region, making articles about their football, receving barnstars from "others<2, me nationalist? FkpCascais (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) ~ It is totally unfair that I get such a hard sanction for fightinhg POV. I admit I could have been more calm, and I will, and I am please asking this unfair topic ban to be lifted however, I will be aware that eyes will be on me, but I am in oeace because >I really want to show off how a good Wikipedian I can be. FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I asked sorry for that and promised never to refer in such way ever again. I actually thought there was nothing wrong in being honest when this sort of two side nations happened. >But I asked forgivness and sweared >I would not use it ever again. FkpCascais (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

May I ask please to allow me to edit football-related articles. Even a participant Calthinus who was against me at Skanderbeg issue, asked if I could be allowed to continue editing football cause >I am very oroductive editor and <I contribute to Kosovar, Macedonian, Albania, Serbian, etc. I love all these leahues. Please. FkpCascais (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, I did adress the concrns of my ban. I recognised I was precipitated, that I was nervous and made me make some rush decitions, and I apologised individually to all of the participants. At ANI itself I made a comitment to disangage from that topic and not to get myself involved in any sort of historical controversial matters. Also, please don´t warry about football because I am not a hooligan type of football-passionate, but statistics one. As exemple for you to see I am not of the kind of ones that would be fighting over nationalisties of footballers, you can see I always include Kosovar footballers as from Kosovo (so meaning not being the one of the nationalists insisting Kosovo is Serbia) or you can see I always put Bosnian Serb players as Bosnians playing in Serbia. I actually confront many times Serbian nationalists over this issues. But my speacialty are the foreign players and coaches (specially from the first half of 20 century) that spent part of their careers at Balkans. Many Austrians, Hungarians, Czechoslovaks, I love to make their articles with their complete careers and stories. If you notece I don´t have much interest in Serbian national team for instance. I can reasure you that within football I have great collaboration from editors from neighbouring countries preciselly because they know I edit neutrally and objectivelly. About the ban, I am really sad that it also forbides me to expand articles about transportation, infrastructure, airpots, airlines, etc. I think that generally, even including the historically controversial matters, I have been a good editor and I have always respected WP:Verifiability and WP:RS as pilars. Some situations in my life made me be more nervous lately, and I made this mistakes, bht I really think you could have given me a sort of "last chance" so I could demonstrate you this was an exception in my editing pattern. I would be enormously greatfull if I could get that trust even more by knowing I compromised myself here before you all. If not, I will please ask you if you could allow me to continue the projects in football that I have going on here on Wikipedia, that deal with football at the Balkans, so in case of keeping the topic ban, they will be totally abandoned and it would be a shame. I am aware I will have the eyes on me and I am perfectly confident of taking the risk of promissing you that I will make no mistakes from now on and if I do to have a severe sanction. FkpCascais (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC) P.S.: About the controversy that brought me to this situation, I never claimed Skanderbeg was Serb. All I claimed is that a high ammount of literature speaks about his Serbian heritage and how his grandfather recever the property and title from Serbian king Dushan. The second info was totally removed from the article, while the first was diluted along other fringe theories backed by only one, maximum two sources. I know now I should have dealt the issue differently, and because I didn´t I understand I am wrong and I accept fully distancing myself from that article and continue editing the other projects which have no controversies. FkpCascais (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5:, I thank you very much for your time. I am sad that I left in you the impression you mentioned in your comment bellow, but. In my defense, I want to say that my belief is that nationalism is prejuditial first and foremost for the nation and people themselves. In Wikipedia this is done by POV-editing. The problem that I noteced that we are starting to have here is that a reader may read different articles all from one same geographical area, and will end up reading as much different realities as article it read. Editors of each country (or ethnic group) write the articles related to them in a way that they cherry-pick and add what is convenient and eliminate what is not. Unfortunatelly, Wikipedia, when the number of active editors is low, ends up allowing this. What in practice is happening is that articles about obscure countries end up having just a group of editors from that country all editing in sinthony. If an editor from outside comes and tryies to challenge some aspects, he will face a wall on behalve of those editors which will do everything possible to prevent that editor to "ruin their article" and if the editor insists, he will be attacked in numerous ways trying to make him look as vandal, POV-pusher, editor against "consensus" and that sort of things. When such situations occur, instead of a healthy discussion where arguments instead of numbers would be weight, what always comes out is the temptation to eliminate the "intruder". Ultimatelly, admins, often unfamiliarised with the matter, end up going trough the most comfotable solution, which is eliminate the intruder and leave satisfied the greater number of editors. However, that practice instead of helping create encyclopedic articles, actually creates touristic brochures.

I never intended to turn Skanderbeg into "my preferred ethnic group". Skanderbeg has cemented its place in Albanian history. But, since the situation of "touristic brochure" happened, important facts from his life were erased or disguised. Allow me to mention one peculiar generally uncknown fact: Serbian and Albanian relations troughout Middle Ages and afterwords were good. There is no record of any war between the two anywhere prior 1900 (first armed clash was in 1912). Curious right? Given the fact that the idea of some centuries, even milleniums, long anymosity was spread troughout public opinion without actual academic backing. Skanderbeg article was rewritten in a way that many aspects were left out, and that happened because of the nowadays anymosity between the two people and not because of the reality of the time Skanderbeg lived. Skanderbeg lived in an era when Serbia dominated the inland Albania, while Venice certain ports on the coast. Skanderbeg grandfather Pal Kastrioti, served at Serbian military, and Serbian emperor Stefan Dušan in recognition for his service gave him estates and property in Albania. You can see from then on at House of Kastrioti the relations between members of the family and Skanderbeg himself. I never wanted to say Sknderbeg was Serbian, but I want our article to respect Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable source and Wikipedia:UNDUE. It is important to mention that even disregarding local sources, we still have a considerable number of sources mentioning this Serbian origin of Skanderbeg. So what happened? At article Skanderbeg, at time I first noteced it, his Serbian origin was added in the "Early life" section (OK with that), but mentioned in a sentence where the word "possible" is added, and joined along the incomparatively less spread theory of Bulgarian origin is put in same level. I understand political correctivness, but lets speak honest, there is a clear attempt to dilude the Serbian origin theory by adding the word "possibly" before, and eqialising it with a Bulgarian origin theory, which, istead of the Serbian one which is widespread and included in numerous sources, is backed just by one Bulgarian source which bases its claim in the typical Bulgarian nationalistic speach that Macedonians are Bulgrians, thus if Skanderbeg family comes from Prolog region of today Macedonia, he is Bulgarian then. I hope you see the ammount of problems here. The article was written in a POV manner with clear agenda of diminishing Serbian origin claims, and even uses dubious Bulgarian nationalistic narrative to help. Initially , by knowing Sebian origin claim is backed by numerous sources which, by the way, most don´t use the word "possible origin" but claim it straight, and that Bulgarian origin theory was fringe theory, all I asked was to separate the sources for each claim, as, cleverly the sentence was made in a way to make it look that 3 sources back the claim that Skanderbeg may have possibly Serbian origin or Bulgarian noble one. That as far as I know is missusing sources and manipulate claims. I separated the sources to indicate exactly which one claims what as none claims both as missused by previous version, and I started a discussion at talk-page where I started gathering many more sources. I was carefull to use only non-Serbian sources, thus I wanted to avoid sourced that could be biased. I added some to the article, but when one editor reverted it all back, I went to ANI to ask help. I honestly wanted neutral intervenients to help. Admin Deb was showing excellent skills and started seing ways of solving this dispute, when an admin which I had many disputes in the past intervened suggesting the worste about me and another admin followed taking previous admin observations as granted, and I ended up eliminated.

I admit my guilt because I wasnt as polite ans patient as I have should have been, but still I think none of that solves the issue that the article doesnt represent the facts as described by scholar sources, but rather is a text that was made conveniently to defend one POV. I also want to highlight the fact that I never at any point added to the article anything against the rules. My entire sanction is based on supositions that I will be a nationalist, that I will be defending POV. I saw editors editing clear POV-pushing edits against all consensus and not even getting a warning. And I am literally removed for at least half a year just for wanting to have neutral people judging a dispute? I still feel like asking Sandstein to say what was the meanest thing I did to deserve a 6 month ban? Because even prior, at ANI, I apologised to the Albanian editors for having them called "Albanian editord" but I didnt really ment it in a bad way, just that it is a fact that the three defend same POV. And as you can see, they are still here, that Resnjari editor, trying to get me eliminated by al means. I apologise for such a long text, all I hope is someone to understand me. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: thank you for your response, and I fully understand you. That is why I am asking to be allowed to edit football, because my specialty area are the foreign players and coaches in the Balkans, and that has been an area I have had no problems whatsoever. I just don´t want to be blocked for creating an article of someone just because played or coached a team at some point of his life in Balkans. FkpCascais (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Atention:

Can I please call to the atention of the community that one of the members which has been in dispute with me had just this result at his report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexikoua_reported_by_User:Ktrimi991_(Result:_No_violation). I am not saying by any means that all three of them are the same, neither that their result interferes with my actions, but I will please want the community to take into consideration that these editors have been behaving agressivelly and my reaction was, no doubts, driven by that atitude of theirs. FkpCascais (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: and @Resnjari:, of course that text was added by me, it is in my sandbox. Its my translation from a text I found somewhwere else. I translated that text because I think it conteins certain very interesting aspects. But you failed to understand, or even ask, if the text is mine, or if represents my views. To answer to you, there are things I agree, there are others I disagree. The original text comes with citations I had no time to add, neither thought may be necessary, cause I never even thought the text was going to be discussed anytime. By knowing some other texts of that same author, it is obvious that s/he atributes to the Vatican the role of major player in the destiny of Balkans, as sort of backstage manipulator, and accuses it of pursuing a negative policy towards Orthodox and favouring Austria, Hungary and Croatia (no surprise there, its their Catholic representatives in the region). The text caused much reaction, and interestingly, reaction from Albanians was not all negative, on cases, even positive. The statement how Serbia and Albania never fought eachother directly before 1912 breaks with the stigma that Serbs and Albanians carry some centuries long animosity. I confess that statement fascinated me and made me search if it is really truth and till now I haven´t found evidence of contrary. Both of you, along Khtrimi991, have been heavily editing all important Albanian-related articles, and all my interventions in which we interacted were motivated by the fact that I believe you are rewriting history from exclusively todays perspective, while I think events showing that lack of anymosity between the two people are being left out. Now, I don´t find correct that you have used some texts I have deep in my sandboxes which only I know why I have them, to make claims against me. I have intervened on several occasions and you know well what edits I proposed and what sources I have used. You know I have always insisted on sourced content and that I have been asking all of us to search neutral sources. You missused a text I have in one of my sandboxes to get me a sanction as if I supported and added as content in some article a part I certainly not support and is not the reason why I had that text translated there in first place. I never added or even proposed the addition of any anti-Islamic content to any our article here. I got a sanction as if I did, which is unfair, cause I defend above all multiculturality and equality ammong all nations, and all humans.

About football, I specially love the fact that football brings together all nations. Despite being Serbian, I have possibly contributed more to other areas beside Serbia. It is not at all unusual to edit Kosovar or Albanian club articles. Also, it is incredible to accuse me of nationalism if I was the first (and probably still only) Serbian editor to use and include Kosovo and add Kosovo flag for players from Kosovo. Even a normal Serbian still refuses to consider Kosovo a separate country and wouldnt add Kosovo to the List of foreign football players in Serbia, while I did. I often get reverted by Serbian nationalists when adding Kosovo flags for Kosovar players, for instance, at List of FK Partizan players. I often contacted Kosovar editors to ask them for cooperation and help in expanding Kosovo league articles, and Kosovo clubs. Not to mention the ammount of times I had reverted Serbian nationalistic vandalism at Kosovo football pages. I contributed quite a bit at List of foreign Albanian Superliga players and created a number of Albanian and Kosovar biographies. I obviously find unfair none of this is noteced in situations such as this one, but anyway, seems my request is dying, so if anything, at least I take this chance to wish you a Happy New Year to you and your loved ones. FkpCascais (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: oh my God, how am I a nationalist now? A Serbian editor that recognises Kosovo, what less nationalistic than that can it be? FkpCascais (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

!!!

• I just have to alert that the user using IP accounts 89.164.xxxx which just addmited that has been stalking me for 2 years is indef-banned Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has just had several accounts blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asdisis and even so, he has continued ignoring the blocks by just changhing the IP and doing his already announced edits such as these: diff (remember @MrX: he had announced that precise edit?). That editor is a major problem for our project and a serious exemple of how socking is impossible to stop when the banned editor just insists in continuing to edit by changing IPs. I will like to call the atention of the community for this problem because an entire group of us senior editors at Nikola Tesla article have been suffering for years now. Speacially me, who am being stalked and provoked with the guy knowing I cannot do nothing. FkpCascais (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC) This is a clear exemple of POV-pushing I have been fighting against. As you can see, he saw I had this sanction and he immediatelly went there to the article and removed sourced content changing completelly the text so it represents the POV he wants. That is the reason why many editors want me removed, because I prevent them from inserting their POV and I am a stone in the shoe to many in Balkans area because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Yes, you can ban me and remove me, it will be a favour to many since I am one of the very few Serbian editors who besides editing football, loves history, geography, and have plenty of other interests and is active. When I participate in those controversial matters it is usually because I see that there is a problem with neutrality, and I make uncomfortable questions and back my statements with sources. I am not saying I am right, but I plea to the community to understand that I am an undesirable minority, and since our project is based on NPOV, I cannot avoid not saying that I am necessary and usefull for our project. I beg the community for a chance because I am certainly not a vandal and not a nationalist of any kind, I just happend to see situations where I see enough sources to at least question certain situation, so I promise to be constructive and show you all that I am a good Wikipedian that I was already recognised as such in the past. This Asdisis exemple was a perfect exemple when they did all they could to eliminate me and get their POV trough, but it was because of my persistance that the respect for the sources prevailed. As everyone could see, it was just needed a day without mr for them to go and remove sourced content. FkpCascais (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that the appeal is declined. It does not address the problems with the editing of FkpCascais that led to the ban. Blaming others in an appeal is a bad sign, too. Sandstein 09:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: WP:AC/DS allows appeals to WP:AE or to WP:AN, although the latter option is seldom used. Sandstein 09:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: As I indicated on FkpCascais's talk page, I'm open to lifting the ban after FkpCascais has shown productive editing in other topic areas, initially as regards football (I'm in fact not aware of problems with their editing in this topic area), and then more broadly. I'm reluctant to make an exeption for football immediately because I understand that football is a politicized topic in the Balkans. Sandstein 11:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is to note that there is an enforcement request concerning an apparent violation of this topic ban as regards football at WP:AE#FkpCascais. I'll let other admins deal with it, but it does not inspire confidence in me regarding FkpCascais's future editing. Sandstein 21:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Resnjari

The editor being topic banned made further posts that are of concern on their talkpage about the past comments, i.e: [65] "And then the missunderstanding about the text I have in a sandbox. I was not the author of that text, neither do I support it per se." @FkpCascais has not fully grasped the issues regarding their sandbox and is attempting to distance themselves from the matter by placing blame to who knows who and not taking responsibility for those comments. Looking at the edit history of the page [66] all edits made to that sandbox are only by @FkpCascais and not from some distant past but of this year (April-May 2018). So i agree overall that the request for their appeal be declined. Regarding football its up to administrators to decide if leeway is suitable in this situation especially with all that happened.Resnjari (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor 212.186.133.83

This is somewhat similar to incarceration (regular blocks) vs. involuntary commitment (TBANs). While the latter may appear more humane, it is actually much more invasive and harder to oppose. I think there should be no topic bans, only regular blocks for edit warring, canvassing and other kinds of obnoxious behaviour. Consequently, the TBAN should be lifted, and a regular block applied instead, if necessary. But that aside, blocking FkpCaisCais is shooting the messenger, because there is a grain of truth in his statements. Team-tagging and sealioning discourage any meaningful participation in those topic areas, much like in real life. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor 89.164...

• I have participated in numerous discussions where FkpCascais was pushing POV like in this one that got him banned (I even opened one report a few days before he got banned), but nowhere an IP has appeared like in this one, so I don't think its him socking. I'm not surprised that he got banned since he was POV pushing for years. I even remember an ANI report where he was advised against such behavior some time ago. In my opinion, he should be indef blocked from editing Balkan articles, but allowed to edit football related articles. I also want to add a few words on IPs. I've been editing as an IP for years, and often I was accused of being a sock. Not all IPs are socks. 89.164.130.17 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Moved by me from admin-only area below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I made my section. I've been tracking what FkpCaisCais has been doing for at least 2 years and trying to correct his nationalistic editing whereever I had the chance. I had to open at least 3 RfCs (I can provide links if needed) against him. Although he tried to block me as a socks in each one of them I managed to get the attention of other users so he didn't manage to push his opinion. I even caught him directly lying to other editors to make them support (I can provide a link). His behavior got him reported some time ago, when he didn't want to accept the consensus established by a RfC. At that time he was warned against such behavior, but no sanctions were made because he has "appologized". I suspected back then that he has appologized just to avoid sanctions, and later that got confirmed because he had just continued with the same behavior. That report got forgotten because he didn't bump into any of the users that were aware of that report, except me. My latest struggle with his behavior was this [67]. If you read carefully, you will see how he is directly lying about what the source says by saying that the source contains the word "should". How to deal with that kind of behavior? I don't think he should be ever allowed to edit political-historical related Balkan articles. I realize that the ban will expire, but I predict that we will again see the same report as he will continue with this kind of behavior, just like the last ANI report. At least he will now have this hanging over his head. After reading what Calthinus said I can agree and add that allowing him edit football related articles will just be a backdoor through which he can stay a part of wikipedia until this blows over after which he can continue POV pushing on Balkan articles. Even in this appeal he is still acting NOTHERE. Later he will try to appologize if it gets into more trouble. If the appology doesn't work he will again try to use personal attacks. 89.164.223.107 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

BDW, how kind of an excuse is to say that he didn't write a racist text but have only posted it to Wikipedia? Racism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. What kind of statement is "If you got to a point when you have to use Srebrenica, it means you got really at the end of the road and you got nothing against me"? FkpCascais, you were banned and everyone has endorsed the ban. Saying that "[he] has nothing against you" is NOTHERE. You were banned by admins not the user you are attacking even in your appeal. You should be appealing, and not continuing with the same disruptive behavior. This can get you even in more trouble. And what should "you have to use Srebrenica" mean? Be careful of that kind of statements, because someone might interpret this in the light of your racist post that got you into all this trouble. 89.164.223.107 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In response to FkpCascais attacks against me. I can only add RfCs I had opened/participated against him, which clearly show that he was the one pushing POV. I'm the least important there as an IP, but other users have prevented his POV pushing. Here are 3 RfCs (maybe I can find more discussions). You will notice his behavior in those 3 is a match for the behavior that got him banned: as_"constitutive"_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia, [68],[69]. Here is the report where his behavior got him a warning to stay off Balkan related articles: [70]. You can see how hostile his behavior is in this report. The same as it was in the report that got him banned right now. FkpCascais, you can not call in your friends to proxy edit for you, this is against the ban you are under. 89.164.223.107 (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Just some things other users stated about FkpCascais in the report I referenced:

• "Its starting to look like you are WP:NOTHERE because you are ignoring the consensus of everyone else and want to continue in an endless discussion that goes round in circles, Its time to drop the stick" - AlbinoFerret
• "You don't get infinitely many reviews until one agrees with you." - LjL
• "This again FkpCascais? I think it's time for a TBAN for FkpCascais , broadly construed on anything dealing with Croatia. This is about the second or third time I've seen this issue come up, with him. Enough already !" - KoshVorlon
• "Of course he's not discussing in good faith.Don't know when ever he had." -Director
• "Couple of days ago he gave me a half barnstar and apologized for, well, you can see that on my talk page; couple of days before that, he was hating me and saying I was "lying through my teeth", and removing tags; now he seems to be back to that. "- LjL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.223.107 (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Calthinus

I did argue for FkpCascais' terms of ban to be modified so to not touch his football passion, per his request. To be honest at that point I thought that was the right way to move forward from issues-- I see now I am mistaken, as FkpCascais has manipulated my proposal to dishonestly put words into my mouth. I did not say he was a "productive editor" or that I wanted him editing in the topic area at all. His sandbox was thoroughly disturbing and actually sickening, and his attempts to distance himself from it were really not convincing (let's take this seriously -- it is obviously FkpCascais' writing style, with all the same sorts of errors that we see on talk pages constantly, and if someone else did write such a poorly constructed essay, why did such a bad essay get enough coverage for him to read it?). Let me reiterate what he said in his sandbox [[71]]: The then totally absurd creation of Albania was supported by Vatican and Austria and done in order to prevent an Slavic-Orthodox by then pro-Russian country as Serbia to access sea right in Italy back (Russia assisted Serbs agaist Ottomans and by the both Slavic/Orthodox line a brotherhood and potential political and military allience was created). Western world seing the danger of Russian naval bases in the Adriatic is their nighmare... This move not only prevented Serbia from accessing the sea and clearing the area of Muslims, but created a Muslim country Albania...

I am incredibly sorry but I cannot see any prominent writer worthy of citation, or even a blogger, producing this agrammatical and also completely vile trash. I don't even know where to start with why it is wrong so I'll just leave a link to Srebrenica massacre and let everyone figure out why this is so fucked up. It is not your right to "clear" any area of Muslims. Period.

Now regarding Skanderbeg, everyone knows that people in the Balkans love to waste their time claiming each others' national heroes. For Albanians that would be Markos Botsaris, who fought for Greece but Albanians claim him as their own. The page already mentioned that there were some theories that Skanderbeg had some Serbian roots, and that his mom was possibly a Slav. What FkpCascais was trying to do was not defend NPOV but rather give the Serbian theory precedence. Alas it is not actually the only way to view it -- in the 2005 book Skanderbeg, Harry Hodgkinson describes what became the claims underlying FkpCascais' viewpoint as arising from … a basic reading error: The claim that Skanderbeg was Slav was first made by a German who misread a document of 1368 in Serbian. Among the signatories were a Branilo (a Slav Christian name) of Vlora and a Castrioti of Kanina. By overlooking the single letter "i" (meaning and), he produced Branilo Castrioti as Scanderbeg's Serbian great grandfather. But it is difficult to talk rationally with someone who has behaved like he has, especially after it came out that he thinks Albania is a "totally absurd country" and regrets that Serbia didn't get a coast or … the chance to "clear Muslims" from the area. If they aren't his non-grammatical and misspelled words, why'd he post them?--Calthinus (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Will you stop your crying with that sandbox? Did I even used it anywhere? Please stick to actual editing and point out to my editing at articles and talk-pages. For me looks now you are all too affraid to actually go to a mediation about this because you know I have sources and the way you left the article is totally against UNDUE. FkpCascais (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If you got to a point when you have to use Srebrenica, it means you got really at the end of the road and you got nothing against me... Why wouldn´t you accept a RfC for Skanderbeg to see if I am that so much wrong and you so much right? Would you be brave for that? FkpCascais (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to post in my section -- you should instead post in yours, but I'll reply here.

More dishonesty -- you never called for an Rfc and anyone can see this on Talk:Skanderbeg. What is shameful is that you expect anyone to believe this, and worse, that you twisted my good faith attempt to lighten your sentence into something I had not intention of supporting, without asking me, not even once. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Calthinus (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Now the thing is, the stuff you posted in that sandbox -- yes, you, I will get to that in a sec -- is exactly what led to Srebrenica, this notion that it is desireable to "clear out" Muslims from Christian realms just as it is desireable for Serbia to have a coast -- including Christians who converted to Islam -- which logically leads to deportations and then, what happens when they don't want to move, well you kill them. I'm not going to sugarcoat this and I'm not going to censor myself. Now, it's also incredibly obvious it was you who posted this. If it wasn't you, then who? [Anyone can see it was your account that added it]. It stretches the imagination to believe you copy pasted it from somewhere on the web, given all the grammar errors, which, I'm sorry, look exactly like the errors you regularly make. And then, even if it was someone else's, why the fuck (excuse me) would you post something that said The then totally absurd creation of Albania was supported by Vatican and Austria and done in order to prevent an Slavic-Orthodox by then pro-Russian country as Serbia to access sea right in Italy back … Western world seing the danger of Russian naval bases in the Adriatic is their nighmare... This move not only prevented Serbia from accessing the sea and clearing the area of Muslims, but created a Muslim country Albania... ---- unless that is also not only what you believe but beliefs you, at that time, wanted to advertise. You were advertising these views for years with this sandbox, right up until they landed you in hot water, and only now you are recanting from them. I am sorry but that is incredibly dishonest and shameful.

I confess, some time ago, I thought it would be okay to, in the spirit of good faith, allow someone with those views to still edit football. The multifaceted dishonesty in his conduct in this case is making me reconsider.--Calthinus (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, the sandbox comments from this year places in context your recent problematic editing on Skanderbeg (about identity etc relating to Albanian topics). Your editing from years back according to other editors was ok, but this year there has been a lapse, a big one at that. The editing done to such articles bears all the hallmarks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by FkpCascais

• I agree that a TBAN was the right action but feel TWO alterations were reasonable: 1) Change the appeal time to 3 months, for non personally hostile TBANs I feel 6 months is more than is needed 2) Exclude football from the TBAN-covered area. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for incorrect placement)

• Please note that an editor has filed an AE complaint against FkpCascais for violating the topic ban that is the subject of this appeal. The report can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by FkpCascais

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Decline appeal anyone who writes "I am also very concern that what you call "editors" is just the 3 of you Albanians who happened team-tag and OWN articles. It is time to end this." has no business editing in an area of ethnic conflict. Also, FkpCascais, you are not kicked off of Wikipedia, you're kicked off of arguing about the various ethnic disputes of the Balkans. The rest of the encyclopedia that does not involve the Balkans is open to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Also noting that I’m fine with a football modification. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• I might misunderstand the policies, but shouldn't this appeal be at WP:AE rather than here?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: I’d be interested in your thoughts on the suggestion that football-related articles be excluded from the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• If the troublesome edits leading to the ban were not related to football, I could see excluding football from the ban as a reasonable modification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Having seen the thread which imposed the sanction, and some of the talk page of the article which prompted it, it does certainly look like FkpCascais is someone who uses tenacious editing (including edit warring) to claim an important historical figure for his/her preferred ethnic/national group. That is not the kind of person we want editing Balkan articles. As the issues mainly relate to history I'm OK with a modification to exclude football as long as FkpCascais doesn't get involved in any disputes about the ethnic or national origin of footballers. Hut 8.5 10:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @FkpCascais: sorry, I'm not willing to analyse a response of that length. If you want an actual reply then please condense it. One thing I would advise though is that you aren't likely to be successful in this appeal by criticising other people or by arguing that the sanction is a miscarriage of justice. Your best bet is to convince people that you understand the issues which led to the sanction being imposed and that they won't happen again. Spending some time editing something unconnected to Balkan history would be a good way to show this. Hut 8.5 16:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with FkpCascais being allowed to edit football-related articles, he is a good editor there and the area would be the poorer for excluding him. @Sandstein: National football has been a Balkan issue, local football is not. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am curious as to who IP @212.186.133.83: is ? They commented twice [72], [73] on the Skanderbeg talkpage making comments pushing POV on identity and so on as @FkpCascais was making their own problematic edits on the main page and talkpage. The IP comments were removed by other editors [74] via wp:deny due to it bearing the hallmarks of a returning sock account. Just thought i would cite this as a heads up to everyone considering that the IP now has made a statement here. Resnjari (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, it must be me socking, feel totally free to open an investigation. Please do so. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Clearly a sock and given that they knew to comment here, suspicious. Alas the style seems a bit closer to AMES, the banned sockpuppeteer who was on a mission to "prove" that Albanians came from Antalya, Turkey. --Calthinus (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
        • That's actually a static IP, so it would be pretty stupid for FkPCascais to use it where it was bound to be the subject of discussion. As an aside, it's in Austria, as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Black Kite The IP is a pretty good match for the profile of banned sockpuppeteer User:Aleksandër_I_Madh_Është_Shqipëtar. And how this "IP editor" (who knows lots of wiki terminology, even sealioning which is kind of an elite user meme) knew about FkpCascais' first thread originally is suspicious... Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Comment: @FkpCascais also has suspicions about the IP account being a former sock and voiced them to an administrator [75]. I will note no one said that the IP has assisted @FkpCascais, but that editors partaking in here need to be aware of issues related to IP, as their comments can influence the outcome of this appeal either way and leave a lingering feeling for whoever that a fair process was not observed regardless of what happens. Just sayin'Resnjari (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Why is AE's stupid formatting leaking onto other pages, and why do we have a special area for administrator comment when the "policy" handed down from Arbcom makes reference only to uninvolved editors at AN? (Also no, don't move this comment to another section, because this section is dumb.) GMG^talk 22:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have had dealings with FkpCascais from Balkans articles, but am not involved in this case. Per Hut 8.5, I think a football exemption is ok as long as they don't get involved in any ethnic disputes associated with footballers or teams. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Scratch that. Given FkpCascais has gone ahead and breached the TBAN with edits on a football in Serbia page whilst this has been under discussion, per the link provided by BMK above, I now don't think this exemption should be agreed to. I'd allow another request for exemption for football-related pages in six weeks if they can keep their nose clean during that time, plus an immediate block for the breaches. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am familiar with FkpCascais from his constructive contributions on Nikola Tesla and I hope that this topic ban does not include that bio. I have never found him to have a nationalistic stance on that article. At the same time, I'm not easily swayed to second guess editors who are familiar with his other contributions. I do agree that the tban could be relaxed to exclude football articles. I'm sure that FkpCascais will learn from this experience and will have no problem appealing the tban in six months. By the way I'm commenting down here because this is a community appeal, not an AE request. The format is malformed and kindly do not move this comment, BMK or anyone else. - MrX 🖋 13:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was going by the agate text under the header of this section, but it's been pointed out to me that the rules for a DS appeal filed at AN are different from those filed at AE, so I was incorrect in moving an edit out of this section (someone else subsequently moved it elsewhere). I've suggested that there be a separate form for DS appeals filed at AN with the correct instructions for the "Results" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Decline Appeal I don't think relaxing a TBan on somebody with pretty concerning nationalist tendencies is going to benefit Wikipedia in the long run. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: In my opinion TB for historical-political articles should be extend, since I was for several years bumping into him and in each case he was behaving like this. Even in this appeal he is NOTHERE, attacking everyone who disagrees with him. It's a surprise that he lasted so long. I don't doubt he will continue with the same behavior after this TB expired, but I guess it will be much more easy to report him now after this one. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Again another TB violation: [76]. I have reported it. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Banned for a week this time. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Er...Asking him to contribute to a discussion on a topic their banned from & then reporting them for it? Fairly certain that's against policy, but I can find at the moment is the don't take the bait essay. Even if not, that's an immoral/unethical action. TelosCricket (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it was an obviously deliberate action by the IP designed to do exactly what it did. They posted on the 28th, pinging FkpCascais, several days AFTER they started to participate here. They should be blocked, but they IP hop and obviously don't care about anything other than their own objectives. Ravensfire (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear to me this IP is the sock of a banned editor and their contribs should be ignored and reverted per WP:DENY. That said, while FkpCascais is responsible for their edits and needs to avoid taking any bait, from what I can tell the block for topic violation was unrelated to the baiting anyway so the IP has done nothing but drawn more attention to their atrocious behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA World Cup stadiums (2nd nomination)

Can an admin reverse this close, it hasn't been open for seven days. I would like this to run for seven days please. Govvy (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a bad close due to the timing and recent DRV. Have you tried to contact @Mhhossein: about reversing their closure yet? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I've un-closed it for you. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's been re-opened, but probably looks like a snow-close Keep anyway. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I know, I wanted to see if anyone was on my level over the article, but it feels like people like this mash of an article!! Thanks again. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you were -- literally -- the only editor in both AFDs who wanted this list deleted. What exactly was the point of your asking for the latest AFD to be reopened? --Calton | Talk 00:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Govvy, Xaosflux, and Nyttend: What was wrong with my closure? No deletes were casted and the article had been under discussion long enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Govvy has a delete opinion and the AfD was open for a little more than a day at the time of your close, which wasn't enough time per the recent DRV. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the AFD was relisted. The outcome would however be "keep. Anyway, let it be open for some more days. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As the DRV had sent this back to be discussed, I don't think a day would be 'long enough'. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

When an ordinary AFD is closed early, and an active participant makes a good-faith request to have it continue for the full time, I can't think of a good reason to reject the request. In such a situation, process should be followed if someone asks for it; it's not as if anyone suffers if we keep it running for the full seven days. [added after Tavix' comment] PS, the issue of "what does the request stand to gain" may be relevant. I can't see why Govvy would make this request, since it's pretty much certain to end contrary to his preferred result — even more reason to grant the request, since that demonstrates that he's not trying to game the system to get a better result. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It was relisted from DRV after being open for less than hour before the relist. The discussion was open for a total of a day, not just a day after the relist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

RM closure of protected page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I closed a move discussion at Talk:Danneel Harris#Requested move 28 December 2018, but later found out it is move protected (the padlock isnt there). Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 06:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Usernamekiran you can just use WP:RMTR to request moves that need an admin to do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@pingó: thanks. And yeah, I knew I was forgetting something. That's what it was. So awkward for a page mover. I blame it on my sort of long wiki break. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Alex 21/script-colourcompliance.js

Can an administrator please edit User:Alex 21/script-colourcompliance.js, changing "AlexTheWhovian" to "Alex 21"? I am unable to, given my recent rename, and I am presented with "You do not have permission to edit this JavaScript page because it is a redirect and it does not point inside your userspace." Thanks. -- Alex^TW 05:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I attempted to edit this page, but admins are not able to edit a user's personal JS page. You may need to employ a bureaucrat or steward to fix this. Nakon 05:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Or interface administrators ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

New year new groups, thanks for the info. Nakon 05:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers fellas. Wondering if I should request that an IA update Javascript pages that use my scripts (about 50 of them), or if I should post a message to the talk pages of the respective users so they can update themselves. -- Alex^TW 06:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend pinging a bureaucrat or an IA. They'll be able to run a mass-fix on the pages. Nakon 06:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Or you may consider redirecting your old script page to the new script page (via IA) without notifying everyone or mass fixing pages. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

They already are, but fail with a 403 error. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW WP:IANB would be the best place for these kind of requests (or you can do an edit request). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a note there. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Cheers! Concerning the users using my scripts ([77]), per my above question/curiousity, is it worth mass updating them or simply posting to talk pages of the users to get them to update their common.js pages? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to post at WP:BLPN and found myself about to edit the Main Page. Something's messed up. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• srsly go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and use the input box to start a new request. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• happened to me to when I tried it. Maybe a vandal got creative and decided to do some template redirect crap?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure, but I can't find where. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean by the "input box", but everything I tried works fine for me. Too much champagne?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Very funny, Bbb. You know I can't afford that. "<inputbox>" -- click "edit" on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header and you'll find it. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Should be fixed, hopefully. Looks like the problem was this edit by User:TheDragonFire, I think; not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks WK. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, crap. Thanks for catching this, Drmies. Will send champagne as punishment. <3 TheDragonFire (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Begging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin take appropriate action against 182.251.109.90 ? Please see [78]. Regards. — fr ⁺ 12:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elizabeth II vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few times at the talkpage of Elizabeth II & over at the article Lists of state leaders by age, an editor or editors have requested for or tried to edit in that Elizabeth II died on January 5, 2019. Here's the accounts-in-question

• User:2606:A000:121E:C3D0:A9A1:7C88:E1B7:F7E
• User:Qundzy
• User:Thicc Chungus

Perhaps a range block is required. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• /r/me_irl, a meme subreddit, had an event where a user claimed queen elizabeth would die in January. Since this has not happened yet, i guess some users are vandalizing in protest. The accounts are unlikely to be related.2600:8805:C500:26A0:C86A:3F97:8FA4:AF4B (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• I blocked one account, warned another; I don't see multiple IPs from the same range so I don't see what range block can be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Iban Appeal

Resolved

 – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Lightbreather

I was put into an I-ban with a banned user some years ago [[79]]. This ended up with the other user being site banned and to my knowledge they have not returned and will not. I'd like to take ownership for my part in escalating that case. My intentions were good, they were based on what I viewed as the best for our encyclopedia. I do with the benefit of hindsight see that while that users behavior was inappropriate in many things legitimate harassment did end up happening to her and taken on the whole it would be pretty overwhelming for anyone. I think in the end every single editor walked away being dirty and not clean even those who had nothing to do with the actions that lead to other site bans. I took a wikibreak (technically retired a while) and that did the trick of helping me completely disengage not only from that but the entire Dramah Boardz in general. I was completing a few degrees and I had reason to take a class on gender and the psychology surrounding it and I can only express my regret on my ignorance of how pervasive gender bias can be. I learned that while I do not have a hardcore sexist view I would fall into a benevolent sexism. I mention that because in self reflection I realize how big of an issue it can be and why all editors here should work to make this a gender neutral platform. I intend to support that in whatever way I can while at the same time avoiding contentious debates. I do not see much use in an active sanction anymore when I've shown that for years I can leave the site and I have well and truly dropped that stick. Many many people tried to explain to me some of the above but because of my level of engagement I didn't see that. I will voluntarily not engage that user if she should ever come back and I would also make the following commitment. Lightbreather as I understood it mostly took issue with me calling out the sockpuppetry, calling her a liar and general willingness to be call out what I percieved to be problems rather then walk away. I will not look for that user, I will not interact with them if I suspect sockpuppetry nor file public reports. I would send a private message to an arbitrator to have them address that situation. I don't even have plans to rehash the incident here on wiki with anyone, it's done. I wasn't perfect, I've learned and attempted to make the best out of a situation that will help me grow as a person and editor here. Lastly I apologize to those editors that may have believed I was doing this purely based on a person gender, that to me was not my intention and I will work very hard to make sure no one on this site will ever think or have reason to think differently. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Note - per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate), this is an arbitration action, and hence needs to be appealed at WP:ARCA. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought so but when I looked there it linked to the AN discussion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: it is a bit confusing (that's Arbcom for you!), but I think what's being done there is that they're making clear which sanctions they're talking about. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok well that's where I started. I will go back maybe you can leave a note here what we are doing and they can follow there. I've already sent a crap ton of notices. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry procedure question

Several weeks ago, someone sent me an email, but since I don't check that address often, I just noticed it a few minutes ago. The situation's rather complex, and I'd like advice, but as I can't find evidence that the connections have been made on-wiki, I'll keep it anonymous.

Accounts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are created by the same person, but all separately, so the user creation log doesn't demonstrate that they're the same person. At some point, someone thinks they're the same person, so an SPI is filed for 1, and its connection to 2, 3, and 4 is confirmed via CU. 2, 3, and 4 are blocked, but 1 isn't. Some time later, the owner decides to drop 1 and create 5 as a clean start. After a while of editing with 5, the owner emails me with some questions about his account history, so I review things, become rather confused, and decide to come here for advice. Please note that I've not found anything disruptive in 5's history, his block log is clean, and it looks like most of his deleted edits are the result of tagging pages for speedy deletion or nominating them for XFD.

Questions: (1) If we block 2, 3, and 4 for sockpuppetry while leaving 1 unblocked, should this be interpreted as a mistake (someone forgot to block the master), or is there sometimes good reason for leaving the master unblocked? (2) 2, 3, and 4 were blocked as socks of 1. Does this mean that continued editing with 1 should be seen as block evasion (you're editing with one account after another was blocked, and it's not yet been unblocked), or does the fact that 1 was left unblocked, and you're not trying to conceal anything, mean that you're okay to continue editing? (3) If it were appropriate to leave the master unblocked, is this a kind of situation in which a clean start can be permitted? (4) If the lack of a block should be deemed a mistake, and continued editing be deemed block evasion, do we have any examples of ignoring the history and allowing the editor to continue? (I vaguely remember an incident a few years ago in which a prominent established editor confessed that his first account had been VOA-blocked years and years earlier, and people were happy to have him continue, but I'm not sure of this.) Even aside from the issue of this person being human (we shouldn't treat him like a robot), he's unquestionably a benefit to the project, and I don't see any ongoing disruption — even if this were unquestionably a case of evasion, the project would suffer did we enforce this policy in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• In principle, it can be perfectly reasonable to block the socks and leave the master unblocked (or block them for a short time and then let them resume editing). It's not unheard of. Obviously it needs to be decided case-by-case, but there's nothing that mandates a default indef for socking, or a block at all. I assume it was a constructive editor and they were not intended to be indeffed. But, even if it was a mistake that they were not blocked, I don't think you can consider that block evasion, nor could you retroactively indef them based on that past abuse, per WP:PREVENTATIVE. If they weren't indeffed (whatever the reason for that), and there's no evidence of current abuse, they're in the clear.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  02:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Is there anything disruptive in the histories of accounts 1-4? If there is, then they should at least publicly connect the accounts, and of course any sanctions under those accounts would need to be transferred over. If not, then there's no issue. Either way, since the new account isn't doing anything bad, there's no reason to block them or anything like that. ansh666 06:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, Ansh666, any account under active sanctions is explicitly not a clean start, so it would be a violation of the sockpuppetry policy and need to be block, not just have the sanctions transferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    • IAR ;) ansh666 06:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    • While the wording of SOCK is clear that sanctions apply to people, not accounts, that doesn't really apply to indef sockpuppetry blocks. There are plenty of good standing accounts who have had an alt blocked when it has fallen out of use, which is the clearest example. Then, there are plenty of cases where we block the master account temporarily and the sockpuppets permanently. As long as there aren't active sanctions on the master account (or any sockpuppet account that isn't a sockpuppetry block), then I'd say changing name by creating a new account is fine. I'd personally be inclined to have them disclose the previous accounts, so not a traditional clean start. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I wasn’t saying the main account necessarily needed to be indef’d, or saying that active sanctions existed if the other accounts were blocked, just that the clean start policy makes clear that if someone does have active sanctions against them, they are ineligible for a clean start and any new account would be a sock created in violation of policy. This is all a hypothetical since we don’t know the account in question, but I wanted to point it out that the existence of sanctions precludes an individual from a clean start since this was a procedural question. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Also, a more policy-based response: if there were previous sanctions and the new account hasn't breached any of them, there's no need to block either. Just ask the person to stick to one account and connect them publicly (i.e. on the user page). ansh666 04:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• If a CU blocked accounts 2,3, and 4, it's probably best to contact them about this situation. I'm pretty sure most if not all of us have email enabled. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'd also check with the CU who made the blocks. But if account 1 was not blocked then I'd say it is not under any active sanctions and a clean start is allowable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Contact the CU or email the functionaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Website offering paid editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This website is offering paid article creation services. Is this a Wiki-PR situation, or should this just be ignored? — CoolSkittle (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What can we do about it? There is LOTS of nonsense the Internet. We need to focus on stamping out the nonsense on THIS site. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignore it. Until its effect on the encyclopedia is noticeable, it's internet nonsense, as Jehochman says. AGK ■ 23:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd entirely agree with the above answers. The site already seems to have had an effect on wikipedia per

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-06-15/In the media
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/In the media
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-01-29/News and notes
• [80]

and in fact has unfortunately been conflated with wiki-pr in the past. (Unfortunate since it must surely have made tracking them confusing or more complicated then it needs be.) That said, I'm not sure if there is anything else to do than what we have already done. The history suggests the foundation must already be aware of them so would have already considered or maybe given a legal warning about TOU compliance and in any case, it'll probably be better to contact the foundation directly about such issues. So there's not much more for us to do really. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

For giggles I sent them a request for references. Let's see if they are watching this thread, if they dodge, or if they give us names of some articles we can inspect. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: You should contact them as a "prospective customer" —usernamekiran(talk) 06:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want to say anything untrue to him. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This firm has been known to Wikipedia since 2013. Read about it here. I don't see what more there is for us to do, other than to be vigilant. Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of their accounts were detected and blocked back in 2013 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Like Jehochman said, all we can do is to stay sharp at NPP and some other fronts. Non notable stuff, and puffery gets filtered at NPP, but only with new articles. If somebody is puffing old articles, then it gets a little difficult spot the puffery. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• That page clearly states that they violate PAID. They're violating WMF terms of service. The WMF is clearly aware of this, though. They're claiming high profile clients, so I'm not sure it's just your average puffery. They talk about not being outright promotional etc, from the perspective of avoiding deletion. They are undisclosed paid editors, and we don't know the extent of their influence. This is serious. I think we just have to be vigilant and apply some use of CU if at all possible. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  As someone who dealt with paid sockfarms before, this is obviously not pleasing news. But this info is less appropriate for AN and shold probably go to SPI and the WMF legal team. funplussmart (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  Has anyone actually found accounts related to this organization (LegalMorning) yet anyway? funplussmart (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Funplussmart: Yes as mentioned by me and GSS above, it's extremely likely the Special:Contributions/Morning277 account belongs to them. Note this media report (already linked to from the LTA discussion page so I presume it's not outing) [81] where the person involved appears to confirm it. For similar reasons, it's quite likely a number of the accounts identified in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 etc relate to the organisation (not necessarily as socks although the LTA page says LegalMorning has claimed they don't use foreign subcontractors but even if true that still means they may subcontract). But it's difficult to know since as mentioned above and in the LTA and here Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Morning277#Requested move, they were conflated with Wiki-PR for a long while. I don't know if there has been any action since round 2013-2014, but since the person behind the site was still talking about wikipedia to the media in 2016 and of course we're always getting paid editing e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 4#Centrify and they're still keeping their site up and it can be difficult to know who is behind it, I suspect they probably are. In some ways it doesn't matter provided we are sure it is paid advocacy, but as I mentioned the way wiki-PR and LegalMorning were conflated early may not have helped tracking either. (Since while it doesn't generally matter who the source is in terms of our actions, not recognising two different organisations may mean patterns are lost or confused.) As I said, I don't think there's anything for us to do at AN, but I think is important to recognise this isn't simply some abstract threat but one that has likely caused problems in the past, and probably still is. Not really AN material but I wonder if there is some way we should make it clearer that yes people are aware of LegalMorning and yes they have caused problems but no there's not much to do unless you actually identify problems as evidenced by the confusion in this thread and the fact it has came up before e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 135#Concerning blog post. Maybe a redirect and clearer annotation of the LTA? Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Has anyone reported the site's abuse of the Wikipedia logo to WMF legal? Guy (Help!) 09:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User query about page mover rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• @ZI Jony: I have received from User:ZI Jony a request "Hi Anthony Appleyard, could you please check that an I eligible to get Page mover rights, so that I could involved more on WP:RM/TR. Thanks in advance! Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I looks like someone must have asked this before, because we have a whole page for it! Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover Natureium (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

ZI Jony recently requested patroller permissions on meta, which was declined. They requested uploader permissions on simple, claiming to have read the upload policy, when it quite clearly states that simplewiki does not support local uploading. They requested access to OTRS queues in areas they have no experience with. And more recently their request for permanent rollback was denied due to continued misuse of the tool. This is all within the last month. Vermont (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Garbled stuff, again

I need for someone to have a look at this, to determine if it needs to be revdeleted, and if the IP/range warrants further scrutiny. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes to the revdel. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmies Just in case you were not aware, this is the Ref Desk Vandal, who should probably be revdeled and/or suppressed on sight. Vanamonde (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I was well aware, having seen it dozens of times, but was not sure in this case since there was much more garbling than in previous examples that I saw, and there was only one edit. Plus I wasn't trying to give them obvious credit on a dramah board. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: My apologies :) I hesitated before asking for that very reason. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Omar ibn al Khattab page edited by biased Shia

Thread moved to WP:ANI, a more suitable forum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Kiwicherryblossom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Kiwicherryblossom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Syrian Civil War

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 20 May 2018 Insertion of "allegedly" into description of smear campaign against the White Helmets.
2. 31 May 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede.
3. 3 June 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede.
4. 9 June 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede.
5. 12 June 2018 Attempt to get "alleged" put into the title of a chemical attack.
6. June-December 2018 Bludgeoning over a period of months to attempt to get "alleged" put into the title or text of a different chemical attack.
7. 30 November 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede after said bludgeoning proved ineffective.
8. 3 December 2018 Insertion of "suspected" into the lede.
9. 27 December 2018 Attempt at synthesis to claim Syrian rebels could have stolen helicopters and sarin to perpetrate an attack generally attributed to the regime.
10. 27 December 2018 Well poisoning the UN Human Rights Council.
11. 5 January 2019 Cherry-picking a blog to promote a viewpoint not supported by the blog. Inserting POV material into lede of the article without discussion.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Warned by Neutrality.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Essentially all of the editor's contributions from May 2018 to the present are edits to downplay, promote uncertainty of, or deny a number of chemical attacks generally attributed to the government of Syria. Taken as a whole, I believe their editing pattern is in clear violation of WP:TE and comprises a long-term pattern of edit warring. As a remedy, I propose a topic ban for all all topics related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[82]

Discussion concerning Kiwicherryblossom

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Kiwicherryblossom

I still think that even in articles about the Syrian Civil War, regardless of our own point of view, we should respect the principle that “alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial” MOS:ALLEGED. However I shall steer clear of the topic for a while. Thanks to Darouet, Huldra and Govindaharihari for your support and points well made. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kiwicherryblossom

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Thank you for this report. It was in the wrong place but I’m going to evaluate it on the substance after moving it here. Your diffs check out. I am inclined to implement a topic ban of maximum length because this editor has been creating a lot of trouble for a long time. Jehochman ^Talk 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• The diffs above are very disruptive for the reasons given, and others, and they don't appear to be cherry picked. I'd support a topic ban from the Syrian Civil War. Hut 8.5 13:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have counseled the user and they accept the terms. diff and permalink. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Note: This is a community discretionary sanction enforcement discussion. The template instructions/structure was copied from WP:AE.

• This is not a vote. If you want to give a reason with evidence, that's fine. Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Involved editors

Support indefinite topic ban from edits related to Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The basis of this complaint is sound as I've observed in my editing at Douma chemical attack. Kiwicherryblossom's editing for the past eight months has been almost entirely focused on promoting the fringe point of view that chemical weapons attacks have not taken place in Syria, or that they were cause by rebel groups. This POV defies a large body of reliable sources that conclude otherwise. For example, Kiwicherryblossom extracted a quote from this blog ("various chlorinated organic chemicals" which might – or might not – be the result of chlorine used as a weapon”.) while ignoring the rest of the source which makes clear that chlorine in its pure form cannot be detected "some time later".[83]. Kiwicherryblossom has made similar edits to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. [84][85][86][87][88]. Kiwicherryblossom frequently cites unreliable sources, blogs, primary sources, and uses cherry picking and original research to synthesize their conclusions. They bludgeon discussions, repeating arguments in slightly different forms, apparently in effort to exhaust other editors. - MrX 🖋 12:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose and request more eyes at Talk:Douma chemical attack. As I've pointed out on the talk page in these comments [89], [90], mainstream reliable sources often use tentative language when describing the Douma attack. Typical is this report from the BBC [91], stating that the OPCW's findings "suggests chlorine may have been used in April's suspected chemical attack." As far as I can tell Kiwi has argued for use of similar language in the article.

By contrast, in this edit [92] MrX incorrectly attributes a US defense department statement to the BBC. When this error is pointed out to them [93], MrX responds that they "don't understand" [94] and doubles down on their error.

Both MrX and VQuakr have attempted to portray the BBC's language and similar language from reliable sources as "fringe," which is a gross misuse of that policy. As I stated on the talk page it would be a major editorial failure to convert the tentative language of reliable sources into encyclopedic certainty, but that is what MrX and VQuakr are asking that we do. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think your confusion arises from the fact that VQuakr and I are not relying on one or two sources, but rather looking a large number of sources, most of which report the same general conclusion that Douma was likely attacked with chemical weapons and chlorine was one of the chemicals likely use in the attack.- MrX 🖋 20:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet:, the reason I generated this request was because I believe the editor's contributions, as a whole, are disruptively tendentious. That is critically different than having a content or editorial disagreement with them. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh, heh, the problem is that you also have a content/editorial disagreement with Kiwi, as is clear to anyone using one minute on the issue. But you are of course free to claim (or even to believe) that that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you want Kiwi topic banned, Huldra (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, and I also ask for more eyes on all articles in any way related to the Syrian war. In my 13 year on Wikipedia; these are among the worst articles I have found here. On Douma chemical attack, not only is Brian Whitaker denied a voice, so is Robert Fisk (when I told that to a journalist friend, he was literally speechless). I know the British Foreign Office have spend millions and millions of pounds spinning their versions to the press, with great success, it seems. Alas, spin, and facts are not the same thing. (Remember all those WMD that Saddam Hussein had?) Huldra (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Support - as per reasons given by @MrX. WP:TENDENTIOUS edits on complex topics about the Middle East is disruptive behavior that does not show good faith and @Kiwicherryblossom's editing also exhibits the hallmarks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT via WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Huldra says it clearly. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  Huldra literally said nothing about Kiwicherryblossom's conduct, but OK. - MrX 🖋 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  I agree MrX. The issue here is about conduct. There is ample evidence to show that @Kiwicherryblossom is not here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I here doff my hat

Any passing admin, please remove my event coordinator right. I am not able to participate in such activities at present, and if I need it back I will request it again. Thank you for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Messed up permission grant

Hi, I was granted temporary eventcoordinator rights and for one account, MetricSwitch, I forgot to set the confirmed right to auto-expire. I don't have the ability to remove or edit it, so would someone revise it to expire in a day? Alternatively, the event is over so you could probably just remove it (and my eventcoord right since I no longer need it) at your discretion. Thanks! Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Wugapodes: I set the standard expiry on it. Thanks for letting us know. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

PR-163

Hi. Can someone look (and fix?) at the Puerto Rico Highway 163 (aka, PR-163) Talk Page? I believe the PR-163's Talk Page should be titled "Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 163", but it reads "Talk:Avenida Las Américas", apparently because I used the Avenida Las Américas article as a starting point to the creation of the Puerto Rico Highway 163 article. Some (somewhat) related discussion is located HERE. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercy11, I deleted the redirect that was present on the talk page. You can create it with the appropriate banners, etc. now. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Will do! Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mercy11 and TonyBallioni: There was no need for the deletion. For future reference, see the instructions about creating and editing redirects. Graham87 03:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m aware. I just thought having the redirect in the history was kinda pointless and this would be easier for the user. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of conflict-of-interest source after warning

I warned Sohail Anwar Es (talk · contribs) about using a blog the user owns as an external link in November 2018. Use of this blog has been repeated in December 2018 and twice today [95] [96]. All of the user's edits have been associated with adding links to this blog. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've just blocked this account. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Experienced closer(s) needed for second Daily Mail RfC.

This RfC hits the 30-day mark in 3 days. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail.

This is a very contentious subject, and is likely to be challenged whichever way it goes. In my opinion should be closed by someone with a lot of experience and a thick skin. There may be some benefit to having one or two other admins cosign the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I volunteer to be a closer. I have not looked at RfC, and I have no time until the (European) evening anyway, so I am going to wait for two more volunteers willing to spend their New Year holidays on the close.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a party, Ymblanter, happy to join in. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I skimmed over it and it seems that the !voters in favor of removing the ban primarily advocate evaluating its use on a case-by-case basis. But unless I'm missing something, the existing rule is that the Daily Mail "is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". That seems to be saying that there already isn't an absolute ban and if you can make a really, really strong case for its inclusion in a particular article, we'll listen to you. --B (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If the bar is arbitrarily high, that's really no different from being infinitely high. Has such an exception ever been made since the first RfC? Hobit (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail would have to publish something that is worth using as a reference for anyone to argue that an exception should be made, and they have not done that. They haven't even come close. If the new editor ever decides to have TDM clean up their act, we could very well see such exceptions. The reason why there have been no exception so far is not that we set the high-jump bar too high, but rather that TDM isn't playing a game of high-jump. They are instead playing a game of limbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Erm, folks, this is not the place to be continuing the argument! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Point well taken. I have striken my last comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A third closer, anyone?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to be the third admin. I've done some contentious closes, though this would be my first multi-party closure. I did not participate in either the current RFC or the January 2017 edition. Vanamonde (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Email sent. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not received anything. Did you use Wikimail for me or the address you used last time (which is different from what I have now as Wikimail)? In any case, I need to read the discussion which so far I have not even looked at.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I sent it to Vanamonde93 via Wikipedia, including in it the email we used last time we corresponded. If that doesn't return correctly when they reply to my initial email, I'll CC you via Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, Primefac, and Vanamonde93: We are now past the 30 days. Should this be closed with a note that the closers are working on a closing statement? Otherwise it is likely for some innocent editor to close it, not realizing the shitstorm he is walking into. "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel."[97]

I have a procedural request: The last Daily Mail RfC ended up on an archive page all by itself. I believe this was because it was so large, but it turns out that doing it that makes it very easy to refer to the RfC in future conversation, of which there have been a lot (and no doubt many more to come). ---Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We are in regular contact but are still reading the RfC, and it could easily take a week more to close it. I would not object closing the RfC for comments if Primefac and Vanamonde93 are fine with that as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've closed the section just as a precaution. As a minor note, Guy Macon, the WP:DAILYMAIL close didn't end up on its own page, just at the top of it. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No objections to a temporary close from me; we're working on the final statement. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No doubt The Daily Mail has already prepared a detailed rebuttal, including several direct quotes from your closing statement and various people's reaction to it.[98] I'm just saying. :) Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Although exerting caution when closing it makes some sense, it makes me a bit nervous to be so cautious here. This RFC is by any reasonable reading actually more one-sided than the one that led to the Mail originally getting depreciated as a source. Treating it with extreme caution risks sending the message that the outcome is in doubt by making it look closer than it is. The first one needed a cautious close because it was taking an unprecedented step; but treating every single appeal to it with the same caution risks encouraging people to constantly challenge it and means we'll be wasting far more time and energy than necessary on challenges to a policy that, on the whole, does not actually seem to be very controversial (even if many of the people opposed are very vehemently opposed, this is an extremely clear RFC result by any reasonable standard.) Obviously consensus can change and all that, but in the total absence of any indication that it's changed (and given that it's reasonably clear the people who respect the Mail as a source have no intention of backing down in the long term), treating every single rehash of the debate as a five-alarm fire seems unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any caution is needed regarding the outcome, but I do think that, based upon the personal attacks on the proposer and closers and the willful misinterpretations and bullshit arguments regarding the result of the last RfC that I have seen posted on some of the more flaky corners of the internet, the close should be carefully worded and should have multiple closers standing behind it in an attempt to avoid "one person decided" and "the closer got it completely wrong" accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Now Dacre is gone I don't expect a similar witch hunt, but it is as well to be cautious. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I do think that the consensus here should be read carefully. Particularly, I think that nuances within peoples voting, expressions about when people think this issue should next be reopened etc. should be given due weight. I deplore off-wiki lambasting of people involved in the dispute. I also do not think that the supporters of removing the ban were the only people writing with vehemence. I am not sure why the argument is being continued on this page, particularly I do not know why people involved in the debate are talking with such certainty about what they believe the result will be here. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The close has been completed and the closing summery posted. In my personal opinion, the closers did an excellent job. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree: the closing statement is clear, well-reasoned, and easily understandable, and does a very good job of summing up the consensus of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

delete this nonsense

Sock blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this Template:User Unified Azerbaijan was created by a troll named User:Noofoozi who was a sock account of User:Pournick.that template uses wikipedia for promoting political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.105.139 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC) We don't need to delete that template. Who cares. Maybe some random teenager will use it, you know! Anuspedia (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Deletion of undersourced page Please delete the article Dubai One Tower as it is undersourced and there is not enough info in the article anyway. Thanks. Anuspedia (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC) @Anuspedia: Please sign in under your original account in six months. ——SerialNumber54129 20:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)