Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308

User talk:Vlad Sandulescu

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.

---

User:Vlad Sandulescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All of this editor's contributions seem to be to their user page and user talk page. Many new editors similarly focus on their user space and it's hoped that they will eventually move on to editing articles, etc. This particular editor, however, seems to be moving into WP:NOTWEBHOST territory particularly with respect to their user talk page. The revisions made to the Teahouse welcome template added by HostBot and the self awarding of various barnstars seems strange. Some of the content is not in English so I'm not sure what it says, but the stuff in English seems to be WP:UPNO stuff which shouldn't be on their user page yet alone his user talk page. So, I'm wondering if a few admins could look at this and see if something needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the text is in Romanian and could be construed as antisemitic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted from his talk page at [1], reason: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sandbox talk page deleted as copyright violation of http://basarabialiterara.com.md/?p=22135 and per WP:U5
• User talk page revisions deleted as copyright violation of http://www.ziaristionline.ro/2011/02/01/de-ce-a-fost-mazilit-caragiale-din-piata-universitatii-addenda-justificarea-unor-expulzari/
• User blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Vlad Sandulescu&type=block

Suggesting closure; any appeal needs to be made on User talk:Vlad Sandulescu anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 7 April 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.

Legal Threats

Aren't legal threats RevDeleted or Oversighted? Here a legal threat was made and is still there - 1125.63.105.110 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. It's sufficient for the user to remove it but it doesn't need to be revdel'd. --Golbez (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IP talk page

I was unable to create User talk:2409:4072:6192:7597:0:0:297F:B8A1 to warn the IP after reverting recent edits. It isn't clear to me why the IP's user talk page is blacklisted. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Humorously, that IP matches a wildcard blacklist entry for an Indian spam phone number. Whoever manages the blacklist should make sure it excepts User Talk pages, maybe? --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This type of spam often pops up on talk pages, so I'm not sure that's a viable solution.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, I welcomed the IP with an appropriate message. You should now be able to edit the page if you want. Home Lander (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.

Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:

The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 03:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

Return of permissions for compromised administrator accounts

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Since November 2018, six accounts have been desysopped under the Level I desysopping procedures as compromised administrator accounts. The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." The current policy on security of administrator accounts provides that "a compromised admin account will be blocked and its privileges removed on grounds of site security" and "in certain circumstances, the revocation of privileges may be permanent."

The Arbitration Committee resolves that the return of administrator privileges to a compromised account is not automatic. The committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Removal of permissions, subsection Return of permissions, is replaced by the following:

Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once if a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

In cases where an administrator account was compromised, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions. Factors used to make this determination include: whether the administrator used a strong password on both their Wikipedia account and associated email account; whether the administrator had reused passwords across Wikipedia or the associated email account and other systems; whether the administrator had enabled two-factor authentication; and how the account was compromised.

If the Committee determines the administrator failed to secure their account adequately, the administrator will not be resysopped automatically. Unless otherwise provided by the committee, the administrator may regain their administrative permissions through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of permissions for compromised administrator accounts

Closing a discussion

Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion?
Link: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Proposal:_Remove_WP:USPLACE_from_subpages
Mstrojny (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Lucas Moura

Not sure where to post this, the last editor put a mobile number in the summary, I assume you're not suppose to do that. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: I was planning to revert it myself, but I was stuck between good-faith, and the contrary. However someone else reverted it. I'll warn them if they do it again. The Duke 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been revdeled. In future, please note the warning that you see when you edit this page: If it's a privacy related matter, please email it to [email protected] Special:EmailUser/Oversight. ST47 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

k, cheers, Govvy (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: Normally posting on this noticeboard is pretty effective at dealing with issues, I might forget about that oversight email, Govvy (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If the matter involves privacy, WP:AN is just about the least-private forum. Please, do not post it here. Just remember Oversight and click the email user link. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request for User:Musa Raza

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.

---

There is an unblock request at User:Musa Raza (aka User:Mnaqvii), who was blocked for various offences including socking, and several admins (including the one who restored talk page access to allow the request) believe this should be a community decision. It's quite a lengthy unblock request and there is already some relevant discussion, so I won't copy it all here. I ask people to examine the request at User talk:Musa Raza#Request to unblock and then offer their thoughts here. Technically I guess it should be the User:Mnaqvii account that is unblocked if any, but that would depend on whether the editor is still able to access it. I have a few thoughts myself, and I'll offer them here shortly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock with conditions. The unblock request seems to me to be as full and frank as we could hope for, and it sounds genuine - I've seen plenty of "say what they want me to say" requests in my time, but this does not look anything like that. The other major point for me is that it seems we're looking at a teenager who has turned 18, and young people mature enormously in the short space of time of a few years - and the unblock request and following discussion are clearly a good deal more mature than earlier interactions. The desire to face up to previous misdeeds and openly seek unblock rather than sneaking back quietly is also commendable.

  Turning to conditions, which build on the discussion I've had at the talk page. I'd like to see a CheckUser check to make sure there's no recent socking (though I know that can only check the last couple of months), and I'd impose a one-account restriction for at least a year. The discussion talks of vanishing of old accounts, and I'd decline that for at least a probationary period before it is considered. The same goes for the possibility of courtesy blanking any old talk page content (which I can understand could be embarrassing for a now more mature person). Next is the problematic COI articles that Musa Raza has confessed to, with a commendable request to have them deleted. Reviewing those articles and rectifying the COI work would also be one of my conditions, and I would volunteer to work with Musa Raza to sort all that out - it might be something better worked out off-wiki in case there are any BLP aspects, but that's a detail I'm happy to work on. I don't think it really makes any difference whether User:Musa Raza or User:Mnaqvii is the account unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - when this was at UTRS, before I restored TPA, I asked for CU comment who said "With the limited info available I don't see any obvious signs of recent socking". Just Chilling (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional Unblock - I think an unblock could be sanctioned - As already said, the editor does seem significantly more mature and certainly is fairly blunt about listing the issues. Equally clearly, they can be of significant utility to the project given their activity in their 2nd wave. Various criteria should apply:

• SOCK TBAN - this (or one other designated account) is to be the only account used - no IP editing, or the standard usual legitimate alternate accounts. Appeal-able after 6 months (n.b. I am specifically against a longer length TBAN)
• Probationary clean-start - the editor has repeatedly requested clean start on the various other accounts. This isn't unreasonable, but I'd say it shouldn't take place until a probationary period is over, which logically should end when the above TBAN does. In the meantime a courtesy blanking of the talk pages would be reasonable.
• Identification of all known former socks - I'm aware they might not have a perfect knowledge given the timespans, but confirmation/refutation of the various noted sock accounts used beforehand should be undertaken, so far as possible Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• All of the accounts I have created were caught and are mentioned here. There are no any other accounts however after getting blocked I edited as this IP and submitted drafts. But User:Ponyo deleted all. The IP was temporary blocked. Suspected users User:Xoloa500s and User:Asadkharal are not my accounts. I do not know when Xoloa500s was created and I was never asked or told about it. I discovered it in the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mnaqvii and I once, while blocked, said that it’s not my account.-Musa Raza

• Strongly support a clean-start unblock. This situation is a near spitting image to mine, and judging from my experience, people can come over leaps and bounds, and mature greatly over the course of a few years. The user has written a very convincingly unblock request, and since they have requested mutiple times for a clean start, and since they have displayed a great level of maturity over their past, they should be granted that. The Duke 18:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support conditional unblock per B!sZ. Good to see that the editor seems to have matured. Miniapolis 02:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock. The editor seems remorseful for their past disruption and they put forward a sincere unblock request now. Time to give them another chance – Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock - but with a probationary period of 12 months. During that period there should be a one-account restriction and no clean start. After 12 months they can come back here for these restrictions to be lifted. Just Chilling (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock -- Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 12 April 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.

Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities

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 been dealing with a constant vandal/sockpuppeteer (main account: Demoreasimpson16) for about six months now. The main Demorea account was blocked by Bbb23, so when I began the SPI linked prior, I messaged him per rules and as a courtesy. Plus, since he is a CU, I wanted to get rid of any sleepers before they popped up.

• At the first SPI (filed November 23, 2018) Bbb23 almost immediately he found insufficient evidence to check the other users. I had alot of different accounts there, couple IPs that I was mostly going on behavior with. But I did ask Bbb23 to run the checkuser anyway saying it "Would help to know if (Demorea) (wa)s using any accounts on that IP range. Again, covering all bases." Bbb23 answered simply "Not going to happen." Odd.

• The next time around (filed December 1, 2018) Courcelles did the CU but again I alerted Bbb23 per rules. He said "I don't think a recheck was necessary...". This struck me as odd. With the previous discussion of ours still up on his talk page (and me admittedly upset), I posted Maybe it should have, because a new sock has popped up. Just because you wield the CU/SPI tool doesn't mean you aren't always right. Take suggestions, they might be right, they might be wrong. But if they are right, you block more sleepers this way. Less ego, more helping." Bbb23 removed that. I admit that probably was the best course of action as I didn't handle that well.

• The next SPI (filed on December 11, 2018) and I didn't alert Bbb23 on his talk page as I had previous, just a simple ping. After our last encounter, I just didn't see the point. Though, by December 27 with the SPI still open I did leave a message on Bbb23's talk page. Sir Sputnik blocked that particular sock. At this point, knowing Bbb23 was editing and knowing he had to have seen my posts and pings, I decided to address the problem. That actually was polite. But, again, it was removed with an edit summary "don't post on my Talk page".

• Things have been quiet until yesterday, when another Demorea sock popped up (filed on April 8, 2019). I requested a CU as part of the SPI. ST47 blocked the new sock, but left the SPI open for the CU. TheSandDoctor came through a couple hours later adding the CU request. A hour after that Bbb23 came through saying "Based on the history of this case, there is no reason to run a check." (emphasis his). I again asked for the CU with "due respect to Bbb23". Bbb23 then archived the discussion without allowing ST57 or TheSandDoctor (who I had also pinged) to respond. I asked for an explanation for this and I have yet to receive a response.

To me, this is a disturbing use of Bbb23's admin and CU powers (or lack thereof on the latter) to basically stonewall any CU discussion or suggest CUs aren't necessary for an Demorea sock. To me, a CU should be performed when you are playing whack-a-mole with a sockpuppeteer this many times. For an admin to actively shoot down and request, shut down any discussion, and refuse to discuss anything regarding the user (regardless of if I was being cranky or not) speaks volumes and it ain't good.

I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along. If so, then I know I'm not just seeing things. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:55 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

• If a Checkuser is telling you that CU isn't helpful in a particular case, then stop requesting it. If you're playing whack-a-mole, as you note above is the case, then checkuser is pretty much useless as the IPs are likely varied, large, and dynamic. The socks listed here appear blindingly obvious and most Checkusers would decline to check in such cases. Coles Notes: If the Checkuser running the check asks you to stop requesting checks as they're not neceassry, then stop requesting CU.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also, stop bothering Bbb23. "I alerted Bbb23 per rules" – what rules? There is no rule that you have to badger Bbb23 every time you file an SPI case. He already asked you to stop posting to his talk page. If you ping him again or post to his talk page again, I will consider that harassment, and I will block you per rules. Nobody should have to put up with this kind of badgering. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, you are not required to notify the original blocking admin every time you file a new SPI report. From what I can tell, the last sock aside from the one blocked the other day was active in December. That's hardly constant, and since there is only one non-stale account, any CU or SPI clerk would have denied the CU request. I suggest you drop the stick. Sro23 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutralhomer Years ago when I got crosswise regarding checkuser one person explained that it is not magic fairy dust that can reveal everything. It has limitations. There also limitations as to how and when it can be used. Please try and understand this. I know how much you want to protect the 'pedia but if you take what you are being told on board you will be able to let this go and get back to editing articles. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Quoting Bbb23 as saying "I don't think a recheck was necessary..." when the full sentence was "I don't think a recheck was necessary, but I found nothing." is a rather misleading representation of Bbb23's involvement and investigation. Indeed, it looks like Bbb23 checked batches of accounts not once, but twice: first on 24 November 2018, and again on 01 December 2018; despite that, you claimed incorrectly in your "due respect" remark yesterday that he had not. (Incidentally, just saying "due respect" isn't actually a get-out-of-jail-free card for being disrespectful towards other editors.) While there may be a problem here, it is not with Bbb23. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Courcelles did the CU on the December 1, not Bbb23. Plus, as a "general user" (my term), I have no proof he did anything on any day. He could have posted that on both days and said he did and did nothing. I can't independently verify that because I don't have access. I have to take his word he did it. That doesn't really work. I can say I'm the King of England and live in a million dollar mansion, but doesn't make it true. Citation needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with the above statement I don't know where to begin. Neutralhomer, you have lost the plot here. You are quoting policies that don't exists, insisting on action that cannot or should not be actioned, and casting some pretty horrible aspersions regarding Bbb23's motivations and edits. Remember when you wrote "I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along." in your complaint? Because your responses here do not reflect your words above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't I? You all went straight into "it's your fault" and "I'm going to block you for harrassment" without taking a serious look at what I wrote. No one really mentioned anything and when you did you spun it back on me. So, yeah, I am going to take it a little personal. Plus, remember he said "Not going to happen" to my request for the CU on the first SPI. But claimed he found insufficient evidence to check the other users. So which was it? Found insufficient evidence or wasn't going to do the CU? Can't be both. You see why I have an issue with not trusting him when he says he actually did something. Plus with you all coming at me, I'd like proof instead of his word. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

• I'm just going to address these in general. So, if a CU isn't necessary in November, it still isn't necessary in April? How is logical? Clearly the first block didn't work, another sock was created, then others (more were created prior to the SPI thread). So?? Also, NinjaRobotPirate (kudos on the SpongeBob reference), you are required to notify the blocking admin when a sock of an account they have blocked has popped up. Plus, before pings, notifying someone of a thread regarding them was required. I don't always ping, so I do talk page notify. I pinged him and talk page notified for this tread so block away. @Ten: I said "due respect" because I was trying to be nice (flies, honey). I definitely have very little respect for Bbb23. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • you are required to notify the blocking admin when a sock of an account they have blocked has popped up. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Long as I can remember and I've been here since 2006. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
      • I've been here since 2005 and this is the first I've ever heard of this rule. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, I think before now someone would have told me it wasn't a thing. But we are way off topic. Continued behavior by Bbb23, lack of CUs, shutting down SPIs before CUs are done (even by other users). That's our topic, not me and what Neutralhomer did this week. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:26 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
          • CheckUsers don't "owe" you a check just because you demand one. Several times in this thread, you've accused Bbb23 of lying about having performed a check. Since I hope we can all agree that that would be a serious allegation, can you present your evidence, please? Or if, as I think we all suspect, you have none, then I think you should withdraw that accusation. ST47 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
            • You know I don't because I don't have access to that part of the project. No, I won't withdraw. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:44 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
          • You might recall your being told in the discussion in December: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive305#Issue with Bbb23 isaacl (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Actually, I see it as evidence of an ongoing issue and admin attacking anyone who attempt at bringing up Bbb23's behavior. But, you all do what you want or, you know, you could look at the evidence. Oh, ST47, if Checkusers don't "owe [us] a check just because [we] demand one", then why did you keep the SPI open and let's just do away with the whole thing since it feels optional. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
• Damn it I swore off this board but I just had to opine on this. Bbb23 is one of the best admin and CU I've experienced in my dealings with Sockpuppets in the 10 years I've been here. I trust their judgement when they say it isn't merited. You can always ask for a second opinion but the experiences I've seen and been party to show a thoughtful person in that arena. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually I did request a second opinion (which ST57) says I am not obligated to even request, but I did and Bbb23 closed the discussion before one could be even found. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, please understand I make no judgement on your complaint or your editing, I just wanted to opine on my experiences with Bbb23 in this arena. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Understood. I thank you for being the only one who ventured into this with an open mind. Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:50 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)

• Does anyone think a CU isn't needed now? That's a brand new Demorea sock, not even 24 hours since the last sock was blocked. For the record, I am creating an SPI momentarily...and no, I'm not pinging or notifying Bbb23. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:02 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)

• You don't need to open up an SPI for a sitting duck. Any passing admin can just block without CUing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• • Blocked. SPI for duck hunting isn't needed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, much appreciated! :) Mr rnddude: Since this is the second sock in 24 hours and the lack of CUs by Bbb23 is the reason for this thread, it's the reason I requested one...and brought it up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:08 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)

• ((edit conflict) with close) -- I have found Bbb23 to be somewhere between rarely and consistently aggressive, arbitrary, authoritarian, and unaccountable. The unwarranted and rude "Not going to happen", without any semblance of helpful explanation, is a classic example of this problem. But that does not make him the only CU. If any admin or user has made it known that they are not willing to help you, the burden of guilt shifts to you as you continue to pester them. This is downright harassment. Bbb23, just like every administrator, is not required to assist you upon your request. If one admin is not helping as requested, solicit another. You can't complain about an admin failing to take action, even when it would be warranted. Per the intro to WP:ADMIN, nobody is ever required to do anything with their tools. If you're under the impression that you're duty-bound to pester Bbb23 upon every new SPI, you're mistaken, so you shouldn't have this problem again. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, at least you experience the same behavior so I'm not crazy. But this is closed, so... - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:25 on April 10, 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.

Boomerang?

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 know this was closed, but IMO it's already over the line for a boomerang block. First as was sort of pointed out above, Neutralhomer said above

Well, I think before now someone would have told me it wasn't a thing. But we are way off topic.

However in the previous AN they opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive305#Issue with Bbb23 they were told there is no such rule. User:Betty Logan and User:Agathoclea said they weren't aware of such a rule. User:Bbb23 and User:Beeblebrox in their closing statement, explicitly said there was no such rule. User:Johnuniq said to stop pinging Bbb23 implying there was no such rule. User:TonyBallioni and User:Nick-D said that reporting directly to one admin may not be the best idea implying there was no such rule. Even the only other remaining participant User:SQL almost said that. Neutralhomer seemed to acknowledge many of these messages when they said

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.

From what they said above, Neutralhomer hasn't pinged Bbb23 since then but it's concerning that they're still implying no one told them there was no such rule when nearly everyone in the previous discussion indeed told them that. I'd like to AGF that Neutralhomer simply forgot the message of the previous discussion, except that when Isaac pointed out they had been told, they just talked about a pattern of Bbb23.

As TOAT pointed out above, Neutralhomer also misleading quoted Bbb23 implying they did not run a check when they did. When TOAT pointed this out, Neutralhomer again misleadingly said

Courcelles did the CU on the December 1, not Bbb23.

Except that as TOAT had just pointed out, clearly Bbb23 message meant they had also run a check in addition to Courcelles. Of course they also said that maybe Bbb23 was simply lying when they said they ran a check.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I've notified everyone I mentioned. I included existing participants since they may assume this thread was still closed. Also, I should mention I recall one dispute I had in the past which I believe involved Neutralhomer, concerning interpretation of WP:OR as it pertains to radio station coverage/reception and FCC data. I'm hoping my view here is not coloured by that but have no way of knowing. Also in relation to one of Neutralhomer earlier points, I don't see this as off-topic. Neutralhomer's behaviour in this dispute is on-topic, as the behaviour of all participants in a dispute always is. And from my POV, whatever Bbb23 may have done wrong, Neutralhomer's behaviour has been terrible enough to justify a block. I recently interacted with Bbb23 in relation to a different matter, but have no strong opinions of them. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has a shockingly extensive block log, and this increasingly looks like a pattern of complaining about (or harassing) Bbb23. I've filed a few SPIs and dealt with Bbb23, and he is unfailingly laconic, and sometimes outright curt, which I know many interpret as aggressive or rude. The more you ignore what he says, though, the more likely you're going to get curtness or even silence as a response. Given that Neutralhomer wants to reject everything Bbb23 tells him, it's no surprise he's been getting that sort of response; badgering Bbb23 just reinforces that outcome. I don't know if a block is necessary, but maybe Neutralhomer should be subject to a one-way IBAN in order to ensure he just leaves Bbb23 alone. Grandpallama (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A shockingly extensive log with two indefs! Blimey. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless the problems that led to the blocks are reoccurring, somebody's block log should be irrelevant, and certainly not an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. In the case of Neutralhomer, the blocks from 2018 are for 3RR (generally a one-off, and obvious if it re-occurs) and "clumsiness" which AFAIK isn't part of the blocking policy (and, indeed, was overturned shortly afterwards). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The comments here are misleading, look at the block log two recent blocks last year and prior to that in 2012 or before that is not a shocking record. It shows an editor who for six years worked hard with no blocks to be found. Let's not try and bury Nuetralhomer with things that don't actually deal with this incident. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thoroughly disagree. Admittedly, the recent block log is more clean, but the older blocks are for exactly the sort of behavior I think we see on display in this AN report. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion but the blocks I see are for 3rr, sockpuppetry and incivility. I don't see him socking, I don't see him edit warring and for the most part he has remained rather cool in this discussion. An argument could be made to i-ban them from Bbb23 but I wouldn't think that was nec either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He's made accusations (or at least strongly implied) that Bbb23 lied about performing CU or following up on cases, he's falsely (as Nil Einne has demonstrated) made claims about his understanding of the supposed need to ping Bbb23, and he's on his second trip to a noticeboard in less than six months to complain about Bbb23 being somehow derelict because Bbb23 won't do exactly what Neutralhomer wants. As far as I'm concerned, that's incivility, tendentious behavior, and harassment, all of which he was repeatedly blocked for in those earlier blocks. Grandpallama (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe you should research those blocks, I have and they are much different then what you seem to think they were. I don't mean he was in the right because blocks should have happened in some of those cases but apples and oranges to this situation. Ugh I swore off this board because of a lynch mob mentality here but this is exactly what this thread devolved to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do think we're reading things differently because I see over five blocks for incivility and hounding/harassment, including off-wiki, with what I can still see of those interactions (to the degree I dug into them) pretty damning. I don't think prior blocks themselves in any way invalidate a legitimate complaint about another user (which is not what has happened here, by the way), but they do indicate a user with a history of engaging in ongoing harassment against other users, including admins they didn't care for. It's hard not to see the repeated attempts to smear Bbb23 as being in the same vein, and also necessitating a lower tolerance level for this user's current behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Grandpallama, my last comment on this would be that just because a block says indef doesn't always mean it was justified. I was indef'd once and the reason was given that it was for harassment [[2]]. Read this and tell me what you think [[3]]. If that was harassment I'm a monkey's uncle. I was owning up to my own misbehavior and some of us really fall into editing without intending it. I did, I didn't come with the intention of building the knowledge but after that indef I sure cleaned up my act and started writing new articles and filling in redlinks. I have had my warts on my record that were well and truly my own contributions but I dislike someone trying to use that rough entry to say I was a detriment to the project Some of the blocks like saying people should be executed were beyond the pale but overall I see a productive editor with some imperfections and this is the second thread in 6 months? Hardly indicative of a problem needing a remedy other then what has already happened here. Again though reasonable minds can disagree and I don't mean my lynch mob mentality comment to focus on you or User:Lugnuts just my own bias and interpretation of both users who I have had involvement with here and by reading various actions over the years. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd never been aware of NeutralHammer until this thread, and I was mearly noting that they had two indef blocks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• The section above was closed with the comment "The underlying editor is blocked", but the filer (Neutralhomer) does not appear to be blocked.[4] So who is the underlying editor? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was weird. I assumed maybe it was in reference to the sockmaster that Neutralhomer is concerned about? Grandpallama (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  The sock Neutralhomer was dealing with has been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps Neutralhomer is exasperated from dealing with a persistent sock. I am very sympathetic about that because there are situations where anyone can edit looks pretty silly given the ridiculous amounts of maintenance with little support that can result. However, at least Neutralhomer (presumably) only has to deal with one idiot. Consider Bbb23 who spends much of his life up to his ears in idiots. I hope Neutralhomer can give a clear statement guaranteeing that they will leave Bbb23 alone from now on. Post at SPI and if Bbb23 responds that's fine. But don't mention him or contact him in any way. If such a statement is forthcoming I don't think a sanction is needed at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Honestly, Johnuniq, that just sounds like a voluntary IBAN, so why not make it one and log and enforce it? Grandpallama (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do confess to feeling completely and utter frustrated with Bbb23 in the past (eg: "for f***'s sake will you stop blocking everyone!") but when I can actually get a conversation out of them, it's reasonable. All I can really say is that if you spend all your day dealing with serial sockfarms, you tend to be unable to see the wood for the trees when you make a mistake on genuine good-faith stuff. I can't find the diffs, but I'm certain I have overturned at least one CSD G5 of Bbb23's on the simple grounds that it felt like a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Also, I have in the past criticised the odd block of theirs and got it overturned. I think reverting people's comments on their talk page "because sock" is not helpful; it makes third parties looking at the matter think that WP:ADMINACCT is not being followed. He doesn't have to be "Mega Checkuser Guy", there are others who can help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm very disapointed to see this here again, as I'd thought we'd closed this book three months ago. Look at the stats. Bbb23 is far and away the most prolific user of the checkuser tool on this project. He isn't shy about using it if there is any cause to do so. If he's repeatedly said there is no utility in employing it against a particular sockpupeteer, he's almost certainly right.

I don't know what NH hopes to accomplish by pretending it is otherwise, or by continuing to pretend that they did not know notifications of previous blocking admins are not needed. I understand all too well the frustration of dealing with long-term abuse and prolific sockpuppeteers, but I don't understand harping on about one CU's reluctance to use the tool in cases where it appears not be needed. This seems to me a clear case of failure to drop the stick, and I don't see that Bbb23's somewhat curt attitude in any way mitigates that. I know it can be frustrating dealing with a process like CU you can't actually see the results of, but that's how it works, and over-explaining why CU isn't needed is WP:BEANS for the sockpupeteer. I would strongly advise Neutralhomer to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• To everyone, I am dealing with something alot more important than this. My cat is dying (the vet is coming over, I bet you can guess why) and I could truly care less about Wikipedia nonsense right now. But, since others have asked, I am not going to SPI any Demorea sock as it clearly isn't worth my time and energy. Dealing with Bbb23 isn't worth my time and energy either. I tried to have a conversation with you all about this user's behavior and surprise, I get attacked. But wait, Swarm and Ritchie333 (thanks to you both, by the way) have had similar incidents with Bbb23 (don't see them getting attacked or threatened with blocks). As I said, I have much more important things to deal with, so please do whatever you all want. I really don't care at this point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:56 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, NH. Leviv ich 21:44, 10 April 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.

Clouded leopard moved without discussion

Hi everyone, Clouded leopard was moved to Mainland clouded leopard with no discussion among editors. I wasn't sure if this could be a simple redirect or not it was done by one user randomly with no discussion. Thank you for your time and help this needs a fast fix.Mcelite (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have moved back to Clouded leopard and will leave a note with the mover... GiantSnowman 15:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mcelite: I note @Elmidae: has also raised this issue and raised at WP:RMT. GiantSnowman 15:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for sorting this out. I have removed the two requests at WP:RMT. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you guys it so random and shocking to see the move this morning. Thank you for fast response.Mcelite (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible competence issue with a new user

Hi admins, While monitoring my watchlist I have come across a user by the name of user:Petejmarsh who appears to have a problem re competence, (and their language IMO) and doesn't appear to respond when asked to explain reversions of valid edits. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see if any action is needed at all? Btw I did think of taking this to ANI but didnt think it was appropriate as nothing major has (yet) happened, but happy to be corrected and/or moved if need be. User will be informed momentarily has been informed. Thanks all Nightfury 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see problems here, yes, but I also see a new user just hit by warning templates rather than any friendly attempt to explain things to them. I'll try offering a few words and see if that helps, and I'll watch for how they respond. Feel free to let me know if there are further problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee It appears I may have spoke too soon. They appear to be related to IP 86.164.35.39, I see you have blocked them already. Nightfury 14:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted likely IP editing when I examined their behaviour, so I watchlisted all of the recent articles they'd edited - and the same IP pops up again to repeat one of Petejmarsh's reverts. As you've seen, I've blocked the IP, and I've also left a warning at User talk:Petejmarsh. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to update, User:Petejmarsh has continued edit warring and bock evasion, so he's indef blocked now and a couple of IPs he's used are blocked too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please review these well-written or well-revised articles that are, IMHO, mistakenly labeled.

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 been reading dozens and dozens of Wiki articles during my current road trip and have come across a handful that I believe don't warrant the warning or censure they each have at their pages' tops. Please reconsider the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Walter_Clemens,_Jr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_Jourdan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DokuWiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone_(software)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-book

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Cino

Thanks, JL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F517:A966:8E61:11DD:29F1:2084 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 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.

Block review of KeithCu by Feezo

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.

---

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#439_posts_by_53_users_in_the_last_three_days there is a discussion of suspected meatpuppetry and KeithCu's name was mentioned in a list of names of those who hasn't edited in a while and then showed up at the page. He posted on the AN/I page that he doesn't know what meatpuppetry is but he edited because he wanted to and he felt the current version didn't reflect the truth, whether he is right or not can be discussed, he was using the talk page and was not disruptive.

During this time, he has not edited in the mainspace and was utilizing the talk pages. There is a RM discussion at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) if the title should be moved to a different name and he wrote that it should be. After KeithCu commented at AN/I that he is not a meatpuppet, Admin Feezo blocked him for NOTHERE. I asked Feezo to clarify why he was blocked and I was told that "Defending Breitbart as a reliable source and IDHT advocating of conspiracy theories are both clear evidence of NOTHERE." However, it is clear that Feezo hasn't seen the talk page of the article since there is an RM discussion on whether or not to call it a conspiracy theory or not and it's not just Breitbart, as others have pointed out, mainstream media is covering this. Regardless, 4 edits on a talk page is not IDHT and NOTHERE territory and the block, IMO is admin overreach that IMO is trying to push an agenda.

These are the four diffs of KeithCu on the talk page: diff, diff, diff, diff

This is his comment to AN/I: diff

Here is Feezo's comment: diff

Bottom line is he was not disruptive, he was using the talk page and should not have been blocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:04, 16 April 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've been looking into Feezo's administrative actions activity levels over the past 7 years and they do not give me confidence that they should still have access to the tools. KeithCu may not have been aware of the community's stance towards Breitbart, and the first step, to me, would be to let that user know that Breitbart is not acceptable for Wikipedia, instead of an indefinite block. In the 3 year span between 2015-2017 Feezo edited less than 200 times. Excluding 2011, when they were promoted to an admin, Feezo's made ~2400 edits in 11 years. There's no way that meets the current standard for holding administrative privileges. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I changed administrative actions to activity levels after a comment by WBG. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The standard for admin inactivity is "administrator accounts that have no edits or log actions for at least one year". There is not a rule in place for a specific amount of edits over a specific amount of time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, diffs of those actions please. The first statement is otherwise an aspersion.

FWIW, I wholly agree with the specific block, under scrutiny. That page has been attracting a bunch of crackpots and it's one less, now. (Reliable sources are all wrong; Breitbart is the holy grail of all sources; the community is a mob defending FBI.....) Drop this and wiki-lawyer over something else. ∯WBG^converse 18:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling other editors crackpots is a personal attack. The article has so many issues, as you yourself have identified. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

as you yourself have identified -- You need to troll far better. ∯WBG^converse 18:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• If another admin wants to re-open this, fine, but I'd suggest it be closed again: except in rare circumstances, we do not accept 3rd party unblock appeals, and there are good reasons for that: the normal process works pretty well, AN is usually a hot mess, and it would be easy, especially in controverial areas (i.e. Breitbart) for partisans to drag admins to AN over a normal block and make it into something much bigger than it actually is, and which could be resolved via talking and review in the normal process. I would really suggest that someone else close off this section again, but since I closed the above, I will not be. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  If someone can show me a diff of where Feezo attempted to discuss this with KeithCu, who is clearly an inexperienced user, then I'll gladly drop it. The first step for administrators should be discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni, precisely. And, now this has descended into sheer trolling over Feezo's t/p. ∯WBG^converse 18:41, 17 April 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.

Copyright problem backlog

Category:Requested RD1 redactions .--Moxy 🍁 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

on it. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Down to two. Sorry for not catching the backlog earlier. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Now one, but I maxed out my time on one mammoth job. AGK ■ 20:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds unblocked following successful appeal

Following a successful appeal via email to the arbitration committee, Flooded with them hundreds has been unblocked, with an indefinite one-account restriction and the agreement to publicly disclose all past accounts. The account restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee. The past accounts are:

• MagicSkyPimp (talk · contribs)
• EDMLover (talk · contribs)
• ReZawler (talk · contribs)
• CoffeeMusicGym (talk · contribs)
• PleaseLeaveMeAlone (talk · contribs)
• Zawl (talk · contribs)
• FloodedBot (talk · contribs)
• Z0 (talk · contribs)
• KingAndGod (talk · contribs)
• FWTH (talk · contribs)
• Offend (talk · contribs)

For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Flooded with them hundreds unblocked following successful appeal

Ratification of amendment to ARBPOL ongoing

Everyone is invited to participate in the community referendum on an amendment to the arbitration policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The notice of the original motion was archived, so I'm re-adding this slimmer notice of the ongoing referendum to ensure it is visible to the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IP user wrongly giving me ⚠warnings

88.217.115.130 is giving me warnings while stating that I'm assuming the ownership of the article. [5] to [6]. This IP is removing content from the article Chandigarh citing Advertisement. I always edit with references and as per WP norms. I also doubt this user is using two different IP's and he seems much familiar with WP that new person can't be. I request Admin to please intervene in this matter. I'll be grateful there will be admin intervention. 649pardeep (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

A note of appreciation to all the editors (admin and non-admin) who have recently been tackling the various backlogs reported here. For example, over 20 ANRFC threads archived over the last few days! I'm sure it's been noticed and appreciated by many. Thank you and keep up the good work! Leviv ich 20:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that open task tracker table at the top of the page is very nifty. And coming from a curmudgeon like me, that's high praise indeed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Obscure

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.

---

Please obscure this--NewDataB (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, and just for in the future you can always reach out to an admin privately to have this done, which is the better recommended way of having an edit RevDel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 17 April 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 socking

This User:146.198.193.9 was blocked for a week for edit warring a day ago by User:Bbb23

They are now back as User:124.104.235.93. I have gone ahead and blocked this now sock.

This user however has been moving from IP to IP for a couple of years now. Not sure what options we have for a more permanent solution? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently report to 3RRN[7]

Has been community banned here by User:JzG Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

146.198.193.9 may have been; 124.104.235.93 and the 122.2 IPs are probably another banned user. Peter James (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy - Community Ratification

The community has ratified the following amendment to the Arbitration Policy.

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators.

to

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:

1. The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;
2. Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

This provision is now reflected in the policy and is in full force. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Policy - Community Ratification

Clarification of WP:3RR

WP:3RR says An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

El C appears to believe that a user's first edit on a page that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part— does not count as a revert, which is completely contradictory to that brightline policy. In fact, making four changes to an article in 24 hours is what famously got Winkelvi blocked for three months in 2017, and he tried unsuccessfully to argue that he didn't know the first change "counted" [8]. Can someone please alert El C as to how 3RR works? By the way, Drmies once gave me a lecture via email about the definition of 3RR and how it includes the first change.

Also, by the way, could someone look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No violation)? Krimuk2.0 is edit-warring (five reverts so far in less than 2 hours [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), WP:CANVASSING, and battlegrounding on Jack Lowden, despite a usertalk warning, but El C initially closed it as "no violation", and even with an explanation of and link to 3RR and links to two more reverts by Krimuk2.0, that has not changed. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It would include the first edit if a specific editor's edit would be undone, but that is not the case here. It is merely longstanding text which is partially replaced with a new addition, which I do not count as a revert. El_C 12:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "if a specific editor's edit would be undone"? 3RR reads: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Any change to existing text in an article by definition undoes other editors' actions in whole or in part; there is no getting around that. And 3RR does not specify any loopholes. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A removal of text isn't automatically a revert, is what I'm saying. El_C 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For the purposes of 3RR, any removal of text is indeed a revert; that is precisely why WP:3RR is worded precisely that way. Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that that first edit constituted a revert. El_C 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In context, I do not think the first series of edits to the lede constitute a revert. These appear to be bold changes.This is a really grating type of revert. Bold changes don't need prior discussion. Beyond this, Krimuk2.0 should self-revert to the status quo. Discuss possible improvements to the lede on the talk page, and then implement them. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, WP:3RR says An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. It does not exempt the first time that occurs. You might think it does, but it does not. A change to existing article text undoes other editors' actions by definition; there's no getting around that. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Both WP:BOLD and WP:BRD would disagree with the "a change to existing article text" interpretation. From BRD: Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information. Not all removals and changes are reverts. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree with El_C and Mr rnddude's interpretations and believe the wording of the policy should be amended via RfC if necessary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with El_C's interpretation as well. A revert is pretty simply defined as an edit that undoes another edit. It has nothing to do with if it's your first edit on the page or not. This is not a revert, it is a change that's being made for the first time. (On the other hand, Softlavender's first edit in the war does count as a revert, because it is a revert.) Also, [14] and [15] definitely aren't reverts. I don't think there's any need for an RfC, as I'd be surprised if you could find any admin who would consider those reverts. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• No need to ping me about something I may have emailed you at one time, Softlavender. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is something I always wondered about. Is an edit that changes or removes any existing text always a revert? For instance, if the longstanding text of an article says "X alleged Y" and I, citing WP:SAY, change it to "X said Y", is that a revert? By replacing that word, I am undoing someone's work, clearly, but I think that if the text was longstanding and the article hadn't previously contained anything similar to my preferred version, few people would consider it to be a revert. Or, a more specific example: If I remove a sentence that has been in the article for over a year (one that nobody has previously disputed), is that a revert, on the principle that someone somewhere back in the history added that text, and I am now reverting them? My general impression is that this is not usually treated as a revert, but it seems like a strict reading of the rules would imply that it is. People above seem to be disagreeing over this point. Assuming it isn't a revert, where's the dividing line? Do you have to be reverting a specific person's text (which someone above mentioned?) What if eg. I could dig through the history and find the edit, seven years ago, that added the sentence you removed - does that make your edit a revert of that sentence? Does the length of time matter? (Usually, I think WP:3RR is clear it does not, but it seems like in a lot of examples there's a point where uncontroversial text simply becomes "part of the article" where editing or removing it is a proposed change, rather than a discrete revert.) What if I expressed objection to an addition, but didn't touch it; then I swing back seven years later and remove it - is my edit now a revert? What if I merely tweaked it slightly? (I think most people would agree a removal in this case is definitely a revert, but unless you go with "all removals / edits to established text are reverts", the dividing line is strange; the implication here, I think, is that my intention makes it a revert, since in this example I'm not just proposing a random change to the article but am deliberately reverting something even if it was from seven years in the past.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• If you're this far in the weeds, you're probably already edit-warring. Per WP:EW: " The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." and per WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." If a user disclaims any further editing after an edit war, I generally take them at their word, and won't block. If a user makes it clear they intend to continue to edit war, even so far as to WP:WIKILAWYER their way out of 3RR, it usually means they need a block anyways. Once a user has been told to stop edit warring, and they don't, they need a block, period. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, but the purpose of the WP:3RR is to have a clear-cut red-line rule that makes it easy to halt obvious revert-warring, not to cover all possible sorts of revert-warring (which, as it says, requires admin discretion.) Even if an admin can step in and say "this is obviously revert-warring" regardless, it's still better for the WP:3RR to be as clear as possible in order to serve that purpose. Another common situation: Multiple people are working to update an article (so my edits aren't contiguous.) I make many small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text. Nobody objects to any of these edits at the time, and there is no reason to think they're controversial (perhaps I'm updating old text to reflect breaking news) but I've made more than three of them within 24 hours. Am I now in violation of the WP:3RR? I think that's an obvious no - no revert war is occurring, since there was no dispute at the time when I made my edits - but each edit is technically undoing some edit someone made at some point in the past. (And the same thing I mentioned above comes into play where if I knew those sections were previously controversial, it might be different.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• "small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text" is not reverting. It isn't covered by the rule. 3RR is a sub-rule of WP:EDITWAR, and if you aren't edit warring or otherwise using the ability to revert or remove text as a means of winning a a battle with other people or force your preferred version on the article, it isn't a problem. In the other direction, who is threatening to block you for "small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text"? Who has been blocked for "small, non-contiguous changes tweaking or removing long-standing text"? If no one has, you're just inventing problems in search of solutions. --Jayron32 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Applying the rule as written, I think you would read it as not applying to a bold edit to a section of an article that hasn't had recent edits. But the default outcome when there is a dispute should generally be a return to the status quo while the discussion is ongoing. Which is of course contrary to not counting the first edit for 3rr purposes. Ultimately, as Jayron32 points out, if you are in a position where this distinction matters, you are already edit warring, regardless of whether you violated the letter of the 3rr rule. Which is probably why the rule has never been clarified, more so than everyone agrees on what it means. (And the best use of the 3rr rule is when one party has blatantly broken it and is on revert 5 , not looking for a chance to drop blocks on exactly revert 3) Monty₈₄₅ 04:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  The purpose of 3RR is that it is one of the very few places in Wikipedia where there is expected a block without warning. It is fairly narrowly defined and easy to spot, and it's designed as a quick-stop trigger for to handle rapidly-occurring disruption. The idea is that, when caught in a cascade of rapid reverts, we need to stop that behavior quickly. I rarely invoke 3RR for any debatable edit war, but when I have invoked it, it has only been in clear cases, where someone is just repeatedly mashing the "undo" button over and over. For other, more subtle types of edit warring, it's not a great tool to use, and should not be cited or referred to. Other forms of edit warring should also get pre-block warnings handed out. 3RR is an emergency tool used in emergency situations where we need to stop a disruption now. If you're in the territory of "well, maybe we should count this as a revert? Was this one really less than 24 hours ago? It looks like 26 to me? Well, maybe we shouldn't count this here", we've probably delved into the "we should probably give at least one warning and see if they can all talk it out first before we hand out blocks" territory. Good, experienced admins know when to hand out 3RR blocks, and it's really only for when we see the clear pattern that a person is not interested in discussing, and is just blindly clicking "undo" to whatever anyone else does. --Jayron32 13:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just a humble gnome's opinion, I've oftened wondered about the definitions and applications of edit warring rules, especially where 3RR (and 1RR and 0RR under certain conditions) is concerned. Seems to me that it's called BRD (and not RRD) for a reason. To me, 0RR means that if an editor makes an edit, no reverts of that edit are allowed – it certainly does not mean that the article cannot be edited at all "because the very first edit is a revert of someone's past edit". So it follows that under 3RR, if an editor makes an edit, 3 reverts are allowed. Perhaps this does need to be clarified at WP:3RR, because that's the way I've seen it applied while I've edited Wikipedia. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's already amply clear in the lead of WP:EW: "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."
  Edit warring is an attitude, not a precisely definable behavior, which is what makes it so difficult to manage. We would do better to focus less on pursuing precise definitions—which actually encourages the wikilawyering mind-set—and instead have trusted "cops" who can use their own discretion without fear of being required to spend stressful hours of their time defending their action. If an editor chooses to test boundaries like a 3-year-old and gets sanctioned, I'm entirely unimpressed by their protests that the boundaries aren't clear enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with the EW policy, and yet we do have the WP:3RR "brightline" policy that does not make it clear whether or not a first bold edit to a page should also be considered the first revert in 3RR. My contention is that 0RR shows that the first edit should not generally or automatically be considered a revert (it would depend on circumstances and should be adjudged accordingly). Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  01:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah. You're pursuing precise definitions. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, and in pursuit of that while acknowledging that your point is to focus less on such things and more on trusting our admins, the fact remains that a question about a policy has arisen here. As an experienced Wikipedian, I see it as part of my job to make it easier for inexperienced Wikipedians than it was for me. Sometimes that means pursuing more precise definitions of policy. Doesn't mean we trust our admins less, but it might mean that inexperienced admins will be recipients of a clearer policy with which to make stronger decisions. So we deal with and move on. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  10:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  Long-standing paradigms are hard to change. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that the request for closure at WP:ANRFC was declined with the reasoning here. Sunrise (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Review my block of User:FIFAukr

I recently ifdef blocked User:FIFAukr as being WP:NOTHERE. User:MarkH21 questioned me on this, and we've been discussing it on my talk page. I'm bringing it here to get a wider review of whether my action was legitimate. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: - before giving my $0.02 on the block itself, your comment "Let them appeal. My job is to protect the project from disruption" - being careful to avoid the loss of users with unwarranted bans can also be said to be part of an admin's role; if nothing else, it reads as an anti-AGF callous comment. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block basically per RoySmith, though I would have gone with WP:NOTHERE. An account that creates their user page as a first edit and then makes a bunch of meaningless edits to AfDs is either a troll, a promotional SPA, or a returning banned editor (or all three...) AGF is not a suicide pact, and this was a good block. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• In my experience, when someone goes straight to AfD and they cast a lot of random votes, they're trying to save some spam article they wrote. Most of the votes are typically throwaway "decoy votes" to hide which AfD is the one they care about. They usually do this because their previous accounts were instantly blocked as ducks after an entire sockfarm converged on a single AfD. Anyway, I ran a check. I know I've seen this IP range before, but I don't remember who it was. Oh well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there no CU tool for automatically suggesting sock candidates based on IPs? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Good block (and rationale). Miniapolis 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: 1) I do appreciate everyone discussing this and I hope I'm not wasting anyone's time here!
  2) Assuming good faith is still a core tenet of the Wikipedia community and I feel like a bad block is more harmful than a good block is beneficial.Wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave the user a message or warning on their talk page and tag their !votes using Template:spa, even if there is a decent chance that the user is acting in bad faith? It doesn’t hurt that much to make an attempt at communication first and then block the user if there is continued suspicious behavior or deliberate ignorance of the attempted discussion – particularly as there is no materially disruptive behavior and only strong suspicions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, MarkH21, I'm going to reply to your comment to NinjaRobotPirate about CU and also address your questions here to try to cut down on replies. Hope you don't mind.
    On the question of CheckUser:  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. NRP and I both looked at the data as a part of this block review. There's not much there, and CheckUser cannot prove innocence. It is used in correlation with behavioural evidence to reach conclusions, and a negative CU finding is not evidence of lack of socking if there are strong behavioural indicators otherwise.
    In this case, you have a pattern that has been repeated over likely thousands of accounts by thousands of different people: create a userpage and spam AfDs to hide which one you are trying to influence. This pattern is disruptive, and warnings aren't going to help at all. RoySmith was correct to block, and I'd encourage any administrator to do the same in similar circumstances. This account was very clearly WP:NOTHERE, and on the off-chance that they do have a good explanation for it, that can be considered in an appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: Thanks for the explanations! Regarding CU, I don't know how the tool worked internally but I figure it shouldn't be too terrible to implement a database lookup that matches IP addresses (or IP ranges) to already-banned users (or users who have had SPIs).
      I see your point on the volume and practical issues here. It feels off to me in principle though: should we rely on the post-block appeal process to determine whether there was bad faith after a block has been made using circumstantial evidence? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
      • We have some ways of dealing with this, but they are limited both by the privacy policy and to a degree by the MediaWiki softwares's own limitations. Administrators and CUs tend to be cautious people in general, and there are plenty of accounts that are likely socks that don't get blocked because we don't have enough evidence to warrant a block. In this case, however, the pattern was obvious to the point of not really even needing CU to merit a block: it's an obvious sock of someone created to influence one AfD and in the process is disrupting a bunch of other AfDs. Administrators don't really need to know who the master is to know that the account isn't here to build an encyclopedia. The odds of this being a good faith account are about zero, so blocking and seeing if a valid reason for the behaviour is forthcoming is fine. It is a case-by-case thing, but in this case, the right call was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Complete a CheckUser before doing anything else. I'm confused how these users edits are vandalism. They just seem like innocent, good-quality AFD edits to me. But I do see Tony's point. So, we must complete a CheckUser before we do anything else. The Duke 16:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • CU doesn’t work like that, and two of us have already looked, found nothing, but still endorse this block. I agree vandalism likely isn’t the best word, but NOTHERE is applicable in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I'm fully aware of how CheckUser works, it's just that if it may have found an older account that edited on the same IP. However I'm still confused how this is NOTHERE. I'd assume good faith at first glance. Can someone please explain how this may be a case of Wp:NOTHERE? Thank you. The Duke 17:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Based on your comments, I don’t actually think you’re aware of how CheckUser works. It provides limited technical information that in a given context may or may not be helpful. In this context, it wasn’t helpful.
        As to how this is NOTHERE, I’d refer you to NinjaRobotPirate and my comments above. This is a pattern that has been repeated over literally thousands of accounts over the 18 years Wikipedia has been around, and anyone who works in this area would tell you the same. I’ll also ping Ritchie333 who can chime in with his first rule of sock hunting. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @TonyBallioni: After looking through the comments, I now see where you're coming from. New users don't immediately go to WP:AFD; they go edit an article of their interest. Many new users probably don't even know what AFD is. And with that now cleared up, I now support the block. The Duke 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, Ritchie's first rule of socking is : "Any user whose first edit is to either their user page or their user talk page, before any article edits, is a sock". However, it is not a "vandalism-only" account; somebody evading a block may still be trying to make good faith edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense :-D Leviv ich 13:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And any editor whose first action is to create an account is probably also a sock. Peter James (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock Probably an SPA and possibly a sockpuppet but assume good faith, unless multiple new accounts become involved in the same discussion. There are administrators (and probably checkusers and oversighters) who made similar contributions just after creating their account. Peter James (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Moot until and unless the user appeals. As long as it's not a clearly inappropriate block there's no need to preemptively reverse the block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• It is a clearly inappropriate block; not a vandalism only account. It should at least be changed to an accurate reason, such as "you don't look like a new user so we assume that you are evading a block or using multiple accounts although we have no evidence of that and it's more likely that you have edited as an unregistered user". If that is too long for the block log, a template can be created. Peter James (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the block log to NOTHERE. Their talk page was already templated with NOTHERE. And, I disagree with "we have no evidence". The evidence is behavioral. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings - possible oversighting required

This thread includes discussion of and links to what is essentially a snuff video. Even naming one of the websites hosting the video is problematic. There is obviously consensus that linking to the video is not required in the article and I suspect the proposer was trolling. Request admin review of the thread with a view to possible rev-delete. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 - The video provided in the link is obviously very graphic and disturbing to some viewers, but this isn't what RD3 defines as a "shock site". The link nor the edits containing it do not qualify as eligible for revision deletion under the policy and the criteria for redaction. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that similar material by the same IP has previously been revdeleted by Zzuuzz. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe it was deleted under IAR, though you could easily argue that it's grossly degrading, or grossly offensive, and also that it fits easily under BLP. What I would note is that, similar to this instance, the link I removed went to archive.org, and that video was deleted by them. I suspect if someone was to bother registering an account there, it could be flagged for another deletion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: The video got deleted. I'll leave it an open question whether future links should be deleted - now the consensus is resolved I would say yes do remove any such links in the future. Also, take note what Thryduulf said below (oversight can be conservative as they tend to follow the oversight policy - you can always contact a plain admin at CAT:REVDEL). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: and everyone else, if you believe something needs oversighting, please contact the oversight team directly (see WP:Oversight) rather than drawing attention to it in a very high profile venue such as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unarchiving a user talk page (dispute with admins)

Several years ago now, I was looking to remove the talk page archives of one of my alternate accounts, User:Mdrn. I no longer use archiving for my own talk pages out of personal preference (IMO unlike regular page archives they are very rarely genuinely useful, but are a great way to easily dig up stuff about an editor to use inappropriately in content disputes).

Unfortunately, I had used Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures#Move procedure back in the day, which means that simply deleting the archives would delete the history as well – something that is not allowed without community consensus (for good reason). So I made a request to merge back the histories into the original page, as seen at: User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2015/January-June#History merge for user talk page archives

After a long back-and-forth there, User:Anthony Appleyard denied my request. But I simply do not agree with the technical explanation. These are almost purely archives of a single page, with some extraneous edits by me that could easily be left deleted. Wikipedia:Parallel histories does not apply whatsoever to the edits that I am asking to be merged back. In fact, this implies that unarchiving page histories is not allowed in general, which would be a bizarrely restrictive decision to say the least.

Later that same year, I tagged the most recent of the talk page archives, User talk:Mdrn/Archive 5, for speedy deletion, as it was not made using the page move method like the others but simple cut and paste as is recommended at WP:ARCHIVE now. As if to add insult to injury, User:Nyttend denied my request, citing policy that I am 100% certain only applies to pages with history (i.e. original talk pages and archives made with the page move method).

In summary, I am asking for the following:

1. History merging the first 4 user talk page archive histories back into the main one (with messy edits by me deleted if needed), or at the very least the opinions of other administrators on this issue; and
2. The speedy deletion of archive 5. (see the update below)

Modernponderer (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mdrn, Nyttend, and Modernponderer: If (say) User talk:Zxcvbnm has (say) 4 archives User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive (1 to 4), then history-merging them as requested at User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2015/January-June#History merge for user talk page archives would produce a combined talk page (say User talk:Zxcvbnm/new) with a history that looks not like the history of an ordinary talk page, but with a big difference :: it would be as if 4 times in its history, someone deleted all the discussions and left the talk page blank, and to read any of the discussions that happened before the last blanking, people would have to ferret through a long edit history. To produce the effect of a single talk page with all discussions preserved to the latest and easily visible edit, I would have to alter the texts of all the old historic edits starting at the first apparent blanking, which would need a big fancy hacking job and not what I as an ordinary admin have the tools for. Sorry.
  • It would be an easy job for me, or even for a non-admin, to chain together the latest edits of pages User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive (1 to 4) and page User talk:Zxcvbnm into one new page User talk:Zxcvbnm/new :: but the request called for history-merging.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

it would be as if 4 times in its history, someone deleted all the discussions and left the talk page blank, and to read any of the discussions that happened before the last blanking, people would have to ferret through a long edit history.

User:Anthony Appleyard, that is exactly what I want and I do not see any problem with it. How is it even different from blanking the page at regular intervals (which is what I do right now for my current talk page)?

Once again, to be clear, I am NOT asking for a single page with all the discussions, but a pure history merge. Nothing more, nothing less. Modernponderer (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mdrn, Nyttend, and Modernponderer: I have now history-merged User talk:Mdrn/Archive 1 to User talk:Mdrn/Archive 2 to User talk:Mdrn/Archive 3 to User talk:Mdrn/Archive 4 to User talk:Mdrn as asked. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Anthony Appleyard, thank you very much. Modernponderer (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Updated request (speedy deletion)

Now that the history merge is complete (and no contributions from other users would be lost), I would like to ask any willing administrator to please speedy delete all 5 remaining archive pages per WP:U1. Modernponderer (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC Closure Review for RuPaul's Drag Race

There is no consensus to overturn the close. The close was endorsed by an uninvolved admin.

Cunard (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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 consensus closure at "RfC on names of transgender contestants" concerns, as the title explicitly says, transgender contestants. The consensus closure even reads that the intent is to avoid "deadnaming anyone who transitioned since their appearance on the show" (emphasis added). Yet one editor is unilaterally censoring all the much-publicized and WP:RS-cited civilian names of these performers. I'd like to ask for additional comment and for administrators to read the consensus closure and state whether the RfC is about transgender contestants or whether it is now forbidden for Wikipedia to ever state the names of these performers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that I properly brought this up with the closer here instead of needlessly bringing it to this board. As for the discussion, the consensus is rather clear. Not listing the names of only trans contestants is just as bad as potentially deadnaming them and that was reflected in the discussion as well. Nihlus 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The consensus did not preclude listing the current names of trans contestants. It only ruled out listing the old pre-transition deadnames of trans contestants. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It did. It was a consensus to list credited names only. Credited as in drag names, not real names. Nihlus 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC, I can state that my support for “credited names only” absolutely applied to all contestants, and that is how I interpret the close. While this is broader than the question originally asked, RFC and consensus-building process should be open to that sort of solution.--Trystan (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what I intended and how I interpreted it as well. Umimmak (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not how I interpret it, nor is it how the admin interprets it. The idea that the civilian names of drag performers are now disallowed on Wikipedia is just simply remarkable.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The scope of this RfC is the RuPaul's Drag Race season articles. No where does it say this is for the entire Wikipedia. This has been explained to you before and is mentioned in my RfC question: ...be used in articles on seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race? I do not understand what you are missing; no one has removed names from the biographies of said individuals. Additionally, the people who participated in the discussion are telling you what they meant by their comments, and you are saying back to us "It's not how I interpret it". We are telling you what we meant; it is not open to your interpretation beyond that. Nihlus 22:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If something is improper and should not be included in Wikipedia for WP:BLP or similar reasons, the community decides that. Something can't be both improper and censored in one part of Wikipedia but the same thing proper and uncensored elsewhere in Wikipedia.

And you are not the final arbiter of what the RfC closer meant. That's why we have a process for admin review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And you are not the final arbiter of what the RfC closer meant. And yet here you are acting exactly like you are, going so far as to undo the edits I made to implement the obvious consensus that was reached. Consensus can be local and consensus can be for specific pages. You are now moving the goalposts and saying the local consensus was improper despite being fine with your own interpretation of it just minutes ago. Nihlus 22:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, like there had already been consensus to remove all non-drag names from List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, and the RfC under discussion was just for the articles about individual seasons. [Edit: Ironically on Talk:List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, it was Tenebrae who wrote All for eliminating it. It's an extraneous detail as regards the show, and anyone can find out such offscreen biographical details on the drag queens' own Wikipedia pages. 23:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)] Umimmak (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That whole article is extraneous and simply duplicates the season pages. And that column in 2017 was filled with WP:BLP violations. Finally, there's a big difference between a single column in a single article duplicating content and wholesale censorship. And I hardly think having common ground with you is something "ironic." I'm against duplication and also I'm against censorship of pertinent, widely-RS information. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what you said then, though. You said that the column of real names was an extraneous detail as regards the show, and the information could be found on the drag queens' own pages. Which exactly describes my position in the RFC; couldn't have said it better myself. At the very least, perhaps the similarity of the view you expressed then and the position many of us supported in the RFC could lead you to assume good faith and stop making absurd accusations of censorship.--Trystan (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I clearly was speaking about that list-article and that list-article only, which had bluelinks to the performers own pages. My BLP-related edits and my cites cites to the civilian names throughout many years on all the season article clearly indicates I was speaking in reference to that single article only.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And yet here you are acting exactly like you are This is the Admin Noticeboard, where an impartial admin reviews closures and interprets in case of a dispute over the interpretation. And an admin has done just that. Of course I'm not the final arbiter. The adjudicating admin is. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Tenebrae, where is the impartial admin? Additionally, your edits such as this one shows you reverting a change I made based on the consensus that was reached. That is not you acting in accordance with this ghost admin you speak of. It is interesting that you have frequently changed your opinion on this topic, the reason you have made edits, and now the reason you brought this to AN. Very odd. Nihlus 23:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bearcat above in this very discussion is not a "ghost admin." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not the "adjudicating admin" you think you're talking about, because I had nothing to do with adjudicating the RFC at all. So you're talking about somebody else you haven't actually named, not me. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I've already told you, Bearcat participated in the RfC. He is by no means an impartial admin in this discussion. Nihlus 23:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me; I missed seeing that Bearcat had participated in the RfC. That was unintentional — and I'm very surprised that anyone would take a simple error and claim that I'm lying and deliberately making up a "ghost admin". That's hardly good faith.

In any case, until a dispute is settled, which this is not, policy and practice is that a years-long status quo remains.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The only one challenging anything here is you. I hardly call that a dispute. Nihlus 00:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

First, that's not true, as Bearcat's early statement disagreeing with you in this review indicates. Second, this RfC review has barely begun ... what, is it an hour, hour-and-a-half old? And finally, this isn't the first RfC review for that closure, is it. So, yes, there is clearly a dispute over whether the goal of removing transgender individuals' birth names became wholesale censorship of all drag performers civilian names. The RfC doesn't even support removing transgender individuals' current civilian names.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure what the best way to thread my comment, but as the editor who performed the second closure, my understanding was that while the RfC statement was specifically about transgender performers, the consensus of the discussion was to implement "credited names only" for all contestants for consistency's sake. I would say that based on reading this discussion, I believe that Nihlus, Trystan and Umimmak correctly interpreted the content of my closing statement. My comment about avoiding deadnaming was due to some irregularities with how people voted: as "credited names only" was not one of the suggested voting options at the outset of the RfC, there was a fair amount of variation in how people expressed support for that position. A significant group of editors made arguments to the effect that we should avoid deadnaming, but did not always explicitly show support for "credited names only". The only way that "credited names only" is consistent with the desires of the editors who argued against deadnaming is if the credited names are uniformly drag names, and I wanted to state this assumption clearly. As for the scope of the closure, and whether drag performer's names are now "forbidden on Wikipedia", the RfC discussion was specifically for articles about RuPaul's Drag Race, and part of the justification made by editors in the discussion specifically takes into account that performers on RuPaul's Drag Race are only credited as their drag personas. Addressing Tenebrae's assertion that . Something can't be both improper and censored in one part of Wikipedia but the same thing proper and uncensored elsewhere in Wikipedia, the justification for why we should include only drag names in RuPaul's Drag Race articles is that because no other names are credited or used on the show, including real names is arguably undue weight for these articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. So at least that part is now clear. Now we need to review as to whether, given the topic of the RfC, that this expansion into an area not asked for in the original question was appropriate, or whether deleting all drag performers names is an entirely different issue requiring its own RfC. That needs admin review.

Because any editor who saw the RfC headline and decided they didn't want to weigh in on the transgender issue may very well want to weigh in on the different issue of wholesale deletions of non-trans performers' names. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not buying that argument at all. RfCs have never been limited to the original question if an alternative solution is agreed upon. Tenebrae, please revert the edits you made earlier so we can restore the consensus version of the articles. Thanks. Nihlus 00:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is always interesting to me when someone doesn't want a proper process to continue its course. I always wonder why.

Wikipedia has an admin review process for RfCs for a reason. As a longtime editor, I'm asking for a review of an RfC where the closing clearly exceeded the RfC's scope, and where a misleading headline certainly kept me from getting involved and likely others who didn't want to wade into a debate over a particularly sensitive topic: "RfC on names of transgender contestants". If the RfC had been titled "RfC on deleting civilian names of all contestants", I and likely others would have weighed in.

I'd have to wonder why any editor wouldn't now want to do an honestly titled RfC about that specific and very different topic, rather than trying to slip something in under the radar. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You wonder why? Because you've wasted enough time needlessly taking issue with one thing after another while most of us are wondering what the purpose of this charade is. First it was because I had misread the consensus and that you had read it correctly, then it was that an RfC review is open so we should revert to the status quo, then it was that an admin somewhat agreed with your comment even though they were involved, then you took issue with the scope of the pages it affected and needlessly called it censorship, you then wanted to talk about the scope of an RfC and to what extent the discussion can lead to a consensus for a question that might not have been asked, you then took issue with someone somehow misreading the conversation based on the initial question and state that they somehow have a right to know the contents of the discussion based on the header and question alone, you are now retaking issue with the scope of the RfC and suggesting we do another RfC and casting aspersions left and right as if I have a motive for "slipping things under the radar". So pardon me if I have grown completely tired of you moving the goal posts. Nihlus 03:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Following an off-wiki complaint .... would anyone object if I just blocked Nihlus for general edit-warring, mild incivility and generally trying to right great wrongs? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for that. I'm trying reasonably to follow the established review policy, and he is obsessively saying that because he disagrees with me I don't have the right to ask that this process be used? It's clear the closure exceeded its scope and that a separate RfC is needed for a separate question. But for some reason, he doesn't want to allow that. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that a joke, or a serious question? Nihlus was implementing the consensus of an RFC, so it's a poor case to make out edit warring based on a couple of reverts, especially if not also blocking the editor who was reverting the consensus. (I'm not saying which version should stand pending review, or suggesting the reverts by either Nihlus or Tenebrae were warranted, but a block of only one would be absurd.) I don't see any 'mild incivility' beyond the WP norm in the above discussion, with the possible exception of repeated accusations of censorship, which were not made by Nihlus.--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I also want to know if this is a joke. Inserting yourself into this situation when you have a pretty poor history of dealing with me is alarming and a sign of poor judgment. I’ve been uncivil to no one and have been extremely patient with the ever changing goal of this discussion. Nihlus 16:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My opinion on the whole thing is the season articles need to be factual to the show at the time of recording and not consistently updated after the season concludes. Since RuPaul's Drag Race doesn't use real life names to identify any of the contestants but instead uses drag names then the season articles should reflect this for all contestants. In simplistic terms the names in the season articles (for all reality shows) should be the names used at the time of filming. An encyclopedia should be listing facts about the topic and if the show doesn't use real names then the season article should not use real names. A lot of the contestants have their own individual articles this is where their real name should be and it should only be added with respect to WP:RS and MOS:GENDERID. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That's cool, but that's not the debate before us. This is simply to ask an admin to review the closure to determine if it exceeded its scope, and whether what turned out to be a misleading headline kept editors away who didn't want to wade into that sensitive discussion. If I and, I'm sure, other editors had instead seen "RfC question on whether to withhold real names all of drag performers", rather than "Should we not list trans performers birth names", then a different discussion would have ensued.

But to address your point about the show not stating real names: We are not here to do publicity for the show or say only what the show wants us to say. We're here to give pertinent, factual information to readers. And I can tell you that I, as a journalist in the real, practical world who writes about each season of the show, finds it deadline-time-saving and highly useful to have this footnoted information available in one place rather than having to go to each and every individual performer's page. (It's certainly more useful than the highly fannish tables of trivia over who was "high," "low" or "safe" each episode. But that's a separate thing entirely.)

The bottom line is: This is an RfC review over whether the closure was appropriate or whether the non-admin closer went way beyond the scope of the RfC. That's it. We're not here to re-debate the RfC topic itself.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The question of whether an RFC can exceed the scope of its original question is an interesting one. I often find that the discussion naturally leads to a somewhat different solution than the original question suggests. It is often helpful to break editors out of entrenched positions by reframing the issue or coming at it from another angle. It would be excessively bureaucratic to always require a second RFC in such cases, and such a requirement would discourage creative solutions.

In this case, the question was about the names of transgender contestants in Drag Race articles, and the consensus was about all contestants’ names in Drag Race articles. If RFCs aren’t permitted that much leeway in finding a solution, their usefulness would be significantly diminished.--Trystan (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Leeway is certainly reasonable, I agree. I think in this case the two issues are apples and oranges. Seeing a headline about transgender individuals' birth names indicated a far, far different discussion than one about censoring the real names of ordinary drag performers.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've yet to see any policy that reinforces this point of view. Nihlus 21:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved admin, who has no interest whatsoever in the RuPaul thing, hasn't read any of the related articles, wasn't previously aware of the RfC, and has no previous beef with any of the folks in this discussion (as far as I can remember), I'm happy to examine the RfC and offer my opinion of the close. Just give me a little time to get my head around it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, the discussion was started to address the issue of naming transgender contestants who transitioned after their appearance on the show, and I see an underlying consensus to avoid deadnaming of such individuals.

One objection to the closure appears to be that the discussion went beyond addressing only those individuals specifically and was extended to address the best way to refer to all contestants - and it seems clear to me that the consensus does cover all contestants. It is well within policy and within established practice that seeking consensus is not restricted to answering only the specific question as asked, and that it it is acceptable (and often desirable) to look to the bigger picture and seek wider solutions in order to address the problem. So I don't see any violation of policy or precedent there.

The question has been asked of whether the outcome forbids Wikipedia from ever stating the names of the performers. The simple answer is no, because that was not the issue discussed at the RfC. The discussion is solely within the context of RuPaul's Drag Race articles, not the entirety of Wikipedia.

Would the outcome have been different had the question been asked differently? I have no idea, but that is not within the remit of the closer (who is tasked solely with judging the consensus from the discussion that actually took place), nor is it within my remit as a reviewer of the closure.

I can see the judgment of consensus was difficult, and it had to take into account a number of different narrative opinions (rather than being anything close to a simple numerical count of supports for each option initially offered). In that case, I think it had to consider which of the suggestions most satisfied most participants (without necessarily satisfying any one 100%) within policy, while providing minimum dissatisfaction to the participants as a whole. In my view the closure achieved that, and so I endorse it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, and I thank Boing! said Zebedee for taking the time to read through a couple of immense discussions and offer a comprehensive analysis and decision. That's the whole purpose of an RfC closure review — and I'm extremely disappointed in any editor who had suggested that an RfC review was anything other than the proper, appropriate channel that we follow to avoid edit-wars and related issues.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 16 April 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.

AE Page deletion

A page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, was deleted back in February as an Arbitration Enforcement action by GoldenRing during a semi-related AE discussion. The appropriateness of this deletion has been discussed in several places, but over a month has passed without a clear conclusion:

• At DRV, there is clear consensus to overturn the deletion, however it is unclear whether this consensus can trump an AE action.
• ArbCom has been unable to decide whether or not page deletion falls under the scope of AE.
• An AE appeal was closed as "Page Restored" by Ymblanter on 9 April, then unclosed on 15 April after a userpage discussion in which Ymblanter decided to leave it to another admin to deal with.

It's a complex situation, considering the multiple (possibly wrong) venues, and it seems like nobody can agree on how or where it should be handled. I'm not asking for an outcome in my favor, but I would encourage interested admins to work towards a timely conclusion at AE. –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Moved from WP:ANI –dlthewave ☎ 19:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Rampant paid editing?

"Almost zero risk of another mod taking it down"

We all know it happens -- but having just received an offer (I'm a reasonably successful academic -- & thankfully there's not currently a page about me) I think it might be useful to see how naked the approach was:

Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand.

Why have a Wikipedia page? Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies, if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page for yourself in Wikipedia brings you more credibility and makes you more famous.

We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9 years and we've created tons of pages for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as well.

We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page reviewer rights, so I can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of another mod taking it down.

There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.

Because you're buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod, you'll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.

Let me know if you are interested. Regards,

Stefanie S. Mills

I'd be thrilled if someone knew who "Stefanie S. Mills" is (i.e., their moniker). The sender email address has the ostensible domain scienceindexes.com. I don't have enough technical expertise to pursue things further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies" - wow, I feel highly privileged to have worked on Kensington (Olympia) railway station, which is neither. Anyway, this is the WHOIS record for the domain:

WHOIS for scienceindexes.com
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Domain Name: scienceindexes.com Registry Domain ID: 2377873041_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com Updated Date: 2019-04-08T05:24:37Z Creation Date: 2019-04-08T05:24:37Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-04-08T05:24:37Z Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC Registrar IANA ID: 146 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected] Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: 1.4806242505 Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry Registrant Name: Registration Private Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com Registrant Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road Registrant City: Scottsdale Registrant State/Province: Arizona Registrant Postal Code: 85260 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: 1.4806242599 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: 1.4806242598 Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: [email protected] Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry Admin Name: Registration Private Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com Admin Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road Admin City: Scottsdale Admin State/Province: Arizona Admin Postal Code: 85260 Admin Country: US Admin Phone: 1.4806242599 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax: 1.4806242598 Admin Fax Ext: Admin Email: [email protected] Registry Tech ID: Not Available From Registry Tech Name: Registration Private Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com Tech Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road Tech City: Scottsdale Tech State/Province: Arizona Tech Postal Code: 85260 Tech Country: US Tech Phone: 1.4806242599 Tech Phone Ext: Tech Fax: 1.4806242598 Tech Fax Ext: Tech Email: [email protected] Name Server: NS1.MD-99.BIGROCKSERVERS.COM Name Server: NS2.MD-99.BIGROCKSERVERS.COM DNSSEC: unsigned URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/ >>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2019-04-16T12:00:00Z <<<

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't mean nothing. If there's a way to get any meaningful information out of a proxy domain registration, then I've never found it. GMG^talk 12:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO the correct reply to such an offer is to ask for examples of previously curated pages. I am fairly sure that nobody will fork out money without checking some credentials first, just like hiring new employees involves checking their CVs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I (and a few others) have tried this approach over OTRS queries (When someone like the OP writes to us, we caution them about the huge risks and instead ask them to inquire about the firm's sample works and send the list to us). The received portfolio is almost always artfully crafted-- articles which are indeed ad-spam and on borderline notable subjects but dates back to a decade or so and along with that, a few high quality articles on essentially notable subjects written by longstanding editors. Summarily, it leads to nowhere except one or two AfDs. ∯WBG^converse 16:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking that people will lie in response to such questions... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why you'd ask for proof that the spammer wrote the article. For example, one might ask a spammer to log in to the account that created the page and add a nonsense phrase of your choosing to their own user page. One could also demand that they log into an account with administrator privileges and add the code phrase to its user page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I find these services disgusting on multiple counts. Extorting 4 digits to write an article, of questionable notability, using a sock farm that supposedly have slightly advanced permissions is just wrong, and a method needs to be setup to detect and find these. Disclaimer, I'm a paid editor, but at least my activities serve Wikipedia.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The above email suggests their price is probably below 4 digits, at least in the currency they used which I guess is USD. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

science"indexes".com? I weep for anyone dumb enough to fall for this scam. 199.247.45.138 (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Blocked user

I've started a TfD for Template:Blocked user at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_17#Template:Blocked_user. Advertising it here as I suspect more comment beyond the usual TfD crowd is warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal deletion at MfD and G6 tagging and deletion of portal subpages

A concerning situation exists regarding Wikipedia's portals at this time. At MfD, it has become apparent that fully-automated portals are not desired by many, as demonstrated by the hundreds of delete !votes for them there and the subsequent deletions that have been occurring. This is not a problem. The serious problem is that literally thousands of older, non-automated portal subpages used as transclusions were tagged en masse as being qualifiable for WP:G6 housekeeping speedy deletion, based upon the premise that the pages were outdated per the existence of the newer automated portals that were created, which are now being deleted. So now, both new and old are all tagged up for deletion or potential deletion. Hundreds of portal subpages have already been deleted per this G6 situation. I have no idea about how many administrators may know about this matter, so posting here.

The G6 deletions jeopardizes the reversion of the disliked automated portals to previous, curated/manually created versions, because then users have the extra steps figuring out which pages were deleted, denoting it, requesting undeletion for the deleted pages, waiting for the undeletion to occur, and then going back to the portal to make sure it works out and/or make corrections. Furthermore, the G6 notices that are in place for pages that have not been deleted lack any <noinclude> markup, so when restoring a portal back to a non-automated state, this notice in bold typeface appears throughout the portal, even on the box-header and box-footer areas. Removing the notices is time-consuming, and some users may not understand how to access the transcluded subpages to remove the notices.

It seems that in all of the excitement about portal deletion, users may not always be thinking matters through or performing research first regarding various matters. Now hundreds of automated portals have been nominated for deletion, and meantime, thousands of portal subpages remain marked for potential speedy deletion, the latter of which hinders the potential to preserve thousands and thousands of hours of editors' work in portal namespace.

Also concerning is a situation in which automated portals could potentially be nominated for deletion without anyone checking revision histories to see if a curated/manually-created version is available, after which a flurry of "delete per nom" !votes could occur, resulting in blind deletion sans any fact checking. This could theoretically be compounded per problems in reverting per the G6 tags, whereby users may hesitate to perform reversions per concerns of breaking a portal. Essentially, the G6 tags make it easier for portals to remain in an automated state, which people are !voting to delete in great numbers at this time.

Furthermore, there are way too many discussions on too many various pages occurring about portals simultaneously, to the point that it's highly disorganized and nobody is in touch with what others are doing or discussing. Said discussions should all occur in one area, such as at Wikipedia's Village pump. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank-you for articulating how the Portals Project broke hundreds of existing portals and made them very hard to revert or repair. As you were an active participant in the automation project, it is surprising to see you blaming the editors cleaning this mess up for the problems. Blind creation is a bigger problem then blind deletion. Fragmented discussion is an issue so how about closing this thread and having one less discussion in yet another venue. Guess at which automated portal will you find DYK...... that the slipper sea cucumber is avoided by most predatory fish, crabs, and gastropod molluscs, but is preyed on by starfish, especially the leather star? Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• This post is to let administrators know about this complex matter; that's what this board is for. There is no blaming here, except from you; this post is about the matter. I performed no conversions of portals to auto-format. Almost all of the handful of auto-portals I created were self-nominated for G7 deletion and deleted, is denoted at my CSD log, and occurred because I have paid attention to community concerns. I've made no contributions to the page you linked above. I have no crystal ball predicting MfD events. I'd prefer that you please don't respond to this, because this post is not about you, it's about the matter. Please read WP:AVOIDYOU and try not to take matters personally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for highlighting this here, I wasn't aware that subpages were being deleted in this manner. All the concerns you raise are plausible and reasonable and seem to provide more evidence of the need to slow down with the nominations so that babies don't get thrown out with bathwater. Deleting subpages as redundant to an automated portal and then nominating the automated portal for deletion for being an automated portal feels rather gaming the system - much better would be to nominate the portal first, allowing the old version to be discoverable, and if there is consensus for deletion only then nominating the subpages for speedy deletion (they would qualify for G8 at that point). I'm also not certain that the subpages are valid G6 candidates in the first place as they were not created in error and the concerns above suggest their deletion is not any other sort of "uncontroversial maintenance" - a discussion on this at WT:CSD might be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of the G6'd subpages I've come across - there's been a few mass requests at WP:REFUND, actioned mostly by User:JJMC89 (logs) and to a lesser extent myself - were requested for deletion around the time the portals were converted to single pages. There's been no conspiracy to make portals unrevertable to their old forms in order to bolster the case for deleting their new forms. —Cryptic 12:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. Many of those old-style portals were unmaintained junk which do deserve deletion, but the discussion should have a chance to assess that. I see a genuine problem if old-style portals are being removed without the discussion being aware of their existence. (Though please note that this does not extend to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, where the scope is solely the automated portals created by the portal spammer @The Transhumanist).

However, it is sad to once again see that those who were involved in the creation of these portals are once again coming to AN to raise objections to deletions, without helping devise solutions. @North America is as ever courteous and has indeed helped in some of the cleanup, and I do welcome NA1K's @Northamerica1000's acknowledgement of the overwhelming consensus that automated templates built off a navbox are a bad idea. It would be very helpful if @Thryduulf would also acknowledge that consensus, rather than objecting in often angry and accusatory terms to every attempt to facilitate the cleanup.

This is not an AN matter. It is a practical issue of identifying types of portal. That needs to be discussed in a venue focused on practical solutions, rather than at AN which is for issues needing admin attention.

I have done my best to help identify types of portal, by spending several hours yesterday modifying Module:Excerpt slideshow to automatically-populate a series of tracking categories at Category:Automated portal pages tracking.

However, it is depressing to see that despite this area being to subject of hot controversy since February, there is absolutely zero discussion at WT:WPPORT about methodologies for triaging the existing templates. So far as I can see, with the sole exception of Northamerica1000, every editor involved in or supportive of the Portal Project's spamming has either walked away from the mess which they created or spent their energies trying to criticise every move by those who are doing the work.

So instead of yet again coming to the drama boards, please start working to solve the problem which NA1K has identified. Discuss the triaging at WT:WPPORT, and see what checking is needed. I suggest that what we need is a bot to examine every portal page, and is appropriate place it in a tracking category, name something like Category:old-style portals converted to automated. This will not be a complicated job for a bot. So go on, take this to WP:BOTREQ, and get a bot developed to do the job. Or if you don't like that idea, then go figure out some other way of identifying these portals.

That way you can actually help solve the problems, rather than just complaining about flaws in the methodologies of those to whom you have abandoned the massive cleanup work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Portals#Identifying_old-style_portals. Anyone who wants to find a solution to the issues raised by NA1K, please and come help to make a solution.

Anyone who wants to yakk away and parcel out blame without fixing anything, please stay here at AN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been helping to solve problems by volunteering my time to restore older portals that have been automated back to their pre-automated versions. It is very time-consuming, laborious, can involve many steps, and requires a strong attention to detail. It also requires having a strong knowledge of how portals are designed, their layout, coding and wiki markup, portal templates, portal guidelines, etc., knowledge that many users may not necessarily possess. I'm not aware offhand of others who have taken up this task. It would be great if others who are competent in such matters would consider pitching-in. One person can only do so much. I'm glad that admins have been made aware of this matter, and I appreciate that it is being further addressed at the WikiProject Portals talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I remember doing some of these portal subpage G6's a while ago, before Pbsouthwood took over after his RfA. There's no need to consult with me before restoring, if needed. I already received a request from UnitedStatesian (since archived), but I didn't want to just blindly undelete everything. ansh666 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• When I look at old revisions of portals, I tend to undelete what is needed to make them roughly work, mostly the /box-footer subpages. I am happy to help others with restoring subpages if they wish to revert the portals. —Kusma (t·c) 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to thank User:BrownHairedGirl for doing more than her share to try to clean up a mess that she didn't make, and for explaining what some of the details are. I haven't had the time to propose any changes because I have been too busy simply reviewing the load at Miscellany for Deletion. I will comment that the portal advocates, with the exception of NorthAmerica1000, have simply been waving their hands and complaining that the cleanup is going too fast. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Geek alert

Maybe one of you can figure out whether there's something more to this IP: 74.200.236.196. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Besides this edit (admin-viewable only) and this deleted edit, has the IP done anything? No log entries (except the two blocks you imposed), unless I missed something. WHOIS says that it's a Datapipe IP; the WmfLabs WHOIS says that it's based in New Jersey, while whatismyipaddress says it belongs to these poor people. Is that what you were asking about, or did I miss your point? Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's allocated to a webhost. I range blocked it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Scripting error in Template:La?

• An AfD page shows a list of all previous AfD's for the same page. OK so far. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (10th nomination) (an April Fool hoax nomination) shows a long list of every AfD whose name starts with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth", whereas it should only display names of AfD's whose names are of format "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (ordinal number nomination)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: its not {{La}} that produces the list, its {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth}} which makes the list, so it will get anything that starts with Earth. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not something that is possible to fix trivially. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock assist

Hi all, an Australian vandal has recently decided to ping me while they commit vandalism, which typically happens to Indian articles. Some examples of IPs:

• 49.176.19.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.184.214.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.185.0.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.199.25.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.199.101.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.199.219.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.72.63.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Usually I get a ping and language to the effect of "User:Cyphoidbomb can fix it." Other times there are hostile summaries like "Fuck duplicate, fuck you who owned that film." It's pretty clearly vandalism and/or just hostile incompetence. Examples: [16][17][18][19]

Can someone please set up a rangeblock if that's doable for at least the 49.* IPs? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: What you need is an edit filter that is setup by IP range, as an IP block is impossible here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand much about rangeblocking, but the range from 49.176.XXX.XXX to 49.199.XXX.XXX is very large, embracing 0.036% of all possible IPv4s, or about one out of every three thousand in the world. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Then I'm not exactly sure what to do, since I also don't know anything about edit filters. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Specific_block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to write filters, but I know they can work on logical rules, e.g. a filter can be instructed to prevent all edits that are performed by an IP from 49.180.000.001 to 49.200.255.255 and that have an edit summary with a link to your userspace/usertalkspace. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests

Can some one please handle the backlog at Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests? 89.138.131.240 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal about some indefinite IP blocks

I've made a proposal to lift some indefinite IP blocks (sort of), here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_about_some_indefinite_IP_blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Spam whitelist discussion concerning The Points Guy

Can uninvolved admins take a look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews) to see if any actions are warranted? Thanks, feminist (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC

There are more than 30 threads open at WP:ANRFC, many of which have been open for more than 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(Not directed at the messenger here, general comment) Maybe things would be closed quicker if it weren't such a gigantic bloated mess. It's possibly the dullest place in existence to look, and so much of what's there is mind-numbingly trivial. I refuse to look there because my last glimpse caused mass dieoff of neurons. Any chance of narrowing the scope of what goes there? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to take a moment to point out that there were two editors (not me) who NAC'd that backlog down and then were asked to stop. And here we are. Leviv ich 21:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why on earth were they asked to stop...? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

People complained that that board was being swamped and that requests consisted too frequently of relatively minor discussions that don't need a lot of consideration before close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I believe Levivich was possibly referring to me (please correct if I am wrong). At least in my case, there were fairly legitimate reasons I was asked to stop, so it wasn't clear cut. I invite you to look at my talk page history if you are interested. It mostly boiled down to: I was experiencing major errors in judgement that put my closures in question (not the closures themselves per se, but it was mostly my overall contributions to Wikipedia in general). The fact I was not pre-established as a mainspace editor only made matters worse. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

(Hi MJL!) I remembered this discussion at DannyS712's talk page about the RfC backlog specifically, and other similar discussions around the same time like this and this. I think everyone in those conversations had good points and correlation is not causation, but when that first message was posted ANRFC had 11 requests, today it has 33 requests. Leviv ich 03:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, DannyS712 (talk · contribs)'s and MJL (talk · contribs)'s RfC closes were always detailed and well-reasoned. I always enjoyed reading their summaries of the consensus. That they closed most of the RfCs is fine as long as their closes accurately describe the consensus and they are responsive to queries about their closes. A small group of admins and editors close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion discussions and that has worked well for those XfDs. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’ll just point out the obvious: Cunard floods ANRFC with discussions, many of which never needed an RfC to begin with and that the participants lost interest in so they themselves never requested a closure. Many of these don’t need formal closure (Example of a ANRFC request that isn’t useful.) A quick ctrl f of his name on AN gives 10 results. I think one is a reply, but that’s still approximately a third of requests coming from one person. I’d support a topic ban from him posting there if it continues, but I’m not sure if anyone has raised this with him before. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I was grateful Cunard got around to listing the RfC at Talk:Ministry of Transport at ANRFC; I relisted the RfC once because there was no obvious consensus but low participation (unsurprising, it’s a pretty boring and trivial topic), and I simply hadn’t got around to requesting closure. No doubt some would argue this is one of the “waste of time” closures, on a small-time RfC that was pretty obviously a no consensus close, but it gives us something to work off. Is there any harm to the encyclopaedia being done by Cunard making these requests? I really doubt it. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll let Redrose64 chime in here about how WP:ANRFC handles certain requests. We do have the ability to use {{not done}}, I believe? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m sure there are some that are useful. The issue is that when one user accounts is the single most active requester of closures, many of which aren’t needed, people tend to just ignore anything they request a closure of. I’m pretty confident this has been mentioned at AN a few times before. As for actual harm to the encyclopedia: well, if there are a ton of RfCs that don’t need a formal closure and everyone is ignoring them for reasons similar to what Blade said above, it distracts attention from contentious topics that would benefit from a speedy closure. I’m sure it’s done in good faith, but it’s also major overkill at current levels. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Triptothecottage (talk · contribs). I am happy to have helped, and I am glad you find my work useful. I close the "consensus is clear" RfCs and list the rest at WP:ANRFC.

Here are the nine close requests from me currently pending at WP:ANRFC and why I think the discussions should be closed:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Topic ban appeal – topic ban appeal posted 16 days ago from Capitals00 with five supports and no opposes
2. Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Request for comment: Aggregation of rankings – seven participants who have opinions of "endorse", "neutral", and "oppose"
3. Talk:Century#RfC: Describing positions about the beginning of centuries AD – seven participants commented without bolding a summary of their position so the consensus is not apparent at a glance. They discussed Century#Start and end in the Gregorian calendar, which still has a {{disputed-section}} maintenance template. An RfC close would determine whether the template can be removed.
4. Talk:Ilhan Omar#Request for Comment: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede? – a contentious RfC with over 20 participants
5. Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC) – a divided RfC with over 20 participants
6. Talk:Carnage (comics)#merge back with Cletus Kasady – a requested merge RfC with six participants
7. Talk:Fascism#RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism – a contentious RfC with over 20 participants
8. Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion – a divided RfC with 20 participants
9. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Patrick Moore (consultant) – a move review now open for 16 days

I list the RfCs and other discussions at WP:ANRFC so that they are not forgotten like happened with the RfC Triptothecottage started. Like Triptothecottage said, the close of RfCs like Talk:Ministry of Transport#RfC: Transport governance article titles "gives us something to work off". It is valuable to record the consensus of RfCs to prevent edit wars and the overlooking of RfC participants' comments. All discussions at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:MFD, and WP:TFD are closed to record and enact the community consensus. Likewise, all RfCs except for the malformed ones should be closed.

I comply with WP:ANRFC's "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" by closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs and asking editors at WP:ANRFC for help closing the less clear RfCs.

Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Cunard, you’re missing my point. By listing so many RfCs you’re actively making it less likely they receive a close that is timely or a close at all. In part because it overwhelms the system, and in part because you post so many that it causes people to ignore some requests from you when scrolling through. I’m not asking that you stop, I’m asking that you don’t go through and list every single RfC possible.

In terms of the ones you listed, without even looking at the discussions 1, 3, 6, and 9 don’t need to be at ANRFC: 1 is an AN appeal, and AN appeals are reviewed by admins. 3 is just a talk page discussion calling itself an RfC, 6 is likewise just a talk page discussion regardless of what it calls itself, and 9 is a move review, which historically take a bit longer to close and it doesn’t kill anyone. I haven’t looked at the rest, but some may or may not need a formal closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

As an example of the “overreporting causes people to ignore you” issue see this comment from Nyttend in 2017. I doubt he and I are the only people who feel this way. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Topic ban appeal was archived without closure. There is unanimous consensus for unbanning the editor. Not listing it at WP:ANRFC means it will be forgotten and the editor remains topic banned. WP:ANRFC is for close requests of any kind, including appeals reviewed by admins.

9) Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Patrick Moore (consultant) should be listed to give it more visibility because deletion reviews and move reviews that review whether an admin made the correct decision should be closed promptly.

3) and 6): These are the only RfCs you have listed here as disagreeing with (the other two close requests are the topic ban appeal and the move review discussed above). These two RfCs are also the only discussions that do not have bolded comments, whereas 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 do. You wrote "without even looking at the discussions" you can tell that they each are just "a talk page discussion calling itself an RfC". I disagree. These RfCs are the same as the others except that they don't have bolded votes. Editors expressed their views about whether an article should be merged in 3) and what wording an article should have in 6). A close is useful to determine which choice is the consensus view. I have closed both RfCs with an assessment of the consensus.

AfD closes determine whether an article should be deleted. RfCs closes such as those I did for 3) and 6) are just as important. RfC closes determine what content should be in an article. Since AfDs are closed, why not close RfCs that have participants disagreeing over an article's content?

I disagree with the premise that I am overreporting. I do not "go through and list every single RfC possible". I omit the numerous RfCs that I close myself and RfCs like this one where it's clear a close will not be helpful. The RfCs I list largely are contentious or divided discussions like 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The solution to reducing the backlog is to support and encourage interested editors like DannyS712 (talk · contribs) and MJL (talk · contribs) to continue closing discussions instead of discouraging them. As Levivich noted, the backlog went down to 10 close requests when they were actively closing discussions.

Cunard (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• We had a wide consensus to remove its transclusion from WP:AN. Cunard put it back within a month, with the fig leaf of collapsing some of its sections. Predictably, the collapsing was removed within another two months. —Cryptic 07:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: I've created User:DannyS712/remaining, which should provide a real-time count of the number of items listed at WP:ANRFC. It doesn't (yet) account for some of the items being done already, but, when transcluded, the result is:

  User:DannyS712/remaining

  Maybe this (or something like it but better) could be put at the top instead? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  I discussed the collapsing of sections with the RfC closer here. The closer wrote, "That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions."

  Cunard (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Sure. But the close does not support collapsing it for a couple months, then skipping merrily on your way when the collapsing is removed. —Cryptic 09:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  I spent some time looking through the WP:ANRFC history from three years ago. I modified WP:ANRFC on 10 April 2016 to transclude just the "Requests for closure" header and the "Requests for comment", "Backlogs", "XfD", "Administrative", and "Requested moves" subheaders. A ClueBot III (talk · contribs) archiving error three months later on 9 July 2016 removed my changes. I support restoring my "includeonly" and "noinclude" changes if ClueBot is fixed or implementing the collapsing change in another way if it is not. Cunard (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  The basic problem with ClueBot III is that it cannot distinguish subsections from supersections. WP:AN/RFC is organised in such a way that each individual request gets a level 4 heading, and so at the top of the page there is a {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} containing the parameter |headerlevel=4. So far so good. But the way that ClueBot III archives a thread is to take from the (level 4) heading of the thread concerned down to a point immediately before the next heading of the same level (or bottom of the page, whichever occurs first) including any higher-level headings (i.e. level 2 or 3) that may intervene. Before ClueBot III has archived:

  ===RfCs===
  ====[[Talk:Example#RfC]]====
  Please close the discussion at [[Talk:Example#RfC]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  :{{done}} --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 12:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  ===Deletion discussions===
  ====[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 1]]====
  

  After ClueBot III has archived:

  ===RfCs===
  ====[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 1]]====
  

  The level 3 heading "Deletion discussions" has gone, but it should have been left; and so the CfD is now showing in the RfCs section. I described that problem to Cobi (talk · contribs) on five occasions, whose response was basically that it's "behaving as expected". After some experimenting over several weeks in 2017, we came up with the present layout, using a dummy level 4 heading like "Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line" at the bottom of each level 3 section, except the last. This works fine - before archiving:

  ===RfCs===
  ====[[Talk:Example#RfC]]====
  Please close the discussion at [[Talk:Example#RfC]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  :{{done}} --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 12:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  ====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line====
  ===Deletion discussions===
  ====[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 1]]====
  

  after:

  ===RfCs===
  ====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line====
  ===Deletion discussions===
  ====[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 1]]====
  

  except that every few months somebody either posts below the line, uses a heading that isn't level 4, or removes the dummy subsections.

  So any collapsing code needs to go into portions of the page that won't be archived - such as between a level 3 heading and the first level 4 heading; and between the "above this line" level 4 heading and the level 3 heading that follows. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, Redrose64 (talk · contribs), for taking the time to meticulously explain how ClueBot III works when archiving WP:ANRFC. I really appreciate it. I have restored transclusion to WP:AN of only the "Requests for closure" header and the "Administrative discussions", "RfCs", "Deletion discussions", and "Other types of closing requests" subheaders originally added here and removed by ClueBot III here. Cunard (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• If there was a consensus to stop doing something, and then another editor unilaterally ignores the consensus—regardless of whether a closer gives permission for them to wikilawyer around it (or, more likely, is deliberately misinterpreted as doing so)—then their actions are reverted and they are topic banned advised to desist from future involvement in the area. Simple. ——SerialNumber54129 09:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, agreed. Why is this being blockaded by a single editor, and why is anyone waiting around for their approval to implement the consensus that was already reached? Nihlus 01:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Nihlus: While I agree that it it shouldn't be transcluded in its entirety, I think its still beneficial to note how many open requests there are. With that in mind, I created User:DannyS712/remaining, which I commented on above. Alternatively, User:DannyS712/atask could be added at the top of this page instead, alerting admins to XfDs needing closures, RfCs listed an WP:ANRFC, and the number of users listed at usernames for administrator attention and administrator intervention against vandalism. Just a thought - it'll take a lot less space, and present more infomation. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I have nothing against that change. I'm just surprised that we are waiting on Cunard to approve of something to implement a change that has been discussed prior (and eventually reverted by him against said consensus). Nihlus 05:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Nihlus: In that case,  Done. See above. Also, {{Admin tasks}} can be put elsewhere. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  DannyS712 (talk · contribs), thank you for creating {{Admin tasks}}. It will be very useful. The closer wrote about the transclusion: "That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions. There wasn't consensus for any specific alternative to the full transclusion, mostly because they weren't talked about enough. As an editor (i.e. not part of the close), I would even argue that your proposed compact version doesn't go far enough – information on how many discussions are awaiting closure in each section and how old the oldest discussion in each section has been open seems appropriate and doesn't compromise brevity. Just a couple of more lines under each heading would be enough to convey how urgently closers are needed."

  For {{Admin tasks}}, would it be possible to include how many discussions are awaiting closure in each WP:ANRFC subheader ("Administrative discussions", "RfCs", "Deletion discussions", and "Other types of closing requests") and how old the oldest discussion in each section is to provide more information?

  Cunard (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Cunard: If you can write the Lua, then sure. But, I'm not positive that consensus would support including that information. The template provides a quick highlight of tasks that admins can help with, and includes a link to ANRFC. There is also another link to ANRFC in the {{Noticeboards}} template at the top of the page. In short, I don't think its needed --DannyS712 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  There is no consensus for transcluding {{Admin tasks}} at WP:AN owing to the lack of discussion. I think it's a good summary of admin tasks that need to be completed though, so I support it as a replacement to the WP:ANRFC transclusion as long as it doesn't reduce visibility of WP:ANRFC and thus lead to fewer closures than before. I think more information about WP:ANRFC would not conflict with the RfC close ("there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussion") as adding a few words about the four subsections could be done compactly. But I do not know how to write Lua and though the additional information would be useful, there is no urgency to include it. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone knows that Cunard floods the board. I've never really thought about it, and I assume it's well-intentioned, but now Cunard has declared his motivation to be "all RfCs except for the malformed ones should be closed". This is quite simply not true, as explicitly stated at WP:RFCCLOSE: "Written closing statements are not required." Formal closure is listed as one of many ways an RfC can end, right along with the dispute moving to a different resolution technique and the discussion simply dying a natural death. There is no procedural technicality that requires RfCs to be formally closed, or even suggests that they should be. I think, while well-intentioned, listing RfCs at AN/C as a matter of procedure is quite clearly not necessary, and is actually counterproductive to the purpose of AN/C. Flooding the board with procedural posts dilutes it and makes it bloated and unmanageable, so that users who are actually involved are not getting assistance. Requests to AN/C should clearly only be made if the users involved in the disputes themselves want to pursue a formal closure. An uninvolved editor should not appoint themselves some sort of RfC warden. One single editor unilaterally logjamming any backlog is disruptive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• My full quote is "All discussions at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:MFD, and WP:TFD are closed to record and enact the community consensus. Likewise, all RfCs except for the malformed ones should be closed." I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) wrote in June 2016:

  I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over seven years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for seven years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott (talk · contribs) put it so well here in January 2014:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

  TonyBallioni wrote above, "I’m not asking that you stop, I’m asking that you don’t go through and list every single RfC possible." I can be even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. I would rather not omit listing topic ban appeals like 1 in that list that achieved consensus to unban because once archived, they could be forgotten. I welcome further feedback about which other RfCs should be omitted.

  Cunard (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The added context of your full quote does not make your point correct. To repeat, not every RfC needs a formal close, period. That doesn't just mean "screen out the obvious ones", that means if no one involved is pursuing closure, you can let the discussion die a natural death, rather than posting them to AN/C as a matter of procedure. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The last discussion I participated in on this subject was here. A lot of discussions don't need a formal close, and they're best left to a natural conclusion. As I noted then, it was far more effort than it was worth to figure out what was what there. Now, all this time later, things are basically the same, down to the part about my preferring to go full Tim Allen on myself before looking there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I replaced the transclusion of WP:ANRFC with a template that, among other things, gave the count of closure requests (diff). However, the original issue of there being too many requests listed, and not all of the requests needing official closures, remains. Earlier today, @Cunard: added 10 requests at once (Special:Diff/893524549). I've closed a few, and am trying to pitch in, but I wanted to point out that removing the transclusion didn't solve the issues, merely hid them. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Review at Spam whitelist

@Feminist and Newslinger: (since these editors respectively requested whitelisting and blacklisting)

I am at the moment (apparently) the only admin granting/declining spam whitelist requests, and I have expressed extensive opinion on a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews). I really don't see the need seen spam and reliability concerns, taking into account a low frequency of use and that much material is replaceable.

I think it is better that independent (knowledgeable) admins have a look at the relevant discussions and advice on outcome (if needed I can execute an independent decision if the reviewing admin does not feel confident editing the regexes). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is whether certain sections of thepointsguy.com should be whitelisted to allow linking for references, based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#RfC: The Points Guy. 08:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs)
  • My concern is more: whether that should be handled by a blanket whitelisting of a whole section on that site, or whether it should be handled with specific whitelisting for specific links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Closure review of Ilhan Omar RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I sustain the closure, and recommend that you start a discussion to choose appropriate wording. You can moot variants in a second RFC if unstructured discussion does not lead to a result. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

This is about a week old, but there's still no real progress toward implementing the RfC result, and I think that's probably because the close itself is flawed. I think it's worth asking for another admin to take a second look at @Thryduulf:'s close on the Ilhan Omar RfC. In brief: the RfC asks whether the allegations that Omar made antisemitic comments should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. The close finds that there is some support for mentioning these events, but no consensus on a wording. I have several problems which I detailed on Thryduulf's page. I'll briefly mention here:

1. There's some valid policy-based reasoning on both sides, and a slight majority of editors (I know) are either opposed to mentioning the controversy or are opposed to the specific wording proposed in the RfC. If there were no policy-based reasoning behind the no votes, this would be fine, but Thryduulf's dismissal of the argument seems like it mis-characterizes what editors were saying when they cited WP:RECENTISM.
2. I'm really unclear on what, exactly, the consensus is supposed to be. Is it a consensus favoring the specific mention of allegations of anti-semitism? Favoring a general mention of controversy? The story has continued to develop even after the RfC discussion died out, and I think the story here has shifted enough that a lot of the discussion is obsolete and doesn't consider recent events.

There's no clear path forward other than "start another RfC to figure out a new wording", which seems like it's essentially the same as "no consensus" - but I'm honestly not sure what the RfC should look like. Does the previous close mean that "leave the allegations out of the lead entirely" is off the table here? Nblund ^talk 13:42, 22 April 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.

Turning DRN into MEDCOM v. 2.0

User:TransporterMan has informed me that he determines it fine to continue to refer to WP:Mediation in the instructions at WP:DRN in spite of the shut down of the mediation committee (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_154#RFC:Close_MedCom?). For example, there is this nonsense inserted into the description of the dispute resolution noticeboard that says, rather ludicrously, that volunteers at DRN have special privileges [20] I get that this is an end-run being done to avoid the consensus close that removed TransporterMan of his fiefdom. Let's not turn WP:DRN into MEDCOM v. 2.0, please. Can we mark WP:Mediation as "historical" and remove references to it? jps (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've undone that edit and marked the mediation policy as historical. That should've been done before now but it apparently got missed. Per the close of the above mentioned RFC: "There is a strong consensus to ☑ disband the Mediation Committee in entirety. And, all processes and components thereof, shall be marked as historical."(emphasis added) Since we don't have any actual form of formal mediation anymore it follows that this policy is no longer policy at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is. How does this affect DRN? And is this complaint anything other than an idle complaint? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, my removal of reference to this in the DRN header was reverted by TransporterMan. Beeblebrox, as indicated, reverted it back. I'm now cleaning up some other mentions in dispute resolution policy that seemed to have also been overlooked. As long as there is no further resistance to documenting extant practice accurately, then there is indeed no more issue. jps (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, apparently, there is more at issue. Sigh. [21]. AGK, can we come to an agreement here? jps (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote WP:M so that it briefly describes the concept of generic mediation – distinct from bureaucratised, formal mediation that the community banished in 2018's RFC. Nothing that I've added supports the "special powers" language edited out of the DRN header, I concur with Beeblebrox's revert, and I regard this thread as resolved. AGK ■ 15:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the reasons MEDCOM was closed was because DRN was doing what MEDCOM was doing. And while DRN has more arrows in its quiver than just mediation, mediation is still the primary thing that it does. Having said that, the "special powers" that the Mediation Policy granted before this change were almost never used, so I'm fairly neutral as to these changes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:Flooded with them hundreds

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.

---

Flooded with them hundreds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Zawl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previous account)

Following his unblock by the Arbitration Committee with a one account restriction, Flooded with them hundreds has requested from Primefac that all of his other accounts be unblocked because [...]it would be nice to not see the red block notice on the contribs page of those accounts nor see their usernames striked out, for my own psychological benefits.

This is simply repeating the gaming behaviour that led to the initial CheckUser block on his account, as is documented at User talk:Offend. For those who are unaware, before the Offend "clean start" Flooded with them hundred, had been emailing multiple renamers shopping around for a rename. He was told no every time, and was warned that if he continued, he would be blocked on en.wiki. As the rename system is global and he had by this point moved to using the private request queue which are patrolled globally, stewards made known that if he continued requesting global renames, he would be globally locked to prevent his abuse of the system. This was communicated to him via a en.wiki admin and global renamer. Within the next few days, there was an office action taken against him by the Wikimedia Foundation where they removed him from the access to non-public information noticeboard on meta and he was made aware of it. This is the context in which his attempt at a clean start took place.

ArbCom has unblocked him with a one account restriction, which given that he gamed the system by declaring to them and could claim that he thought that they could overrule policy (despite CLEANSTART saying otherwise), I agree this is the right move. What I do not think is the right move is for the community to keep someone unblocked who within a week of being unblocked with restrictions attempts to game the very unblock sanctions and make a special pleading for himself.

This is especially the case, as FWTH entire history on this project has been nothing more than one attempt after another to evade community scrutiny. He has had more renames than I can count on this account, and this account that he is currently on is an invalid clean start as it occured during a noticeboard discussion (Wikilink to archive). This is after he was blocked on commons for homophobic slurs and socking under yet another username (See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMagnificentist/Archive).

Flooded with them hundreds has been a long-term drain on community resources dating for coming up on three years, and I am sure there are even more diffs from any of his numerous incarnations that others can bring here. My point of it is this: if someone who was just blocked for gaming the clean start policy attempts to game their unblock sanctions this close to the unblock, he is clearly someone who cannot be trusted and will continue to waste valuable time of our community.

Therefore, I am formally proposing: Flooded with them hundreds (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site banned by the English Wikipedia community. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per Tony but also the very long, tiring history of this user. Praxidicae (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support the unblock was a bad idea based on a technicality, and this rectifies that. --Rschen7754 21:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support This editor is capable of making solid contributions to the project. Unfortunately far too much of their history here has been what seems to be an endless train of drama. I have an entire file of emails dealing with this editor and I have only had to deal with them under their two most recent user names! IMO we (the community) need a break. While I am not absolutely opposed to considering a future un-ban request, I would suggest a minimum period of two years before such a request could be lodged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the reasonings by TonyBallioni and Ad Orientem. Also, email abuse is never a good idea on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, the editor is a net negative. Miniapolis 22:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - too much drama, too many distractions, a net negative to the project. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support his antics are disruptive to the project and have been over a long period of time. Natureium (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support He doesn't even work in my normal topic areas and I've been repeatedly drawn into issues involving his page moves and attempts to get first edit on article creations, etc. The long history of socking, renames and improper cleanstarts is enough. -- ferret (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• The page move garbage alone probably should have earned him a long, long, block. Clear support. --Izno (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - demonstrably dishonest user; unreasonable strain on resources and patience. Эlcobbola _talk 00:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per his work at RM, and not even attempting to cleanly separate his new account from his old one. feminist (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Just recently, this user disturbingly labelled other editors "toxic" at AfD, and then failed to acknowledge that constituted a personal attack, arguing that he was referring to "a hypothetical group of people representing the cause of my frustrations that have a great connection to the AfD". I know the amount of time I've spent dealing with this user in the last week pales in comparison to other administrators and frustrated editors – all the more reason to support a site ban. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support It beggars belief that virtually the first thing he does after being unblocked with the clear instruction that he restrict himself to one account, is to ask for his other accounts to be unblocked. He seems to have no self awareness of the timesinks he creates for other users. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sigh. If this is what someone chooses to do with a last chance, they aren't here to help. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Zawl has been disruptive for a long time. He has also caused some issues on Wikimedia Commons. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Too many chances have been given...I was already in disbelief that ArbCom accepted his unblock request given everything else. Ss112 03:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems clear the dozens of people commented here who have had disputes/disagreements with me in the past, those whose candidacies of high positions I've opposed (Praxidicae's stewardship request, Ballioni's CU nom, etc) and those who enjoy piling on for the sake of it want me to be banned for ludicrous reasons. I made huge mistakes in the past when I was new here in 2016 (homophobic slurs, page moves, sock puppetry etc), I apologized for them numerous times but still I am subjected to this double jeopardy of having to be punished for those mistakes again. Those issues were dealt with at various places very long ago. They aren't the actual cause of this discussion, instead, they are used to fuel the motive to get me banned and masked as gaming the system. I never knew literally requesting an admin to unblock accounts is a blockable offense. As for the clean starts, the first one didn't happen during a noticeboard discussion, but a month after, and the original reason was to avoid harassment from Primefac who kept getting involved in my discussions and still is. The second clean start was to avoid Ss112 who had told editors to revert me[22][23], told me in email to jump off a cliff (ArbCom was informed with evidence but BU Rob13, speaking for himself, called it "a run-of-the-mill dispute") and kept belittling/disparaging me in discussions (see my talk page history). Before taking the clean starts, I notified ArbCom and I wasn't subject to any bans or sanctions, thus they were legitimate. GorillaWarfare, on behalf of the committee, assured me that "users who have clean started in the past can clean start again, so long as there are still no active sanctions against their account." I took her words at face value and went on to create Offend (talk · contribs), but when the account was blocked, the committee decided they were not on my side. Is that really my fault? They gave me assurance that my clean start was valid but later decided that I was evading scrutiny when I clearly explained to them about the harassment issues and some other sensitive details before even creating the account. The fact a consensus is emerging to ban me because a group of editors decided to gang up against me, proves there are serious flaws with the concept of consensus on this site. Also, the removal from the access to non-public information list was because the Foundation staff who read my email to ArbCom thought I was going ahead with the clean start not because I had done anything inappropriate to warrant being removed. Having gotten used to being treated like dirt, I am ready for the site ban which I really do need to break off from my Wikipediholism. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Just...wow. Clear evidence this editor is not above making up blatant lies. I've had my fair share of disputes with editors; I've never abused anyone via email, and I certainly didn't tell anyone to "jump off a cliff". (The user previously stated elsewhere that I told them to "kill" themselves; obviously now it's developed into this cliff-jumping method claim.) Literally what would this achieve? Do you think if that were real, that I would think you wouldn't take screenshots or forward the email tell admins here (as anyone would)? I previously asked for evidence and they provided none, so they have zero evidence this ever occurred (unless they mocked up screenshots, which I wouldn't put past them at this point to be honest). The alleged time frame of this also makes no sense—one instance of me asking another editor to get involved happened in October 2018 and this apparent email death instruction followed, but they only decided to try a clean start in March 2019? The claims about Primefac are also greatly exaggerated; I think, much as I did, Primefac avoided them where they could. I also did not very much engage in discussions that had nothing to do with me at their talk page; it's all right there in the page history if anyone would care at this point to go back through it. This is just further proof that they have worn out their welcome—the latest in a string of gross and underhanded behaviour. I suppose they think they have nothing to lose by exaggerating and outright lying now, despite the fact that it's no longer just me and a select few others who know about their history of lying. Let it be known the user has now "retired", which looks like the typical "drama quit" method of evading scrutiny. This should not deter anyone from commenting here. Ss112 08:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support The above comment from Flooded with them hundreds is a stark example of the incompatibility that exists between Flooded with them hundreds and long accepted community norms, and that their presence here is no longer appropriate for the foreseeable future. I believe (but would need confirmation from Trust and Safety at WMF) that Flooded with them hundreds was removed from the non-public information list due to them lying about their age - it was reported to WMF that the age stated on one version of their userpage was incompatible with them being old enough to sign the NDA, but I do not know if that was ultimately why they were removed from the list. I'm left with two conclusions - based solely on their on-wiki behaviour (here, and also taking into account Commons), a significant and lengthy ban is in order, and is necessary to allow the maturation needed to become a productive contributor to our community. If it transpires there has been misconduct with regards to the WMF NDA and their explanation is not accurate, for the safety and protection of the project and the user themselves, that ban must move towards near permanence. Nick (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The discussion at Commons:User talk:Flooded with them hundreds makes me think that if they are site banned, then any provision for appeal should have explicit criteria beyond that of just time elapsed, otherwise I foresee that shortly after that time we will just see an appeal that contains no evidence of any changes and requests/demands to be unbanned on the basis that the sentence has been served. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support although I have had good interactions with this user, I don't think it is right to take what ArbCom has decided and so soon after the decision try to shove it in the bin, especially when they have been gracious in unblocking. They are clearly trying to game the system, which is something I think will be repeated if they continue to remain unblocked. I personally would want to see as part of unblocking conditions some real recognition that they won't continue to game the system for their own goals, perhaps a probationary period. What ever the case, I want them to understand that gaming the system isn't what is acceptable on enwiki and if they continue to do so, it won't make the situation better for them. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Grudging support. FWTH said it himself with the dozens of people commented here who have had disputes/disagreements with me in the past. I believe from their general demeanor as such places as his ORCP poll that FWTH is a young child, and as such I'd be willing to entertain a credible unban request further down the line—people do mature—but as things stand we have someone who's not only serially disruptive in multiple areas, but doesn't understand why they're serially disruptive in multiple areas and consequently is very likely to continue being a timesink. ‑ Iridescent 10:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Natureium, who rightly refers to this user's behavior as "antics." They mostly seem to revolve around moving from one attempt to stir up drama to another; the fact that FWTH linked to the previous ANI discussion about his poor choice of user signature without realizing that it supports, rather than undermines, the argument for a siteban also illustrates his cluelessness. He may be a young user, but no less a drain on community resources for that. Grandpallama (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Note - Fwth has once again retired. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I'm remembering to back when Fwth wrote multiple paragraphs of how they were sad an LTA was blocked....Support per their comment on this proposal. Vermont (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not enwiki regular but I recall him on global-renamers and other private lists for bad stuffs. His behavior clearly haven't improved. — regards, Revi 12:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  Also... I see him lying HERE but I am not allowed to discuss it publicly. — regards, Revi 12:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Other than the note above, I wasn't planning on commenting, but after rereading c:User talk:Flooded with them hundreds and some other talk page discussions, I have to support this ban. Fwth's continued dissembling is incompatible with a collaborative project, so it's time for them to be shown the door. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm just going to comment, "Wikipediaholism"? So, obvious. I ask the closer to note WP:SO seems out-of-step here, thus some multiple of 6 mo should be put into the close -- the consensus, here, implies it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support and per Alanscottwalker would suggest 12 months before being SO eligible given the issues with his conduct in this very discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sorry for this, because I think Flooded has tried to be a good user in many ways, and my own (limited) interchanges with him have been positive. But I can see from this thread that he has been much too much of a drain on the community's resources. It doesn't seem likely to stop any time soon, either. I agree with Ad Orientem that two years would be a suitable time before an unblock request is considered. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC).
• Support - An editor who has clearly exhausted the patience of the community. Jusdafax (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - They've been given more chances than some others have been, but they don't seem to be getting the point. Last socking 12 mo would be the minimum for me, but I'd support 18 months as well. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Was going to sit this out despite a clear need to ban for abuse of the clean start system to evade scrutiny, because of the clear SNOW consensus in favor, but his comments are too toxic to ignore (and that's just for the one that isn't revdelled). Strong support. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as above. GiantSnowman 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, for their own "psychological benefit". Cabayi (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, not because i have been in conflict with him or because i enjoy piling on for the fun of it, but because trying to game a last chance offer from ARBCOM is just...not clueful and because the comment above shows an almost complete lack of understanding. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• I also wasn't going to comment here in light of the apparent consensus, but I think it's important to note for the record that FWTH has a history of retiring or clean-starting whenever their conduct is brought into question. Now that they've done it again, I'd like to also request that this discussion not be closed simply because FWTH has "retired". It's evading scrutiny and relying on the community's reluctance to follow a moot point - history shows this is not the case because he'll be back in a couple of weeks once this discussion is brushed under the proverbial rug. I urge anyone thinking of closing this discussion for that reason to remember FWTH's history here. Having said that, I do support a lengthy ban here; while FWTH can be a productive editor, the amount of additional work they generate versus the benefit they add to the project makes their participation here a net negative. stwalkerster (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support given the long history, including on global rename requests (to which I've been privy). See also this debacle, which encapsulates a lot. GAB^gab 19:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Something something something farmer viper something something something. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. This editor has been given enough chances with all the past history yet still makes a variety of attempts to evade sanctions. I do not see any potential for them to behave positively if allowed to edit at all, even with single-account restriction. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 20:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thank you, TonyBallioni, for opening this. The community must step in when ArbCom fails. Nihlus 22:52, 22 April 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.

Kratom

Resolved

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/herbal-supplement-kratom-comes-risks

It was stated on the Wikipedia page that mitragyna speciosa(Kratom) causes respiratory depression, it is a opiate. These are not true facts. I came across this article that states otherwise. Please update and fix. You could say it could be a opiate but still not known. Just a little consideration because this medicinal plant is life saving. Not for me personally but family and friends that are still here after a long standing battle with opiate addiction. All deaths related to Keaton were just as , related. Not the cause and if you mix any kind of drugs that are going to adversely interact or slow breathing it can kill you. Kratom itself doesn't cause this. Thank you so much and have a good day. Any of people want to chime in feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.24.225 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Mitragyna speciosa. --Izno (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User page in violation of WP:NOTHOSTING

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 believe that this userpage is in violation of WP:What Wikipedia is not: User:Naveed_Ali_Mandanr/sandbox — BladeRikWr 14:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@BladeRikWr: for a 'soft touch' since this editor is mostly inactive, replacing the content with {{Userpage blanked}} is generally sufficient for a primary user sandbox. If you want to make a 'bigger deal' about it, you can list at WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Roger. I will be going for the soft touch approach. Thank you for your help! — BladeRikWr 16:02, 22 April 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.

Bunch of stale redirects

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.

---

Apparently at User:Feminist/sandbox3 there are a whole bunch of unused redirects that Feminist doesn't see the use for anymore. Can we nuke the lot of them per WP:G7? And if not, what other route forward is there? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm missing a step - can you link where Feminist has requested these be deleted (or at least said they don't see a use for them)? -- Euryalus (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently at User talk:RHaworth#Request to delete a batch of pages with diff. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless there has been a consensus somewhere that redirects of this format ("People with the last name...") are always unwanted, I feel it would be much better to discuss them at RfD first (a single discussion would be best) to see what the community's take on them is. The redirects are not misleading and might be useful, so it seems most sensible to take the time to check if they are or not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is one such discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, these redirects are unnecessary and I would like them to be deleted under G7. I would also be OK with nominating them for RfD if anyone prefers that. feminist (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: if you'd like me to tag them all for an RfD just let me know --DannyS712 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 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.

Renaming my account issue

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. I want my account to be renamed because i don't want to appear with my real name any longer. The rename was requested and granted, [24] but then reversed, because i am banned on german wikipedia (with no ban discussion though i did 120.000 edits). The german ban seems to have my real name connected with this account for ever and ever! Help! I want my privacy back. How do i get renamed? I opened a steward issue on meta [25] and i talked to a renamer in here (User_talk:28bytes#Rename_request), but noone seems to have an answer or be able to rename my account. HELP! I don't want to appear with my real name any more! I opened a new rename request [26]. Please help and rename this account! Schmelzle (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• DerHexer can you take a look at this? –xeno^talk 11:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

28bytes did rename this editor, but PlyrStar93 then named them back [27] Why is that? ——SerialNumber54129 11:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a renamer any longer, but when I was, rename requests were typically rejected if the user was indef blocked on their home project. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway there is no single reason to keep my real name up here forever or to even discuss if its legit to keep my real name up at all. Privacy beats any other thougts. Would you people hiding behind pseudonyms like xeno, Serial Number 54129 or DoRD be lucky to have your real name here even if you do not want it? So please rename. Schmelzle (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The good news is that 2,394 people have this surname. Maybe just register with another account instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• This has no business on this noticeboard: you are blocked on de.wiki, and if you wish to be renamed you should either get unblocked there or seek local consensus on de.wiki that the rename is acceptable. Your rename was discussed and the consensus of renamers was to reverse the rename (full disclosure: I supported the reversal and suggested it on the list after we were notified of the situation.)
  Schmelzle: I will give you a warning in regards to en.wiki, however, if you continue to use this project as a way to avoid scrutiny on de.wiki and attempt to force a rename here that has been discussed and rejected globally, I will block you on en.wiki for disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Schmelzle: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I just received a mail from german wikimedia telling me that they are not responsible for the issue (i might forward it to you if you tell me a mail adress). Schmelzle (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is responsible for this name lock? Who can i talk to so that my name will be changed? Please point me to a person who might be able to change the name. I don not want to appear with my real name on these pages any more. At least a name change on wiki-en and commons will be good for a start. Please help. Schmelzle (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Now indefinitely blocked. For that comment above, I presume. ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to comment here, but you beat me to it. I blocked them as this had been discussed pretty extensively and there was a very strong consensus against their position. They continued to beat the issue here, even after my warning to stop as it wasn’t an en.wiki matter. Based on the two most recent comments, I assumed that this was likely to go on no matter how many ways they were told to stop. I have no objection to anyone unblocking if he promises to stop using us as a way to evade scrutiny on de.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Per Tony. The user was requesting global rename in this project but explains nothing about their block or past issues at German Wikipedia. This was also discussed yesterday between renamers and the reverse reflects consensus. Due to this particular user's history, renaming will be seen as an attempt to hide this user from their previous negative behaviors. However, I just noticed the user again submitted a request for rename after yesterday's request. At Meta, this user was also given a decision as well as instructions for the next step(s). With all these taken into account I agree the user is disruptive in this project and the local block was called for; in any way it seems this issue is taken care of (at least at English Wikipedia), any issues caused by this user at other projects will be addressed at those respective projects. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Aaaand now ploughing the same furrow on Commons  :) [28] ——SerialNumber54129 14:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is the user even active anywhere other than these current requests? If they were blocked 3 years ago and simply want their real name obscured from their edits, I don't really see that as "evading scrutiny" and don't see why dewiki would care if a blocked user, who is not editing there, who is not appealing there, was renamed. –xeno^talk 14:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Per xeno, how is this not a valid WP:RTV request? We regularly rename indef blocked accounts under RTV without question. --Jayron32 15:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have no knowledge in renaming -policies, but it might have to do with what lead to their ban/block on de-wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: That in itself seems shrouded in mystery [29]. From what I can make out, they were subject to a CU assessment in February 2016, which seems to have been re-started 16 months later, following which they were blocked. It all seems most odd; but then, it's a different country, and they do things differently there. Literally. ——SerialNumber54129 15:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have dug a little deeper in de-wikipedia, and found the relevant discussion; it has to do with off-wiki activity, amongst other on facebook and jewiki. Essentially outing with something on top. Lectonar (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Xeno and Jayron32: this user is not active on en.wiki. I’m unsure about globally. The global rename policy is vague (as all global policies are), but it has traditionally been read as strongly discouraging renaming of users who are blocked on their home project. Someone emailed the renamers list, and there was a strong consensus that this rename should be reversed, which included at least one renamer from de.wiki. Because of SUL, renames have to be global, but all of the policies around usernames are local still. It’s not appropriate for one wiki to be deciding what is considered evasion of scrutiny on another project, which is a large part of the reason these requests are turned down the overwhelming majority of the time. Even our own WP:RTV page mentions that we may not process the requests if the user is subject to a block.

  They still have access to their talk page on de.wiki. They can make a request there, or maybe Lectonar can bring their request to de.wikis AN, but we should not be considering a request here that has already been reviewed by many people from multiple projects when the user in question was never even active here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm old enough to remember the pre-SUL days, and sometimes my memories of the old policies don't carry over well to the modern world. --Jayron32 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It would take great persuasion from their side to get me to do that; the whole episode, and what they did to earn that block/ban leaves me rather disgusted. I'd rather not, to be honest. Lectonar (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• By the same token, now enwiki ideals (that a rename from a realnames should generally be granted for privacy purposes) are being subverted by the global policy. We can't break off the user's enwiki username (or stewards would be reluctant to do so, anyway). Though I suspect the user is more concerned about their dewiki edits, so I agree they should really start at a dewiki unblock appeal. –xeno^talk 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have left a rather curt in German on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• I’m a German speaking renamer here too and will say this as a ‘’’global’’’ renamer and not as an enwiki user. Renames are a global process and as such local policies do not apply to the renaming process. We typically try to ensure the rename complies with the home wiki policies users reside on as to avoid having to rename a second time needlessly. We don’t rename if the user is blocked on a wiki for reasons other than a username violation policy. Speaking specifically for this user, they are not exercising their right to vanish, but to just go anonymous which is laughably hypocritical of Schmelzle because they are indefinitely blocked for outing, off-wiki harassment, and constant personal attacks. They have been using this name for years and use the same name off-wiki to harass users. This is clearly something that qualifies as evading scrutiny.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:53, 24 April 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.

Bradv appointed as clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint Bradv (talk · contribs) as an arbitration clerk. Bradv has been in training since December 2018.

The arbitration clerks often need new team members. Any editor who would like to volunteer as an arbitration clerk is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 17:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussion at meta about turning off local file uploads

Since no-one at meta has decided to advertise this attempt to supercede local policy on enwiki at all, any editors interested in files should have a look at meta:NonFreeWiki. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I voted on this before realizing it's actually from 2014. Is this still being considered? – bradv🍁 01:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't entirely see how this attempts to supersede local policy. We would still have the non-free content policy, we just wouldn't host the files here. Each use here would require the appropriate rationale. The 4th point in fact is This proposal would move almost all the non-free content to one multilingual location together with all the related documentation and templates. The non-free content would then be available for use by other wikis on a limited basis, in the same way that Commons files can be linked to, but with a fair-use rationale for each use depending on the local restrictions. (Emphasis mine.) Never mind Brad's comment. --Izno (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Seems I got worked up over nothing. I was prodded by a Commons editor with this proposal earlier today without context, and I didn't think to check timestamps, since it's typically a good bet that an editor reaching out about a proposal is reaching out about a current proposal. I assumed it was relatively recent. It is not, as it turns out (though it's more recent than 2014 - there was active discussion as recently as 2017/2018). This can probably be hatted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

While it's never received proper notification, I wouldn't say no one has advertised it. It was mentioned here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#NonFreeWiki and here Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 55#Ongoing proposals at Meta-wiki. They are also 40 other separate wikipedia name space pages and a total of 350 total pages with mentions arising I think largely from the creator mentioning it in their sig back in 2014 e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#RfC: Largest cities of... (2 other mentions in that overall page). None of these mentioned the proposal to turn off local uploads but realistically as much as people like to be paranoid about meta and the WMF, that was never happening without a massive widely advertised RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To put things a different way, if people are feeling the need to get up in arms about something for whatever random reason, wouldn't meta:NonFreeWiki (2) be a better bet? From what I can tell that one has genuinely never been mentioned here before. It's also newer. It didn't have the turn off local uploads part, but I'm sure people can find something to get worked up about, right? Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Without the "turn off local uploads" business, it's not nearly as bad an idea, and doesn't infringe on the decision-making of the enwiki community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can find something to get outraged about and it still seems a better better bet then the IMO pointlessness of this entire thread about a proposal from 2014 with only some minimal recent activity, and the questionable Wording of the first post. Noting of course the first proposal was entirely unclear about how turning off local uploads would be achieved, just saying it should happen. And there's no real indication the WMF would have considered turning off local uploads without the agreement of the local community, and especially not for a proposal which got 47 !votes or votes (not sure which) in 5 years and wit hsome advertising but no proper central notification in projects in would affect. I'm not saying it's a good thing to get outrages about the 2nd proposal either, simply that if we're going to waste our time, why not at least do it on something more recent? (Even if even less !votes/votes, perhaps in part because that one was probably really never advertised here.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Merako Media

Do any of you collect the names of companies that pay editors? I've edited here for quite a while and have dealt with thousands of paid editors of Indian articles and just saw my FIRST case of someone actually declaring that they are paid to edit. Wow! Anyway, the company is called Merako Media. Kudos to them if they actually told their employee to declare the connection, although I am having problems with the editor... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: User:Doc James (and others!) has done some excellent work compiling WP:PAIDLIST... is that the sort of thing you're after? Yunshui ^雲_水 12:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked incorrectly

IP block against the IP 50.201.37.162 should be changed from {{anonblock}} to {{schoolblock}}, due to the IP belonging to an educational institution. (That being Warren Hills Regional High School) InvalidOStalk 12:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to change the tag on the user talk page to reflect that. Otherwise, it's mostly inconsequential and not worth reblocking just for changing the block log. --Jayron32 17:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Review my restriction (Reposted from archives)

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.

---

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

Hi, I would like to appeal for the removal of editions restrictions imposed to me by the administrators Ritchie333 and Yamla in August 2018. After more than six months, I commit myself to all this conditions and I followed them. I have been registered since 2009 in Anglophone Wikipedia, I have more than 2,000 constructive editions and I compromise myself to continue not enter in edit warring and discuss controversial changes to seek consensus. In addition, I would like to point out that the editorial disputes in which I was involved at the time were caused by an editor banned by systematic abuse of multiple accounts. Regards. Chronus (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I would have no objection to lifting the restrictions if Ritchie333 also has no objections. Note that this user previously promised to avoid edit wars, then engaged in them again, leading to the block in July of 2018. But, without diving too deeply, they have several hundred more edits since being unblocked and haven't had reason to be blocked again. This is a good sign in my opinion. I'll politely warn that future edit-warring would likely lead to a reimposition of an indefinite block, but I'll also point out that I'd be surprised if that happened. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal - a read through your last 150 edits indicates only a few reversions at all and no breaches of 1RR. This was a check purely of straight switches - it didn't check for amended edits that were functionally reversions. The reticence to make many reversions at all suggests that the editor has a good degree of caution and thus has demonstrated significant patience. They have also waited well beyond the advised 6 months. I've not looked over the Sock issues for the original complaint, but since I'm already !voting in favour of limitation removal, I feel it's unneeded. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-posted from auto-archive. Apologies for the crude manual repost. If an admin could take a look! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:14, 25 April 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.

El_C unilaterial action, to stop discussion and consensus form.

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

--MrClog (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

IP Block Exempt request

Resolved

Hi,

Been a bit busy in real life for a while, but finally found time to restart patrolling of speedy deletion pages. After a short bit of activity, I got a notification of an email sent to me from User:Theninjaman, asking "I need an IP block exempt because I currently can't edit the English wiki."

I had a look at their activity, and they have not made any edits. I can only assume that they are trying to work from an IP address that has been blocked, but I am unsure about how to identify where they are posting from. Could someone please advise me on what should be done, or advise the user where they should send their request? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 15:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Persononthinternet (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 16:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Shirley Pinto

Resolved

Hello, please move User:Shirley Pinto into User:Dorian Gray Wild/Shirley Pinto. I created the whole article. In my userspace, I would continue editing it. Please delete User:Shirley Pinto without a redirection. Thank you, Dgw (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: The proper venue for this request is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. * Pppery * _{has returned} 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed RfC on community general sanctions and deletions

I plan to start an RfC to discuss community general sanctions and page deletions. I will post the RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard since discussions to start community general sanctions on topics happen here. I will post links to the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and Template:Centralized discussion.

Proposed addition to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions:

Administrators can bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media that are within scope of a community general sanction only if the pages or media meet the requirements for speedy deletion. Such deletions are ordinary speedy deletions so have no special restrictions on reversibility. Page-level sanctions refer to limitations on the ability to edit pages, or to edit pages in a particular manner, not to deleting pages.

This borrows from the lead sentence of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Background: Universa Blockchain Protocol was deleted with the rationale "Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto". At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol, the community was divided over whether community general sanctions permitted the deletion of pages within the scope of the sanction. The DRV closer wrote, "The community discussion needed to resolve the apparent policy conflict instead needs to happen in a wider venue, such as in a policy RfC, and any who are interested in this issue are invited to initiate such a discussion."

The current community general sanctions are:

1. Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
2. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
3. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
4. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
5. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
6. Wikipedia:General sanctions/India–Pakistan conflict

The outcome of the RfC will apply to all community general sanctions. This RfC will not apply to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, which can be directly modified by only arbitrators who discussed whether deletions should be permitted under discretionary sanctions and did not reach a conclusion or indirectly narrowed in scope by the community through an amendment of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy.

Related previous discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol
2. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 71#Discussion of speedy deletion under WP:GS/Crypto at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300#Cryptocurrency general sanctions and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol

Thank you, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs) for your earlier feedback about this proposed RfC. Thank you, DGG, for your suggested wording which I have used here. I welcome further feedback about the proposed community general sanctions RfC.

Cunard (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Cunard, I don't buy the argument that this cannot apply to ArbCom. WP:ARBPOL says that it governs ArbCom and can only be changed in nominated ways, but it does not need changing. It already says that ArbCom cannot make / change policy, so if the community includes in deletion policy that deletions outside of that policy are forbidden, that is policy by which ArbCom and AE are bound according to ARBPOL, as are general sanctions. I suggest the RfC modify the deletion policy to say that deletions can only be carried out according to that policy or under CSD. EdChem (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion says "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". It could be modified to say "Reasons for deletion are limited to the following" but I do not know if there are other reasons for deletion that should be included in the list before such a wording is implemented. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would modify Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Processes to state that deletion may only be via the processes outlined below, and then add to the list deletions outside of article space by an ArbCom case or by a motion of ArbCom and based on private information received that is unsuited to community disclosure. I would add that ArbCom is not permitted to delegate this authority as it is inappropriate for private information of this nature to be disclosed, and so if any such information is provided to any other editor, it should be forwarded on to ArbCom in confidence. EdChem (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  PS: We could add to this that deletions may occur during GS proceedings but must follow these same processes. EdChem (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Modifying Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes in the manner you described is a good option too. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @EdChem and Cunard: such changes to the deletion policy and deletion process pages would be inherently incompatible with one of our core policies. This RfC and the proposal below aren’t particularly useful in my opinion, but also wouldn’t exactly change anything. What would be exceptionally harmful would be your proposed changes to the deletion process and deletion policy pages. Not to mention G6 exists, which the community has in the past agreed is the embodiment of IAR for deletion purposes, despite what the process wonkery at WT:CSD would ordinarily have you believe about it. If what you want is “all deletions must be appealed to DRV rather than any other forum, and no other policy can override that” fine, just say that, but don’t come up with a proposal to throw IAR out the window like you’re currently discussing. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni, the issue here is not merely whether a deletion can be done with DS / AE protection and without any policy justification except IAR, though that claim was not made in this case. The issue also includes ArbCom being able to IAR its way around ARBPOL to make policy, empower admins to delete without support of the deletion policy, and then prevent DRV appeal. I agree with SmokeyJoe, a community response is needed here. IAR is fine for cases where improving the encyclopaedia is being impeded by bureaucracy, but its purpose is not to have admins be able to delete pages without justification under the deletion policy nor to allow ArbCom to side-step ARBPOL. If you want to express frustration about the present situation, I suggest you direct it at the cause. EdChem (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I honestly have no clue how any of what you said relates to what I said. This is about GS, not AE/DS. If you want to talk about ArbCom, see my comments below, where I’m pointing out that there’s moral outrage over deletion as an AE outcome, something that has only been done twice, and that this is less than helpful.
  What I was saying here is that your proposed changes to the deletion policy are explicitly against one of our core principles, and that all of our policies are written in a way to document best practice. Limiting use of any tool to a specific set of circumstances won’t work and can’t work because we can’t foresee every circumstance. I don’t really care either way on whether deletion can be a page level sanction, but I do care about what collateral damage this anger over 2-3 occurrences over 18 years will do. Your discussion immediately above with Cunard could have a lot of unintended consequences, which is why I’m speaking out against modifying the deletion policy or deletion process pages to fix a situation that rarely if ever arises. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• ArbCom have proceeded to flout deletion policy and subvert DRV by implicitly authorising AE admins to delete outside deletion policy, under protection of their pseudo-policy. A community response is demanded. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• I haven't followed any of this that closely, but this looks like a lot of words to say "Sysops can only speedy-delete things that meet speedy-delete criteria." The change is intended to exclude/allow for ArbCom DS and to clarify that "if they say it's part of a community sanction, it isn't." Is that a fair summation of what this is proposing to propose, or am I missing something key? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• This section is about community general sanctions, not arbitration committee discretionary sanctions. The intent is not to say "Sysops can only speedy-delete things that meet speedy-delete criteria" since Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion already says this. The intent is to resolve the policy conflict between WP:CSD and pages like Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling#Remedies (which say "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard."). The intent is to say that pages deleted under community general sanctions are not special deletions so must meet the criteria for speedy deletion, must be reversible by other admins without fear of desysop, and must be appealable to DRV. Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• So when I said clarify that "if they say it's part of a community sanction, it isn't" that was correct? As for the rest, I think maybe I wasn't clear in mentioning discretionary sanctions — I was saying this section's pre-proposal is explicitly not referring to DS, only to general sanctions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that was correct. I misunderstood, thank you for clarifying. Cunard (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Cunard - could I clarify that the "no special restriction" means that appeals would be held at WP:DELETIONREVIEW NOT WP:AE?? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• This section is about community general sanctions, not arbitration committee discretionary sanctions so the Arbitration Committee would not be involved. Appeals of these "ordinary speedy deletions" would be held at Wikipedia:Deletion review, not WP:AN (WP:AN is where Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling#Remedies is directing editors to appeal). Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't start the RFC here. The correct place is WP:VPPOL or WP:VPPRO (or if it is possibly going to be lengthy, a subpage of any of the above). --Izno (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• All community general sanctions have been started at WP:AN or WP:ANI according to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions so I think this is a right place to place restrictions on the community general sanctions. I can start an RfC at WP:VPPOL or WP:VPPRO instead as those venues can be used to hold this discussion too.

  Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• RfC created at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions. Cunard (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions

I have created an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions to say that deletions under community general sanctions that bypass deletion discussion must meet the requirements for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Change to CheckUser team

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome back Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the CheckUser team. Reaper Eternal voluntarily relinquished the CheckUser permission in June 2017. They have been reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the Committee for return of the permission.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change to CheckUser team

Wikipedia blocked in China

I haven't seen anything on en.wp about this, so FYI for my fellow admins:

Possibly related to the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, China has apparently blocked it's 829 million internet users from accessing or editing Wikipedia. This has been going on for about five days at this point, it is not known if and when it will be lifted.

This has resulted in a higher than usual number of person requesting WP:IPBE through various channels. If you do not know how to handle such a requests, our checkusers or the stewards can look into it. However, (and this is just me talking here) I would suggest that IPBE be granted fairly liberally to those affected if they are otherwise a user in good standing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think I’ve been handling most of these requests, and agree we should be handling them liberally. The general practice here is to direct the user to a CU, the CU OTRS queue or functionaries-en. I’ve also made it known that people can request IPBE on my meta talk if they’re unable to access/figure out how the en.wiki stuff works. Just as a more general note, I normally set these to temporary for a year, and I think that’s become the overall norm, but worth mentioning in a more public place as a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Just a bit confused, what's normal and what's changed? I thought Wikipedia was always blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been relatively unblocked (mostly) for quite a few years. It's never totally liberal, they dislike some articles, and they have their harsher moments. This appears to be an extensive new block of the whole site. Censorship_of_Wikipedia#China. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

So this means it is blocked from readers right - so IPBE's etc won't help the primary impacted people. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. If it's any consolation I'm sure many regular readers will be used to using proxies anyway ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• If this is indeed in response to the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Protests and the Chinese government's ongoing efforts to stifle public discussion of them and wipe all record of them away, this could easily continue as long as the protests themselves did, until sometime in June. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• In a case I have under review they state they live in mainland China but have edited 27 times on 28 April! My view is that the basis for dealing with IPBE requests remains as before; the applicant needs a sufficiently robust editing record to be a trusted user and there has to be a demonstrable need. Clearly being blocked whilst in China is a demonstrable need but my case indicates that we should continue to deal with applications on their individual merits. The other point that I should like to make is that these situations are fluid so I, also, normally grant IPBEs for 12 months at a time rather than indefinitely. Just Chilling (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• We get a lot of these on OTRS, so for editors it's "UTRS is thataway!" and for readers, it's "VPN/Tor". Either way, what about relatively new editors willing to edit cooperatively? --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest in these case to make it 14-16 months as opposed to 12, as this seems related specifically to this time of year, meaning they could all be back asking for IPBE again next April. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Brexit edit wars gaining publicity

Don't know if anyone saw this, but this article from Wired talked about an edit war going on over at Brexit. I think it's likely that the article will bring in more traffic. Just wanted to give a heads up. Rockstonetalk to me! 03:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I did see an increase in edits, but the article is semi-protected until June; so far we're good, I think, including on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What to do with a new account creating another?

Superstar Bill Dundee, never made an edit, creates Butthatsanotherstiry. I see this on an almost daily basis, and usually I leave a note asking why they do this, and I never get an answer. It's extremely fishy that a new account would create another, of course, but AGF requires that we don't just drop blocks. And yet, I don't trust it. Your feedback is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this too:

• The same user also created User:SuperstarBDundee.
• User:ThisDragonSlayer has created 3 other accounts, having only registered 2 hours ago and made 2 edits
• User:AshishSingh1401 created User:AshishSingh2005 - neither has edited yet
• User:Willjgb266 has created both User:Willjgb2651 and User:Willjgb265, none have edited yet

I suggest taking a look at the user creation log. While there may be a perfect explanation for all of this, I too find it odd. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but why can newly created accounts create additional accounts? I mean, why is this even allowed? I can see that someone would want an alternative account but not mere seconds after their original account is created. Can't we disallow this from happening? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Shoot, DannyS712, I wish you hadn't pointed me to that log. The DragonSlayers are now gone. Liz, I share your befuddlement. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There’s probably a good reason why this is allowed, but preventing it would certainly affect creating “sleepers”. There may be a bot that was in use or could be modified to report these and list them as a further filter log to check at WP:UAA. NJA (t/c) 01:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: There may be a way to track/prevent this - take a look at Filter #527 · hits, Filter #579 · hits, and Filter #874 · hits - they are private, so I can't see what they do, but the name suggests that they track / prevent such creations. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Only 527 would possibly be relevant. It tracks when [some number of accounts] are created from the same IP address. There's several completely innocent reasons why this might be triggered. Also, anyone maliciously creating sleepers is unlikely to use an existing account to create them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Liz - Minus the edit filters that put a threshold on how many creations are performed in a short time by new users and put a damper on such actions, I'm pretty sure this remains an action that's technically possible and allowed due to the fact that one would just have to sign out from their current account in order to create a new one. It's almost better to just allow creations of accounts by accounts, since what's added to the creation log includes the user that created it for easier tracking and action (when such is needed). Plus, it would open the door to general confusion by principle... "I'm allowed to create accounts if I'm logged out, but when I'm logged in, I'm no longer allowed or trusted to do so?" You might as well just allow the action for the benefit of the additional information that's added to the log. Otherwise, it's easy for users to get around and much harder for us to manage and put a stop to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an open wiki. People are free to perform a wide range of possibly disruptive actions. One reason to allow this is because of username-related soft blocks. I go through the user creation log and certain edit filters periodically and block any obviously illegitimate accounts that snuck through. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say in most circumstances leave them well alone. It's usually not a problem - just innocent newbies trying to find their bearings. There's username blocks as NinjaRobotPirate mentions. There's also people just choosing a more preferable name. One of the more common reasons I see being stated is people saying they forgot the password. The new user log is actually one of the best-monitored on Wikipedia - there's no problem to fix imo. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless any usernames created are blatantly against Wikipedia's username policy, I'd leave them alone if this is the only concern and none of the accounts are making edits or causing other disruption. Like Zzuuzz said above, we should assume that it's a new / curious user whose testing the system and what they can do, or an attempt to "find their bearings" (as he said it). I will add, though, that when I block an account for vandalism, disruption, or abuse, and I see in their logs that they've created other accounts like this (or if their account is a child of a parent account that obviously belongs to the same user), I'll block all of the other accounts they created in order to enforce the parent block. Depending on the severity of the disruption caused, how blatant it seems that the account creations were in regards to disruption, and the probability that the user may start using the other accounts to resume their abuse - I've blocked child accounts indefinitely in cases where the parent block was set to expire and in order to keep them to one account. My point in saying all of this is to stay thy hand until they make the first strike. Use common sense and good judgment with the edits and evidence you have, but don't be afraid to take action and do what's needed when bad faith evidence is clear, and the probability of continued abuse is high. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I check the user creation log occasionally when I'm bored (checking new users with blue contribs links often picks up miscreants) and I quite often see some almost immediately create a second account. One time, I decided to keep an eye on them and see what they did next - and every one I examined never made a single edit over the period I watched, from either account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the ability to create and modify editnotices of other users

Hi everyone! I hope you're all having a great day and that life is treating you well. After updating some tags and code within my own userspace, looking through the how-to guide on editnotices, and doing some testing - I found that, as an anonymous user, I'm able to modify the editnotice page of other user accounts if they're not protected. If I'm an (auto)confirmed account who is not a page mover, template editor, or administrator, I'm also able to create editnotices for other users in addition to being able to modify them (again, assuming that they're not protected). I thought that the intended functionality of editnotices was that users were able to create and modify them on their own user and user talk pages (but not subpages within their user space) only, but not technically be able to do so on others' user and user talk pages. I mean, this isn't a high risk issue like what was discussed with the ability to edit others' .js and .css pages, but this still leaves the door open for vandalism and I'm quite certain that users shouldn't have the technical ability to be able to touch the editnotice pages of other users (unless you're a page mover, template editor, or administrator)... am I correct on this? I'm not sure how to view this... on one hand, I think it would close the door to abuse and vandalism by applying a restriction like this, but on the other hand, it would make it harder for users to tag inappropriate editnotice pages for CSD if they violate policy or are abusive / vandalism in nature... what are your thoughts? Input would be greatly helpful and appreciated here. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that users shouldn't have the technical ability to be able to touch the editnotice pages of other users (unless you're a page mover, template editor, or administrator)... am I correct on this? There's no magic involved in edit notices; regular edit notices are protected because they're in the Mediawiki:Titleblacklist, but user edit notices are not because that would prevent anyone who doesn't have tboverride from editing their own edit notice. An edit filter would be the only way to only allow users to edit their own edit notice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

An edit filter to log non-admins creating or editing edit notices in other users' userspace might be useful to see if this is actually a thing that happens often and if it does how much of a problem it actually is in practice. That would probably be easy to change to disallow if it does produce evidence that it is a significant issue. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that page movers/template editors can always make edit notices, can I suggest that they also be excluded from the filter? Separately, the same issue applies to email notices - see this revision of Oshwah's email notice (sorry) --DannyS712 (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No apologies are needed; test away :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• How much of an issue is this? We could expand the abuse-filter protection from non-autoconfirmed edits to "base userpages" to include "base userspace edit notices" perhaps? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, this is Special:AbuseFilter/803. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we create a logging filter as Thryduulf suggests and find out. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

With my experience and time spent patrolling recent changes and logs, I doubt that this is going to come back as a significant issue that users and LTAs are abusing at a high rate. If this is the case, that's a good thing. We're talking about it now and before it's had a chance to become a major problem, instead of having a panicked discussion about how best to stop the problem while it's occurring. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi just to scope out what this may need to filter on (for initial logging at least) does this only need to cover:

1. Namespace is User or User talk
2. Page creations or edits
3. base Pages ending in Emailnotice or Editnotice (user SUBpages editnotices are already in the titleBL)
4. Edit not made by username==basepagename , admins, bots, templateeditors (I don't really think we need pagemovers here - their titleblacklist access is primarily for a different reason)

? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Is "not yourself" or "confirmed" enough here as well (that would match the base userpage protection we already have and be less of a stretch of the protection policy) ? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux - That seems sufficient to me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Listed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Log_edits_to_other's_editnotices. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

COI

What does one do in the event that the alleged subject of the article (based on username) edits the article yet gives accurate information to it? Are they to be punished or do we accept the help to improve the encyclopedia? Trillfendi (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Generally, they're encouraged to contribute on the article talk page and are explained about WP:COI via the {{template:uw-coi}} tag on their user talk page. El_C 05:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If their edits are an undeniable improvement to the article, I don't really care that much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors with a COI regarding a subject can be a significant benefit to the encyclopaedia if they're happy to play by our rules as they often have easy access to sources, have relevant subject knowledge and are often motivated to watch the article for vandalism, etc. Obviously they should primarily be contributing to the talk page rather than directly to the article, but there are exceptions to that. For example there is absolutely no issue with them adding uncontroversial sourced facts to the article, nor does anyone benefit from prohibiting them from copyediting or reverting obvious vandalism. Obviously they shouldn't be directly adding or removing (potentially) controversial material without talk page consensus first, but what is potentially controversial and how strictly COI guidelines should be interpreted depends a lot on the subject area - e.g. they should be making almost no edits to the biography of a serving politician at all, but there is likely to be very little problem with them editing most of an article about say a museum of natural history. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember that sanctions should be to protect wikipedia, not just to punish or penalise editors. And editors also can't be sanctioned solely for editing with a WP:COI, not even directly editing articles. It's strongly recommended editors with a COI stick to editing the talk page, because very few editors are able to do it without letting the COI getting in the way, and therefore editing an article badly which can lead to sanction and people often have little tolerance when the bad editing arises from a COI. And also because directly editing articles may lead to significant and unwanted scrutiny or even real world controversy. But there has to actually be some reason to sanction them other than the fact they are editing articles despite a COI. Remember editors can't even be sanctioned for failing to disclose a COI, although the earlier issues apply even more when a COI is undisclosed. Editors need a financial COI before they can be sanctioned for non disclosure. Even then, if editors do correctly disclose that COI, they can't be sanctioned solely for editing an article despite that financial COI. And with even a disclosed financial COI, the issues are amplified any more. In particular there's very low tolerance of poor editing of article from someone with financial COI those articles. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Kashmir airstrikes Suggestion

This article was created by an IP but it was speedy deleted. IP brought it here saying it was WP:BIAS which it could be as it was on a sanctioned topic. I had my unblock request going on here at that time so I saw it. IP was directed to WP:DRV where it was decided to overturn it but as a redirect. I think that it should be a good article rather than a redirect. There's enough info to make it a good article and now it has a title as well. Admins opinion is requested on keeping this article based on a sensitive topic. Its here because admins surely don't violate WP:NPV.--Musa Raza (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As it is right now, there was not significantly more information contained in the page before the redirect that isn't on the current page. I have restored the talk page and it seems that there was consensus to rename the page as well to better reflect the political situation in Kashmir. I feel comfortable with the redirect until more substantive content can be added. Just having a name doesn't seem to cross that barrier. Sasquatch t|c 17:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Two uncivil remarks by User:TenPoundHammer

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.

---

User:TenPoundHammer was warned for incivility in March 2019, but decided to make two further uncivil remarks here and here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

<Sigh>. Blocked for 1 month. --Jayron32 13:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Although this would carry much more weight if the last block hadn't also involved both of you, and if TPH's complaint wasn't that you're tagging incorrectly and persistently, over a matter which he claims to have pointed out to you frequently (I don't know how true it is). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Per WP:INVOLVED, I don't know how blocking him before disqualifies me from blocking him again. Can you explain? --Jayron32 13:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Agreed. Also, I could not find Buddy Cannon or Big Machine Records in the references within the article, whose references were added after the fact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Whether or not tagging the article was correct or wrong to do was not a factor in the block. That's a matter for a different discussion. The use of "you fucking moron", and similar later comments, was the only deciding factor. You could still be in the wrong regarding the tagging, Jax. I'm not saying you are, and I'm also not saying you're NOT. I'm conceding only to state that TPH would still be blocked for saying "you fucking moron" even if he were substantively correct on your incorrect use of the tags. The block here is solely for recidivism in egregious personal attacks. --Jayron32 14:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Jayron32, I think this's a bad block. The second diff does not qualify as NPA and as to the first, people do get frustrated occasionally. ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Come on, when you're blocked for a week for incivility, calling someone a fucking moron a month later verges on suicide by admin. GoldenRing (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• If TPH is not combative towards other editors apart from him, these two needs to be IBAN-ed. As Serge said over the last time, Jax is not exactly innocent in all these stuff and routinely tests editorial patience with civil obstinacy. Also, it's the same trifecta of Jax, TPH and Jayron, which I am not quite fond of. ∯WBG^converse 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• If it makes you feel better, uninvolved admin chiming in to say the block is totally warranted. “Don’t call people fucking morons in ALL CAPS in the editorial process” seems like a simple enough line to toe. If there’s a problem with Jax’s edits… we have no shortage of forums to address it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• What trifecta? Can you tell me, other than the two blocks, where I substantively interacted with either of these editors in the recent past? Goodness, if you're going to cast aspersions, at least have a diff or two to back it up. It isn't merely that I'm not involved in the dispute, I've never even (to my recollection) been involved in editing the same article or part of the same conversation with either of them ever. If you're going to impugn my reputation with half-expressed accusations of impropriety, at least be willing to back it up! --Jayron32 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I respect you as a sysop with integrity and there's no smearing of reputation or minimal casting of aspersions :-) Apologies, if it came across in such a manner. I dislike that the previous block included all three of you in the same roles but that's a mere expression of the fact that someone else enforcing the block might have been better. Obviously, your actions are not prohibited in policy. My overall take is that TPH was somewhat baited by Jax (civil obstinacy, civil POV pushing et al are recognized malpractices) and in light of that, iff this was TPH's sole incivility in recent times, he ought to have been spared a block with a stern warning. Obviously, (as one suggests below) if TPH regularly indulges in rev-deletion-able insults and barbs at every random passerby who does not choose to toe his line, I have no sympathies with his being blcoked and might even aupport an extension. ∯WBG^converse 04:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Even if it was fine if it was only occasionally and frankly that NPA is severe enough that not really, the problem is that evidence (and I'm not even thinking of the block logs) suggests with TPH it's not "occasionally" but instead "frequently". Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree that the second diff isn't a big deal. The first one, however, is bad enough that it needs to be revdeled, so for posterity in this thread: "TenPoundHammer (talk | contribs | block (Labels do not need citations, you FUCKING MORON) " is the edit summary in question. That kind of thing should not be permantly in the page history for anyone to see, and TPH knows it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the biggest fan of civility blocks, but TPH can hardly say he didn't see this one coming, so I endorse Jayron's block. I might investigate an unblock request as and when it happens, but it will need to contain sufficient remorse and contrition, probably with an understanding that the next block will be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Block seems of a sufficient duration to prevent recidivism. I think a warning to Jax is in order here as well per WP:TE. C'mon man. This is causing unnecessary work to clean up. Perhaps the talk page for projects might be a better place. Asking for the citation of the publisher of work is awfully pedantic and unnecessary. It's literally physically on the subject of the article and, barring some bizarre controversy, not controversial/harmful in any way. If you think it's someone else, then just change it. Warms up a trout... Buffs (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• It seems it is often the case here that we see very experienced users at their most uncivil when they happen to be in the right abut whatever it is that under dispute. And all too often ths discussion becomes focussed solely on the person who said the mean thing and not the other person whose clueless behavior angered them. (in fact I have an essay about exactly that in my userspace) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• This is of course one of the problems with TPH's atrocious behaviour. There may very well be a problem with Jax's editing but most of us DFAF given the terribleness of TPH's behaviour. If they had instead gathered evidence and calmly brought a case to AN//I we may now be considering a topic ban of Jax if they really do keep adding unnecessary tags as alleged. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd just like to note that there are a number of people that have painted a target on TPH's back, for quite awhile now, and I'm wondering if he was BAITed into incivility. pbp 22:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but WP:BAIT links to Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

From what I've seen before TPH is just as uncivil with IPs many of which show no signs of being regulars trying to bait TPH so I'd have to say no, baiting is not the main problem. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Baiting is an explanation for how something might have been happened, but being baited is neither an excuse nor a defense for engaging in bad behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is right. As soon as you allow baiting as an excuse, Wikipedia becomes an exercise in trying to determine who started what. Overall (though perhaps not at the time) it's far easier to just not rise to it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• agree that the first edit summary was wholly inappropriate, that TPH should know better, and that the block was merited. GiantSnowman 06:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If it's any help, TPH, refrain from using edit-summaries in the future. It cuts out alot of problems, trust me, I know! Personally, I think the block is too long, and maybe it could be reduced to time served, or a smaller time-frame (say 72hrs), providing the TPH makes a well thought through, and sincere unblock request, having time to calm down. WP:ROPE can be used if there's any further issues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that I declined an unblock request by TenPoundHammer yesterday, not realizing that this discussion was here, although I see now there was a notice on their talk page. I felt that their appeal was inadequate to address their behaviour. Well, you can see what I wrote on the talk page. If anyone thinks I was out of line, feel free to re-open the review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, just a reminder that when content is revision-deleted, it is meant to be hidden. There seem to be a number of administrators here who need reminding to respect the actions of your fellow admins. If you disagree with the action, fine, take it up with the revdeleting administrator, don't just republish the hidden content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you're certain? ∯WBG^converse 05:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block I can understand the reasons for WBG's support of TPH. However, the case here is quite black and white. I would probably advise TPH to come absolutely clean to the community and give some kind of a statement that assures us that they won't repeat such behaviour (and no, their saying on their talk page that they will not drink and edit, is truly not enough). Lourdes 19:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block. This was utterly unacceptable; TPH has had more warnings than I've had hot dinners. @Grandpallama is right that even if true, baiting is no defence or excuse. @GoldenRing's comment about suicide by admin is apt. And yes, the next civility block on TPH probably should be indefinite.

If there is any consideration of unblocking TPH, the apology and assurances better be v good indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block Few things can go further to hurt Wikipedia than what I reviewed. An experienced editor showing such uncivil behavior requires action.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 1 May 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.

Article source code

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.

---

Resolved

I have been alerted, through an OTRS ticket, to the existence of webpage source code "no index, no follow" on the page of the Pickupp article. Does anyone know when, where, or under what circumstances this code is added to source code? I've viewed the source of some other pages but don't see it in any others I looked at. I suspect you can only see the full code by using the browser's developer mode to view the complete page code, as I did. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumably this comes in through one of the templates on the page, though I can't immediately spot which one. GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOINDEX describes the use of the keyword. Category:Wikipedia templates which apply NOINDEX should list all cats which directly apply it. I admit I'm not sure why it's coming to that page. As per the help page, AFAIK the nofollow should be applied to all external links on wikipedia. See also Meta:nofollow. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually I missed something on the help page. Most likely the article is noindexed because it's less than 90 days old and is not patrolled. Note an article older than 90 days cannot be no indexed even with the template. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is why it has that code. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and Nil Einne: They're presumably referring to the actual html source code of the page not the wiki source text, that's why you couldn't find it. In the html source code, there are noindex meta-tag because the page is not patrolled; and nofollow attribute because of the external links, these are added automatically by the software. Noindex will be removed when the page is patrolled, but nofollow will remain forever. But I find it really odd why whoever sent the email went extra length to scan the html source and complain about these features barely after the page was created, add this to the number of tags the page earned so far, there is some sort of promotion going there. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it in the HTML, thanks, but couldn't find what was causing it. I didn't know that young, unpatrolled articles got noindex-ed automatically. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor, Nil Einne, and Ammarpad: I've started an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickupp. Sandstein 09:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein, Nil Einne, and Ammarpad: The page editor did not view the html source code but was told by Google, when they could not find the article while doing a Google search, that the page was coded nofollow and noindex. I think AfD is right and proper and I tagged it WP:COI and I'm sure their reason for complaining about the non Google result is due to promotional interest. But thanks all for all the info. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's impossible for you (or anyone else, for that matter) to know whether someone viewed the html source code of a page or not. FWIW, they already explained they work for the company, probably even founded it. And since the page is at AfD this discussion is now moot. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:55, 2 May 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.

Request for moderation

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'm engaged in dispute with Jozefsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on events in Serbia in 1944-1945. It would be nice if an administrator and/or trusted user with knowledge of World War II mediate. -- Bojan  Talk  03:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution for ways you can seek help with a content dispute. Note that the administrative notice boards are not part of dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I second what is said by @Nil Einne:, BokicaK. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:02, 3 May 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.

Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive 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.

---

What is an editor supposed to do when he feels that two editors User:Huldra and User:Nableezy have teamed up to harass him and have, in his view, purposely disrupted good edits to a page? I ask administrators to look into the actions of Huldra and Nableezy in the edit history of the article Kafr 'Inan, and their objection to using Hebrew, and my reply to them here. There is good reason to believe that I am being hounded by them. What can be done to alleviate this problem?Davidbena (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I welcome somebody to look at the editing history of Kafr 'Inan. They might see that I edited that page ten whole years ago. Or that Huldra has been editing that page since 2007, and is currently responsible for 48% of the current content. Or that prior to this AN thread only two of us had actually edited the talk page, though Ill let you guess which two to keep the suspense. Or that David has been edit-warring, in violation of the ARBPIA 1RR and in violation of MOS:FOREIGN. Or that his comments on Huldra's talk page include an implicit accusation of racism. Or that since his topic ban has been lifted he has returned to the exact same WP:CIR issues that precipitated the ban in the first place. Yes, somebody, please look. nableezy - 23:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I would strongly suggest you self-revert that last edit on that article, or the result will be a block. I'll give you a short time. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem in self-reverting, but is this not the same as a flagrant error being corrected? Anyone who knows our history of communications can see that there is a problem here. I kindly ask for the administrators here to look carefully at our history of interaction.Davidbena (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do so then. There are very limited exceptions for violating a 1RR, and this does not fall into any of those categories. Then we can look at any further issues. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As for me "hounding" anyone on the Kafr 'Inan artcle, according to this I have edited that article since 2007, and I'm the editor who has edited it the most, and added the most of the text in the article. (Nableezy had his first edit to the article in 2009.) Also Davidbena has broken 1RR on Kafr 'Inan:

1. 22:15, 21 April 2019 reverting me, reintroducing Hebrew name of Kfar Hananya in Kafr 'Inan−article
2. 22:22, 21 April 2019 reverting Nableezy, reintroducing Hebrew name of Kfar Hananya in Kafr 'Inan−article

Davidbena successfully appealed their own sanctions relating to the I/P area on 23 February, 2019, I am asking that topic ban to be reintroduced, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Irregardless of the edit on Kafr 'Inan, I implore the administrators here to review the edit history of User:Nableezy and User:Huldra in the article Solomon's Pools, and to see if they have acted judiciously with respect to Wikipedia's policies and if there is not a place to censure them for any misconduct. If there are gross violations of protocol, I am asking that both Huldra and Nableezy be banned from editing in the I/P area for 6 months, as a way of reminding them of the spirit of collaborative editing.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as wider issues, including at Solomon's Pools, Id also welcome somebody to look at that. See for example here where David argues that the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are entitled to all of the land of Israel. Or here where it is shown that Josephus disproves those heretical modern historians who dare dispute the factual existence of King Solomon. We are in a position where one user argues based off personal feeling and religious dogma and completely ignores anybody else's position. I dont know how to argue against the word of God, Im sorry. I thought that reliable sources would be the way, but there is apparently no more reliable source than God (Ill leave it to the reader to determine how sarcastic to read that bit). nableezy - 23:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

When you take things out-of-context, they look strange to non-informed readers. But when they read the full exchange of communications, they'll see the bigger picture and who it is that is being contentious. Again, a ban is, in my view, in order and proper, in order to remind our fellow editors how we ought to work together, rather than destroy one-another's works.Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Davidbena has now, finally, self reverted on Kafr 'Inan. He was also reported (by me) for breaking 1RR on Solomon's Pools a couple of days ago, but was let off on a technicality, as there was no 1RR edit notice in place link, Frankly, I am tired of his edit warring, etc, I am asking for a new 6 month topic ban from the IP area for Davidbena, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Huldra is the one who is really edit warring here. Look at all the edit histories of the pages that we are privy to, and note how that it is she who edits contrary to consensus, and has even sought to game the system to have it her own way. I'm sorry, but she is not in the right here.Davidbena (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is literally impossible for only one user to edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

True, but when the majority of editors have decided on one edit and then the lesser group comes along (in this case Huldra and Nableezy) and reverts the majority edit, it is edit warring.Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I wish to call attention to certain remarks made by Huldra and which point to a recurring problem with this editor, and which may have far-reaching effects on our encyclopedia if not checked and/or corrected. I am speaking about a personal POV attitude evidenced in her own comments, such as where Huldra herself doubted the historicity of Solomon here, and yet she admits that Israel's ancient connection to the land is the source of contention here! This attitude is one that has made her emboldened to actually go the extra mile and to expunge Hebrew (as a former name) given to an ancient village in Israel/Palestine. Any attempt to belittle the historical works of the ancients in order to "divorce" the Jews from their historical connections to the Land of Israel (Palestine) will only create further tension and confusion in the future. I am asking administrators to seriously consider what is happening with her and to warn her of persistent behavior in the future. The solution to this problem is for editors like her to begin taking a neutral stance and position, without interjecting their political bias. The land continues to be shared by Jews and Arabs, and both sides must learn to get along.Davidbena (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont want to say Jesus christ because you may take that as something other than an expression of exasperation, but Jesus christ. Nobody removed the Hebrew because of a disbelief of the existence of King Solomon. She and I removed that because it did not belong in the article. That has been explained to you, repeatedly, on the talk page. You ignore entirely what people say. I have told you no fewer than three times that the Hebrew for Kfar Hananya belongs in the article Kfar Hananya, and nobody is removing it from there. It does not however belong anytime that Kfar Hananya is merely mentioned in any other article. You have completely ignored that, repeatedly, and continue to make dogmatic demands. I voted to lift your topic ban. So did Huldra. I think it has proven beyond obvious that doing so was a mistake. nableezy - 03:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

According to MOS:FORLANG, where there is a foreign language of any site, we can use it in an article. In this case there are TWO names. By Huldra's own admittance, she is not happy with Israel's claim of historical connection to the land. While she thought that the name "Kefar Hanania" belonged to a different site, when I explained to her the reality, namely, that it is the same site as Kafr 'Inan, she STILL refused to accept the Hebrew name, inspite of all the references that show that the Old Kefar Hananiah is actually Kafr 'Inan.Davidbena (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban for Davidbena

• Per the above discussion, I would support reinstating the topic ban. The ""You don't like ancient Jewish sites?" comment is beyond the pale. I participated in the RSN discussion that led to the first topic ban and, if memory serves me right, Davidbena was posting something equally offensive. Given the lack of a learning curve and the inability to edit in a collaborative environment, the editor should be removed from the topic area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I never purposely offended anybody on that Topic Ban, as I was simply questioning the attitude of someone who was very anti-Israel and asked here for redress so that we could restore balance to our editing. I invite all to read through our exchanges there (see here for a link to that debate). There is, in my view, a serious problem with this editor Huldra who continues to push her POV and no one, so far, has intervened. If we cannot seek a just resolution and redress to a serious problem, then I have no business editing on this venue. Moreover, if we are not fair and impartial in our editing, the greatest sufferer will be Wikipedia's credibility. Davidbena (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support An editor who formerly had a TBAN in a topic manages to get the ban lifted, resorts to the same behavior that led to the placement of the ban in the first place, and then has the unmitigated gall to bring other users to AN and accuse them of being the problems. I don't see any reason why the TBAN wouldn't be reinstated immediately, regardless of what other outcomes there might be. Grandpallama (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, TBAN people who don't agree with me in order to teach them to be more collaborative. Gross. Irregardless of the edit on Kafr 'Inan, I implore the administrators here to review the edit history of User:Nableezy and User:Huldra in the article Solomon's Pools, and to see if they have acted judiciously with respect to Wikipedia's policies and if there is not a place to censure them for any misconduct. If there are gross violations of protocol, I am asking that both Huldra and Nableezy be banned from editing in the I/P area for 6 months, as a way of reminding them of the spirit of collaborative editing. Grandpallama (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I must support a renewed indefinite topic ban for Davidbena, to be appealed no sooner than after six months. Trying to get topic bans bans for Huldra and Nableezy here on AN a mere four days after opening a similar attempt at AE (which was promptly closed as a content dispute) is not a good look. There's a technical difference between AN and AE, yes — AN is for requesting community sanctions, AE for requesting ArbCom sanctions — but a content dispute is a content dispute. Also I agree with K.e.coffman's points above. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC).
• Support I've been watching DavidBena's edits these past couple of days with increasing dismay. I almost blocked him myself for that edit about not liking Jewish sites. He seems to be in a downward spiral and even if he stopped now I think it would just happen again. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, K.e.coffman, Bishonen, I concede that I should have given more time for the discussion to play-out, rather than revert before discussion. That was my fault. Still, moderators can be as rash as I was there. With respect to my revert (i.e. the restoration of the site's Hebrew name), I will remind you that we're talking here exclusively about Kafr 'Inan, whose name was also Kefar Hanania in the 2nd-century CE as we see here in Mishnah Shebiith 9:2 and which place is discussed by the relative archaeologists and historical geographers. When students of religion study this site, the first name that comes to mind is the Hebrew rendition of its name, Kefar Hananiah which happens to be the exact same site as Kafr 'Inan. As per MOS:FORLANG, where there are two foreign language names, as there are in this one site, the Hebrew name can be added. Can you be more patient with me? Can you please halt all proceedings to have me topic banned in the I/P area?Davidbena (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy and I have for over a day tried to explain that MOS:FORLANG refer to the subject of the article, that is Kafr 'Inan. Our "reward" has been to be accused of WP:HOUNDING Davidbena (on an article I edited first in 2007, Nableezy in 2009 and Davidbena first in 2018...), of not "like[ing] ancient Jewish sites?". Both Nableezy and myself have been accused of showing "animosity towards me since day one" (link, link) (....btw, we both supported the lifting of Davidbena's topic ban in February 2019)..and we have been accused of "deliberately vandalizing articles", etc, etc.

I am sick and tired of this, please make it stop, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Huldra's adversity towards anything "Israeli" in the West-Bank is well-known, just as we see in this recent edit here. She would be happy to see me topic banned in the I/P area. I, for my part, feel that she has stepped out-of-bounds in her POV edits and would like to see her warned about such blatant and outspoken views. At the end of the day all of us who are Wikipedians exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to serve the reader. Davidbena (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the exact kind of comment you were previously topic banned for. You take Huldra stating a flat out fact, that Solomon's Pools are in Area A (example source) as evidence as adversity towards anything "Israeli" in the West Bank. It cant be that your strongly held views might possibly be incorrect, it must be Huldra's blatant and outspoken views. nableezy - 02:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Davidbena: Here's what I observed:
  • An editor successfully appeals a topic ban;
  • Starts engaging in the same battleground behaviour (edit warring; "I did not hear that"; etc.) that led to the previous topic ban here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Proposal: Topic ban;
  • Posts an ethnically-based personal attack on an editor's talk page;
  • Files a frivolous AN report where he continues to accuse editors of "anti-Israel" attitudes;
  • Finally, self-reverts under duress, but does not apologise for insulting fellow editors;
  • When faced with a prospect of a renewed topic ban, asks to have "patience" with him; still does not acknowledge that he's done anything wrong (apart from not "hav[ing] given more time for the discussion to play-out").

And that was just on this thread and one article. I don't think that a contentious topic area benefits from editing like this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In the I/P area, all editors involved have their own political views. I have been extremely cautious not to offend Arabs, as I feel that they have a rightful place among Jews. What has become irksome is how that there are some editors here who feel that Israelis have no rightful place among Arabs. Is it wrong to suggest a more neutral approach? As for your claim that someone posted an ethnically-based personal attack on an editor's talk page, I am unaware of it. Can you please show me the diff (perhaps there's a misunderstanding).Davidbena (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

diff nableezy - 02:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I obviously meant no offense by saying "ancient Jewish site," just as there is no offense by saying "Palestinian village" and which words appear in scores of Wikipedia articles. We must learn to take things in stride.Davidbena (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support I was waiting to think about this but the above 00:30, 23 April 2019 comment by Davidbena tips me over ("I have been extremely cautious not to offend Arabs...some editors here...". Davidbena means well but is entirely unable to see any point of view that might deflect from his approach. An example is here where Davidbena could not see that unattributed copying of text from a blog was a problem. He finally revealed his reasoning ("there is no plagiarism, as I am the author of that blog") but had to be dragged to the stage of seeing that unattributed copying was a problem. Another example is here where I gently tried to have Davidbena say what "balance" he wanted in a section on settler violence. The replies indicate that a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but your first response here is totally taken out-of-context, as you can see here, and does not involve the I/P area.Davidbena (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you are still saying it is ok for an editor to add an unattributed copy from a blog into an article because the editor "knows" that they wrote the blog and that they gave themselves permission to add it to Wikipedia. No. The admin you were talking to might have missed the fact that an unattributed copy of a translation from a blog is also not ok. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • No, I am not saying that at all. Whatever the problem was at the time, it has since been corrected. Everything is sourced by external and impeccable sources.Davidbena (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Davidbena was commenting on removal of Jewish history from an article with extensive Jewish history, and if I dig I'm fairly sure I'll find quite a few other examples of such removals. "not liking ancient X sites" is distinct and different from "not liking X". Davidbena should learn to WP:AVOIDYOU (really - there is no point on Wikipedia to say anything about any editor), should cut down on commentary (however - there's plenty of commentary flying from the other direction), and should use adminstrative boards as a last resort. However, in his defense, he did not start it here - a non-actionable AE was filed against him. David has been making constructive additions and TBANing him is excessive.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, yes, Davidbena walked scot free, but that was due to a brand new technicality, namely that there must be an edit notice on all articles, see here. He did break the 1RR rule, then refused to self revert, basically because "he was right". Refusing to follow the rules because you are "right" .....is not a recipe for trouble−free editing, too put it mildly, Huldra (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a refusal to self-revert - I see "I will self-revert until 24 hours have passed." [30] after "To the best of my knowledge, this is my first revert. If I was mistaken, I will self-revert. "[31]. And this in a case that that is non-actionable (without an edit notice, and despite you and I dissenting - former [32] and current [33] ARBCOM members don't see it as "reasonably construed" (required for 1RR to be in place and for placing the edit notice)).Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well, as you, Icewhiz, wrote 22 April 2019: "In my view this is reasonably construed - this is an important archaeological/recreational site that is right in between the Israeli and Palestinian zones of control - and is quite contested. The article perhaps doesn't reflect this - I can see how from reading the article one might not understand what the fuss is about." I think editors in the IP area are "the experts" on what is under ARBPIA, not ARBCOM members. Huldra (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This is clearly the same problematic behavior that led to the TBAN initially. The second chance is apparently just not working out. This may not be intentional bullying or POV-pushing but we all know that this is an extremely sensitive topic area and we quite simply cannot abide users who cannot check their COIs and emotions at the door. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• I am completely uninvolved ~ i don't think i've edited in the IP area, if i have then as a general gnome it was almost certainly non-substantive ~ my concern is solely with the smooth functioning of the community, because that is what allows the purpose to be better fulfilled. I remember the problems with led to the previous sanction/restriction on Davidbena, and hadn't realised that it had been rescinded; having followed and read since he opened this AN action, i have to say i Support the reinstatement of the topic ban for the better function of the community. As soon as Davidbena is able to convince the community that he can work within it and with its members i would also support lifting it; i do not, however, imagine he will be able to convince us any time soon based on his recent behaviour. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Closing soon

Discussion seems to have died away, with some but not a lot of community input. Pinging all contributors - @Davidbena, Nableezy, Black Kite, Huldra, K.e.coffman, Grandpallama, Bishonen, Doug Weller, Johnuniq, and Icewhiz: - and anyone else, for any final views before this gets closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont generally like to vote on topic bans for editors Ive been in conflict with, and truthfully I like David, always have. That he continued edit-warring even after self-reverting concerned me. But he has also commited to at least not restoring that edit without a consensus to do so. If he commits to a. not questioning the motives of people who disagree with him, and b. not edit-warring, and that does not mean waiting 25 hours to revert, then I have no real issue with him editing without any restriction. nableezy - 04:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• A few points:

1. I'm impressed by Nableezy assuming good faith of Davidbena yet again, in a thread that DB obviously opened in the hope that admins/the community would take his side aginst Huldra and Nableezy.
2. Icewhiz apparently sees Davidbena's edit summary "I will self-revert until 24 hours have passed" as something positive. I don't. Yes, it's a self-revert, but it also implies "I'm prepared to edit war by reverting to my preferred version as soon as 24 hours have passed". See WP:3RR: "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." It certainly has been combined with other edit-warring behavior.
3. I still support a topic ban, but this discussion is really too skimpy to base a sanction on. I don't know what can be done about that —just leave it open for a while longer, I guess? Bishonen | talk 14:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC).

• My opinion remains unchanged from my post above, starting with "@Davidbena: Here's what I observed". This thread is not really about 1RR but about a pattern of disruptive behaviour, which is not conducive to productive and collaborative editing in a contentious topic area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm in two minds about this. On one hand I greatly appreciated Davidbena's willingness to study, and look up things which can advance articles here on en.wp. On the other hand, I am sick and tired of his personal attacks, mainly on me. On 19 February 2019 I supported the lifting of his topic ban ("with some trepidation"); on the 21 April 2019 he writes to me that "You have shown animosity towards me since day one." Seriously. Does he think I vote to lift the topic ban of people I feel "animosity towards"?

Or this, discussion, here, especially his remark at 22:35, 17 November 2018: that I eg have removed stuff from Beit Jala (which wasn't about Beit Jala , but about the not yet made article of Jala, Hebron, in Hebron Governorate) is taken as an indication that I am "seeking to minimize the evidence of Israel's ancient history in some of these places here in the land". Now, editing in the IP area for years have made me pretty thick skinned, and I have experienced far, far worse, but bad faith assumptions like the one Davidbena makes are....not fun. (And I could point to a lot of discussions that have gone like that.)

If I could be sure that we would only see the "Davidbena the good editor" in the future, then I would be 100% against a topic ban. However, if he insists on more bad faith assumptions, then no. Alas, I'm not sure...I'll leave it to others to decide, Huldra (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Huldra and I have had our "ups and downs" over the years, but not without good reason. You can say that we are both editors on this worthy project, but each of us has polar-opposite views on the "Land of Israel" / "Palestine," its history and its future. Mostly, though, we have tried to overcome our differences. We both agree that there is no place for violence or disrespect among the various ethnic groups that mutually inhabit the land. We share a common ideal for greater mutual tolerance and respect between the country's inhabitants, whether new or old. While we might disagree on whether the "West Bank" is a part of Israel or not, we can still work together, as we've done with cordiality on many articles in the I/P area, such as in the Talk-Pages of the respective articles: Bayt Nattif, Surif, Antonia Fortress, Adullam, Jarash, Jerusalem, al-Badhan, Khirbat Umm Burj, Bi'ina, to name only a few. I ask for a second chance to prove myself. While it is also true that each one of us has his imperfection, and no man is unassailable, I have tried to admit my mistakes when I find them. Hopefully, we can learn to overlook the mistakes in others and move-on. By the way, I have since withdrawn my accusations against the two editors earlier named by me. Davidbena (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This tends to happen when the boomerang comes flying back. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can say that that's true. Often AN notices become a "free-for-all," and I suspect that in the future if other editors (not me) should seek redress to a certain "perceived problem," they will be hindered from taking the route of an AN because of this inherent flaw. I am simply echoing the words of a very wise and constructive administrator and editor, DGG here. As for me, I can work constructively with both Huldra and Nableezy. If we should disagree on issues, we'll spend more time on the Talk-Pages. That seems to be the only alternative, as disagreements will definitely come-up again. Meanwhile, I truthfully say to all here that I bear no hard feelings against either editor.Davidbena (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Euryalus: FWIW, I was within an inch of reimposing the old topic ban and only didn't do so because I then found this discussion going on here. I don't really see any reason to change what I said here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz's defense of the content of Davidbena's edits (which I don't find persuasive) notwithstanding, I don't see any reasonable excuse or defense for the behavioral issues. As I said before, the fact that Davidbena brought this to a noticeboard, trying to get two people with opposing views a TBAN, for the express purpose of teaching them a lesson, shows that a TBAN is still needed in his case. I stand by my support for the reinstatement of the TBAN. Also, Nableezy deserves some sort of award for still being able to find enough goodwill to speak positively of Davidbena after this ugliness. Grandpallama (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• I humbly ask the honorable administrators of this worthy project to content themselves with issuing me a stern warning not to be disruptive in future edits and to allow discussions to play-out in their respective Talk-Pages before reverting another's edit.Davidbena (talk) 20:51, 1 May 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.

Block review note - Legacypac blocked by Spartaz for personal attacks on BrownHairedGirl

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.

---

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

This is an information note about a possibly contentious block. Since I am not an administrator, I didn’t make the contentious block. If I had been an administrator, I might have made it if I could have been uninvolved. User:Spartaz blocked User:Legacypac for 31 hours. The exact reason doesn’t seem to be clearly stated because they edit-conflicted on stating the reason and asking the reason, but it should have and probably was for personal attacks directed at User:BrownHairedGirl. The talk page of User:Legacypac shows that they were cautioned by various editors. The underlying conflict has to do with the efforts of User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Legacypac, and some other editors at Miscellany for Deletion to delete many of the useless portals created by User:The Transhumanist and others (the portal platoon). The portals were created in a reckless fashion. Legacypac has been going about requesting deletion of the portals in a reckless fashion. Without going into the details of the content dispute, the conduct dispute is that Legacypac has been accusing BrownHairedGirl of bullying, of trolling, and of being a female canid. Legacypac has said, on their talk page, after the block, that they will go to ArbCom when they are unblocked. I am posting this so that the community can consider this block and decide that it is a good block and caution Legacypac to drop the campaign against BrownHairedGirl. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• After looking at some of the diffs between BHG and legacypac, I'm surprised the block was so short. Natureium (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Calling the opponent a bitch is not ok and could have resulted in a longer block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what about the block is unclear. There have been a series of egregious personal attacks, pointy behavior and straight up disruption (with a side of misogynistic slurs) the last week from Legacypac and that's not even addressing the aggressive behavior and aspersion casting. Like Natureium, I'm a bit surprise at how short the block is myself. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest cautioning legacy against taking this to arbcom because it will almost certainly boomerang in a way we've not yet seen. Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure LegacyPac is so worried about that. There has been consensus on ANI for an indefinite block against them a couple of times, but such a block has yet to happen. 158.106.203.154 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Here is yet another reason why Legacypac is a net negative to the project. When will we finally agree this timesink is not worth it any longer? I would support a site ban of indefinite length until/unless Legacypac understands why his behavior is so problematic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, Tavix. Praxidicae (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm probably biased because LP has in the past decided to launch personal attacks (albeit at a lesser scale) against me as well but I think Tavix is not completely wrong here. For all the good LP might do as an editor, lately their behavior has been especially problematic. I'm not sure a site ban is really necessary but maybe a topic ban from MFD / portals might be useful to defuse the situation? Regards SoWhy 18:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy In almost any other situation I'd agree with you but in Legacy's case it doesn't matter the subject area wrt the disruption. His current behavior is not unique to BHG, Portals or MFD and he has a long history of harassment, disruption and just uncollaborative behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not as versed in that since I am not really active in these areas but if that's true, then maybe a tban could be enacted to bar LP from "backstage" (project-related) areas? Regards SoWhy 19:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac does good work at AfC/MfD but he needs to take a few months off until the portal mess is over to cool down. A site ban would be a loss to the project. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by BHG. As Robert McClenon notes, for the last few weeks, Legacypac and I have been amongst a group of editors working at MFD to clean up the portalspam. That has meant that a lot of our wok has overlapped.

Unfortunately, Legacypac has decided that various forms of normal editorial interaction which occur in such circumstances are not acceptable to him, and taken to responding with personal abuse and accusations of harassment, bullying and trolling.

AFAICS, the issues which have caused friction all fall into two groups:

1. Points of fact which arise in the course of MFD discussion. I am used to XFD discussions involving careful fact-checking by all involved; that seems to me t be the essential starting point of all such debate. So in the course of a dabte, I expect my assertions to be checked by other editors, and challenged if they appear faulty or incomplete. I do the same for other editors. However, it's very clear that Legacypac regards this process as hostile, and reads "assertion #1 is wrong"/"the nominator missed Y" or even "what's the basis for Z" as a personal attack motivated by malice.
2. Procedural issues, mostly do do with the unconventional ways in which Legacypac creates bundled nominations, and/or adds extra pages to existing discussions. Those have caused real problems, which can derail discussions (wasting the time of participants) or cause technical issues

I have noted some examples in a comment about the block on Legacypac's talk:[34].

See also a note I posted to Legacypac about a procedural problem[35], which Legacypac deleted[36] with the hostile edit summary this poster seems to have a problem reading instructions in English.

This all needs some resolution. If procedural issues can't be addressed and points of fact cannot be debated at XFD, then it seems to me that consensus-formation just breaks, and we are left without the ability to form consensus.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that despite a long history of participation at XFD, Legacypac is uncomfortable with the process of debate, and averse to warnings that their actions have had unintended adverse consequences. I see no sign that this is going to change; even today, while blocked, Legacypac has posted[37] to claim that I in effect am maliciously stalking them.

I have seen similar issues arise with Legacypac's participation at AFD and CFD. So whatever is decided about this particular block, it seems to me that the problem will recur. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Good block, and I agree with Praxidicae that it is not a good idea for LP to take this to Arbcom – it will only result in a massive timesink. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I have to say that this "admins are out to get me!" shtick is getting old. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Good block This was coming and if anything, was quite short-spanned. Concur with Praxidicae about not taking this to ArbCom; that will be suicide by the committee. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) @FlyingAce, if Legacypac deosn't take this to arbcom, then unless Legacypac is ready to examine how he could respond differently to the things that have been triggering the flareups, it seems likely that some other path will be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Should be longer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• The block might stand for being longer, depending on how much LP cools down during it. I think it's rather trivial to note how bad an idea getting ArbCom involved would be. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Good block, I've never been BHGs biggest fan however no one deserves that sort of treatment/comment, If you're pissed off with someone then to go a suitable venue to get it sorted, Anyway like everyone's said above Arbcom really is the worst choice, Sit the block out and simply stay away from each other. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I tried to take the issue of portals to ArbCom, and ArbCom declined the case. (The decline was not unanimous. Two arbitrators agreed to accept, but more favored decline.) Legacypac was strident in criticizing my request, saying that I was trying to draft him to ArbCom for no reason (when I was trying to intervene against what I saw as piling on to Legacypac by portal supporters). I find it sadly amusing that now he is huffing and puffing about going to ArbCom against one of his would-be associates (BHG) and a neutral administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I still think that Legacypac is a net positive to the encyclopedia, especially at AFC and at dealing with drafts, but I will caution that my patience, like that of some of his other allies, is wearing thin. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Good block but should be longer, even an indefinite block, until we see some genuine recognition that this type of personal attack is not acceptable. Jusdafax (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Good block without question. Legacypac's ongoing deletionist crusade is getting tiresome, especially as it has repeatedly been associated with personal attacks, tendentious campaigns at various noticeboards, holding of grudges and other battleground behaviour. Legacypac can and does do a lot of productive business around the project but perhaps they should do something else for a while; I would support a topic ban from all deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Good block - I'm generally sympathetic towards Legacy, but the personal attacks here were beyond the pale. There's no excuse to subject another editor to this kind of treatment, ever. Even with the most lax interpretation of CIVIL and NPA, this is a lenient block. In my experience, BHG is a sage, good-tempered, and reasonable user, even when chastising. If she's repeatedly "criticizing" you, you should more likely take her criticisms on board rather than get defensive and start attacking her for "harassment". I've read Legacy's talk page history, and I don't see anything out of line coming from BHG. She's presenting reasonable, nuanced, well-justified points of contention. It is Legacy's responses that are disproportionate, apparently for no reason than that he doesn't like being challenged. Legacy is playing the victim but really if anyone's being a bully in this scenario, it's him. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Rolling this up as a courtesy to Legacypac, hoping nobody makes the same mistake that I did. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed - Legacypac made an explicit legal threat in a UTRS ticket and as such I have blocked them indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC) @Ivanvector: I'm pretty sure that's the recent UTRS impersonator troll. Did you catch the email address? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC) It's definitely the UTRS troll and not Legacypac. They also posted a similar bogus appeal for 16stumps from the same IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I agree with Ponyo based on the IP connection and the email domain. Not Legacypac. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I have a clock gadget enabled that allows me to see both UTC and my current time. I'd unblock Legacypac for just the time remaining on the initial block if I could be certain not to mess up the calculation. Does anyone have an approximation to the nearest hour?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Sorry Ivanvector, but how's that now if the threat was only made on UTRS? Policy is absolutely unambiguous on this: "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia". As should be fairly obvious I'm no admirer of Legacypac's attitude, but that's as questionable a block as they come. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC) That's an understandable misreading of WP:NLT, but it's a misunderstanding nonetheless. The exception that you've highlighted deals with legal disputes that exist between people who also happen to be Wikipedia users. If Alice and Bob are involved in a legal dispute, User:Alice and User:Bob are still welcome to edit Wikipedia, as long as they keep their dispute out of their Wikipedia-related interactions. If, on the other hand, Alice is making legal threats (on- or off-wiki) that are directed at Wikipedia itself, that's grounds for an indef NLT block until the threat is resolved. If Bob is blocked and starts making threats to file a lawsuit unless he is unblocked, that's a valid reason for an NLT block, even if Bob makes those threats through UTRS. (I have no comment on whether or not Legacypac is being impersonated in this particular instance; I only comment to correct the misconception about the applicability of NLT to this sort of situation in general.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC) TenOfAllTrades, WP:NLT addresses only the posting of threats on Wikipedia: "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia." Editors are allowed, of course, to take legal action against other editors without being blocked. They're not allowed to use that right to intimidate people on WP. Whether UTRS counts as equivalent to posting onwiki isn't discussed by the policy. SarahSV (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) For what it's worth for those who can't see it, the legal threat (which has been conclusively determined to have been from an impersonator) was directed at Wikipedia, not at any particular user. I appreciate and welcome the discussion about whether my action would have been valid at all notwithstanding having been done by a troll, but might I suggest the discussion continue on my talk page? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Why would he use UTRS anyway if he still had talk page access? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Looks like the previous 31-hour block has been restored by Nick. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Yes. This is terribly poor form from you, Ivanvector. I do hope this is not indicative of your usual checkuser quality. Nick (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC) @Nick: This is unrelated to Ivanvector as a checkuser. The appeal was made to UTRS under Legacypac's name and we don't normally checkuser individuals making an appeal there unless there are socking issues. It's only if you were aware of the recent trolling there and took a closer look at the details behind the request that it was apparent that impersonation was involved. This was simply an admin unfortunately being taken in by a troll (who has been fed more than enough today). Thank you for the block correction.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, Nick, thank you for correcting my incorrect action. I was not aware that it was even possible to spoof a UTRS ticket, I assumed that with the use of OAuth, UTRS would only post a ticket notification on the talk page of the user actually making the request. Checkuser was not involved here; as far as I know enwiki checkusers cannot check data on UTRS anyway, and so I wouldn't have thought of it. I was not aware of any trolling via UTRS, and I was going to comment earlier that the ticket seemed highly out of character for Legacypac and an unfortunate escalation, I guess I should've gone with my gut on that. @Legacypac: I sincerely apologize for my mistake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• (This was written before/unrelated to/edit conflicted with the talk of the [mistaken?] indef above) - ...yeesh. Surprisingly short block for a particularly egregious example of a longer-term issue. That said, I would oppose a siteban (only mentioning it because it was floated above). A portals topicban would address just a particular dimension of the larger issue of treatment of anyone who gets in the way of LP's various cleanup/deletion projects (it's portals this time, but in the past has been more about draftspace/userspace). A tban on deletion of anything outside of mainspace might be more on track. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block. There's just no excuse for this kind of abuse. If it was me, the block would have been much longer. And looking at the block log, it's obvious this is not an isolated incident. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Roy Smith. BrownHairedGirl's criticism has been entirely correct and justified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block should have been longer for the personal abuse. I agree with Rhododendrites that a tban on deletion actions outside mainspace might be effective. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• The block was contentious because it was too short. I appreciate Spartaz blocking in the first place, but this kind of commentary deserves an indefinite block which can be lifted the moment Legacypac, who I always thought was a reasonable person, retracts that insult. This is not acceptable. The rest of the commentary on their talk page directed at BHG can be discussed separately, but first things first: I am not going to sit here and accept that someone calls a valued colleague that name and get off with a slap on the wrist.

  Let me add that I'm about to close down and play with my kids. As always, I do not mind admins overruling me if they have a good reason, and if there's a consensus, for instance, that my block was too harsh, do not wait for me to log in; tomorrow is Saturday and I will have other things to do, AFK. So go ahead and do what y'all think is right--that's what I just did. Acroterion, I saw you were on call--maybe you have some thoughts here. And if Legacypac indeed does the right thing, y'all do what should be done, please. BrownHairedGirl, I am sorry you were subjected to that language. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• So, Legacypac has an indefinite block, I guess we could've seen this coming with the portal deletion frenzy popping up all over the project space over the past 6 weeks. I won't be lifting this block as I've had the displeasure of getting between LP and his pursuits though I was just pelted with anger, not bad names. They can be immensely productive here and focused but I think they take it all much too seriously. I think agreement to a 6 month topic ban from deletion discussions could make an unblock feasible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Legacypac is as BOLD of an editor as I know on Wikipedia. He is more willing than just about any other AfC reviewer I know to accept an imperfect article about notable topics. Given AfC's mandate to "accept articles likely to survive at AfD" I think this is commendable and his percentage of accepts that survive at AfD, from what I've seen, are a good model for us all - high but not perfect. He genuinely builds encyclopedic knowledge in this way. On the other hand, he's had quite a few times where he's not identified COPYVIOs over the years - the most recent examples I'm aware of being from December: [38] [39]. Not identifying COPYVIOs with a high degree of accuracy is obviously a major issue for an AfC reviewer. Legacy has also gone to userspace and move something into draftspace (ex: [40]). Given that he is a prolific G13 tagger I have wondered if this was so that they could eventually get speedy deleted rather than going through MfD - but I admit this is speculation and I've never asked him about it. I think there's nothing wrong with being a BOLD editor - I think of myself as one - but you have to be willing to discuss concerns when you get pushback rather than BOLDLY plowing ahead. Given that editors take with some frequency to complain about his civility (here's another complaint I found while linking an above diff) I would suggest that while Legacy is a prolific (but with a major flaw) AfC reviewer, something that we sorely need, the issues go beyond just this portals inspired bouts of incivility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, I would characterize many of Legacypac's actions as reckless rather than bold. His AfC accept criteria are far less consistent than other reviewers, and his attitude toward his colleagues at that venue and others leaves much to be desired. Legacypac's talk page archives, along with the many threads at ANI, demonstrate that his combative editing style has been a problem for a long time, and I would argue that the drama around this editor has far outpaced whatever positive contributions he may have brought to the project. I endorse this block, and would like to see an apology to BHG and a commitment to WP:HERE before he returns. – bradv🍁 15:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Bad Block - I think that User:Drmies has made a good-faith error in extending the block of User:Legacypac to indefinite, for several reasons. First, as long as the community is discussing the conduct of Legacypac, and a site-ban has been mentioned, whether to block indefinitely should be a decision by the community, not by one administrator. Second, when a non-administrator is playing the “administrator abuse” card and is claiming that administrators are a privileged class who band together to protect their own, it is unwise for one administrator to take unilateral additional punitive action because of a personal attack on another administrator without consensus, when there already was a developing consensus. Third, as much as I condemn the misogynistic insult by Legacypac, I didn’t know that we had a list of forbidden words whose use warrants an indefinite block (rather than a long block). I think that the extension of the block to indefinite while the wrong was still being considered was a bad block and should be reduced to perhaps one week, or five days for time served. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon In my lengthy comment above I did not touch on his claims repeatedly in just about every context of administrator abuse since it was long enough already. But such claims are not an immunity to administrator action against them nor does it mean an indeffing is punitive. Frankly one of the reasons I think we're here is that Legacy seems to have viewed interactions he had with sysops through the lens of "they're a sysop and sysops act in these ways". The ARBCOM case he launched has been, in my opinion, a net benefit so far to the community as it pointed out some issues in general while finding a way for a particular sysop to continue their work here. But I think it's important to note that at that very case he ended up getting banned because he couldn't follow ArbCom's procedures and got into a row with a non-sysop clerk. The reason that BHG started leaving her messages was because he wasn't following MfD procedures. Legacy seems to have trouble respecting procedures and the people who are empowered to enforce them and is vocal about his complaints. That doesn't mean that the people empowered shouldn't carry out their responsibilities. I found Drmies indeff given this discusion BOLD but one which would clearly be discussed and reviewed and as I stated above I'm OK with BOLD actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with ^^^ McClenon; good analysis. ——SerialNumber54129 15:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A site ban is quite different from an indefinite block. I don't know about a list of forbidden words either, but I do know that such sexist insults are unacceptable. Plus, indefinite does not mean infinite and I suggested quite clearly, I thought, what it would take for me to unblock, which really isn't all that much. YMMV, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Although it is true that an indefinite block differs from a site ban, an indefinite block followed by a community discussion that fails to unblock the editor in question becomes a community site ban. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – If one is peeving off an increasing number of community members? one will be heading for blocks & eventually a ban. Believe it, I know what I'm posting about. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the unambiguous consensus above that the original block was perfectly good except that it was too short. I also agree with Drmies's action in extending the block to indefinite. It is not just this incident that we have to consider: it is a long string of incidents, where Legacypac has shown that he is wither unwilling or unable to deal with disagreements with other editors in any way other than by aggression, sometimes of such an extreme form as to amount to totally unacceptable personal attacks. Much of his work at AfC is commendable, but much of it is nothing of the sort, and besides, even if all of it were good, I have zero sympathy for the depresingly common view that we should permit personal attacks, battleground approaches to other editors, severe uncivility, and refusal to ccoperate provided they come from someone who also does some good work. Thousands of editors have been uncontroversially indefinitely blocked for less than 1% of what Legacypac has done over the years, and he should not be held to lower standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not against the indef per se, although I think Drmies talk of 'valued colleague' was ill-chosen because, no one should suffer that, regardless if you have personal ties, and yes Legacypac (LP) should withdraw and make as solemn a vow as possible to do nothing like it again. (On an underlying issue, LP, seems to need to come to terms with having Admins is a fact of life, here, and yes admins will fail from time to time).

But, now, we are in the area of WP:CBAN because it is now indef imposed and it's being discussed in a community forum, and I am bothered that LP is not the one who appealed anything to AN (and the original block, in fact, looks about as uncontroversial as it gets). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• On the face of it, upping the block to indefinite sounds a bit too much like double jeopardy. However, the two cardinal rules of Wikipedia are 1) Drmies is always right and 2) When Drmies is wrong see rule 1. On a more serious note, I think there's a reasonable agreement from above that at the very least, Legacypac needs to apologise and give the community an assurance that he will never use those sort of terms again. I think once we get that in black and white, then we can think about an unblock, and I am confident that Drmies will unblock once he gets those assurances. I will note that this is not the first time I've thought "well, Legacypac does a lot of good work, but...." in response to a block, so I think it's getting to the stage where he's going to start running out of rope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Ritchie333, as usual you are just loaded with sense, at least when it comes to "Drmies will unblock etc". And it doesn't have to be me who does the unblocking. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block I agree with Ritchie's reasoning (maybe the cardinal rules too, but that's debatable), but I do not find a flaw in the reasoning posed by Drmies either. Also, I do not recommend LP to go to ArbCom to appeal against the block, I mean it as a well-wisher, I can see it only end one way. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Regretfully, I'm changing my !vote. I don't frequent CfD very often and obviously didn't read this discussion carefully enough. There is a continued pattern of casting aspersions which needs prevention. I am unaware of Legacypac behaving in this way to other users, so if he was to appeal and propose a one-way interaction ban from him to BrownHairedGirl, I'd likely support such a measure, again, alongside an appropriate apology for the aspersions and insults. But that's up to him to formulate, not me. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, so if he makes a decent proposal which shows a willingness to refrain from this behaviour and start afresh, I'd perhaps endorse it. Until then though, the block is justified. SITH (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

SITH (talk)'s previous !vote and subsequent discussion. Rolling up instead of striking so as to retain discussion.

Downgrade: I've been involved in the portalspam cleanup and have had positive interactions with both Legacypac and BrownHairedGirl and it's a shame to see it come to this. This is unacceptable, and it requires an apology. I would support downgrading the block to a month or so for incivility and the imposition of a one-way interaction ban. That said, Legacypac is a net positive for the project and it would be a shame to let him go. SITH (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Clarification of above: I'm saying, assuming LP is willing to apologise, a fixed-length block should be enough, but if there's no apology, I agree that there should be no unblock. SITH (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Sorry, @SITH, but still not entirely clear to me. Are you saying indef-block, but if there's an apology then downgrade to one month? Or unconditionally downgrade to one month, but lift immediately on suitable apology? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: ...assuming LP is willing to apologise, a fixed-length block should be enough..., SITH meant the former probably. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl: indef-block until a satisfactory apology has been given, at which point downgrade it to a month. So the former. Even with an apology, the latter option would be unsuitable because it boils incivility down to "you can make egregious insults but then say 'sorry' and immediately come back", which isn't on IMO. By satisfactory apology I mean something that shows a genuine understanding of the inappropriateness of his comments and a commitment to refrain from repeating it in future. SITH (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Got it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac must issue a full apology and promise to not attack anyone like that again before any consideration should be given for an unblocking. Anyone pulls this sort of a stunt at my workplace and they get ushered out the door.--MONGO (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block I know we're not great at actually enforcing the civility policies here, but this is absolutely unacceptable and should lead to a long if not indefinite block. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, and an apology combined with some evidence that it won't happen again might lead to a successful unblock request, but anyone who's prepared to say that should not be welcome here. Hut 8.5 21:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block aside from the above incident, this thread demonstrates Legacypac's problematically aggressive behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. [In part edited from comment on Legacypac's talk page] I don't normally comment in conduct cases, but I've been following this as it rolled out. There have been errors & raised voices all round here, me included, but I think Legacypac means well and has genuinely felt threatened by admin BrownHairedGirl. In no way does that excuse the language that they have used towards her, but I think it starts to go somewhere to explaining it. I think everyone involved here needs to have a bit of a cool-down break from working on this issue. I don't know who the other admin that Legacypac is said to have been arguing with is, but it's very possibly me. As far as I'm aware over the year or so we've interacted they've never used misogynist language towards me, and have defended me against attacks from others (in the context of AfC). I believe Legacypac has done a lot of good work at AfC; the mistakes others have noted are explicable in terms of his accepting far more, and more marginal, drafts than other people who work at AfC. In the light of that in particular, and if Legacypac is willing to apologise, I would ask for the block to be reviewed to an appropriate fixed-length term. I'm phrasing this as a comment, as I am certainly involved in this debacle. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block and surprised that the original was so short. I haven't had any interacctions with Legacypac until last month. When I called him out for trying to exclude people from actioning on MfD results (in my words, "xenophobic"), he started berating me on my talk page, ANI and ArbCom page. I find Legacypac hypocritical when Legacypac felt offended in last month's case but somehow expect a different result after launching personal attack against BrownHairedGirl 2 days ago. I also begin to wonder if WMF's community safety team should be notified because this is a perfect example of on-wiki harassment that WMF wants to clean up. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

He's blocked. What else is the WMF community safety team supposed to do, sue him? Track him down and kneecap him? He said a bad word, what needs to be done has been done. Also, lest anyone read this and think Legacypac engaged in any actual xenophobia, it should be pointed out that multiple people called out Ohana's use of the word "xenophobia" as a poor judgement call at best in that particular case. 199.247.43.106 (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Find me any organization that tolerates one volunteer calling another volunteer "a bitch". They won't shuffle the volunteer to another team. That individual would be removed and most likely blacklisted from the organization from future activities. So why would WMF tolerate Legacypac's behaviour? As many have pointed out, it's a user conduct issue and have been going on for a while. The straw that broke the camel's back came in the latest portal deletion discussion. And in response to the increased scrutiny, he resorts to insulting others? To respond to your question, he's currently blocked from this project but can easily migrate and expose his attitude and mentality to another project(s). WMF wants to reduce harassment behaviour and make the volunteer environment more attractive to female editors. This case is an epitome of what WMF should have done to stop the snowballing effect. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I find Legacypac hypocritical when Legacypac felt offended in last month's case but somehow expect a different result after launching personal attack against BrownHairedGirl 2 days ago. I'm confused. What do you mean by Legacypac expecting a different result? If he had gotten the same outcome that you got for tarring him with a careless accusation of xenophobia, then he would not have been blocked. Because you were not blocked. What are you talking about?

And no, this isn't an issue for the community safety team. He said a bad word and he's being duly disciplined. Let's not pile on with unnecessary hysterics as if BHG is in actual danger. If he does migrate to other projects and cause disruption in those places, he can be dealt with appropriately. I don't think we generally practice preemptive blocks like the kind you seem to be suggesting. And given your misuse of "xenophobic" during a prior dispute with Legacypac, you really aren't the right person to make such a suggestion anyway. Something about glass houses... Lepricavark (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac has made a statement [41].

For the record, I welcome the apology for the misogynistic abuse, but note that

1. it came only two days after a block, three days after I noted[42] the attack on his talk, and more than 3 days after the original attack[43]
2. there is no retraction of his repeated allegations that I have been stalking trolling, harassing and bullying him
3. No acknowledgement that the substantive issues I raised have repeatedly been raised by others: e.g. uncorrected errors of fact at MFD, disruptive addition of extra items to open discussions, redirection of MFD pages which breaks future use of WP:TWINKLE
4. The last para (beginning Kindly consider that I am only a participant on Wikipedia to) is pointless, because it's the basis of being allowed to edit at all.
5. That last para reads to me as Legacypac saying "please my accept good faith, even tho I have spent weeks rejecting the the good faith of someone against whom who I have repeatedly made personal attacks"

In summary, it doesn't look to me like any sort of commitment to desist from battleground conduct, just a step back from the worst of the personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment LegacyPac's behaviour in an unrelated area is the subject of an open ANI section right now. Offering without comment as to whether it's a justified complaint, as it's the counterpart to my own complaint (immediately above) regarding a discussion I'm involved in. It seems like it may have flown under the radar here though so I'm just looping it in. Safrolic (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Mostly due to the comment above and the fact that LP's long-term behaviour has been thrown under the rugs. Since, I have been a direct target of LP's attacks way too many times to defend myself another time on this thread from LP's sympathizers as well (I will admit I was more willing to prove my point then, than I am now) — a link for administrators willing to see prior history can just check ANI/AN themselves. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment See User talk:Legacypac#Statement. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse the original block, and also – without implying any criticism of Spartaz – the modification made to it by Drmies. I hope that LP will soon return as a civil and collaborative editor, and see the apology as a good first step in that direction. I was involved in cleaning up both of the copyvio problems in accepted drafts that Barkeep49 mentions above, and was distinctly unimpressed by LP's response in each case; ideally he should also show some clear understanding of copyright policy for the block to be lifted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• The "apology" posted by Legacy is insulting. Lines 1&2: He apologizes for causing offense by invoking the word "bitch". Nothing more. While calling a female editor a "bitch" in a supposed collegial, academic environment is extremely egregious, it is far from the only offense. Line 3: He blames BHG for the situation, for criticizing him, and for failing to abide by a frivolous ban from his talk page. Line 4: He falls back on the "net positive" defense. No understanding or acknowledgement that he otherwise fell short, no assurances that things will change, no path forward. Not good. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse the indefinite block Personal attacks of this kind towards women are corrosive and damaging to the ‘pedia since they make it an unattractive place for women to work and it’s right that they are dealt with firmly. Having said that, indefinite is not infinite, it needs only last until Legacypac has unequivocally acknowledged his comment towards BrownHairedGirl was inappropriate, retracts it and commits to making no further personal attacks going forward. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Since I've !voted on several proposals below in lpac's favor, I want to post a note here that I endorse the original blocks as Lpac obviously crossed a line in how he treated BHG. There's no excuse for calling someone a bitch. Leviv ich 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban from Deletion

I propose, as per User:Liz, that User:Legacypac be given an indefinite topic-ban from deletion discussions. Liz has said six months; I suggest that the community retain the ability to lift the topic-ban when Legacypac has shown, outside of deletion discussions, that they are willing to edit collaboratively. Legacypac has shown in the past that they are too single-minded in their campaigns to keep Wikipedia free of crud in draft space. An example is Legacypac's repeated recommendation that questionable drafts be promoted into article space so that they can then face the stronger scrutiny of Articles for Deletion. (Never mind that this puts questionable material into outward-facing and searchable article space.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I had suggested above a "tban on deletion of anything outside of mainspace." I still think that's worth trying first, but don't know that the distinction is worth opposing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Best to save Legacypac from himself. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the problem at MfD is the subject, which was toxic before coming up for deletion. This is an unfortunate—albeit clearly over the top—illustration of the passions that have been raised on all sides. Certainly, no-one comes out of them well, LP just less so. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – the issues at hand are civility and a failure to work collaboratively with other editors. I'm not sure what a topic ban from deletion is expected to solve. – bradv🍁 16:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv, I agree about the temperament, and agree that an XFD ban won't change the temperamental problems. But an XFD ban would remove Legacypac from the areas where that temperament has caused the most widespread and persistent problems. If you don't like the topic ban, what's your alternative proposal to at least mitigate the damage? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I also agree that the problem is civility and collaboration not with XfD itself, and that this topic ban would just push the problem around. Is "civility probation" a thing we can invent? What about limits on the quantity and complexity of XfD nominations rather than an outright ban? VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr, my support for an XFD ban is that he seems to be better able to exercise self-control elsewhere, in spaces which don't facilitate the vendetta conduct. So I think there's a reasonable chance that it won't simply displace the problem. If that turns out to be mistaken, then a full siteban is needed.

I don't think that a quantity and complexity of XfD nominations ban could be defined clearly enough to give everyone reasonable certainty about the boundaries, especially since once of the core problems is that LP doesn't recognise complexity. Either do this with a bright line, or don't do it ... because the last thing anyone needs is Legacypac being outraged that the expletive-expletive-admin X is taking action because a problem which Legacypac's faulty vision cannot detect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, the alternative is to let the current indef block stand until Legacypac is able to convince an administrator that he will stop the personal attacks and edit collaboratively. That would be the default outcome if no consensus is reached here, and in my mind it's a suitable one. – bradv🍁 22:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv, fair enough, that makes sense. It wasn't clear (at least to me) from your initial comment that that was your preferred alternative. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry if I was a bit slow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the integer above and bradv. Legacypac is actually somewhat decent at deletion and this is not a solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problem is not about deletion, it is about Legacypac's inability or unwillingness (I don't know which) to work constructively with other editors with whom he disagrees. I don't see how a topic ban would change that.

(Also, attempts to explain to him what the problems are have not changed his approach, nor have discussions on administrators' noticeboards, nor have blocks, nor has anything else, so the likelihood of some new idea, such as a topic ban, changing him is pretty remote, to put it mildly.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Serial Number 54129. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - (edit conflict) per Serial Number, TonyB and others. It was out of character for LP, and that's what sometimes happens when passions run high. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as I said above. The problem at MfD is most definitely not related to one topic nor one editor, as anyone who is unfortunate enough to have Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on their watchlist will have by now observed. Portals happen to have been LP's topic of interest lately, but this has only served to temporarily distract them from an ongoing barrage of proposals for changing criteria for speedy deletion to lower the bar for stale draft deletion. That pursuit is not in and of itself disruptive and I think that LP has the project's best interests in mind with these proposals. It's their belligerent behaviour toward any editor who disagrees, and the fact that if one proposal fails it is very quickly re-proposed with minor changes, that is tendentious and frankly exhausting. I'm sure Thryduulf and TakuyaMurata would have comments on this, though the latter is topic-banned from discussing deletion due to previous incidents with Legacypac. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As the target of Legacypac's recent misconduct, I don't think I should make a bolded !vote. However, I do want to challenge the notion advanced by some that this is simply an issue of the ongoing portals controversy. So this is a long post.

I first encountered Legacypac displaying similar conduct at CFD, then at AFD, over the issue of Longevity. See e.g.

1. CFD 2018 December 7 where Legacypac repeatedly expressed contempt for the routine practice of merging small intersection categories to their parents rather than deleting them, in order to avoiding removing them them from existing categories in which they belong. Please take some time to read at least some the discussions there, all of which feature the same problem: Legacypac makes a proposal without understanding its consequences, and when pointed to a non-destructive path repeatedly expresses disdain for the damage caused. See e.g.CFD: Nigerian supercentenarians, where Legacypac just label the entire topic as fancruft and there unworthy of proper categorisation.
   Or see the pre-relisting discussion of CFD:African-American supercentenarians, where Legacypac explicitly says Useless category - if someone wants to recategorize great. Have at it. That comment is worth some scrutiny, because a) the rationale is simply the pejorative label useless rather than a reasoned argument; b) the second part is a clear desire to impede the bot-driven moving of the articles to a less-specific alternative, and leave other editors to manually fix the damage. At the very least that is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point; it is arguably outright vandalism.
2. CFD:African-American supercentenarians, and asserted without evidence that no good reason to single out african americans by age. (They is actually a lot of scholarly research on this topic, so it meets WP:EGRS.

Legacypac was not alone in this, but I was appalled by what I saw. This was not normal en.wp practice; it was a vendetta against a topic area, in which an attempt was being made to miscategorise articles that had not been deleted because a tag team didn't like the topic. That's not how CFD has ever worked: AFD decides whether articles exist, and so long as articles have not been deleted, CFD retains the necessary categories to group them by their WP:DEFINING attributes ... yet this group wanted to block such categorisation.

Then I looked at the source of this disruption, and found WP:LONGEVITY, a weird counter-project set on not only reversing the GRG-driven spam, but on systematically misapplying policies and tag-teaming to purge nearly everything related to the topic.

I tried to engage in discussion there (see e.g. thread on BIO1E, but Legacypac just treated it all as personal attack: see my rsponse[44] to his claim that your piss poor attitude toward me.

See e.g. WP:Benito Martínez, where Legacypac made[45] a wholly unevidenced claim that some news wires picked up a story. I had actually checked all the stories, and found no sign of them being simply wire stories; so I asked[46] Legacypac for evidence. No response.

This is all part of the same pattern of Legacypac conduct to which I have repeatedly objected at MFD. Contempt for procedure, and dismissal of all attempts to steer him in the right direction as personal attack/bullying/ etc; unevidenced assertions which fail scrutiny; and an overriding vendetta-like conviction that a particular set of pages is bad stuff created by a bad group of people, so normal standards of evidence are irrelevant and anyone seeking them is obviously motivated by personal malice against Legacypac.

I try hard not write people off, so when Legacypac and I find ourselves in broad agreement over the flood of portalspam, I tried working with him. Unfortunately, the same problems began to recur: Legacypac's disdain for accurate evidence and non-disruptive procedure, and the same bad faith assumption that any criticism of Legacypac's actions was axiomatically bullying/harassment/trolling be driven by personal animosity.

We are building an encyclopedia here, and per WP:CONSENSUS we should be making collaborative assessments on verified evidence and reasoned argument. But the pattern I have seen across two types of page at three XFD venues is that Legacypac's approach to XFD is not based on the evidence/reason/debate/correction dialectic model of WP:CONSENSUS; instead it's based on a feuding model of personal loyalty/loyalty against Bad Guys™ who did Bad Things™. The fact that Legacypac often reaches the same conclusion as those who are genuinely building consensus doesn't mitigate the huge disruption caused by his disdain for facts as expressed e.g. at MFD:Portal:Indian cuisine, or by his contemptuous dismissal of procedural issues, e.g. broken bundling [47] and adding pages to nominations opened by others [48]. The edit summary of that last link encapsulates the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach: go target the real problem makers that created this mess and throw up roadblocks to cleanup. So long as a request for non-disruptive conduct is seen as a roadblock, Legacypac will continue to be a net negative at XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from deletion is necessary until Legacypac can demonstrate that he has left the battleground approach behind, understands why personalising disagreements about content or procedure is a bad thing, and understands why not everything that should be deleted should be speedily deleted. I'm sure that they have the project's best interests at heart, but they genuinely don't seem to understand why their actions are disruptive, nor do they seem willing to listen to advice from others. To quote a principle used in many arbitration cases: "Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive." Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This removes Legacypac from the areas where his behavior is most problematic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose mail per SN54129 and James. ∯WBG^converse 19:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I have been on the receiving end of the stick of aspersions and personal attacks way too many times from LP, mostly related to anything related to deletion, or so. Definitely a net negative. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the best option available. Ultimately I think the problem is behavioral and not venue-specific as described by BHG here, but a topic ban is less impactive than an indef block and I generally agree with BHG again here that we don't have any better bright-line alternatives. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose if the problem is related to collaboration in general then a topic ban will not solve it. Furthermore the comment which lead to the block wasn't made in a deletion discussion. Hut 8.5 21:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per other opposers. This is an over-reaction. Leviv ich 23:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - LegacyPac's poor behaviour is not tightly enough based to make a TBAN the way to go. Instead, we need to to just escalate the length of block each time he continues his harassing behaviour until it gets through. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Does not come even remotely close to rectifying the root issue. -FASTILY 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think this is the solution. If Legacypac is to work effectively at AfC they need to be able to propose deletion of drafts/articles created by the process. (Note my statement above re involvement.) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support My idea with this topic ban proposal is that Legacypac's current area of intense activity is in deletion discussions and taking a voluntary break from MfDs and AfDs for a few months could encourage LP to edit in an area that is not so rife with conflict that seem to elicit less than stellar conduct from them. But this proposal looks like it will be "No consensus" at best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Atsme and TonyBallioni. BrownHairedGirl is perfectly aware of the use of the vernacular, and will surely admit that there was nothing misogynous in LP's comment. Imagine he had simply told her to 'bugger off'... Part of all this is the ingrained attitude of many editors to deliberately look for any excuse to claim being insulted and embark on a character assasination campaign. LegacyPac may or may not be a disruptive influence at XfD - I haven't got time to fully investigate, but from what I have seen it certainly does not warrant an indeff block. Life is a bitch; so is being a Wikipedia editor who works hard and in good faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)'

For the record, @Kudpung, I reckon the meaning of the vernacular usage depends on the context. Some uses are much less charged than other uses.

However, when a hostile man who has been hurling insults at me for weeks says shut up (snip) bitch (snip) shut up, then I have learnt from long experience that it's a significant escalation to hardcore misogyny and a silencing-threat which in meatspace comes with a significant risk of immediate violence.

In real life, that sort of comment requires a rapid escape, and radical restructuring of relationships. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

....... ??? Either there are lots of other diffs of LP calling people a bitch, including men (preferably also with comments about "not my mother", which is perhaps another turn of a gender-neutral phrase), or this is a particularly unpleasant example of excusing utterly toxic behavior with "the person he called a bitch shouldn't be so offended". On that note, it sure looks like we're headed for a slap on the wrist so long as we see the bare minimum "say you're sorry and carry on as you were." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have admired User:Kudpung, but today for the first time I have seen him post something quite disagreeable. LegacyPac was too personal in his response, and the community needs to draw lines on civility. I have seen BHG go overboard, but in these exchanges of the last several weeks she has not and the one-sided offensiveness is particularly unbalanced. LegacyPac’s words were bad, but his intent was not acceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the second time I find Kudpung's logic being reprehensible this month. You personally attacked an editor to defend the very editor accused of being uncivil (on RexxS' RfA talk page). And here I find you give a terrible, terrible defense of what civility policies stand for. I have tremendous respect for the work you have done but either these are disconnected lapses in your judgement or a disappointing pattern of behaviour. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, I suggest you stay on topic. I have responded on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I am on topic. If it wasn't entirely clear, I find the logic behind your vote flawed. I have replied to your threats and recommend you desist from thinking this is acceptable behaviour. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

For someone with this on the top of their user page: Quotes worth mentioning: A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Jehochman[1] Part of the problem is the perennial moronic view that someone who makes a lot of good edits should be allowed to get away with being uncivil and making numerous personal attacks, unlike new editors who should get blocked for far smaller numbers of uncivil comments. I have no idea why that view is so common, but it is, and it makes it virtually impossible to take any effective action against such editors. - JamesBWatson [2] the comments by Kudpung are incomprehensible. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: I didn't recognise that quote from me, so I checked it out. It turns out that it was not just some comment I made about the general issue of editors who make a lot of good edits being allowed to get away with making numerous attacks, it was a comment specifically about the fact that administrators defend Legacypac against being blocked when he makes personal attacks. ???!??? So Kudpung agrees so strongly with my view on that issue that he places my comment about it prominently near the top of his user page, and yet he comes here expressly to oppose that view??? Or have I misunderstood? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: On the assumption that the "Quotes worth mentioning" are there because Kudpung strongly believes them, then unless it is contended that referring to a female editor as being a bitch is not a personal attack, then it seems incongruous then he upholds your quote. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kudpung, as I'm sure you're aware, we pride ourselves on attempting to reliably source our claims. "Bitch", according to Merriam Webster is an informal term for "a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman" or an offensive term for "a woman". This definition is echoed by the Oxford English Dictionary. Time and BBC, both reliable sources, have published articles about "bitch" being particularly offensive. Granted, this does not prove a hatred towards women, but it shows the willingness to use an editor's gender as an insult against them which goes against civility and foundation:Non-discrimination policy. The insult needlessly brought BHG's gender into the equation. "Jerk" would have still been uncivil but it would have been less egregiously so, and wouldn't have brought gender into the equation. SITH (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• There was a time the n word could be used (in the UK at least) in "working like a n___" as a synonym for hard-working without any offence. That time is long gone.

There was a time that bitch might be construed as one of its other usages. That time has also long gone. It means termagant without any saving grace of obscurity. It's mean. It's sexist. It's offensive. It's not WP:CIVIL. And to pretend that LP was unaware of that stretches WP:AGF beyond breaking point. WP:5P4 is as important as any of the other 5 pillars and needs to be upheld. Cabayi (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is about civility and responding to valid constructive criticism maturely. MfD is merely the forum, not the cause. Legacypac’s problems at mfd, nominating and adding extra pages to others’ nominations, is a real problem, but it should be responded to at a policy/guideline level, not at a user level. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support but... only as a second choice (first choice would be the indef block for personal attack as in the block review above). User conduct typically transcends namespaces and barring Legacypac from one area just shifts the problem to another area, which exposes his conduct to other users working in other areas. As an example, if you have an employee who is always late to work, you don't shift the employee to another department and hope that they may be more punctual. So I do not believe that this proposal will address the issue on hand. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think it's deletion that's the cause of this. Legacypac is, in my experience, a generally competent user at deletion and because that is his main area of activity it will naturally be the area where controversy arises. This isn't deletion-specific, it's civility-specific, and that's a site-wide issue. SITH (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hut 8.5 and others. This isn't the problem, so this isn't the solution. The indef block should remain in place, but only until the user has adequately shown (a) determination not to make any further personal insult such as the one that started this thread and (b) determination to collaborate with other users and actually pay attention to their comments (even if he considers them mistaken). Indefinite can be for ever, or for just as short a time as the user wants it to be. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no reason to believe the civility issues have anything to do with deletion-related activities. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• This won't help, just like I stated on my Meta user page - you can't be civil in one place and act like bu*****t and be 'partial blocked [replace to topic banned]' on the other side of a project. — regards, Revi 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Calling someone a "bitch" over anything is uncalled for anyway. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• And the user was blocked for it. What does that have to do with deletion? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's pretty common that we see chronic incivility and try a topic ban first, when most of that incivility is connected to a particular topic/activity. In this case, it seems almost entirely based on LP's deletion-related activities. Or, I guess, that's what we're arguing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The above assumption is correct, Civility issue appears to be connected to the deletion activity of LP therefore the topic ban should be enacted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Liz. If Legacypac's problem is with his conduct at deletion discussions, ban him from editing this area. feminist (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a mob-driven pile-on. If there is a case to be made about XfD abuse, there should be a specific thread arriving at a consensus about XfD abuse, not this sort of AND THIS TOO! sledgehammer job... The offense was civility-related, the conclusion generated should be civility-related. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – We wouldn't be here without the "bitch" comment, so we should focus on the civility issue. LP's work on deletions is worthwhile, although he has been criticized for being sometimes too quick and stubborn. Let those who have never sinned cast the first stone! — JFG ^talk 12:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Downgrade to fixed term block on condition of an apology

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.

---

Per my above !vote in the main discussion, I think real headway could be made if Legacypac is willing to issue an apology. Legacypac is a useful contributor and emotions can run high in certain discussions and people can say totally unacceptable things and later regret them. We shouldn't exile someone forever for making a comment they regret. However, it must be regretted, to show that it will not happen again. I think if Legacypac issues an apology which shows genuine understanding of the unacceptable nature of his comment and a commitment to refrain from making such comments in future, his block should be downgraded to a month. Why not an immediate unblock, because blocking is meant to be preventative, not punitive? Well, the portalspam MfD saga is still ongoing and it will take about a month to clean up. This seems to be the most contentious area where Legacypac has interacted with other users, and therefore, once it has concluded, any cause for high emotions should be removed. On the other hand, if Legacypac does not want to issue an apology, an indefinite block to prevent abusive behaviour to other users should remain. TL;DR:

1. If Legacypac apologises
   1. Downgrade to one-month block
2. If Legacypac doesn't apologise
   1. Retain Drmies' indef

SITH (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. SITH (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Legacypac has issued a statement and BrownHairedGirl has responded in the thread above. I think this could work because the battleground behaviour should disappear along with the cause of contention i.e. approach to fixing the portalspam situation. SITH (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @SITH, I think we read Legaypac's statement very differently. In my comment above[49], I noted my assessment that Legaypac's statement doesn't look to me like any sort of commitment to desist from battleground conduct, just a step back from the worst of the personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, potentially, however, as I've only ever seen Legacypac exhibit battleground behaviour on the portalspam issue, which will be over in a month, once the root cause of his behaviour is null, it should follow that he doesn't engage in any more battleground behaviour. If there's other incidents I've missed, please let me know and I'll rewrite the proposal to include a commitment to cease such behaviour. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

    Edit, also per #2 of your response, I'm not familiar with pre-portalspam interaction between yourself and Legacypac but I haven't seen any "trolling" or "stalking" from yourself towards him, so it would of course be prudent for him to retract those accusations as well, I'm unfamiliar with the ArbCom rulings on casting aspersions, so I can't comment on whether that alone warrants an indefinite block. SITH (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SITH, for the history of Legacypac's battleground behaviour in two other venues, see my lengthy comment above[50]. I am a bit surprised that you missed it.

Also, the portals issue is far from over. See Category:Automated portal pages tracking for some of the sets of automated portals which still remain. There are also many long-term-broken or abandoned portals, so there may be several hundred more portals discussed at MFD. Plus it is likely that there will be a series of RFCs on the future of portals. See e.g. the discussion at WT:WikiProject Portals#Project_status_update? about unresolved issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I'm aware of the category (thanks for that by the way, really helpful for bundling with PetScan), but was unaware of the potential RfC. I'm probably overly optimistic when it comes to clearing backlogs, but the key point is a fixed amount of time until the cause of concern is removed. Yes, I missed your message,  Self-trout (short attention span combined with only reading the proposal and ones with replies), I'll read it and make another comment. If other users would hold off on commenting on my proposal until then, I'd be very grateful. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:32, 28 April 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.

Proposal 3: Escalating Blocks

On the one hand, I think that User:Legacypac’s apology to User:BrownHairedGirl, continuing to put most of the blame on her, is no apology at all. On the other hand, it is what you expect if you require that he apologize in order to be unblocked. It is an apology to game the system. However, it isn’t useful or appropriate to make this particular personal attack, as blatant as it was, a banning offense. If we hold our breath until there is a "good" apology, we will be holding our breath in Keynes’s long run (in which we are all dead). It doesn’t appear that a topic-ban on deletion will pass. So I propose instead a system of escalating blocks, approximately doubling for each serious civility violation (and this was a serious civility violation), starting with four days this time, and credit for time served, then one week, then two weeks, then one month. If he doesn’t learn by then, it really is ban time.

• Support if Proposal 1 does not pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose too complicated, see my proposal below. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Question @Robert McClenon: Am I being unduly cynical to read this as roughly meaning "blocked editor won't give meaningful apology or assurances any time soon, and we can't wait until they are ready to do so"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Reply - That's right. No, the cynical interpretation is correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like Legacypac is the unblockable with a proposal like this. — regards, Revi 02:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  If this were a brand new editor saying exactly same term, it would be uncontroversial indef. Such a proposal like this to forgive them for nothing done from LP's part suggests he is on a different clan than everyone else on WP, which I don't think is correct thing to do. — regards, Revi 04:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  Long-term contributors generally get more consideration and leeway than brand new editors. That's how it should be. This is hardly a proposal to completely forgive LP and it is hardly different from the standard treatment of escalating blocks that most editors would receive. In reality, Legacypac has been treated unusually harshly in this scenario. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but let's not pretend that it's normal for a 31-hour block to be escalated to indef when the editors does nothing wrong between the initial block and the indef. Lepricavark (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per BHG. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Mixed - if LP had less history than this would be a really good method - Wikipedia is crap at handling behavioural issues when the individual disagrees on what they've done wrong. It's rather like not giving parole, ever, until individuals concede they're guilty. HOWEVER, LP has been down this road before, and not too long ago. As such, to start the process at this point we need to know they are aware of the red lines we have made abundantly clear. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support if proposal 1 does not pass. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – This proposal doesn't make sense to me. We already have a system of escalating blocks. The editor is currently indefinitely blocked, so I'm not sure how we can escalate from there. Also, blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive, whereas this proposal seems to outline a sentencing recommendation. Leviv ich 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that we have escalated to a preventative, indef block, and then some participants would like to "walk that back" to a non-preventative non-block, for some reason. For my part, with LegacyPac saying "sorry-not-sorry" at this stage and dissimulating about his original remark, I can't see why this behaviour should be rewarded with a premature unblock. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial here. We must not reward failing to meaningfully apologise for failing to play by the rules we are all expected to play by. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support The current indefinite block is an over-reaction. This discussion has seen the unwarrantedescalation of penalties of penalties. The increase to indefinite should not have been donr without consensus here, because it pre-empted the discussion. Thisis not a rational way to make decisions. DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support – While the 31-hour block was probably too lenient, the indef block is probably too harsh. Given the amount of drama stirred up by this affaire, the implicated editor has probably understood that he should avoid any future excess of language. As such, the indef block is unduly punitive rather than preventive, and I would suggest setting a 7-day block or 30-day block including time served, with a warning that uncivil language will lead to escalating blocks. — JFG ^talk 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4: let the normal unblock review process work

Okay, this is becoming overly complicated. There is clearly support for the initial block, and it has been made an indef now. We don't need an overly complicated series of blocks: if that is the solution, then it does need to go to ArbCom. At this point, a regular block has been turned into a complete mess where the community doesn't have a consensus on what to do. The easiest thing at this point is to return this to the normal unblock review process of one admin discussing it with an editor on their talk page, and then coming to some sort of agreement to unblock or not. If Legacypac wants to file an arb case and he can find someone to copy it over, he can also do that from his talk. Therefore, I'm proposing this: All of these proposals are closed as having no consensus, and the indefinite block is returned to the normal unblock review process at User talk:Legacypac. This will not be regarded as a CBAN since Legacypac did not request that this be brought to the community for review.

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but I have eccentric views that the normal unblock review process doesn't work in high-profile cases, because it usually results in one administrator making an unblock that turns out to be widely criticized, but cannot be reversed because that would be punitive rather than preventive. I think that the normal unblock review process needs to be reworked in high-profile cases, but that is an eccentric view. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Tony, I'm fine with this--I didn't get the whole "escalating blocks" in the first place. My indef block wasn't a "community block" anyway, even though I felt confident it had some community support. And I trust my fellow admins that no cowboy unblocks will take place. Legacypac's comment was, as far as I can tell, deemed insufficient, but they may come up with something that will be taken seriously. I hope they will. One thing, though--there's also topic bans and whatnot being discussed here, and they may have merit independently of the block. Thanks Tony, Drmies (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Tony is exactly right. As Drmies' original note about the block indicated, the "indefinite block" was the (correct) way to put the ball in Legacypac's court and LP could be unblocked if they convinced an independent admin that thy understood their error and commited not to repeat such behavior. That's just the regular process of requesting an unblock and reviewing an unblock request and we don't need to twist ourselves into pretzels trying to per-emptively come up with baroque alternatives for this instance. (Btw, I am intentionally not starting my comment with a bolded "Support" or "Oppose" because we don't need a renewed community consensus in order to follow the existing process dictated by P&Gs.). Abecedare (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm no admirer of Legacypac, but I'm having a tough time accepting that the comment in question is sufficient cause to abruptly bring about the end of Legacypac's wiki career. Yes, there have been prior problems with the user's conduct -- I'm well aware of that, believe me. But if we haven't followed the pattern of escalating blocks with this user, it seems awfully harsh to jump straight to an indef that appears increasingly likely to remain in place for the long run. What Legacypac did was wrong and, from a moral standpoint, he should apologize. But I am not a big believer in forced apologies, partly because we have no way of knowing if they are genuine. If Legacypac is not really sorry, but he lies and says he is in order to be unblocked, what good does that do? I'll admit that part of me wants Legacypac to remain blocked simply of unfavorable prior experiences with this user, and I doubt I'm the only one here who feels that way. But I also want to be fair. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that is my point to an extent as well: the normal unblock process tends to work a lot better at finding some compromise solution than noticeboards (and heck, even when it goes to a noticeboard it usually is only after an individual administrator has worked out some sort of agreement with the user and it is brought there for ratification by the community. This process of "unblock sanctions by self-appointed review committee" that this whole discussion has become is unlikely to produce a result, and if it does produce one, it isn't likely to be an ideal one. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not going to support or oppose this, because I don't know what it is people are looking for, but wanted to draw attention to this nonsense. As a reminder, this is the context. Aligning with Kudpung's bizarre defense above, LP has transformed parts of speech such that "bitch" in "being a bitch" should be understood not as the misogynistic noun, but a more easily defensible verb. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dissimulation about and refusing to own up to one's own choice of words, for the nth time, really ought to be an indef-block offence. LegacyPac's ability to respect WP:CIVIL has not in any way improved in the many years over which I have observed their participation in the project. Surely the time has long since past where the drama produced by their incivility and extreme sensitivity to affront has anointed to a net negative for WP. Newimpartial (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm increasingly inclined to agree with Newimpartial. I've only really recently become involved with LP, but instead of listening to all the criticism and advice he's been given he has flatly refused to even consider that he might be in the wrong and in some cases doubled down on it. The increasing incivility is icing on the cake. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

LP's block log shows a highwater-mark of 1 month (in May 2016) and a diminishing scale of blocks since. What message does that send? That if you're uncivil often enough that the community will eventually give up any attempt to enforce its norms? The standard handling for an unblock seems reasonable, given an unequivocal apology, and a commitment not to repeat the behaviour, but only sometime after 26 June. Cabayi (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• That bitch-definining comment by LP is both awful and surprisingly stupid alongside it. It's worth considering "Why is an experienced, generally intelligent, editor who knows what to say to jump through unblock hoops, failing to do so?" - a couple of options come to mind.
  1. LP is angry at BHG (or us), and that is ruling judgement. In that case, unblocking him now is unwise, but he may calm down given a couple of weeks and defaulting to standard method would work.
  2. LP genuinely believes his defined language, or just feels Wikipedia should be even rougher than it is, language/discussion wise. The community has, for once, given a hard line on Civility so we are free to reject his assertions. However, this brings us to forcing an apology - he may feel making an apology he doesn't agree with (what some would call lying) is wrong. What we do, if anything, if this is the case, I leave to better thoughts than mine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Robert, and WP:UNBLOCKABLE Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed with TonyB. We already have way too much of a "make special exceptions to normal process when we're hot and bothered" problem. Let's not worsen it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – This thread should never have been opened in my opinion. The normal process should be allowed to work, per Tony. Leviv ich 18:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Tony's proposal - I think people who've had a piece to say about Legacy here have said it and moving it off of a highly trafficked noticeboard feels helpful at this point. I think the opposition shown to Ritchie's proposal below in no way contradicts the idea that this should play out via a normal process - it merely affirms the consensus about what the community is looking for in terms of next steps from Legacy, but doesn't mean that this needs to continue to be done by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are clearly far too many opinions (for and against) unblocking here for a single admin to (decline to) unblock unilaterally without causing more drama that would be unfair for that admin and for LP. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf. Like it or not, there is a community consensus formed out of the unblocking conversation below that should outweigh a decision made by a single reviewing admin. Accepting the proposal in this state pretty much guarantees that there will be an Arbcom case.--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Extended content

Extended content Enough is enough I'm tired of administrators downplaying the damage Legacypac causes on a daily basis, via incivility and otherwise. The only reason this came up on AN with any sort of a agreeable reasoning was because of name-calling a popular administrator. It is absolutely insulting to see administrators ignore years of incivil and battleground behaviour to make a point. What will block resolution do? 24 hour block, get back to your MfD haunting and/or name-calling. Current thread at ANI Back-to-back revenge-threading Another revenge-thread Complaint at ANI against LP closed with "no action needs to be taken (yet)" Complaint at ANI against LP closed with "no action needs to be taken (yet)" 2 Proven lack of ability to get above personal feuds at MfD resulting in an IBAN A complaint with me as the filer stating what exact was the issue with LP but quickly got turned down even as I was repeatedly being addressed as a troll with no basis whatsoever. A sympathizer of LP (very rightly noted ) QEDK, you were trolling in all three instances where Legacypac rightly called you out on it, which speaks more on how LP has been sticking around despite the huge timesink he is. And of course, yet again, another thread closed with no action whatsoever. Revenge-thread against filing admin (alas, again) 3RR report ending in a boomerang If it's not clear what I am trying to do, it is to establish a pattern that administrators have repeatedly failed to take into account in their decisions. If it's not obvious from the get-go of his prior history of gaming the system to get userspace drafts deleted, this is just a continuation of his unwavering intent to game the system with the very unapologetic apology. I am pretty sure I am going to get a lot of shit from all of LP's benefactors now or down the line but I am consistently tired of the major timesink Legacypac is, and this probably will be the last time I call them out for their actions. Godsy went on a crusade which ended in a two-way IBAN and I do not want to step into the massive waste of time LP is, by all regards. There are many more threads and many more complaints I do not have the willingness or time to dig up, anyone willing can do whatever they want with this information. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As a new editor, I want to add that this kind of gratuitously uncivil behaviour makes me want to edit here less. I haven't had it directed at me from Legacypac, but I have seen him direct it at others in discussions I'm in. I have to wonder, given how long this has been going on, how many editors Legacypac has managed to drive away. And further, given that potential cost, whether it's still reasonable to call him a net positive at all. Safrolic (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I left Wikipedia for most of this month to avoid unwanted interactions and was delighted to be able to return to a much more civil and cooperative environment. (Disclosure: I am not an admin. I recently !voted to keep several portals which Legacypac proposed for deletion). Certes (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment I have been reminded of two 2017 gems from LegacyPac that are not linked directly above. This was a case when he interpreted a speedy MfD close of his own nom (as delete) as "stalking" and took it to ANI, and this where he interpreted my perfectly civil ANI comment (see for yourself) as some kind of an insult and removed it from the ANI noticeboard, calling me a troll as he did so. Four years of this, and endless drama. Surely if LP were able to change for the better, they would have done so long since? Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: As I mentioned above, I am wary to get involved too much here because anyone who has seen LP comment in the same area I did will most likely have seen them take a combative approach towards me but given the examples provided by others, I want to share something I distinctly remember as well. When there was discussion whether to shut down the ref desks, Legacypac inserted a {{source?}} template into my comment, making it appear as if I questioned my own argument. When I very kindly (check for yourself) asked them to not do so, seeing as they were well aware that editing other people's comments is not acceptable, they removed my request with the words "Kindly don't revert my edits or post unsubstantiated claims" (despite the fact that I supplied the diff where it was clear from that he did so). I thought that was a pretty brazen violation of decorum in the heat of the moment but now I'm inclined to think that this was but a mere example of an underlying problem. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with QEDK. This is about an editor who over the years has numerous times done things which done once have led other editors to indefinite blocks. QEDK refers to "a pattern that administrators have repeatedly failed to take into account in their decisions", and that is absolutely true, but it is not only administrators: both this discussion and previous discussions have been full of editors who for some reason insist on dealing with each occasion when Legacypac's behaviour is discussed as though it were an isolated incident, and because they choose to treat it that way they see no reason to deal with it in as anything other than a minor incident. It isn't a minor incident; in fact it isn't an incident at all, it is a long term pattern of behaviour. "Enough is enough" is absolutely right, and by now there has been more than enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Legacypac

Legacypac has apologised, he seems sincere and we should take him at his word, not try and gain a pound of flesh more out of him. So, I would like to unblock with a clear and unequivocal warning that if he does anything like this again, it'll be an indef with nothing other than the standard offer to appeal on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per QEDK, and others in this thread that enough is enough - he's had more final chances than many editors get. There are also plenty of editors in this thread who are not convinced LP's apology is sincere. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Question: would that be a green light to resume aggressive interaction as long as it avoids words like bitch, or are we hoping to see a radical change of behaviour? Certes (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• More comment than question, but an answer might be there is clearly no 'green light' being offered. Any behaviour that disrupts or discourages others from contributing would be an indication they prefer an invitation to leave for good, to find another interest, and the supporters of this proposal would be agreeing that is the best solution. cygnis insignis 13:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose unless an IBAN between BHG and LP, or some sanction is imposed and LP is given a final civility warning that if uncivil behaivor continues it will result in a indef block. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom (and possibly Zpipix). ——SerialNumber54129 13:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• he seems sincere - ? We're seeing the same apology, right? There's the part that includes pointing the finger back out at BHG. That isn't ideal from the perspective of the psychology of an apology, but I can understand if one feels the whole story isn't being considered. The harder part to swallow is where he would have us believe that this link he gave for his intended meaning includes the definition of "being a bitch" as he used it (but there's obviously there's no noun there, and taken with the other gendered comment he delivered simultaneously, it's particularly hard to believe)... I don't see the most basic sense of accountability/responsibility a "pound of flesh". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support a clear and agreeable solution. cygnis insignis 13:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mild support- I might have liked something a bit more impressive, but Legacy is a net positive around here and I am very strongly against making people grovel. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Like some others, my reading of Legacypac's Statement is LP still does not get it. It's not about a word, it is about, in the words of policy, "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex . . . etc." It neither matters that BHG is an admin nor what BHG is alleged to have done, nor even that BHG is a woman, LP needs to show that his comment is utterly withdrawn, and that LP understands why. (One thing LP's statement did get right is, it is an offense against the community, not just BHG, but LP's statement is not on in that it suggests LP's just misunderstood, LP needs to know and demonstrate that the community understood completely). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the key issue for me - LP has not demonstrated any understanding of why his actions are viewed as disruptive by others. I'm not just talking about the civility here, but about the battleground attitude, about the recklessness regarding deletion discussions, the recklessness regarding AFC and copyvios, the completely unnecessary personalisation of the issues surrounding portals, the revenge threads, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I was edit conflicted before I could add, and if BHG wants a one-way interaction ban, it's the least we can do. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Legacypac is not worth all the drama he causes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Yesterday, BHG raised five points. Surely these would need addressing to some degree in an unblock request, reviewed by an uninvolved admin, otherwiseif one admin just goes ahead with an unblock, it would look like wheel waring. And I'm guessing that in itself would create a whole new drama thread. I'm a bit confused by Ritchie's statement in this section, as on the 27th you said "...at the very least, Legacypac needs to apologise and give the community an assurance that he will never use those sort of terms again." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (alt account comment) - to quote Ned Flanders' mother, "we've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas." As QEDK has aptly observed, there have been too many incidents and too many threads closed with weak or no action, solving nothing, for us to accept an apology and ignore the issues again. There must be consequences for behaviour like this, or it can only get worse. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Regardless of the appropriate amount of contrition, I’m really not sure another admin coming along and deciding a currently-instated block wasn’t tough enough “so I’ll make it last forever” is a particularly inspiring sign, especially absent a community discussion beforehand. If people want to properly structure a ban proposal, that makes a Lot more sense than the various subthreads here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose an unblock at this time. I have looked over Legacypac's long record of battleground conduct. (Perhaps I should have spent a few hours researching the record two days ago.) I don't consider his apology to be satisfactory or sincere, and I don't think that asking for another more since apology will be useful. I am now convinced that only a long block will be appropriate. The usual unblock process does not work in high-profile cases and will not work in this case, because a single administrator unblock should not be permitted. In looking over the long history of personalizing every dispute, I now think that the community should simply leave LP blocked for at least several days to decide whether an unblock will ever be in order, or whether a site-ban is sadly necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that continuing misbehaviour needs to be met with longer blocks, not shorter. LP's previous longest block was 1 month. Two months minimum is the next step before any consideration of any unblock. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I was not convinced by the apology. I would not be opposed to a reduction to say 90 days. Not long before this latest block I cautioned him on gravedancing, which he had been blocked for in the past and his response was "I don't recall. I was once blocked very inappropriately for alleged gravedancing. The blocking admin should be defrocked for that stupid block and you should go find something productive to do other then hassling me". Sorry..this editor doesn't get it, least not yet.--MONGO (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Mostly per Tony's Proposal 4. It's multiple apologies now, and they seem sincere enough to me (although "you're blocked until you apologize and the community agrees on your sincerity" is a foolish standard anyway). Also, to me, that there are multiple prior threads that have been closed without action does not evidence that there is an ongoing problem that needs addressing, but rather the opposite: there isn't an ongoing problem, since there hasn't been previous action. Not at all persuaded by people bringing up stuff from a year or two ago. There are serious issues here that need addressing, but a pile-on at AN (by many editors who have admitted they have axes to grind) isn't going to help anything. Let the normal process work. The block has been made; the apology has been made; time to unblock and see if that fixes the issues here. If not, there are still better ways of handling it than this AN thread. Leviv ich 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Ritchie333's terms so that this does not drag on for a million years. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Procedural Question if this motion to unblock is unsuccessful, does that mean that Legacypac is community banned and a single administrator will not be able to unblock him per a standard unblock request? If yes, then I must ask that you stop and consider if it is worth it, before opening discussions like this. Long term editors almost will have their share of detractors, and as seen above people are pulling out diffs from several years ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons that are already documented above in comments from numerous editors, including myself. The proposal refers to "a clear and unequivocal warning that if he does anything like this again, it'll be an indef with nothing other than the standard offer to appeal on"; so why will just one more incident lead to that situation when all the countless incidents in the past haven't? As said above, enough is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as he hasn't been vandalizing any articles (which is 'my' threshold for bans, as I know what it's like to be banned for less), that I'm aware of. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There has been a distinct failure to address BHG's five points. Moreover, an 'apology' that devotes more words to expressing how it's not really Legacypac's fault than to addressing the genuine problems with his conduct is deeply flawed at best. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking for myself only, and some wonk can correct me if I'm wrong, I blocked for that particular insult which I think is unacceptable in this community. I did not block for a pattern of incivility (though plenty of colleagues here note that this exists); IMO, for a pattern of incivility an individual administrator's decision is not the best remedy, "incivility" being more difficult to judge by one person. So, as far as I'm concerned, all I would ask for is an unequivocal apology and retraction, one that comes without any fingerpointing or whatever. If I read this entire thread correctly (that's future tense too, since I haven't read every post) there is no consensus (yet) for any kind of community ban, and (again, IMO) any admin who considers an apology by Legacypac to be sufficient can unblock; they have my blessing, and this wouldn't be wheelwarring. The only caveat here is that (it seems to me) that Legacypac's "current" apology is weighed by the community and found wanting; if someone were to unblock now they'd probably get yelled at. Whatever else is found objectionable in Legacypac's editing is best treated as a separate matter: the thread started over this insult, and my block is for the insult. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, if I read CBAN correctly, a consensus against unblocking here would effectively mean that Legacypac is banned by the community. I don't think that's a desirable outcome, and your criteria for unblocking should stand. – bradv🍁 20:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Bradv, someone else (maybe you?) raised this point earlier in the discussion, and it's a valuable point--thank you for reminding us. However, and I think a "however" is in order, Legacypac might counter, and this has some validity, that this conversation here has gotten ... well, muddled by the other proposals. Of course this particular section, "unblock Legacypac", is pretty narrowly focused, with only brief mentions about other problems. Yes, the more I look over the comments in this section the more I think that item 3 in the section you point at strengthens the "community ban" idea--all the more reason for Legacypac to act swiftly and decisively, and I hope that those favoring an unblock (which includes a few editors/admins whom I respect very much) will suggest this to him as well, lest this indeed turn into something that will be much harder to get out of. And let me reiterate that I don't have much knowledge of or insight into any pattern. I think the other comments directed against BHG were bad enough, but I wouldn't have made an indef-block out of it. I'd rather he retract and apologize unequivocally enough, so that we (or y'all) can consider the rest without this becoming solidified into a community ban by a kind of default. Thanks again, Bradv. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

      I asked the question just above. I don't think it would be fair to Legacypac if this proposal fails because then he's effectively community banned, and I don't think that is what you intended in your block. But I'm not sure how we can get around it now. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

      This is why I think Tony's proposal (Proposal 4) is important. I don't think that opposition to Ritchie's idea should turn into a defacto CBAN and there being consensus behind that proposal makes clear that the community opposes the exact idea offered here but would still endorse a sysop reversing the indef under normal procedures (meaning without Legacy needing to appeal to AN). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

      I don't know if we are seeing the same threads but there is barely any consensus for Tony's proposal. And given the consensus here, CBAN#3 applies inherently. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

      I don't think there was consensus for Tony's proposal when I wrote that (or now). That comment and this was made in hope that more people would support it. I agree absent consensus there that CBAN#3 applies based on the thoughts expressed here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

      I raised the point regarding a community ban, earlier, because I think it's important to be made known at the start of any conversation about an indefinitely blocked editor. This way everyone knows what is at stake with the discussion. If the community would like to avoid banning the editor, it should either set specific terms to end the indefinite block, or endorse the proposal to keep the block under the aegis of the administrator who enacted it. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not impressed with Legacypac's talk page statements. I wouldn't object to the block being changed to be of finite duration instead of indefinite, but I don't think three days is enough for something like this. Hut 8.5 20:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (after a hundred edit conflicts) per QEDK and JamesBWatson above, with thanks to QEDK for taking the time to write up their very striking overview. Drmies, I don't quite understand why we shouldn't consider the whole pattern, which is now on the table,[51] nor why it's supposed to "muddle" anything. Keep blocked because of the pattern, is my opinion. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I blocked because of the one insult, not the pattern. The community can decide to turn it into a block/ban because of other concerns, but that's a different matter. For the record, I posted a note on Legacypac's page, and I think it's time for me to work on other things. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: His apology (barely) addresses the most extreme of his behavior towards BHG, but does not address the persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in a wide variety of areas on a wide variety of topics nor even in this particular situation . As such, a blanket unblock is completely unwarranted, IMHO. Of course, as a recipient of Legacypac's vitriol in the past, I'm certainly biased. Waggie (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Legacy's response to the block has been utterly insufficient, for reasons I have already articulated above (in the first section). I will be the first to advocate for a drama-free unblock with a suitable statement/unblock request, but not on the basis of the current statement, which minimizes the offenses, blames the victim, and offers no resolution. The above mess of a thread, over what is rather straightforward NPA enforcement, is embarrassing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a long earned block. LP's repeated accusations of bad faith and bullying should have been addressed a long time ago. LP took advantage of their contributions in one area of the project to avoid blocks that otherwise might have reformed their behavior in the larger project. Very much a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Springee (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Wholly inadequate response to the block from LP - his attempt to equate "call it being a bitch" with "bitching about someone" does not seem sincere to me at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - This whole episode reminds me of how the British Parliament has been dealing with Brexit. I think I understand now why unblocks tend to be made on a discretionary basis by admins, rather than left to a straw poll as it has been in this particular case. I submit that, if a poll were to be put forth to determine whether Legacypac should be CBAN'ed, it would come back as no consensus. But in this case, there is clearly no consensus among the community for an unblock either, which effectively renders Legacypac's block a de facto CBAN. This is an unpleasant situation to be in, and this poll should never have been brought forth to begin with.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a version of Godwin's law for Brexit? Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't use that analogy lightly. My observation of Parliament is that none of the parties are able to come to a consensus on what to do about the state of affairs regarding Brexit (whether a long or short extension, deal exit, no-deal exit, holding a second referendum, canceling Brexit altogether, etc.), but that their only area of agreement is that they vigorously disagree with any of the given choices, essentially landing them in a deadlock. That's where I think we have found ourselves here: no consensus on any way forward.--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's because the part of the analogy you're pointing out is wrong. In Brexit, non-acceptance of the deal is a de-facto leave, in the same way that non-acceptance here is a CBAN. Essentially, what you're seeing here is not a lack of consensus but a consensus against, in the same way that "no deal" consensus for Brexit is the same as unequivocally leaving. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know I'm very involved here, but I'm seeing a consensus that LP should remain indefinitely blocked until certain conditions are met. There is no real consensus about what those conditions are, but the minimum is clearly consensus that he has meaningfully apologised (meaning an apology that demonstrates understanding of why he was blocked and takes responsibility for his own behaviour). Other editors would take that further and see at least one of (a) evidence of understanding of why so many people regard his behaviour as disruptive (either generally or about specific things), (b) a commitment to end the battleground behaviour, (c) an interaction ban with BHG (one way or two way), (d) a topic ban from deletion and/or (e) a final, one-strike-and-you're-banned civility warning/parole/restriction (terminology varies but the intent doesn't significantly). Personally I'm very unlikely to support any unblock without (a), (b) and probably unlikely to support without (d) (but I could be convinced otherwise); (e) I would certainly welcome but the absence of it is not a blocker for my support and I'm neutral regarding (c). Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why am I failing to see the concept of behavior change? An apology from LP is meaningless unless he turns over a new leaf. Meaning if he messes up again (getting judgmental about people, or editorializing about people——— there are any number of examples of his behavior in this vein), then Goodbye to LP. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Simply because he often tries to obstruct pages I create for no reason and I’m personally tired of it. Trillfendi (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a wholly unrelated personal qualm.--WaltCip (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh it is, really. I’ve just been waiting for this. It’s implicit that I oppose his unblocking if he’s calling women bitches in any negative context and bullying people. Trillfendi (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't implicit at all. You want him blocked for personal reasons. I get it. Frankly, I'm conflicted between my personal dislike of Legacypac and my desire for him to be treated fairly whether I like him or not. Lepricavark (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

While I think people are entirely too sensitive on this website and too many want to be coddled and censored like we don’t talk how we do in real life, calling people bitch because you don’t agree with them is in the realm of childish idiocy. With no remorse (“I’m sorry your feelings got hurt” isn’t an apology). Pink slip slapped. If you’re gonna call someone a name (I’m a call a spade a spade kind of person) get more creative with the English language to where it isn’t so flagrant, I say. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why getting antagonized is not a valid rationale, sure if Trillfendi was in the role of an administrator assessing consensus, their objectivity would be hampered and that is certainly an issue. But, her !vote here is just a byproduct of LP's behaviour and is a rationale on par. Although, it would be good to keep the vendetta aside and make an objective vote here, explaining your stance (I think Trillfendi has expanded on that now, so it's fine), I do understand why an editor would not. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

True. Saying "I don't want him unblocked because I just don't like the guy" would be a baseless personal qualm. Saying "I don't want him unblocked because he needlessly obstructs my editing" is an entirely legitimate, policy-based rationale. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector. Also, he should be considered community banned per WP:CBAN if this fails ("Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community""). I suggest Legacy take a break and come back to the community to make his case in six months per WP:SO. Nihlus 00:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose after lengthy consideration, I agree with those who wish to keep this editor indefinitely blocked. While I believe Legacypac is a good-faith editor who provided value to the encyclopedia, the behavioral issues have become too much of a problem. The incident cited by SoWhy above is similar to my recent go-round with Legacypac, which I linked above. The problem is that Legacypac is too aggressive and once he views another editor as a foe, he creates a battleground climate in which it is useless to reason with him. I don't think we would be having this discussion if Legacypac had taken greater care to assume good faith on the part of those who disagreed with him. Lepricavark (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, if the only other option is an indefinite ban.Looking though this, I see the gradual escalation of the debate, from a question of whether a 31 hour block should be reversed, to a consideration of a community ban with no clear route to unblocking. Everything intermediate seems to have been gradually forgotten. This is all too common group behavior, but it is not rational . I understand the reasonf or the ban to indefinite, but doing it during the discussion is in effect letting a single admin shift the whole discussio nignoring the ongoing group process. DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment—It's concerning how ambiguous this "community block" could end up. Would the consensus be that it's over language/inCIVILity? Or the broader problems qedk highlights in their list in "Enough is enough" above? I've called for a TBAN for Legacypac here despite their current indef making it seemingly redundant, because it still looks like any admin could unblock them if they offered BHG a properly-worded apology. This would leave Legacypac free to disrupt the project elsewhere. There really should be a discussion to examine the broader scope of the community's concerns, whether they should apply to this block (or new restrictions), and whatever unblocking conditions there'd be under that broader scope. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Curly Turkey: As pointed about by participants above, if there's a community consensus against unblocking on an indefinite unblock, it is regarded as an indefinite community ban (CBAN#3). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  qedk: Unless I've misunderstood, that would come along with the WP:Standard offer, which would allow him back without addressing any of the non-BHG-related issues, per "2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." There shouldn't be room to game the system. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Curly Turkey: WP:SO applies to every indefinite block and ban. It's discretionary, 6 months is a guideline, you can appeal tomorrow or next decade. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  @QEDK: I'm not talking about the length—I'm talking about the conditions under which the SO would be offered and accepted. It's not clear that the SO conditions would be broader than simply promising not to call anyone a bitch. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Curly Turkey: Depends on the community when the editor appeals. It doesn't need to be just about the PA, or just the long-term behaviour, probably both. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) (removed AC appeal reference as this is a CBAN)

  An appeal of a community site ban has to be reviewed by the community. It would be free to decide on whatever conditions it likes at that time. isaacl (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  isaacl: "There is no community ban" according to Floquenbeam's close proposal below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I was answering your question about what happens with the standard offer after a community site ban. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Set a date. 31 hours not enough? 30 days. Indef is an overreaction, but ANI drama is always all about overreaction... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As I've stated before, I do not believe Legacypac is here to build a collaborative, civil encyclopedia and has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of failing the 4th pillar of Wikipedia (WP:5P4, civility). I cannot support the unblock of an editor who cannot apologize unreservedly for an inappropriate remark to a woman, and has consistently relied on gaming the system and incessant battleground behaviour for most of their tenure. I rest my case. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is far too combative and has a battleground mentality. While he may be a net-positive at some point, it has deteriorated into a net-negative. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I can completely understand why it was moved to indef but for me I feel it's just an overreaction, Despite their ever growing block log IMHO they are a net positive here, I would agree with Ritchies terms - If they make a similar comment again then it's indef but right now like I said right now I just feel like it's an overreaction. –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking without a topic ban from deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support – While the 31-hour block was probably too lenient, the indef block is probably too harsh. Given the amount of drama stirred up by this affair, the implicated editor has probably understood that he should avoid any future excess of language. As such, the indef block is unduly punitive rather than preventive, and I would suggest setting a 7-day block or 30-day block including time served, with a warning that uncivil language will lead to escalating blocks. — JFG ^talk 12:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock conditions for Legacypac

Per the comments above, it is clear there is no current consensus to immediately unblock Legacypac, but no clear consensus on what conditions are necessary. Accordingly I'm starting this section to try and make that clear out of fairness to LP and any administrator reviewing an unblock request. All the options presented are independent of each other, hence the granularity, the final unblock conditions will be the combination of options that gain consensus as assessed by an uninvolved administrator. My listing an option does not necessarily indicate I support that option, I will provide my opinions individually, I have just tried to include something for all the issues mentioned in this thread, if I have missed anything significant add another option, but please don't go overboard - the aim is to determine consensus not prevent it; if an option is mutually exclusive with another one specify explicitly what happens if both gain consensus.

If multiple options requiring satements and/or apologies gain consensus, LP may make a single statement/apology that covers all the requirements or multiple such apologise/statements each covering one or more of the requirements. Unless otherwise specificed, all restrictions are indefinite and may be appelaed no sooner than six months after formal notification is given at user talk:Legacypac or six months after his most recent unblock, whichever is later. If multiple options gain consensus, they may be appealed individually or in groups unless otherwise specified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Given that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is currently blocked, hasn't edited their talkpage in 4 days, and has no active unblock request, what is the point of having this extended debate now? Can we not wait until they request an unblock and then react to what they actually say? I'd recommend that an uninvolved admin close this whole thread, as having outlived its usefulness. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A. Meaningful apology to BrownHairedGirl

Legacypac is required to make an apology to BrownHairedGirl that they (BHG) accept and a consensus of editors agree is meaningful.

• Nope. Absolutely not. Too vague, too subjective, and no single editor should be the final arbiter as to whether an apology is sincere or not. feminist (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

B. Demonstrated understanding of block

Legacypac is required to make a statement that clearly demonstrates an understanding of why the comments he was blocked for were not acceptable.

C. Demonstrated understanding of civility issues

Legacypac is required to make a statement that clearly demonstrates an understanding of why civility is important and why multiple comments of his (not just those he was directly blocked for) have been regarded as uncivil.

D. Final warning for civility

Legacypac is given a final warning for civility - if he makes any comments that an uninvolved administrator determines to be a personal attack or otherwise uncivil he will be indefinitely blocked. Such a block may be appealed no sooner than six months after it is placed.

• Support, in a probation form - this is the crux of the matter, we can ask for statements galore, but it's specific consequences that need spelling. It needs some elapse time, I suggest 9 months, though obviously if serious enough for ANI it's going to be dragged up, but not a functional 1-man DS forever. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support-ish, but softer. Mandating an indefinite block for a small and accidental civility lapse is not good. It places too much pressure on the decision of whether to ignore or do something, as it effectively eliminates a proportionate response as an option. Suggest instead a default response for incivility being a block of linearly increasing duration for each occurrence. Eg, 1 month, followed by 2 months next time, 3 months, 4 months, and so on. Geometrically increasing blocks (eg double the duration of the previous) rapidly get out of control and become criticized for being disproportionate. Straight to indefinite block regardless of the details is even worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Characterizing the post in question as "accidental" seems incongruous given the actual text and the subsequent equivocation by Legacypac. Characterizing it as "small" seems to defy both the community response to this instance and the large number of previous instances of UNCIVIL and BATTLEGEOUND behaviour, both recent and longer ago. But WP:UNBLOCKABLE. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The "accidental" "small" civility lapse is the description of a hypothetical future post. This proposal, as written, mandates an all-or-nothing response to future incidents. No one would be able to counsel on a small mistake without invoking the indefinite block. In practice, this will mean the smallest of incidents will turn into a full blown review of this current discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all somewhat academic, since these proposals aren't being widely discussed, but I think you have missed the intent here. This a "final warning" in the context of a future admin's decision to unblock Legacy. I think the overall consensus here is clear that IF Legacy is unblocked later, and causes CIVIL or BATTLEGROUND disturbance again (and not just by using b-words), the consensus is that slowly escalating blocks would not be appropriate, but rather "a full blown review of this discussion" would be mandated.

I'm not sure that there is consensus for unblock conditions for Legacy with a lower bar than the Standard Offer, but it seems pretty clear to me that we have what amounts to a final straw situation. In any case, I don't really see how Legacy would be capable of an "accidental, small" lapse in future, given the editing history to date. Deleting comments from admin boards, making insulting edit summaries, launching grudge complaints to drama boards, and casting ASPERSIONS, for example - none of which Legacy has taken responsibility or apologized for in any of their trips to ANI - strike me as neither accidental nor small. If unblocked and then blocked later for conduct, the reason for the latter would be the whole history of conduct, and it is unreasonable in my view to argue that a "small, unintended" future indiscretion by Legacy should potentially be brushed off without a "full blown review of this discussion". Except for the minority that still attributes to Legacy UNBLOCKABLE status, I don't believe this is what the community wants. Newimpartial (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

E. Demonstrated understanding of battleground conduct and personalising disputes

Legacypac is required to make a statemetn that clearly demonstrates an understanding of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and why editors regard his behaviour as being of this nature.

F. Final warning for battleground conduct and personalising disputes

Legacypac is given a final warning for battleground conduct and personalising disputes - if he makes any comments that an uninvolved administrator determines to be displaying a battleground attitude and/or unnecessarily personalising a dispute he will be indefinitely blocked. Such a block may be appealed no sooner than six months after it is placed. This restriction may be appelaed no sooner than six months after formal notification of it is given at user talk:Legacypac or six months after his most recent unblock, whichever is later.

G. Topic ban from deletion discussions

Legacypac is topic banned from deletion discussions:

• He may not nominate any page at any XfD process.
• He may not comment on any nomination at any XfD process, subject to the following exception:
  • He may make a single comment in a discussion where one or more pages he has created or of which is the most significant contributor are nominated, such a comment must focus exclusively on why the page he created/significantly conitrbuted to should or should not be deleted/merged/retargetted. He may respond to direct follow-up questions and clarification requests regarding that comment, but may not comment more generally.
• He may not close any discussion at any XfD process
• He may not edit the talk page of any XfD process or nomination subpage.
• He may not participate in policy discussions regarding deletion unless such discussions are exclusive to aspects of deletion other than XfD discussions.
• He may not paricipate at DRV regarding any XfD discussion
• He may not comment on any talk page regarding any XfD discussion
• Oppose. There are nearly no grounds for any of this. On MfD spamming, I would prefer a rule preventing any individual from spamming MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The multiple issues detailed in one of the sections above are not just the number of listings at MfD but the nature of the those listings, their actions on listings started by others (adding unrelated and tangentially related pages partway through) and their interaction with others in MfD discussions. Of all the topic areas this is the one with by far the most grounds in its favour. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

H. Topic ban from speedy deletion

Legacypac is topic banned from speedy deletion:

• He may not nominate any page for speedy deletion, subject to the following exceptions:
  • He may nominate pages he created for speedy deletion under crition G7
  • He may nominate copyright violations for speedy deletion under criterion G12 or F9.
  • He may challenge the nomination for speedy deletion of any page he created by posting on its talk page
• He may not participate in policy discussions regarding deletion unless such discussions are exclusive to aspects of deletion other than speedy deletion.
• He may not paricipate at DRV regarding any speedy deletion.
• He may not comment on any talk page regarding any speedy deletion, except to challenge the speedy deletion of a page he created
• Oppose. Since Legacypac enabled his Twinkle CSD log, I have been watching it, and I think overall his CSD taggings are excellent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • His actual taggings may be OK, but his conduct around speedy deletion policy discussions has not been - especially with regards his proposed X3 where he repeatedly implied in multiple venues it was policy (including by adding it to the CSD page) long before discussion had concluded (when it did conclude there was no consensus for it). Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • His WT:CSD posts, among other proposals to expand CSD, and actual edits to WP:CSD, are a much bigger problem than his actual taggings. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I. Topic ban from proposed deletion

Legacypac is topic banned from proposed deletion:

• He may not nominate any page for proposed deletion.
• He may not endorse the proposed nomination of any page unless he is the page creator or a significant contributor to the page.
• He may not contest the proposed nomination of any page unless he is the page creator or a significant contributor to the page.
• He may not participate in policy discussions regarding deletion unless such discussions are exclusive to aspects of deletion other than propossed deletion.
• He may not request or comment on a request for undeletion of any page that was deleted following a proposed deletion.
• He may not comment on any talk page regarding any proposed deletion, except to contest a proposed deletion of a page he created or is a significant contributor to.

J. Topic ban from Articles for creation

Legacypac is topic banned from the articles for creation process, broadly interpreted, including reviewing AfC drafts and moving drafts to mainspace.

K. Restricted from starting noticeboard threads

Legacypac may not start threads, or subsections of existing threads, at any administrative noticeboard regarding any individual with whom he is currently or has recently been involved in a dispute with.

L. Interaction ban

Legacypac is subject to a standard one-way interaction ban with user:BrownHairedGirl, subject to the usual exceptions.

• Support - I actually thought we'd already bought this in, but in any case, it's an absolute must. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of allowing concise civil interactions where their interests overlap, such as anticipate Portal RfC(s), and allowing Legacypac to respond to questions or criticism from BHG, should Legacypac be allowed to continue nominating and contributing to MfD discussions. Stern warnings about civility should suffice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

<sarcasm>because "stern warnings about civility" have ever sufficed for Legacypac in the past</sarcasm>. Per WP:UNBLOCKABLE Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

M. One-month minimum

Legacypac may not be unblocked until at least one month after his current block was placed (i.e. no sooner than 01:52 27 May 2019 (UTC)). If multiple options for a minimum block period gain consensus, only the longest duration will be enacted.

• Weak Support - I think some settling block is needed, a month may be too long, but it's feasible - the others are way too long if the blocks are preventative. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

N. Two month minimum

Legacypac may not be unblocked until at least two months after his current block was placed (i.e. no sooner than 01:52 27 June 2019 (UTC)). If multiple options for a minimum block period gain consensus, only the longest duration will be enacted.

O. Six month minimum

Legacypac may not be unblocked until at least six months after his current block was placed (i.e. no sooner than 01:52 27 October 2019 (UTC)). If multiple options for a minimum block period gain consensus, only the longest duration will be enacted.

Discussion (unblock conditions for Legacypac)

Please add further options above this section Legacypac is current blocked indefinitely. If this discussion closes without that being modified, it becomes a community ban. In that case, what exactly does any consensus coming out of this section even mean? A community ban with conditions under which an admin can unilaterally unblock is not a community ban.
IMO, it is better to either reduce the block to something finite (possibly zero, but there doesn't appear to be consensus for that) and so avoid the CBAN, or to leave it at indefinite. That doesn't mean it becomes infinite, it means it has to be appealed back to the community. IMO that's better for the community than trying to thrash out in advance a set of unblock conditions that have consensus without knowing what will have happened in the meantime, and also better for Legacypac, as it's going to be easier to get consensus for an unblock after some time has passed rather than trying to get consensus now for a future unblock. TL;DR: I don't think we should be tying anyone's hands over this now. GoldenRing (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As I've stated above, Wikipedia editors should not be playing armchair quarterback in lieu of admin discretion. The consensus is for a de facto CBAN.--WaltCip (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with WaltCip. Appeal in 9-12 months, reassess via community channels. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all these extra terms and conditions are an un-needed esoteric layer of bureaucracy. Who's going to police it? Are we really going to go down the route of unblocking right now, but on 23rd day of the 5th month from now, someone spots that LP has violated Clause H, paragraph 3, sub-section 6? I go back to a comment I made earlier about an unblock request that addresses the five points BHG made that weren't addressed in the last unblock request. Or failing that, waiting six months for the standard offer. I request this whole thing is closed so we don't waste anymore time on this. Experienced editors know what to do when blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• There is no realistic way for the community to come to consensus on these 15 conditions. Instead there does seem to be negative consensus to unblocking now which turns into a CBAN - and this does seem to be what many an editor desires. Legacy can, if he chooses, make a SO appeal at some point future point (in most cases after at least 6 months), with whatever form of appeal he wants. So this is helpful in laying out areas Legacy might want to address with some hypothetical appeal but should be snow closed as an impractical way of gauging consensus - that has seemingly already happened above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable with "A". Conditions for an unblock should not be on the whims of one person. If BHG has to accept the apology; they are under no obligation to do so no matter how heartfelt and sincere and detailed and conciliatory it is. It seems like a bad idea to base an unblock on the acceptance of an apology. The rest of this is two separate discussions; one is unblock conditions, which should be the standard set of unblock conditions: detailed understanding of the problems they caused with an explicit, detailed plan as to intended behavior changes. Given that the community is against unblocking now, that leaves WP:SO also. The other thing here is a series of ban discussions (IBANs and TBANS) which are fine to discuss, but are not contingent on an unblock. We can decide to ban him under any of the ban regimes without him being unblocked. That's a different discussion. Honestly, I don't particularly like the format of this discussion... --Jayron32 18:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In regard purely to the point "A" concern, Jayron is completely correct - and leaving this up to community judgement is over the top for what might be 1 particular aspect. I'd suggest an apology that an uninvolved admin considered sufficient (if the community doesn't consider the current sufficient) Nosebagbear (talk)

I appreciate the kind intent in the proposal, but I also think it is an important principle of justice that the victim does not get to decide guilt or penalty. There's very good reason for having such matters weighed by an impartial judge or by a group of peers.

So I reckon that those assessing an apology should consider my response if they see fit, but should ultimately make their own decision. I want to be free to respond to anything like that according to my own needs ... and I think it's also important that the community should be able say on the one hand "BHG is free to turn the other cheek if that works for her, but as a community we need more", or on the other hand "BHG has a right not to feel the matter is settled, but as a community that's as far as we can ask the offender to go". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: - do you just want supports for these, or do you want opposes as well (leaving those we're neutral on blank)? I'm not sure this is the way to go, but I think it's worth more than the current morass. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear What morass? If nothing else happens, "Unblock Legacypac" will get closed as "consensus against" which turns into a CBAN and can be appealed in regular ways (e.g. SO) down the road. This not my preferred course of action but it is a clear course with-in our community norms. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49 - morass in the sense of the complete mix of discussions above - and the fact that it's only the desired choice of a minority, so it'd be a default to an undesired option. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: I was thinking supports and opposes with comments (preferably not just votes) would be the easiest way to determine consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed close by Floq

I planned to close this entire thing as follows, but hesitated at the last minute to unilaterally make all of Thryduulf's work immediately above moot. So I'll ask first: are there any strong objections to the following close, particularly from @Thryduulf:?

• Legacypac's block remains in effect. No admin should unblock based on the comments Legacypac has made in their defense so far, as there is consensus that it is not sufficient. There is no community ban. Legacypac can choose to make another unblock request on their talk page, which can be reviewed by any uninvolved admin. Both Legacypac and the uninvolved admin should review the concerns expressed in this thread. Some possible ideas for further unblock conditions for Legacypac and the uninvolved admin to consider are listed in the #Unblock conditions section. Reading between the lines of most of the comments, there does seem to be an overall consensus that a fundamental change in Legacypac's approach is in order.

Thought process:

• I think this is a great example of how complicated 1-week long discussions with 40 participants, about 25% of whom make their own proposals, don't really work. As someone noted above, see also Brexit. Further discussion is extremely unlikely to result in a clear consensus for anything. Having read thru the whole mess, I'll close this as best I can.

It's the worst possible option, except for all the alternatives! Nosebagbear (talk)

• There is clear consensus for the original block, and the upgrade to indef.
• There is clear consensus (see #Unblock Legacypac) that LP's comments so far are insufficient, so any admin unblocking on the basis of what LP has said so far would be going against consensus.
• There is no consensus for Proposal 1 (topic ban from deletion), already-withdrawn Proposal 2 (downgrade to fixed term), or Proposal 3 (escalating blocks).
• I interpret the "Enough is enough" section as basically a request to turn this into a community ban; there was actually some support for that in that section, but not very much participation, and reading the comments in the other sections I think it is clear there would not be consensus for a community ban if there was more participation in this section.
• Regarding #Unblock conditions, Having a list of 15 possible unblock conditions, and asking people who've already been participating in this discussion for a week to come back and discuss each individual possibility isn't feasible. Indeed, there is something akin to a consensus among those commenting so far in that section that it isn't workable.
• Proposal 4 (let the normal unblock process work) doesn't have a clear consensus, but it has two things going for it: (1) It comes fairly close to having a clear consensus - closer than the other proposals - and (2) it is the most rational thing to do if there's no consensus on anything else.
• It is not reasonable for a lack of consensus on 4-5 different proposals in this messy, disorganized discussion to mean that there's a community ban in effect, particularly when Legacypac did not appeal the block to AN. It is also not reasonable to let this discussion about one particular editor expand beyond its current 1 week and 2.5 gazillion words.
• So the closest thing I think there is to consensus is Proposal 4. I've gone with that, adding a caveat or two based on all the other comments.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - this shouldn't be interpreted as an "oppose", exactly, but isn't the consensus closer to Standard Offer conditions than it is to the rather complex (and somewhat IAR) process set out by Floq? Newimpartial (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so; I think the consensus is closer to "we can't come to a consensus", than to "this is essentially a community ban and the SO applies". I'm puzzled by your other comments. I don't think this is complex at all; it's basically a simple "let our normal process continue", plus some notes summarizing the discussion here for LP and the uninvolved admin to consider. I don't know what you mean by IAR; what rule am I ignoring? Did you mean a supervote? If so, I disagree with that too; I'm taking my best shot at summarizing the closest thing I think there is to a consensus, based on a sprawling disorganized discussion. If I were God Emperor and could just decide things, this is not what I would choose to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I see, and not counting those who have spoken for themselves already on your proposed close, the following editors (at least) have expressed a policy-based belief in the ban/Standard Offer path: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56][57][58] [59]

Meanwhile, with the same caveat, the ones supporting something like option 4 are [60] [61] [62] [63]

So yeah, your intervention looks a bit DNC to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a supervote, simply because that is not what has happened. Floq anticipated that there might be possible dissent and so is making it a proposed close rather than simply implementing the closure ad hoc.--WaltCip (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not agree with your finding that proposal 4 has a consensus, but I recognize your decision to implement it in some form, and I have no substantive objections. WaltCip (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree that the discussion failed to meet the condition of the community giving the block due consideration while leaving the editor blocked. I understand why some feel that the community should explicitly ratify an indefinite block by passing a community ban proposal, and am sympathetic to this point of view. But for better or worse, the community has previously agreed on the current wording in the banning policy. There are practical reasons for this: it's hard to sustain interest in a discussion after a point, and so it's hard to get people to discuss a site ban after they've rejected unblocking an editor (lots of them feel they've already expressed their support for a site ban by not agreeing to unblock). isaacl (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment I also do not see a consensus for proposal 4 and agree that something closer to the standard offer (although available after 2 months rather than 6, starting with the date of the block not today) seems to closer match the tone of the comments. I do recognise I'm very involved though. Whether there is any formal restriction or not he's going to have to make some changes to his approach if he doesn't want a swift trip back here when he is unblocked. As to the section I started today, the aim was to convert the disorganised rambling opinions into specific things that either have consensus or do not, but at least so far it seems that there isn't significant interest in that. I'd say leave it open ~24 hours ish to see whether that changes - if it doesn't then I'm happy to write it off as a good idea in theory that didn't work in practice, at least on this occasion (possibly it just came to late; possibly it could never work, but if people want to discus this I'm happy to but here is probably not the best venue - pick somewhere and ping me). Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf and Floquenbeam: I think one of the main reasons behind my proposal is that this case is pretty much the textbook example for why we ordinarily do not allow third-party unblock appeals. They almost always end up being a complete mess that no one knows what to do with because the editor involved hadn't asked to have the community review it so they're in the exceptionally weird spot of having to explain themselves at a hearing they haven't requested and that was requested by someone other than the blocking admin.
    Also from a fairness perspective, we shouldn't really be CBANing anyone who didn't initiate either the discussion for review or the unblock proposal.
    I get Thryduulf's opposition to my proposal (and as usual on these sort of things, he makes excellent points), but I find it really difficult to stomach having a pocket CBAN of someone from a block that the admin in question said was an individual admin action, as a part of a review that the subject of the block didn't request, and when a positive proposal for a site ban is unlikely to pass (or may have not passed? I haven't been following the thread too closely and there is too much text to unpack). I think the thing that would be the most fair here would be to close it as "Not site banned, so an individual admin can unblock, but Legacypac is strongly encouraged to wait a few months before making an appeal, and it is not guaranteed to be granted if he does not address the concerns.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tl;dr I agree with Floq's proposal, but I'd add something from Thryduulf's comments about waiting a bit to make the appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that appeals should be filed by the affected party, so they can control its timing and content. But I also think the community should have the ability to review situations and take action. I don't see this situation as dealing with an appeal, but the community taking over the authority from the blocking administrator regarding the desired remedies to impose. The community should not be forestalled of its ability to impose a site ban just because an administrator issued an indefinite block during discussion. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with that, but if that is what someone wants to happen, they should propose that rather than just having it be as a pocket site ban (which is a part of the banning policy I ordinarily support.) From a policy perspective, we have a major issue if someone who isn't the blocking admin or the blocked editor can initiate a ban procedure that would fail if you changed what the header called it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • This case is a bit clouded in that it did not start as a review of an indefinite block, but of a finite one. This prevented the blocked editor from choosing when to request a review of the indefinite block while being aware of the consequences of its failure. So I'll agree the most equitable approach would be to keep the block within the scope of the blocking administrator, with the editor able to appeal (or not) at any time. isaacl (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think this can fairly be interpreted as a CBAN. An admin proposed we simply unblocked before the user had submitted a suitable unblock request, and it backfired. Railroading a blocked user with a CBAN in this situation is clearly not the intent of the policy. I opposed the unblock, but I was not supporting a CBAN, and I'd be opposed to my common sense view being hijacked and misrepresented to justify a CBAN that was never intended to begin with. Floq's close reflects common sense. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I think it's fairly clear that a community consensus endorsing a unilateral admin block is not equivalent to a community consensus for a block that is subsequently enacted by a single admin. Procedurally, it may look like we have come close to a site ban, but I don't actually think we have, so FWIW I endorse Floq's statement about the CBAN in his proposed closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. A discussion following an unblock that was not requested by the blocked party should not be interpreted as something that can lead to a CBAN. This smacks of being a possible way of enacting roundabout bans on any blocked party. Just have a third party propose a clearly premature unblock to recent, serious block, and let the resultant discussion not to unblock lead to a CBAN. Floquenbeam's proposed close seems eminently sensible to me. Meters (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Note - as I recall, none of the three inteterventions changes the counts I offered; they are all additional. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Floq's proposed close sounds very reasonable, and I commend him for having the bravery to take this on and for the thoughtful way in which he explained his approach. Leviv ich 01:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, Leviv is included in the four support-usual-process diffs I included above. The consensus for this still looks weaker to me than the Standard Offer consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• What Floquenbeam says. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Ditto. Abecedare (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse close and support Floq's summary and would suggest they close this thread as such. My interactions with Legacypac started when I closed one past AN thread warning them and another editor. Then Legacypac and I had an aggressive interaction on my talk page. And then I reviewed their effort at the AfC reviewer request desk, which I realized were exemplary, and basically reached out and made friends with them. So it's sad that this has come to this. But I can't think of how else this would have gone. Lourdes 03:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

100% WP:UNBLOCKABLE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You're saying this about an editor who is currently indefinitely blocked, and the outcome of this proposed close will leave him indefinitely blocked. In what way is this "unblockable"? Leviv ich 04:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant passage of unblockable is These users usually have a great deal of experience, 40,000 edits, and are often current or former administrators. They tend to work in one or more controversial topic areas, sometimes for many years. The simplest way to spot them is by their block log. They have usually been repeatedly blocked and rapidly unblocked, often for edit warring or incivility. The whole point of Floq's proposal, as I see it, is to make an unblock of Legacypac easier/less conditional than the Standard Offer would allow. Lourdes' endoesement here nicely follows some of the UNBLOCKABLE logic, which is why I chimed in. Newimpartial (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Community intent is relevant. While the de facto CBAN clause is important and I'm fully in support of it, the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:IAR, WP:5P5, and WP:COMMONSENSE, all deem it to flexible and treated with common sense. When you have a situation like this, where a third party hastily proposed an unblock without the blocked user's consent or ability to prepare a suitable unblock request, and where the indeffing administrator himself never even intended for it to be a non-unblockable situation, obviously it's not reasonable to invoke the auto-CBAN clause just because the community shot down the overly-hasty unblock proposal. If we were to adopt this kind of rigid enforcement, anyone could request an immediate unblock for any indeffed user who has not submitted a suitable unblock request, which would obviously be shot down, and then the user would be automatically CBANNED. Obviously that's not a reasonable scenario, and would result in easily-gamed, back door CBANS. There's no way we can ever enforce the auto-CBAN clause in these situations. And while I'm a big fan of Ritchie333, I think this is a lesson learned. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ok - I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it seems there's definitely consensus for something more than a short block -- not just for the most recent attack on BHG but for a long pattern of problematic behavior as documented above. I think the opposition to the "unblock" section above makes that pretty clear. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that opposition to an immediate unblock should be construed as consensus for a cban in a case like this. This really isn't heading towards a clean close, so I think floq's proposal, given clear caveats that should give pause to any admin inclined to unblock without taking this thread into consideration, is about as good as we're going to get. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Also mixed feelings, leaning to opposition. The upping of the block to indefinite in the course of this discussion did significantly muddy the waters, but it was early in the discussion and most of the discussion happened in the context of the indefinite block. It seems hard, therefore, for those who have opposed an unblock to argue that the indef turned their opposition into a CBAN by sleight of hand. No-one has directly proposed a CBAN, so there is no clear consensus against it. All of the proposals that would have avoided a CBAN have failed, therefore the correct close should be "no consensus to unblock" and a CBAN will be the result. IMO it's a CBAN that could be successfully appealed fairly soon (there is no time limit on when CBANs can be appealed). But if there is consensus for anything above, it is that an indefinite block is warranted and that consensus should be appealed to community consensus, not to an individual admin. GoldenRing (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As an example to support GoldenRing's point, I believe my first comment in this discussion occurred after the block had been upped to indefinite, and all the specific proposals (including Proposal 1) were made after the block became indefinite (01:52 27 April) so all the comments for and against them were made in that context. I beleive these are the only editors who commented before the indef but who have not commented since, but feel free to double check: @158.106.203.154, Davey2010, FlyingAce, Jusdafax, Natureium, Peacemaker67, Praxidicae, RoySmith, and Ymblanter: Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I do not have as much faith in administrators as much as GoldenRing does and this latest "proposal 4 has consensus, CBAN does not" rationale and their proponents shows why. It is completely wrong, this proposal is basically Tony's proposal version 2, which is ironic, considering the consensus it cites does not exist. I will not dignify it with a "factually inaccurate" or "subjective", I am going to say it how it is. I am dropping this stick, permanently. My best wishes to Legacypac to get collaborative and not put administrators in a position where they might (accidentally, ofc) have to block him. I have collapsed my "Enough is enough" section hoping that might lead him to assume good faith towards editors they have had conflicts with before (especially other editors, I am okay with being antagonized). That's all. -qedk (t 桜 c) 10:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am happy with Floq's intended close. More is needed from Legacypac for an unblock, and support indef with normal unblock provisions to apply. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is "let's try nothing again and see if it works this time" version I've-lost-count. I also fear that this is overly complicating a situation which is already overly complicated. I noticed this morning there is another proposal about a TBAN regarding Legacypac in an entirely different subject than what we've been discussing here, and numerous editors have commented throughout this discussion that they see Legacypac as a disruptive or obstructive element in a wide variety of unrelated topics. WP:NOTTHERAPY describes why we should not spend significant amounts of time wringing our hands over editors who have repeatedly demonstrated inability to work collaboratively, and I think this is where we're at with Legacypac. So, if all of the proposals for a path forward have failed, we don't need weeks-long discussions with multiple proposals and detailed lists of unblocking criteria and everything else that's happened here, we just say Legacypac is banned by the community and can appeal under the standard offer subject to community review, just like anyone else in this situation. If Legacypac constructs a sincere appeal which addresses the community's concerns, they'll be unblocked, just like anyone else. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 11:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

N.B.: "banned by the community" in this situation refers to the appeal method in the relevant policy, directing that appeals must be put to the community, not simply evaluated by any admin acting in their own capacity. Not intended to be a "more severe punishment" or whatever. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 11:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• As much as I would like LP unblocked there really isn't a consensus for it at present and so the only next best option is closing this and leaving an unblock open for the future (maybe in 6months-a years time, This has been dragged on for long enough and IMHO no good will come out of dragging it on for longer. –Davey2010^Talk 12:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also many thanks Thryduulf for the ping. –Davey2010^Talk 12:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever our mixed feelings, CBAN is meant to cut such knots, so we can put on hold and revisit later. And not place a heavy burden on the Admin that is almost certainly to just come-back here immediately anyway. It's clear basically everyone thinks LP needs a long , deep, and careful think. and needs to articulate among other things reassurance. Perhaps also LP can make community proposals on self-limits, paroles, etc they can live with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• My uninvolved, brief, and non-admin reading of the discussion is that this is the fairest close we are likely to get. I endorse it wholeheartedly. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hmm - in the sense that we have to decide something this might work, but it somewhat reads as "block while we prepare the longest bit of rope ever" - as a further action might be the only thing to force community consensus on LP. I'd want an IBAN as a stated requirement of the unblock, except there's disputes over even the form of that. @Floq: - can you clarify that this is specifically not required to have a 6 month wait before an (initial) new unblock request, as that would actually be a stauncher action than all the others we've failed to agree on! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support the proposed close; since LP didn't start this discussion, it is foolishness to the point of bizarrrrity to assume this can possibly result in a CBan. It cannot. All those desparate for LP's head: do so elsewhere. ——SerialNumber54129 12:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• I Support Floq in this matter. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC).
• Support I’m happy to go with the Floq. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Nod my head in agreement with Floq. ∯WBG^converse 10:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a fair outcome to this epic discussion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 6 May 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.

HuffPost article on WP COI editing

Thanks to JamesG5 I bumped into this HuffPost article of yesterday (or today depending on your timezone). It is dedicated to a particular COI editor on WP:

• Ashley Feinberg (14 March 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages. And it almost always works". Huffington Post.

Does it offer ideas for anything actionable? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Some of us would rather leave the article unread than sign on to some dystopian "Oath" promising to let Internet royalty access our device to get location data and who knows what else before reading. (See [64] for some context) Fortunately, Google pirates the Huffington Post article here to let us steal back our privacy, such as it is, for the moment. To summarize the allegation, it is against User:BC1278, whom they describe as "Ed Sussman, a former head of digital for Fast Company and Inc.com who’s now a paid Wikipedia editor at http://WhiteHatWiki.com/ ". It links Talk:Axios (website), Talk:Jonathan Swan, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive247, Talk:Sheryl Sandberg, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_539#Second_opinions, this diff of Caryn Marooney, Talk:Chuck Todd, Talk:Andrew Lack (executive), this diff of Talk:NBC News, Talk:Noah Oppenheim, User:Jytdog (who opposed him in a discussion) and diffs of a whole bunch of editors who he asked on their talk pages to "weigh in" on his behalf (I'm not sure I should ping them all because they are clearly just a random scoop of a larger set; nonetheless, diffs on their talk pages are linked from an article they may not read, so they were User:Only in death, User:Govindaharihari, User:Collect, User:Tfkalk; the Huffington post also displays but does not link User:G. C. Hood, User:DavidCary, User:Sceptre, User:Peter K Burian, User:DocWatson42, User:JSFarman, User:Visvajit. The article says nothing about how these editors responded except giving Tfkalk as an example of an editor who "sided with him" and was "burdened down with more requests" as a result. Admonition/complaint about this canvassing was diffed here and here and here. It notes that articles carry no warning (e.g. COI contributions) after he is finished having them altered. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the Huffo article says I didn't disclose my COI in my proposed edits, but if it does, or you were misled by the garbage allegations of most of the HuffPo article, let me state clearly that the Request Edit proposals I made had a paid editor COI disclosures as required by WP:COI. If you read this thread, you'd know that more than six weeks ago, User: Swarm, actually investigated all the claims in detail (instead of just repeating accusations), and found them to be false, including implied claims of canvassing. Other admins concurred. This part of the this ANI discussion was already summarized by an independent admin reviewer on the closure noticeboard: "...regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[65]. BC1278 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A month ago Swarm was trying to have me banned for undoing the censorship of a source on a talk page, then acted against consensus to block a user for a "death threat" against me that was actually a comment supporting me. [66] So I start with zero confidence in his competence in investigation or administration. Where you are concerned, WP:COI says that you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, yet on the first page of Caryn Marooney edits I see this edit to the article where you say "Adding new RS citations. COI editor. Citation are non-controversial. Can't update text because of COI.". I mean OK, you disclosed your COI, and didn't update the text, but the "bright line" here says nothing about it being fine to add new stuff to an article as long as it isn't "text". Does that mean you can add pictures and external links and infoboxes and figure legends??? There's one bright line you were supposed to follow, and you've blurred it into meaninglessness. I haven't investigated your edits in detail and as far as I know no one has. Wnt (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User: Wnt: It wasn't just Swarm. The consensus (of about eight admins) was summed up by the independent admin, as quoted by me above. As to adding citations, which is not part of the HuffPo article, you probably don't deal with the "Request Edit" queue (which is where most COI requests go) on a frequent basis, and I do. The editors who respond there have repeatedly instructed me over the years not to bother them with very small, uncontroversial edits, such as the addition of supporting citations. They get mad when I make such requests and tell me to do the work myself. I have to respect the wishes of the very, very small number of volunteers who actually do the Request Edit work on a day-to-day basis. To the extent their wishes and policies evolve, I will change what I do. As to whether people have looked at the HuffPo allegations -- there have been in-depth discussions here, on COIN, and and RSN of this article and its claims. Dozens of editors have looked at the claims over the past six weeks. Notifying all editors who previously participated in Talk discussions that there is a related RfC, for example, is not canvassing, but HuffPo doesn't make that distinction.BC1278 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since I was referenced above, I'd just quickly chime in with my two cents. If you look over my contributions on the Talk page, you'll see that sometimes I agreed with User:BC1278 and sometimes I did not (my quick review would indicate I more generally did not). I would not deem it a "burden" on me given that there seems to be two instances on my Talk page where he asked me to opine which seems like a relatively light load for someone who even signed up for FRS and is a member of the relevant WikiGroup. Frankly, I was happy to be asked to contribute. Finally, I can only speak to my experiences and in our interactions, he seemed to follow Wikipedia rules. He proposed a change on the Talk page (good!), acknowledged his COI (good!), and reached out a person who had volunteered to give feedback (good!). And thanks for mentioning that I was specifically referenced, I hadn't followed the links during my initial read so there's fun fact for parties. Cheers. Tfkalk (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

At no time and in no place have I sought to act in any manner whatsoever contrary to stated Wikipedia policies. Labeling a "bunch of editors" and saying, basically "but I am not tarring them" is, in fact, tarring them. Congratulations. Collect (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My response to the fully disclosed COI editor in the RfC was "The claim might be relevant to NBC News, as an organization, but not specifically relevant to every person in any position of authority at NBC". This position is in absolute and precise accord with WP policies and guidelines, as well as the essay on coat-racking. Is this quite clear? BLPs should not contain material not reasonably and directly connected to the subject of the BLP. Collect (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I was not alleging misconduct by any of the editors he asked for help. I hope it should be obvious to anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia to read AN that a paid editor will occasionally raise valid policy points with which any sensible editor will agree. Nonetheless, the paid editor's pattern of asking multiple editors for help is said by the article to constitute canvassing, and that is the grounds for various policy discussions here, so the people publicly reported to have been canvassed deserve to have a say, and should in any case know that they have appeared in this context in an article that most of the editors commenting in this section are reading -- hopefully without authorizing Oath to access their location information and other data (for how long I don't even know) Wnt (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• So long as he has disclosed and not directly edited pages, there's nothing we can do. If someone wants to change the policy to be stricter and prohibit it completely, I'll be the first to support, but I don't think we have that consensus yet (though I believe we eventually will. Also, note I'm talking about PR nonsense, not Wikipedians-in-residence, which is always a sticking point.)
  I'll add that articles like this make us look ridiculous and that our official begrudging acceptance of disclosed paid editing is even more of a threat than undisclosed paid editing because it ruins our reputation when major media outlets runs stories like this.
  Finally, I'll put my 2¢ in that admins and others should not let declated paid editors do what I refer to as TOU bludgeon: declaration is the minimum required to edit. It is not a free pass to spam. WP:NOTSPAM is still local policy and if someone openly declares themselves a spammer and the content matches, they should be indefinitely blocked without warning. Native advertising is very much a thing, and just because spam doesn't look like it did in 2005 when out policies were written, doesn't mean that our policies don't apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni I completely and passionately agree with your last paragraph. However, If a media organization wants to take issue with the calls we make on controversial topics they can and they will and we might not come out the otherside so great - they're tough areas for a reason. The fact that we have transparency means we can, if we want, revisit any of these editorial decisions. If there was no declaration those changes would be made and we wouldn't know or be any wiser and the community would have no option to re-evaluate the thinking. There are no good decisions for us to make here only least awful ones. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Which headline makes us look more like fools:

1. Wikipedia blocks hundreds of 'scam' sock puppet accounts
2. Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages And it almost always works

The first headline is about Orangemoody. The second one is about someone following our TOU and policies. Anyone who has ever worked a day in a marketing department can tell you which headline they'd prefer.

This is significant because we've fought for years to have our credibility accepted. I'm not saying that this is worse ethically than Orangemoody. Of course it isn't. I am saying that to the general public, this looks significantly worse. In Orangemoody, we were the heroes: fighting a bad guy scamming people out of their money. Here we are the bureaucrats that allow Big Tech to whitewash their own articles.

Regardless of what the actual impact is on individual articles, the perceived impact is worse from declared PR editing, and that in turn makes all of the featured articles on notable topics that are extremely well researched worth less to the reader.

I'm well aware that these are tough calls, but I'm saying that the community does need to consider perception here, and the perception from "white hat" editing on the outside is worse than some of our biggest sockfarms. I don't want an RfC on this now, but I do think it is something that is missing from community discussion on the topic, which is why I'm raising it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to detract from TonyBallioni's points, but just to answer one of the original questions of whether there is anything actionable, I didn't see such a thing. Problematic, sure. Actionable? Well, since the editor in question responds reasonably to comments, I don't see anything in particular right now. HuffPo also I feel is being a bit misleading. Regarding the Oppenheimer/Farrow thing, for instance, looking back, the section we had in his article was completely inappropriate for a BLP given what the sources actually stated. If what was previously written were verifiable, then those sources should have been added if the content was to stay like that. The wall-o-texts that HuffPo complains about don't seem big to me. And whether an article on a website needs to mention a criminal complaint against the founder is a completely ordinary coat rack discussion. Well, I guess CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think today's headline is worse for us than Wikipedia’s Top-Secret ‘Hired Guns’ Will Make You Matter (For a Price) and at least today we can decide if the changes really were policy compliant or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Damn, what's next? Soon they'll discover that I've been taking millions to edit Intel articles. THE JIG IS UP Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Millions?! I only get a few rubles! You need to hook me up. PackMecEng talk) 02:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bedoel je niet wij, goede dokter ;-). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, Tony, but that you are me (I?) is only a rumor on Reddit, and at any rate I AM NOT SHARING THE MILLIONS I GOT FROM INTEL FOR EDITING THAT ARTICLE WITH YOU. Damn I hope that that person who exposed me AS A PAID EDITOR FOR INTEL doesn't read this. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I once made a rather noncontroversial edit about compact fluorescent bulbs being more efficient than incandescent bulbs (this was before LED bulbs became affordable) and was accused of being "a paid shill for the Twisty Bulb Cartel". How did they guess? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Back on point, while I agree the headline isn't great for Wikipedia, making policy in response to headlines is a slippery slope that I, for one, don't want to embark upon. Of course HuffPo is going to write the most sensational headline they can coin out of a relatively scant set of facts. I'm not really convinced that there is a lot in the story we should be worried about, which just leaves the headline. If you're looking for headlines critical of Wikipedia handling of material, there are plenty out there and they really do affect our credibility with a big section of the population; we shouldn't make policy in response to those headlines, either. GoldenRing (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The headline itself is useless, but the rest of the text could possibly be of use for those who want to take a look at the mentioned articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, we are talking about BC1278--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And I think the question the HP asks in our language would be whether their actions are compatible with WP:CANVASSING.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. BC1278 here. Overwhelmingly, my Request Edits are made through a Request Edit flag. The format is usually very concise, as suggested by User: Spintendo, a frequent reviewer to the Request Edit queue: e.g. Talk:Pace_University#Request_Edit, Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edits. The "wall of text" complaint the author of the HuffPo column picked up on happened in an article about Noah Oppenheim during extended discussions about controversial issues with multiple RfCs. The consensus decisions ultimately reached by independent editors were not remotely like my original proposed edits, as the HuffPost author falsely implies. Instead, independent editors did their job and came to their own conclusions. One outcome of participating in a couple of these very contentious discussions was a chat last year with DGG, who advised me that he had learned over the years there's very little advantage in getting involved in debates after you've made your point once - you're not going to convince people to change their minds anyway. I have tried to adopt his style since. The HuffPost column is focused on a few high-profile media-related Wikipedia articles which involved public controversies (the author's beat), rather than how I conduct myself on Wikipedia in general. It's click bait. It is also rife with mistakes and misleading statements too numerous to explain here. I am going to ask for HuffPo for multiple corrections. For example, she ignores that I was the editor who suggested expanding into a robust paragraph, the few words mentioning the Matt Laeur firing on NBC News, despite the subject being very unflattering to them. But I wanted the NBC News article to be up to date anyway. The HuffPo author cherry picked one sentence she didn't like in my proposed edit, even though, as per a normal independent review, another editor chose to use entirely different language than anything I submitted (and I added words of encouragement, saying it was well done.) Talk:NBC_News#Expanded_info_on_Matt_Lauer Her example of alleged canvasing are notifications to editors who had already participated in extended discussions on Talk:Noah Oppenheim that more discussions were continuing in a new RfC. If she looked carefully, she would have seen that I notified (or tried to) all the recent editors, including those who opposed my proposals previously, such as User: Peter K Burian. This was my first RfC and to me, there appeared to already be consensus, when JytDog re-opened the question as a new RfC. I thought the previous editors discussing the same matter should be notified again. Today, having been through a few, I would have added all the notifications right on the RfC page, to be transparent, and let others double check I didn't mistakenly leave anyone out. Or, to be honest, I just wouldn't bother to notify anyone - at the time, I didn't know how RfC editors were even called upon.BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278

FYI, if you'd like to know what its like to field inquiries from prominent organizations, PR firms or individuals who think articles about them have problems, or want a new article, many balk when I tell them how I work - with full disclosure of COI as a paid editor and submitting all suggested edits for independent review. They don't want to take the risk of appearing in articles like the one by HuffPo. So I turn down their business, as my entire premise is that I do "white hat" work, only for those who want to follow the rules. Sometimes, a few months or a year down the road, I check to see if the articles of those who chose not to work with me nonetheless were edited or published as they wanted -- and it's usually the case they have been, but never with a public disclosure of COI or prior review. As the editing is anonymous, I can't be sure what happened, of course. I do know it will be more difficult to get subjects to publicly disclose because of this article, but it won't slow down the organizations/individuals from violating Wikipedia policy and making direct edits. Not in my experience. Only a much more radical change will solve the problem -- for example, the elimination of anonymous editing, with all user accounts requiring a LinkedIn profile. Then, COI and agenda editing will be more obvious. It would also go a long way toward solving the civility issues. But given the sanctity of anonymous editing on Wikipedia, I guess it isn't viable.BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Hi guy here who thinks you're right that UPE is worse. But do you understand why as a volunteer how your 700 words are troubling and could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing this conversation in contradiction of WP:PAYTALK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry/ I re-read it a bunch of times to try to cut it. But I'm responding to a major press article that made a slew of misleading and inaccurate statements about me, personally, and that now seems to be swaying discussion on Wikipedia policy itself. For four years, I've worked to convince organizations and PR firms to abide by COI disclosure rules because that's what Wikipedia has decreed is kosher Someone from the Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly stand up to this young media reporter who thinks UPE is more ethical than declared PE or declared COI editing. That's what this author is explicitly saying! I received calls and emails from major PR agencies all day -- if this is the new normal, they're going to direct business away from the "white hats." There are board meetings taking place next week to formalize this, affecting some of the largest corporations in the world. Unless something changes, the outcome will be a lot more business for "black hats."BC1278 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278

I don't agree with this. UPE is bad, and we obviously need to root it out when we can; but I feel that Wikipedia is large enough now that the damage it can do is ultimately containable. Declared paid editing, on the other hand, hurts Wikipedia's reputation by making it seem as though we don't care about the potential issues raised in articles like this one at all. And, more generally - "if you ban this, people will just evade and do it anyway" has not, I think, generally been a strong argument for anything. People get away with violating all sorts of policies. (I would also add, as I mentioned down below, that I feel that the nature of paid editing and the confusion over it allows paid editors to get away with clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that would get a normal editor in far more trouble, since people feel that that one-sided editing is "expected" from them. An undisclosed paid editor cannot devote the same intensity, passion, and time that you have brought to your work here, since it would attract attention, opposition, and, eventually, sanctions.) But more generally you're not wrong that everyone has POVs and that most tendentious editing goes unsanctioned - the really serious problem for disclosed paid editing is the damage it does to Wikipedia's reputation, which I feel is, today, a more serious problem than any other aspect of the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, yeah, it does. BC1278 is alleged to be a serial POV-pusher and professional whitewasher, who games the system to get his edits through with a combination of relentless bludgeoning and canvassing. That's extremely alarming and I was ready to crucify this guy. I was even pissed to see the lighthearted reactions above. But, when you actually examine the article, I'm not seeing any violations. In fact, I'm not really seeing anything of major concern. The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all. He "spent over a year lobbying" for the creation of Caryn Marooney? Come on, he created it as a draft and got it approved through the AfC process, not because he's some relentless lobbyist. Relentless bludgeoning, based on this? Really? He's literally just discussing something in the discussion section, because he was refraining from !voting. Obviously the writer has never witnessed true bludgeoning. Canvassing? The supposed incidents of "canvassing" are usually explained as simply being notifications to relevant users who are involved in some way, such as WikiProject members. I have not seen any refutations of that point. I mean, one of the warnings cited was literally for notifying the only other contributor to an article about a deletion discussion.[67] There's nothing even particularly unreasonable about that. Most of the supposed "whitewashing" seems to be mundane matters that don't harm articles at all, if not actual improvements, like making articles better comply with BLP. "It almost always works"? Uh, yeah, if you're in compliance with policies and are making reasonable requests that are being vetted by established editors who decide to approve them, then good for you, you're not terrible at what you do. It certainly isn't because the community has no problem with paid COI editors, on the contrary, they're among the most stigmatized editors within the community. This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage, and I actually feel bad for the paid editor here. I hope both the editor and the Foundation will push back in some way. If COIN wants to do an in-depth investigation of this editor, that's perhaps a reasonable reaction, but based solely on the allegations and supporting evidence presented in the article, which, I assume was the worst they could find, there's nothing actionable there. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm I have spent some time examining this user's editing. I think on the whole I agree with your analysis. But even in that rather long analysis above you're still about 55% as verbose as BC1278 is in his response here. I think given PAYTALK, which I value as a volunteer editor, he could learn how to be more concise. The problem with him at Oppenheim, as I see it, isn't with the RfC, it's with what came before. Similar verbose behavior can be seen at other of his pages. I compare that to this paid editor who accomplishes their work in a far more concise manner. But to emphasize I think that the HuffPo article, like much of the media commenting on Wikipedia practices, gets things wrong, and in this case does so with a clear agenda in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think that that's a misreading of the article, which is clearly written from the perspective that all paid editing is inherently problematic and that our policies allowing it are the core issue here. Obviously people here disagree on that, but it's not a reason to disregard the source - I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or questionable about positing that paid editing, even by someone who follows all our rules, might unbalance articles due to the disparate levels of energy and time devoted. (Although the article doesn't say this, I think it's also worth pointing out that the nature of Wikipedia has changed a lot since we originally decided to allow paid editing, generally in ways that make it more problematic - controversies over low-to-mid-tier articles are more likely to get hashed out on talk pages in general, say, which makes many of the restrictions we place on paid editors moot and calls into question whether the image problem they create for the project is worth what we get by having them declare themselves instead of inevitably just evading successive bans.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that there is a "money is bad" mentality that induces people into writing articles of debatable accuracy about paid editing on Wikipedia. In a way it's similar to the POV-pushing process. I agree that the "bludgeoning" there isn't, plenty of people write mildly detailed arguments. And if memory serves this would be far from the first time where a news article about Wikipedia has turned out to be partially or mostly wrong. Some caution is due before citing newspaper articles about Wikipedia as arguments for a policy change or on-wiki action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Swarm for taking time to go through the edit history and this way answering my original question.

As to COI editing, Jo-Jo Eumerus has put it right. We often distrust those who have vested financial interest in what most of us are doing for free, ergo, in our view, selflessly.

Hopefully, in the longer run, common sense will prevail. Maybe a day will come when for example we will allow company infoboxes to be edited by company staff, or person infoboxes by article subjects. Until we find an open and transparent way of managing COI, we will see articles like the HuffPost piece. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, Barkeep49, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Kashmiri, Ymblanter, GoldenRing, TonyBallioni, PackMecEng, Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and anyone I missed here: Given the subject of the Request Edit here Talk:Caryn_Marooney#section=1 and the already removed language from from NBC News (editors using this HuffPo article to include accusations of Wikipedia impropriety in the WP articles about the organizations mentioned), would it be possible for an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety such that it can be included in the Wikipedia mainspace articles about or related to the organizations highlighted in HuffPo? Or, whether the article is reliable in general? This is going to repeat over and over.BC1278 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's reasonably reliable for alleging (by which I mean "according to HuffPost" or whatever) paid editing impropriety, but will currently probably fail on WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTNEWS (and maybe WP:BLP, depending on use) aspects. I was thinking of Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Miscellaneous, but it seems a little weak on it's own. HuffPost is not Daily Mail, but it's not Washington Post either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BC1278: In response to your request for "an official consensus", I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN § HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles. — Newslinger talk 17:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:PAYTALK... 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• If you're implying that's an example of "bludgeoning", then no. In fact, based on the above, the user presents a perfectly reasonable case. If anyone is unclear on what "bludgeoning" looks like, check out the discussions I collapsed at Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 18. If you're really a glutton for punishment, keep scrolling past that. Eventually, you may reach the bottom of the page. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the part of those 572 words where he asserted AN consensus that HuffPo is not a reliable source? That's a misrepresentation at best, and the whole thing is a classic example of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions and proposals related to paid editing

• We should at least say "paid editors are not to directly edit articles"... Even info boxes maybe problematic as they try to exaggerate the number of employees ect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• This part concerns me:

Posts calling attention to Sussman’s lobbying of other editors rarely stay up for more than a week. According to his Talk page history, Sussman deletes criticism frequently and any record of it in his user logs often gets buried by his prolific posting and editing.

Should paid editors be restricted from deleting other editors' comments from their user talk page? Combing through a history like this is unnecessarily arduous, and the status quo hinders oversight from other editors by allowing important discussions to be obscured. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this incident going away anytime soon. A new discussion was started at ANI just today: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing?. What I find most offensive to those of us who edit for free, and worse, what may prove damaging to WP in the long term, are sites like this one and the claims they make while marketing their business. I don't know how long volunteers can be expected to keep working for free in order to make an article encyclopedic and compliant with our PAGs knowing it's for the benefit of paid editors. Think about that for a minute. Our own paid editing/COI PAGs lack common sense. So paid editor John Doe gets a nice check for $400 /- (probably a great deal more if worth their salt) to write/protect an article but unpaid editors are actually the ones writing the article for them. How is this not insanity? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's insane that Wikipedia's rules are that you cannot be paid to edit an article, you can only be paid to get unpaid volunteers to edit the article for you. Leviv ich 02:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I highly agree with User:Atsme and User:Levivich. Why should volunteers edit an article for someone getting paid wads, while us volunteers get paid nothing at all? While I understand that we've opted to keep some COI editing aboveboard instead of outlawing it and just driving paid editing underground, paid editing is still highly problematic. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't begrudge the way any person makes an honest living, and if a paid editor is complying with policy, they're doing nothing wrong in my book. The policies are kafkaesque, but that's the inevitable result of trying to police editors instead of edits. Leviv ich 04:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nor do I, Levivich, but it's wrong to do it at the expense of volunteers who are committed to building a free knowledge-based encyclopedia. The marketing material of companies like White Hat Wiki is an insult to everything WP represents. Phrases like "We Bullet-Proof Your Wikipedia Presence", and "Wikipedia is a byzantine labyrinth of policies, guidelines and internal politics" are far from flattering to the project and its volunteers. Paid editing changes the landscape and the very definition of knowledge-based encyclopedia and converts it to a Whose Who in business. Catch phrases like "We use sophisticated strategies and our knowledge of the complex rules to get results is an insult - "get results"?? And what results might that be? When a company is notable enough to be included in WP, a volunteer (typically patrons or fans) will eventually write the article. To do otherwise weakens the very foundation WP is built on. I can't help but wonder how much money paid editing actually diverts away from Jimbo's fund drives and the much needed contributions that keep this project alive. Why should companies contribute to WMF when they're paying an independent company to write/oversee their articles? I truly believe this is something WMF needs to carefully reconsider, but I'm only one voice. Perhaps the time has come for WMF to pay its own select group of qualified editors to work exclusively on business/corporate articles, and keep that money going to the project instead of independent companies, unless the goal is to grow, support and protect the cottage industries that are sprouting up around us. I shudder to think all the time and energy that is being devoted to COI by editors like Doc James and the volunteers he's worked with is for naught, or worse, driving COI editors to become/work with independent companies at the expense of other WP volunteers. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• This "Should paid editors be restricted from deleting other editors' comments from their user talk page?" by User:Newslinger is an excellent suggestion. They can use automated archiving but Talk pages are here to improve Wikipedia so they do not belong to any single editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If I were making the rules here, I'd require all new corporate articles to be moved immediately to draft space and EC-protect the creation of each title in main space, forcing each new corporate article to go through review. If the paid editor has to wait for it, that isn't our problem. If disclosed paid editors complain, that also isn't our problem. I would also EC-protect any approved/established corporate article in main space, to force the PR folks to request changes on the talk page. These rule changes wouldn't have any effect on long-term paid editors with a long contribution history, but this would likely eliminate a lot of the undisclosed paid crap. I mean, we have these tools already, let's stop whining about the situation and use them. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• How come this guy hasn't been blocked indef? It is most detestable and infuriating to have the fruits of our volunteer labor ripped by these paid editors walking away with swathes of cash. Another second that these parasites are accomodated here is an insult to us all. Concur with talk page post removal restrictions at the very least. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  Because he hasn't broken any policies? We cannot and will not simply block someone because you don't like what they do. This was not a ban discussion, by the way; it's a discussion about a HuffPo article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  Is that actually true? I'm aware of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, but WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS still apply. It seems to me that paid editors are in constant danger of falling afoul of those policies, since if their services go even a hair beyond "generally improve Wikipedia on this topic", they are not here to make neutral edits or simply to build an encyclopedia - they are here to represent the POV they've been paid to represent. As far as I'm aware, the tension between what Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure allows and what WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS disallow has never been properly resolved. But WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS are absolutely policies; a paid editor is subject to them just as thoroughly as anyone else. I feel this article makes a reasonable argument for tendentious editing in particular. If what an editor is doing is WP:POV or WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, then clearly it's a concern (and I feel that some editors have allowed "paid editing is allowed, under certain circumstances" to blind them to that fact.) EDIT: On reflection, I think that most paid editing is also a violation of WP:NOTHERE, especially the point forbidding editors from edits that are trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia. An editor trying to maintain the favor of their employer is the purest representation of that sort of WP:NOTHERE behavior imaginable. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, most people interpret Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure as allowing paid editing; at least, it has never been formally banned (though I think many parts of WP:NPOV, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:NOTHERE make it dubious in most practical cases, including this one.) Either way, I feel that a lot of people underestimate the harm that that does to the project, but that's how things are at the moment. If you want to help, one thing to do is to start pushing more firmly for an unambiguous ban on paid editing; but absent that, you can also spend time reviewing past work by paid editors and challenging things that seem questionable. It might also be worth considering a Wikiproject devoted to reviewing suggestions by paid editors with a critical eye and generally weighing in on related discussions in order to provide a counterbalance to the amount of time and effort that a paid editor can devote to pushing the particular POV they've been paid to represent. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Random thought bubbles - would general sanctions work for some subset of articles prone to paid editing (say the highest risk topics: advertising, marketing and public relations or leveraged financial products targeted at retail investors)? Can we repurpose existing DS regimes to the same effect (WP:ARBIPA, WP:ARBCAM in particular)? The quality of cryptocurrency articles has improved since WP:GS/Crypto was put into place, but sometimes I feel tired keeping up with the influx of SPAs. MER-C 21:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  MER-C I agree that Crypto has improved since GS. However, I don't know that advertising, marketing, and public relations are the topics most likely to have UPE and so I don't know that we could define this in a way that would make GS possible in this area given the broad scope of topics which potentially have UPE as it encompasses biographies, companies, and products. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  Advertising is high risk because that's what spammers do. If they get the idea that we tolerate them creating articles about themselves and their companies, then it is not a stretch that they think we tolerate them creating articles about their clients. I also forgot we have WP:NEWBLPBAN for biographies. MER-C 09:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like BC1278 removed the notice of this discussion and the notice of the prior conflict of interest noticeboard discussion (archived at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 141 § Jytdog's efforts against paid editing covered in Media) from their user talk page on March 29. You can see the removal at Special:Diff/890053760.

Since there has been some interest in the suggestion to restrict paid editors from deleting other editors' comments from their user talk page, I think an RfC to include new guidance at Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings (WP:BLANKING) may be warranted. For the RfC, the proposed addition could be a new bullet point at WP:BLANKING that states the following "important matter" may not be removed by the user:

For editors making paid contributions, any comments and templates (from other editors) related to their edits on a topic in which they have a conflict of interest. Examples include deletion notices, Articles for Creation notices, noticeboard discussion notices, and comments on the editor's paid contributions.

Alternatively, here's a stricter option:

For editors making paid contributions, any comments and templates from other editors, with the exception of obvious vandalism.

Would this be helpful, and can this be improved? I'd like to hear your thoughts and suggestions. — Newslinger talk 06:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this would help with anything. Feels like we are hunting for solutions to non-existent problems, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Agenda editors, who use Wikipedia to smear the subjects of articles (this happens all the time, including from competitors, oppo research firms, disgruntled former employees and foreign governments - it's just not something Wikipedia can easily identity), also like to use User Talk pages to discredit those opposing them. So do overly zealous editors who use User Talk to attack paid editors or their positions, instead of confining their discussions to Article Talk or noticeboards. Two contributors to my User Talk now have indefinite blocks. One of these two verbally attacked me both on User Talk and offline. The HuffPo article's allegations have been discredited. I consider the allegations potentially libelous. Talk served its primary purpose by notifying me of the ongoing discussions. Why should I offer further credence to a discredited article by linking to discussions about it from my own User Talk? BC1278 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

what I read in the Huffpost article was that there is a paid editor who knows the system of Wikipedia and its rules very well, and sometimes causes disruption in the pursuance of their business goals. What I see here is:

• this large ANI thread,
• a huge wall of text at the Caryn Marooney talk page, and
• a new thread over at Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

That's a lot of gaslighting as far as I am concerned, and to me it confirms the techniques claimed in the HuffPo article. So the HuffPo article is by no means discredited-- unless you also think that the border wall is getting built too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what the word gaslighting means or did you just use it as a synonym for "thing I don't like"? 199.247.43.170 (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If the community has reached a point where we no longer want paid editing of any kind and are willing to tolerate the drawbacks of making all paid editing UPE then let's do that. However, I don't think we should be imposing new restrictions of this sweep on declared paid editors. Frankly I would rather come up with some better incentives to motivate people to declare their paid editing. However, I haven't figured out what those incentives might be and acknowledge that what's good for the project might be to just ban all paid editing (though I'm personally not quite there yet). But I am confident that the "middle ground" isn't to stigmatize people following the rules further in ways we don't other editors especially those with strong but unpaid COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think that this would at least be an improvement. If we're going to allow paid editing at all, it's important to allow editors to know when they're interacting with a paid editor, and to know the general scope and history of that paid editing (ie. understanding that the editor they're trying to convince is unlikely to change their mind on a topic because their paycheck depends on maintaining a particular point of view.) Other notices exist, but preserving talk page discussions would be useful for this purpose. It would also make it harder for a paid editor to conceal a history of WP:POV or WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is something they're obviously at a higher risk for. Regarding some of the concerns above about other sources of POV existing, or about whether declared paid editors may simply choose to violate the rules and edit covertly if we make things too burdensome for them - this is clearly a risk, but I feel that declared paid editing poses a particular problem for the project's reputation. An editor with a personal POV can still be reasonably convinced; an editor who is being paid to push a particular POV or to make particular edits realistically cannot (at best, they can be convinced that their edits are unlikely to stick, and even then they have incentives to maintain pressure long past the point where anyone else would have compromised or gone elsewhere.) For these reasons, it's important to be harsher with them and to generally make every effort to ensure, as much as possible, that they're refraining from tendentious editing, and to make it harder for them to conceal it if it exists. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• This DPE is wasting a lot of community time (cf the list of discussions two comments up), and as far as I can see it is all in pursuance of improving his business. The current model wherein a group of volunteers fulfills the desires of paid editor is, well, fundamentally flawed. I'm certainly not here to do corporate volunteer service. Additionally, I can't see how the quality of the encyclopedia is going to be that much poorer if paid editing is blocked on all counts (with an exception for Wikipedians in residence). For one, with a no paid editing policy, we will know that the primary intention of all editors is to edit with a neutral view and without COI. And in turn, we will know that the encyclopedia is primarily constructed on a non-commercial basis. Just a thought.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, we wouldn't know for certain, but I broadly agree. I feel like some of the people depending paid editing above don't realize how bad this looks from an external perspective (especially the somewhat befuddling argument that this breaks no rules - I think the article is clear on that; the point is that the fact that it breaks no rules makes the entire encyclopedia look bad.) It is probably true, as some people have worried, that if we banned all paid editing, people would just do it undisclosed. But I feel that the harm to Wikipedia's reputation from intentionally allowing such paid editing is worse than the damage we'd suffer from people doing it subtly, especially since at the end of the day really controversial stuff goes through talk pages anyway and often comes down to things like knowing the rules and sheer stamina to carry on a protracted dispute - not stuff that our restrictions on paid editing actually do anything to mitigate. Maybe a decade ago, when someone could have swept in and quietly rewritten a medium-profile article with nobody noticing, the danger of undisclosed paid editing was higher and just keeping paid editors off of article-space was helpful. But right now I don't feel it's helping at all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Prohibiting all paid editing is likely to have unintended consequences. At one time the US reasoned "drinking is bad. It ruins lives. We should make drinking illegal." Guess how well that worked out?[68][69] The approach found at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations is far superior to any blanket prohibition. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have a thought and I'm not sure if it is any good, but I'll share it anyway. A concern that is raised in some of the recent media is that some paid editors do not declare their status. One way to possibly respond to this is to require every single editor to declare whether they are a paid editor on their user page. This would at least require covert paid editors to lie. Of course some of them are probably liars who will just lie. But I suspect that not every covert paid editor would feel comfortable lying like this, and so such a policy might serve as a modest deterrent to at least some covert paid editing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Firstly this is completely unenforceable - not only are new users created all the time, but only a minority actively edit (only 139,000 of the 36,000,000 registered users have contributed in the past 30 days according to Wikipedia:Wikipedians). Secondly, being required to answer a question like this (which they don't fully understand - even experienced editors disagree on what exactly constitutes paid editing in all circumstances) will put off a significant number of innocent new contributors while almost all of those who this is policy is designed to target will just lie. Finally, we need to be really careful to avoid McCarthyism with regards to paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't get the worry about McCarthyism. McCarthy was forcing people to reveal private facts about themselves; whether you are a paid editor is not supposed to be private by current policy. So I don't see the analogy. Your point about the definition of paid editing is well taken. But perhaps the question could be asked in a way that is clear and targets the clearest kind of paid editing, without worrying about the more controversial cases. I think you are probably overestimating the number of liars out there, but hard to be sure. Finally, I can think of a number of ways to enforce this. Rather than asking the question at sign-up, it could be asked at the point of editing. Or at the point of editing sensitive articles that are likely to attract paid editors. Or...there are lots of possibilities. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• To me the real question with this article is whether paid editors should be allowed to do door-to-door salesmanship. As a community we said they can't edit articles directly but they can edit "talk pages". But does that really mean user talk pages for the purpose of getting someone to transcribe text? Sooner or later somebody's going to buy the vacuum cleaner. I haven't yet looked into this case enough to make out whether this was a pattern of abuse in this case, though I just pinged all the users listed in the article as having been canvassed so they could shed some light on it. But just conceptually it's easy to suppose that if someone can make money by running around asking Wikipedia editors to take his proposed text and put it in an article, we're going to get more and more spam like this on our talk pages. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Prohibition on all paid editing

The comments above show some interest in prohibiting all paid editing (declared or undeclared), with the exception of edits from Wikipedians in Residence (WiR). The procedure to enact this is described in WP:PAID § Changing this policy:

An alternative policy can revoke the disclosure provision of the terms of use as it applies to the English Wikipedia and replace it with a new policy, which may be stronger or weaker. A proposed alternative policy must be clearly identified in a Request for Comment (RfC) as revoking the WMF policy. Upon approval, the new policy must be listed on the alternative-disclosure policy page. The RfC must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies.

A former disambiguation page for Wikipedia:Paid editing lists three failed proposals for paid editing policies and guidelines from 2007 to 2011. Our current policy, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, was created in 2015 for consistency with the prohibition of undisclosed paid editing in the WMF's terms of use in 2014. I found only one previous RfC on paid editing (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing), which took place in 2009 and resulted in no consensus. It has been almost 10 years since that RfC, and many editors have accumulated enough experience dealing with disclosed paid edits to determine whether they are a net positive/negative to Wikipedia.

I think it's time to re-evaluate community consensus on whether disclosed paid contributions (excluding WiR) should continue to be allowed in Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on this? — Newslinger talk 23:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Late clarification: Since the scope of the exceptions is unclear, I cite Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Wikipedians in residence, reward board, which describes the "forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable". Edits meeting these criteria should be excluded from the proposal. — Newslinger talk 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note the lack of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product that being solely UPE product is even a reason for deletion.

Also, oppose exclusion of Wikipedian in Residence. Why should Wikipedians in Residence not declare? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, the proposal continues to allow declared edits from Wikipedians in Residence (i.e. WiR would not be affected by the prohibition). WiR would continue to declare their status. — Newslinger talk 00:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think all paid contributions should be prohibited unless declared. Includes WiR, includes WMF. Simple, no exceptions. I think all COI contributions to mainspace should be prohibited, they must use the talk page, or AfC for new pages. However, undeclared UPE and undeclared COI can only be “suspected”. So how can this prohibition have teeth? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid contributions are already prohibited in WP:PAID and the Terms of Use. Despite our current policies, Wikipedia already deals with undisclosed paid editing on an ongoing basis, and this activity is discussed and handled on the conflict of interest noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 00:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s a toothless prohibition. UPE product is rife, COIN only sees a subset of the inept. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Disclosed paid contributions? Do we have evidence that honestly declared paid editors have produced such bad product that “prohibition” is required? I think it is an overreaction as likely to succeed as was US Prohibition of alcohol. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, without a doubt. Just peruse the archives at COIN. John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The archives of COIN will be massively biased to problem cases. Why would non-issues be in the archives? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Condoning paid contributions (even if disclosed) reflects poorly on Wikipedia's credibility, as it tells readers that Wikipedia's neutrality is up for sale. There is no financial incentive for a company to hire paid editors to make neutral contributions. In fact, it would be irrational (and in publicly traded companies, a violation of fiduciary duty to shareholders) for a company to hire paid editors, and then instruct them to not portray the company in as favorable of a light as possible. The interests of most companies are not aligned with Wikipedia's goals to provide readers with neutral, trustworthy content. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetically, what if it was something more crowdsourced like (for example) a Patreon page? I could see that working in a small handful of cases, one of which is my own (See my signature). Not that I intend to: Frankly, the benefits I get from image editing helping with my anxiety disorder are immense. But it does seem like it should be an acceptable case. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 05:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting case. Since Wikimedia Commons is not subject to the rules of the English Wikipedia, this proposal would not affect contributions related to most freely licensed images. (As you already know, all featured pictures are required to be freely licensed.) On the other hand, paid edits related to non-free images would be prohibited by the proposal. If there's a benefit to allowing paid edits to non-free images, we can carve out the File namespace as an exception. — Newslinger talk 05:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: There is the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} exception - freely licensed in the US, not its home country is welcome here, but not commons. It'd also likely include a certain amount of edits to add the files into articles. Anyway, it's more hypothetical than reality, but thinking through the kind of exceptions we'd want helps make good policy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've added "most" to my previous comment to fix the inaccuracy. Since the File namespace isn't nearly as vulnerable to neutrality issues as article space, it would probably be okay to make an exception here. — Newslinger talk 06:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As has been noted, no; the alternative to kosher paid editing is a lot more undisclosed paid editing. This is an extremely counter-productive idea. There is always going to be paid editing; giving them a proper way to do it is a mitigating factor, not an enabling one. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

199.247.43.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is registered to Symantec Corporation. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I'm bored and editing from work, call the FBI dude. WP:AGF 199.247.43.170 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "a lot more" is a reasonable estimation, and paid editing is hardly "kosher" when it carries neutrality concerns. Prohibiting disclosed paid edits would cause some of the current paid editors to cease their operations. The remainder would turn into undeclared paid editors, and are subject to blocks/bans when their editing patterns are identified. When evaluating this proposal, we're weighing whether it is better to have a larger volume of disclosed paid edits or a smaller volume of undisclosed paid edits. — Newslinger talk 06:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The correct venue for this proposal is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). MarnetteD|Talk 06:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I can move this discussion to WP:VPP if it would be more appropriate there. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• You should re-start this discussion, as a straightforward proposal, with an RfC, and advertised at WP:CENT. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, this looks like the best course of action. — Newslinger talk 06:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what specific wording you consider "reasonable", the fact is the result would be more, not less. By "kosher" I just meant in line with the rules; obviously paid editing will always be controversial at best. "Prohibiting disclosed paid edits would cause some of the current paid editors to cease their operations" sure, publicly, only to quietly resume under new accounts. There is literally no reason for them not to. After all undisclosed paid editing isn't illegal, it's just against the rules, and switching IPs is trivial. "we're weighing whether it is better to have a larger volume of disclosed paid edits or a smaller volume of undisclosed paid edits." Well then you're "weighing" a fallacy because the more disclosed paid editing we have the less undisclosed paid editing we'll have. This is plain common sense. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying the wording: There is a certain number of disclosed paid editors. If disclosed paid editing were prohibited, some of them would cease to operate, and some of them would resume editing as undisclosed paid editors. The resulting number of new UPEs would be smaller than the current number of DPEs, as the UPEs are subject to blocks/bans when discovered. Under our current policies, paid editors already have the option to operate undisclosed (in violation of the policies), but DPEs choose to disclose because they believe that they would be more successful this way. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do you presume that any significant number of paid editors would just cease to operate under such a hypothetical? Because they're such nice fellas? These aren't common school-library vandals we're talking about. They're making cash money doing this. Nobody quits a job just because someone politely asks them to please stop. If anything the number of paid editing REQUESTS might decrease as companies wouldn't want to be associated with vandalism. But the paid editors will be there as long as wikipedia can be edited by anyone and as long as humans use currency to trade. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If declared paid editing were prohibited by policy, all paid editing would become undeclared and forbidden by the WMF's Terms of Use. Any public relations firm that continues to offer paid editing services would become vulnerable to legal action from the WMF. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In a bit of unintentional comedy, that link is blank. In any case, I'm not a legal scholar, but my understanding is that lawsuits based on internet terms of service violations tend not to do very well in the courts. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. As other editors have asked me to move the discussion elsewhere, I'll stop commenting here. You're welcome to discuss this with me on my talk page. — Newslinger talk 07:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've lost interest so I won't, but I appreciate the discussion that was had. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. — Newslinger talk 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• It seems rather straightforward that banning all paid editing in response to a negative media report would be a knee-jerk, reactionary, ill-considered move. Disclosed paid editors are not permitted because we want paid editing, they're permitted because this is one of the biggest websites in the world, and is the primary source of information for a significant portion of global society, and "anyone can edit" it. So, biased and paid editors are going to exist, because there are always going to be influential people and PR departments who can just pay someone to edit to improve the way they or their company is portrayed. So we can choose whether to regulate it and to keep its impact manageable, screening out POV-pushing and actual justifiable improvements, or we can choose to prohibit it, which will not actually remove any of the paid editing, it will just drive it underground and remain undetected. The former scenario isn't perfect, but is the latter really a superior result for the integrity of the project? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, why are we discussing this on WP:AN - which is not a venue for proposing policy changes - and on top of that in reply to a news media report that appears to be demonstrably untrue in many aspects? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I posted this discussion here because it's related to the previous discussion, but I understand that it has gone outside the scope of this noticeboard. If I comment further, it will be on WP:VPP. — Newslinger talk 08:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I strenuously disagree with this logic. Vandals will continue to come no matter what we do; WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing (of which paid editing is, I think, axiomatically a subset) will always be a thing. But we maintain rules against them and ban them just the same. I don't see why paid editors should be treated any differently. We might not catch all of them, but we would catch some of them - and the simple fact that we ban them would serve an important purpose in upholding Wikipedia's reputation. And, of course, given the blowback when a paid editor is discovered and has attention called to them (both to Wikipedia and to whoever employed them), people already have an incentive to engage in secretive paid editing, which we have mostly managed to endure. More generally, I feel that the damage to Wikipedia's reputation by allowing paid editing vastly exceeds any damage that undisclosed paid editors might do before they're caught and banned. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your comparison of policy-compliant paid editing to vandalism is one of the most ridiculously-unhinged arguments I've ever heard. It cannot even be fairly debated because it is so ungrounded from reality. I cannot even take such an argument seriously enough to refute it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

While I'd like to see commercial editing banned, it is almost impossible to enforce. For discussion purposes, it may help to think about what the spammers want to spam as that is readily observable and regulate editing in those topic areas instead. Therefore, general sanctions along the lines of the following might mitigate the problem and increase the cost for spammers:

• Editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from creating articles about:
  • Privately held companies founded after (say) 2000 and their products and services;
  • Businesspeople whose interests are substantially involved with the above;
  • Digital marketing and adtech, broadly construed;
  • Speculative financial instruments targeted at retail investors, broadly construed;
  • Blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed (amendment to WP:GS/Crypto).

For the avoidance of doubt: moving a draft into mainspace counts as creating an article, but having an extended-confirmed user perform the move does not.

• Standard general sanctions are authorized for all pages related to:
  • speculative financial instruments targeted at retail investors (broadly construed);
  • digital marketing and adtech (broadly construed).

• Use WP:NEWBLPBAN against suspected paid spammers creating spam pages about living people and WP:ARBIND when appropriate.

Why these topic areas? The first two cover the generic startup spam I see so often at NPP. Digital marketing, because that's what spammers do by spamming Wikipedia. The last two cover areas where corporate spam has the potential to cause harm in the real world and have substantial problematic editing (retail forex, binary options) in the past. I do occasionally see articles created about businesspeople as a result of editathons but the percentage of articles about startups worth keeping is rather small. This isn't a formal proposal, but something for discussion purposes. MER-C 08:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• • I think this proposal by MER-C is very sensible, and far more likely to actually work than other ideas. I would like to see added, although not critical, a change to the onus for finding minimum suitable sources, and putting the onus directly onto the author to add WP:THREE sources. If that is not done, and especially if it is instead WP:Reference bombed by low quality sources, it can be deleted at AfD without AfD reviewers having to do a systematic review of the listed sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Per Swarm and others this proposal is not capable of producing a result that will benefit the encyclopaedia. In addition to the points raised by others, not all paid editors cause problems - not even all undisclosed paid editors actually cause problems (if an editor writes good quality, sourced neutral prose about a notable topic, nobody spends any time looking to see if they are paid or not), not all editors with a conflict of interest are paid (far from it) and not everybody with a conflict of interest causes problems (see any example of such editors contributing constructively on talk pages). Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The subjects of articles will send in requests for corrections by any means the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia provides. It's Wikipedia that has currently mandated these requests be posted at "Talk" and presented and discussed in a manner that conforms with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia can switch over to handling complaints or requested corrections by private email, by a ticketing system, by phone or by snail mail, if it wants. Paid editing of Wikipedia articles has already been banned under the Wikimedia Foundation ToU. The fact that the term "paid editing" is also used to describe posting a requested correction to Talk (the complaint system set up by Wikipedia itself) is completely confusing to the general public and to Wikipedia volunteers. "Paid editing" should only refer to actually editing Wikipedia articles - and it's already banned. Wikipedia needs a new term like "Article Subject Requests" for handling requests by the subjects of articles. The people who post these requests should be referred to as "Article Subject Representatives" or something like that. Once you're clearly established a differentiation like this, then you can go hog wild against "paid editing" since it will clearly refer only to behavior that's banned. But as a publisher, Wikipedia has an ethical and legal responsibilities to address complaints/corrections by Article Subjects - especially since its editors are anonymous and can publish without prior review. BC1278 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I would support MER-C's proposal as helpful. But I think BC1278 has hit on a point not yet discussed - by calling what Paid Editors do paid editing we're shooting ourselves in the foot. There has been no expose that I'm aware of about Wikipedians in Residence, including by college papers who would focus on college activities, despite that being a form of permissible paid editing. Why? We don't call it paid editing. For the editors who are concerned, fairly, about the reputational harm of media coverage about existing policies calling it something else could help to mitigate that reputational damage. Subject Sponsored Requests proposed by Subject Sponsored Representatives or some other such nonesense could be helpful here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@BC1278: Are you sure about Paid editing of Wikipedia articles has already been banned under the Wikimedia Foundation ToU? My understanding is that "Paid contributions without disclosure" is prohibited, but not necessarily all paid editing. There's a whole category of editors who have declared they are paid editors. Not trying to nitpick, but I think it's important to be clear on this. A "paid editor" is essentially subject to the same guidelines as a COI editor, but neither of the two is expressly prohibited from editing articles they may have a connection to, and a "paid editor" can edit an article as long as they do so in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use are further modified by policies of the specific projects. Wikipedia is one such project. Although WP: PAID and WP: COI only say direct editing of articles is "very strongly discouraged", in practice, that's just to allow for a very narrow set of exceptions, like the removal of libel in a BLP; removing vandalism; fixing citations. Anyone who is a declared COI editor and operates by directly editing is very quickly rebuked and reversed. I don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of declaring themselves as "paid" or "COI" on Talk, then doing widespread direct editing anyway. The typical scenario is the use of Talk as the Contact Us channel for the subjects of articles, following | Contact Us/Article Subjects. If "declared paid editing" or "declared COI editing" is "banned", should Wikipedia stop providing a Contact Us mechanism (Talk) for the subjects of articles to request corrections? It's the same thing just with a different label.BC1278 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I feel that the people defending paid editing severely underestimate how badly it hurts Wikipedia's reputation to allow it. Even when their contributions are "good" according to our policy, the inherently WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of paid editing results in one-sided pressure that pushes articles towards a particular POV; and people outside of Wikipedia understand this. We can deal with tendentious editors and undisclosed paid editors (we do so constantly.) But the statement that we allow paid editing is harmful to the encyclopedia, and I don't feel that any of the proposed "benefits" we get from allowing it (ie. encouraging paid editors to "be good" in whatever abstract way your mean) are solid enough to justify that harm. More to the point, if an undisclosed paid editor is generally good, and doesn't screw up, and never attracts attention - so what? That's not going to cause problems. But it's important for us to be able to easily ban ones who are so WP:TENDENTIOUS in pushing their paid POV that they get caught, and I feel that allowing disclosed paid editing paradoxically makes this harder because the fact that paid editors are tendentious by definition means that allowing it gives people the impression that that behavior is allowed on their part; and, more importantly, it's important for us to establish in a general sense that Wikipedia will do what it can to prevent a company from just hiring a bunch of people to push our articles in a particular direction, or to push back against that activity and limit its impact when it occurs. Doing so is necessary for us to maintain Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a lot of coverage out there to suggest that Wiki's rep has been significantly harmed by the existence of DPE? Because if the assertion is based on one article, and particularly this one article, then it's a weak one. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Among reliable sources, here, here. There's a lot more coverage from more sensationalist media - but, again, we're not writing an article about this (yet, although perhaps we should), we're discussing Wikipedia's reputation. Regardless of how you think about it, this article has had an impact on our reputation, and there will always be other such articles pulling at that thread; and it's an easy thing to fix, since we gain so little from paid editors in the first place and they already, inherently, go against many of our policies (again, virtually all paid editing is by definition WP:TENDENTIOUS.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that we need to discuss what things would be acceptable, and what aren't. Because if some historical society pays someone to make articles on a narrow field of interest to them, say, the history of some small city, which are intended to be neutral, and are encyclopedic, that's effectively a Wikipedian in Residence. The use of a program shouldn't be the guide here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 18:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Another possibility, which I mentioned indirectly above, is to make it completely clear that WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTHERE apply to paid editors, and that declaring yourself as a paid editor in no way loosens their restrictions (I feel a core problem is that many people have implicitly allowed it to do so.) In particular, the vast majority of paid editors are by definition tendentious, in that they are here to represent the point of view of their employer. That said, I favor a hard ban on all paid editing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This is simple. We cannot allow paid editors to add text content to our encyclopaedia either in mainspace or in draft space because that content is deceptive advertising, illegal under United States law, which is the law that governs Wikipedia. It makes absolutely no difference whether the content looks like an advertisement (any more than it matters if a murder looks like a murder); content created for pay to promote a person or entity is advertisement, advertisement is content created to promote a person or entity. It is just possible to imagine an editor being paid to create an attack page – has that ever happened? Equally, we cannot accept paid-editor edit requests of the "I've got a 5000-word advertisement in my sandbox, would you kindly publish it for me" type. Finding ways to deal with UPE may be a lot of work (MER-C's suggestions look like a good starting point), but would they really be more work than this kind of thing? Even if we can't agree to ban all paid editing, let's at least try to agree to ban it from articles and drafts. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: content created for pay to promote a person or entity is advertisement, advertisement is content created to promote a person or entity The problem is that not all content created for pay is (intended to be) promotional, and not all content that is (intended to be) promotional is created for pay. The problem is promoitonal content, not whether the editor who created that content was or was not paid to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm with you on your second point, not all promo is paid promo – we are bedevilled by every kind of COI editing. But what we are talking about here is the paid kind. I can't imagine why anybody would pay to have content added if it was not to promote a person or entity? Could I get paid to drink beer? Yes, probably – but I'd have to be promoting something while I did it. The problem is the paid aspect, because (quoting from WP:Deceptive advertising): "The [FTC] has long held the view that advertising and promotional messages that are not identifiable as advertising to consumers are deceptive if they mislead consumers into believing they are independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself". We can't host that deceptive content, because it is illegal to do so. If it doesn't immediately appear to be promotional, it is worse, not better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Philanthropists, GLAMs, organisations with a charitable budget, etc are all examples of people/organisations who would pay for neutral content. However even if you are correct that everybody is out to harm the encyclopaedia through insidious means (spoiler: they aren't), the problem is the content not the contributor so any proposal that aims to resolve the issue or issues (almost all the proposals related to paid editing actually target a very poorly defined bunch of overlapping issues, not all of which are actually problems) by focussing on the contributor is doomed to failure because it literally cannot work. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people say it can't work. We can and have caught paid editors in the past; and when we do, we can more easily go over their contributions and rip the one-sided ones out without an editor paid to be tendentious on the subject fervently defending every point using every policy as their 9-5 job. It's much easier to fix problems caused by such editors, since once they've been identified they will no longer be around to protect their work (and even if they evade their bans, they can't easily go back to the pages they were previously being paid to target without outing themselves once more.) I'm not at all convinced, in other words, that declared paid editors are preferable to paid ones - yes, it requires more work to detect undisclosed ones, but the problems they cause are more easily solved once they're detected. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The most pressing concern of major organizations and prominent individuals is that inaccurate information not be in Wikipedia articles about them, which are frequently the top result in Google. Wikipedia articles are often attacked by Agenda Editors, such as competitors, oppo research firms, foreign governments, disgruntled former employees, litigants, unhappy customers, political opponents, etc. Aside from Agenda Editors, there are also just ordinary mistakes that lead to inaccurate content. The second most pressing concern is out of date information. e.g. U.S. News and World Report ranks a college as #7 for three years running, but WP says they are ranked #14 based on a 5-year old article. WP Talk is currently the official mechanism for sending in corrections or complaints. I suggest those who use it for this purpose should not be referred to as "paid editors" or even "editors," since the fundamental concept of abiding by [[WP:PAID] is that there is no direct editing of articles by the representative of the article subject. This policy discussion, if it ever happens again on the right forum, would more productively be re-framed as: how do we want to receive and process corrections and complaints from article subjects and their representatives? If not article Talk, then what?BC1278 (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Without getting too deep into the weeds of the Federal Trade Commission Act (or indeed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), it's not at all clear that legal liability exists merely for hosting deceptive advertising; after all, we don't generally think of a magazine as being liable for a misleading ad if it had no way of knowing of the deception. Rather, we think of holding the actual advertiser responsible. But I think a crucial part of WP:Deceptive advertising is being missed--namely, the part that defines deceptive advertising as "any text placed in an article by, or on behalf of, a business that is false or misleading, or does not disclose, in accordance with FTC or SEC standards, that the text was placed in the article by that business." (Formatting adjusted). Thus, if you have text that is materially true and placed by a disclosed business, it is, by definition, not deceptive. That's why I think it's a good policy to ask paid editors to identify themselves. And, indeed, I am in agreement with the reasoning that an absolute ban would ultimately be counter productive. All that being said, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but disclosure must be done on the article itself, near the paid-for text. MER-C 07:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct; an appropriate disclosure can be made in both the corresponding edit sum and on the concerned article's talk page as explained in WP:PAID#How to disclose. A "disclaimer" doesn't need to be directly added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear - it is the FTC/SEC that require disclosure on the article itself (e.g. [70]). Unsurprisingly, our TOU is grossly inadequate. Nobody is going to rummage through our page histories and check the edit summaries AND the user page of every significant editor to determine payment status. They can't even be bothered looking at the talk page. MER-C 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting weedier than I intended (sorry!), but you are of course correct as a general proposition. If we're really looking at it this way, however, we'd have to review everything for materiality--that is, whether t is likely to affect consumers’ choices or conduct. Thus, if I, a paid editor on behalf of Acme Widget Inc., were to add text to an article reflecting the date of the company's founding, that's almost certainly not material to anything. I actually think Wikipedia does a decent job getting rid of the blatantly promotional and a fair job at the more subtle promotional text. But I might be wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think Paid Editors should be disclosed parenthetically in their username. User:Example (paid). I also think it could be very helpful for productive discussion to distinguish between users who are paid and editing articles, and users who are paid but are abiding by COI guidelines and only posting talk page requests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose prohibition per several others above. User:Thryduulf's comment at 09:31, 7 April 2019 says everything I would have. --Jayron32 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - In my view, paid editing makes a mockery of the core principles of Wikipedia. Paid POV editors have the time, motivation and resources to grind down volunteers with endless WikiLawyering and walls of text, creating a very unfair editing environment. From governments, corporations and billionaires concerned with reputation management, forces focus on Wikipedia to create PR-type articles. Enough. Ban all paid editing and make the Wikipedia Terms of Use clear: there will be accountability for those trying to game the system. As a corollary, the WMF needs to stop taking all corporate donations, starting with Google. Jusdafax (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, it's simpler than that. "grind down volunteers with endless WikiLawyering and walls of text, creating a very unfair editing environment" should get a block/ban regardless of whether or not the person doing it is being paid or not. If you block the behavior, whether or not someone is paid becomes irrelevant. --Jayron32 16:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Are we actually voting on this here? The so-called ban is a bad idea for multiple reasons, and it is unethical to have such a pretend ban (that won't/can't work): readers deserve to know it is being done, and deserve to know who is doing it (to the extent they can). -- 16:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Now in The Daily Caller: TAKALA: EVIDENCE OF PAY-TO-PLAY OPERATION SCRUBBED FROM WIKIPEDIA. The HuffPo piece was better. And Wired: Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly the proposal doesn't make the distinction between paid editing and commercial paid editing - the latter is almost exclusively bad, and by construction removes the WiR and most of the other edge cases where people are being paid to improve the encyclopedia. Commercial paid editing has an exclusive for-profit motive. I will support a ban of commercial editing as an important symbolic gesture. General sanctions and article creation prohibitions are still needed to counter the behavior and deny the spammers their products - GS are more objective, don't discriminate between paid and unpaid spammers and blow the "oh, I am a fan of this company's products" or other similar excuses used by paid spammers out of the water by making them irrelevant. MER-C 18:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Moral support, although I think it will be very difficult to achieve in practice. More helpfully, a comment: discussions around this issue tend get bogged down in semantics. For example, we often hear "except Wikipedians-in-Residence", but this is a diversion, because nobody actually believes that Wikipedians-in-Residence are abusive paid editors. It only comes up when someone is trying to make a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum. Working on refining the concept of paid editing, and considering alternative terminology (commercial editing, commissioned editing, etc.), might be a productive first step to achieving a prohibition. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Joe Roe: the WIR comments are not reductio ad absurdum. If you ban "paid editing" that by definition includes all Wikimedians in residence and similar activities. If you don't want to ban WIR editing then you actually need to propose a ban on some paid editors and define what you actually mean by "some" in some objective terms. However what almost everyone who proposes to ban paid editing actually wants is either (1) ban edits that introduce a POV in favour of* commercial entities and/or their products/services. (*sometimes only this, others also want to ban edits which introduce the opposite POV too), (2) ban editors who make money from Wikipedia in ways they disagree with (regardless of whether they are harming or improving the encyclopedia), and/or (3) ban edits that are a poor proxy for one of those. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• We already have an established policy defining WIRs, though, so it's simple to carve out an exception for them if necessary. We could also allow specific exemptions as with bots (eg. have an approval process they have to go through, requiring that they disclose their employer and any terms of their contributions, to make sure they're not being paid to represent a POV.) But, really... the overwhelming majority of paid editing is type 1 (although you left out "public figures trying to improve their own image" and a few related things, eg. countries that want more tourism, etc), and that is an unambiguous violation of our policy on WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Anyone making such edits should already be banned as soon as they're identified. The problem is that since that describes virtually all non-WIR disclosed paid editors (who, therefore, ought to be banned the moment they disclose themselves), and since most people recognize that paid editing can generally be expected to be tendentious, the policy of allowing it has lead to an implicit acceptance of things like the editor under discussion - who, I think, is unequivocally and unabashedly tendentious on his employers' behalf (it's the entire service he's selling!) The only real solution to that problem is to bite the bullet, recognize that the vast majority of paid editing is incompatible with our core policies, and ban paid editors (outside of whatever limited exceptions we find it necessary to carve out.) Then we can roll up our sleeves to catch and remove further undisclosed paid editors as they appear - which we've been doing anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only thing a blanket prohibition would do is just drive it underground and not really solve anything. A large amount of our paid editors are not declared in the first place and are already at risk of being blocked on that basis alone, so they try to keep their noses down. The issue won't magically go away because we say so; it will go away once Wikipedia's Alexa rank is not single-digit. Nothing we do on the policy end will change that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• There has never been, as far as I am aware, any serious push to eliminate WiR, or any serious contention that WiR is a problematic form of paid editing. What there has been is never ending side bars, rabbit holes, and red herrings about WiR any time paid editing is brought up in any meaningful way. For anyone who is super concerned about WiR, don't be, and just assume for the sake of trying to have a discussion that everyone pretty well understands that WiR has been a long standing exception to the issue we're talking about. We're also perfectly capable of having a pragmatic discussion about the issue without having to reach absolute existential certainty about the nature of the universe as it relates to paid editing and WiR. An exception for WiR is a given, and pretty much always has been.

Having said that, paid editing is a cancer and the worst of it often doesn't even happen at COIN. Much of it happens at the Teahouse, the Help Desk, AfC, and OTRS. Paid editors are the most motivated to overcome the learning curve, and they are the most tenacious when it comes to pushing the issue, repeatedly asking questions, and absorbing as much volunteer time from our helping regime as possible. They simply have more time and motivation than your average volunteer...because it's their job. Even in the circumstances of the HuffPo story, a large part of the strategy is bludgeoning talk pages because they can, and simply overwhelming any reasonable volunteer response until they win, all the while waving a white flag in the air saying "don't be a meanie, I'm following the letter of the law which explicitly allows me to undermine the basic fabric of the project."

The choice our current pussy-footing-around-the-issue policy leaves our helping regime with is to give a weak but technically correct answer along the lines of "we'd really rather you didn't pretty please" or to simply ignore the letter of policy and give the practical answer, which is "don't edit the article and don't waste our time otherwise".

Just ban it. Call it "commercial paid editing" or whatever packaging helps you sleep at night, and at least empower people to say what we're all mostly thinking, which is "Feel free to come back as a volunteer, and we don't want you here until you do." If paid editors ignore it, then fine. People ignore policy all the time. See also the entirety of WP:SPI. When they do, we ban them, and we block them, and we carry on. GMG^talk 21:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support, if we're doing it like this. Long overdue, and the arguments against it are entirely unconvincing. "If we don't allow it, they'll break the rules and do it anyway" is not a reason to allow anything; we have caught paid editors in the past, and as long as it's universally against the rules, we can easily reverse most of their edits once they're caught. The limitation of disclosed paid editors to talk pages and draft spaces is meaningless - it may have been meaningful in the past, but today, most dramatic edits to medium-profile articles go through those places anyway, so they effectively get to represent the POV they're being paid for the same as any other editor. Allowing disclosed paid editors gives them implicit license to be WP:TENDENTIOUS (since the whole reason people pay them is to represent a particular perspective or to add additional weight to something); it serves as a constant millstone dragging down Wikipedia's reputation whenever attention is called to it; it distorts articles through the constant one-sided pressure that paid tendentious editing causes; and it broadly undermines the core goals of the project by allowing editors who are axiomatically not editing from a neutral POV. Even the most well-meaning employer, hiring someone to edit Wikipedia for the most noble and neutral of reasons, is still inevitably an employer, whose desires for the things they're paying someone to add carry monetary weight to their employees and therefore guide their edits. And it is naive to believe that such "innocent" paid editors are meaningful thing; the vast, vast majority of paid editors are being paid explicitly and unambiguously to violate our policies against WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and to push a particular WP:POV. It makes a mockery of our policies and the standards to which we supposedly hold ourselves and our editors; and the "but they'll just break the rules anyway!" arguments people are making above are shockingly weak and irreverent for such a serious matter. Indeed, I would argue that an argument of "well, we can't enforce the rules, so we might as well give in" is axiomatically an argument without grounding in core policies (it is in fact an argument that seems to say that we should intentionally discard core policies, that we are unable to ever uphold them), and that comments premised on that position should therefore be disregarded. Core policies - including WP:POV - are non-negotiable. We cannot allow editors who are paid to represent a particular position to do so on Wikipedia, even via our talk pages, even if (as people have unconvincingly argued above) the alternative is that they'll... what, evade their bans and try to edit via hidden alts? People do that already. We can cope. Such veiled threats from paid editors are obviously not enough to make us abandon our core policies and drag Wikipedia's name through the mud in the hopes that they will graciously confine their tendentious paid editing to pushing POVs via talk pages. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - not since I support commercial editing (overall bad, in limited circumstances can be good) - but because driving it underground more than it currently is will only make things harder. Whether we ban it or not - commercial companies will edit here. The question is do we want complex sock farms - or declared editors. I think that loosening the noose (just a little bit) on declared editors may be of benefit (to reduce evasion). In a perfect world where such a ban would be enforceable - I could support it. In the imperfect environment where we can't really stop banned activity - I do not.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the way things are being handled now is (excuse my frankness) a clusterfrap, and it needs to be unclustered and unfrapped. Either we all get paid or nobody gets paid. Expecting volunteers to work for free on any part of an article that another editor was paid to create/edit/protect does indeed make "a mockery of the core principles of Wikipedia" (quoting a statement by Jusdafax above). It is an abuse of volunteers, and while it all may sound reasonable on paper, it simply does not work in practice. I wonder how many in the community actually believe all paid editing has been declared? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• I would support such a proposal (with an exception for WiR). Paid editing is by its nature paid advocacy. This falls under WP:NOT which is a policy (WP:NOTADVOCATE). Just because someone declares a financial interest in an article does not make their editing less of advocacy. My exposure to both disclosed and undisclosed paid editing has been largely through AfD and AfC and I cannot say I see a whole lot of difference between the two. Both are often tendentious and time-consuming for volunteers to deal with. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose such a proposal as it would be entirely unenforceable and have other unintended consequences (primarily, COI no longer being disclosed, so less scrutiny awarded to actual COI editors). The problem is compounded by the extremely blurred lines between paid editing and COI editing. Is an employee who updates CEO's name in an infobox considered a paid editor? Currently - yes, even if their only motive is to correct outdated information. Now, if we were to ban "paid editing" altogether, we should automatically indeff any and all editors who would touch the company's article from the company's IP address. Do we have resources? Do we want to live with the consequences? Will this make Wikipedia better? I think no. Hence, oppose. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• I favor exploring MER-C's proposal in more detail to figure out the exact terms that are likely to work best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, since this is a thing; mainly per Atsme and GreenMeansGo, and—to a lesser extent—Thrydulf; arguments of "prohibition" are sensationalism of the yellowest hue, and re. "driving it underground", even if we never find the 10% that successfully survives below the radar, the other 90% will be in hell of a lot easier to find and more quickly dealt with, and that sufficiently outweighs any (possible) negatives. And it's only a possible negative in any case; the high profile advertising by its nature is also the easiest to find. ——SerialNumber54129 10:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you help clarify your reasoning that prohibiting paid editing will make it a lot easier to find? isaacl (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm curious to the reasoning going on here as well. Identifying COI editors doesn't seem like it would get any easier than (some of them) self-declaring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: Your comments, as far as they are understandable in the absence of answers to the questions above, conflate "advertising" (content) and "paid editing" (a user attribute) and "disclosure" (behaviour). All three are actually independent - Some disclosed paid editors add advertising some don't, some undisclosed paid editors add advertising some don't, some unpaid editors add advertising some don't. Banning paid editing, even if it somehow magically meant that nobody would edit Wikipedia for pay ever again, would not prevent advertising being added to Wikipedia - blatant or otherwise - simply because it cannot do that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid—in so far as it is understandable—that if it is beyond your understanding, then it is also unnecessary of explanation. Which, admittedly, is unsurprising. How about a bit less pishing about in meta-areas and a little more article work? No? Ah well; both the encyclopaedia and your reputation will be the worse for it. Caoi! ——SerialNumber54129 22:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the compeltely unnecessary ad hominem, now would you like to actually answer the questions put to you about matter under discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose doing anything based solely on this discussion, but I would welcome a larger scale policy proposal and RfC based on these things. Pinguinn 🐧 23:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Paid editing needs to be declared, illuminated, public, and reviewable. Banning paid editing will only drive it underground, where the damage can be done unseen. There will always be paid editing, the only question is how to address it. Normalizing it and making it subject to review by independent volunteers is the correct way forward. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Close/move

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 is not the place to have an RfC on paid editing, so please close/move. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I have posted a close request at WP:AFNRC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed it from ANC. This doesn't need to be formally closed. It can die a natural death whenever people stop wanting to comment. The "proposal" to ban paid editing cannot be evaluated as a serious policy discussion because it does not meet the requirements of WP:PROPOSAL. An RfC that is procedurally correct and properly advertised to the community would be required. A subsection at AN has no teeth. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Please do not edit war over ANC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Swarm:, per WP:BRD, I think we should have an administrator not involved in this discussion make that decision, not you, nor I. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What "decision" are you referring to? There are objective policy requirements for a formal policy proposal, as has already been pointed out. So, the above discussion is informal and toothless, and thus not in need of formal closure. I am literally an uninvolved administrator pointing out objective facts. I don't know why you're being so difficult about it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The request for closure is valid. I don't think you are "uninvolved" in this case, as you have expressed your opinion in Special:Diff/891331481 and Special:Diff/891641889. WP:RFCL advises for formal closures "where the issue is a contentious one", even though a closure of this discussion would not result in policy changes. A formal closure would provide a useful summary of the community's current opinions on whether disclosed paid editing is a net positive/negative for Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Newslinger. If there is a clear consensus in this discussion in favour of banning all paid editing then a formal RfC would clearly be a worthwhile use of community time, similarly if there is a clear consensus against then an RfC would be a definite waste of time. If there is no clear consensus either way then it's useful to know that and a good close will highlight if there are particular areas of agreement or disagreement meaning future discussions can be more focused resulting in a greater likelihood of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply -@Newslinger:, @Thryduulf:, I have restored the request at WP:ANFRC, and for now, I put "nowiki" tags on the "Not Done" statement. If there is a different procedure that I must follow, please let me know. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply -@Newslinger:, @Thryduulf:, SoWhy denied my request for closure, so the decision is now out of my hands. Any attempts that I make to appeal this decision have been immediately reversed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Move now. This RfC looks very appropriate to have, but having doubt as to its legitimacy or comments to let it "die a natural death" mean that the voting could become distorted and there will be recriminations over either using the result or ignoring it. Put this on a page, put up a bunch of notices as appropriate, get this done. Oh, and remember that professional spammers will most assuredly have ways of canvassing off-site, so you better make that a lot of notices. Wnt (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @WNT: Fortunately, any such discussion would not be a vote so the number of voices on either side alone would not be relevant, nor would comments from identified sock or meatpuppets. What will matter is the quality of the argument - and it's also worth remembering that "spammers" and "paid editors" are two independent groups that happen to overlap - banning one will not eradicate the other even if the ban is both enforceable and enforced. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Wnt:, my request at WP:ANRFC was reverted, so I posted at WP:3. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. declined). That forum is for opinions about article content disputes, is only for disputes in which exactly two editors are involved, and is not for disputes where other dispute resolution processes such as RFC's are involved. Moreover, third opinions given through that venue are nonbinding and do not "count" towards consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

• I'd like to see a formal RFC too - I have a number of proposals that need some refinement before a formal proposal is made based on the above discussion. MER-C 20:21, 2 May 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.

FGM Sanction 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.

---

I was sanctioned to be banned from editing topics related to female genital mutilation (FGM) based on this thread [71]. I would like to appeal my sanctions via AN. I had appealed my sanction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive246#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_muffizainu but I was not interpretted correctly because some of my comments focused on content instead of my own editing, but now I have realized it and would like to point out only the points regarding my editing.

1. I will be happy to observe 1 revert rule on the FGM related articles. I will also not make excessively long debates over any part of content and instead I will use consensus from RFCs where there's a very controversial issue or use the dispute mediation venues.
2. There was some confusion ie. when I created the new article, the editor did not object to its deletion via proper articles for deletion venue so I had concerns about a single editor redirecting it to another article calling it POV fork where as it was thought to have its own references. In the least it was supposed to be AFD'd. I agree to take such an article via the AFC process. I will ofcourse accept any consensus in all regards. I'm not going to enforce my views, this, I can of course agree to.
3. Editors decide content where as admins enforce behaviour as far as I understand. I will definitely be happy and agree to abide by all rules including avoiding any kind of POV pushing which was perceived of me. However, I simply want a say in consensus.
4. I agree to go for new controversial articles via articles for creation process if that is necessary ie. if the admins think it will help as a good faith gesture from me to lift the ban. I can voluntarily do this.
5. I have not violated the ban through the ban period as of yet and want to support Wikipedia with constructive edits.Muffizainu (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

1) The original discussion on the TBAN should be read first, along with the AE refusal. Nosebagbear (talk)

Oppose - the AE TBAN was placed on the basis of "bias and selective sourcing" - as such, mentioning those two aspects in any unblock request is a fundamental necessity - like AE, I'm not sure editor actually understands the TBAN (which is possible, but would make more sense to politely ask the original admin to explain their reasoning). If they do understand it, which I hope, then this definitely isn't a suitable unblock request - even if you feel that you were incorrect judged, then indicating that their concerns would be satisfied in the future is key. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Having a bias is not something wrong. Every one has a bias. What I have tried to explain above is that I have no intention of implementing my bias on wikipedia, I understand wiki rules better now and only wish to have a say in consensus building in which all biases are balanced. And since in controversial cases, I will be ok with doing an RFC, I shall not be pushing my will on others. I hope that clarifies things a bit. --Muffizainu (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Whatever you think of the substance of this appeal, I think it's much too soon. This user has made fewer than 30 edits total since the AE appeal was declined in February. We should allow another appeal here in six months, perhaps, on a showing of good editing in other topics. GoldenRing (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)#

I have been waiting out my topic ban because of my interest to the topic area but I also want to show that I understand wikipedia rules and want to edit in this topic area again, abiding by all rules and it is worth giving me a chance. The fact that I have not broken my topic ban even once, does hopefully show that even if there is another wait period, I wont break it so why not allow a good editor to get back in sooner. --Muffizainu (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Consensus building is not where "all biases are balanced", it should be where all biases are completely kept out and reliable sources are balanced. I'm also disturbed that Muffizainu wants to edit in this area from a religious POV. In my opinion, anyone who supports or appears to support FGM from a religious POV should be kept well away from the subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I have no opinion on whether the TBAN should be lifted or not, but I want to note that POV editing is strictly not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, irrespective of the dogma in question. Waggie (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - has not demonstrated good editing in areas outside the topic area - less than 30 edits since February does not show that they understand policies and editing norms. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 2 May 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.

Query about sudden need for new security

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.

---

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#ArbCom 2019 special circular :: I have now changed my Wikipedia login password as asked; but how much time will I be allowed to install two-factor authentication (2FA)? The process seems complicated. My mobile phone (USA: cellphone) is a simple cheap sort and it does not have internet access, and I keep it switched off unless I am making a telephone call on it, and it has no apps except what it came with, if it is a type that can store and run downloadable apps. I always access the internet via a desktop computer at home. I do not have an iPod or iPad or suchlike. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think 2FA is required. That's not what I understood from the circular. El_C 04:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Arbcom seem to have overstepped by very, very poor phrasing. I don't think it was MEANT to say that it was required, but, read literally, it does say that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 05:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not required to do anything, but if you did nothing and you get hacked, you might not get the sysop flag back. --Rschen7754 05:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly what the notice was trying to explain. No actions are required of you, but administrators are expected to take the appropriate measures necessary (whatever they decide that may be) in order to keep their accounts secure from unauthorized use. Restoration of an account's administrator privileges after it was compromised is no longer conditional after you've regained control of it. The Arbitration Committee may decide not to restore your administrator user rights after such an event has occurred. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2FA will protect your account from being compromised by the common attack vector of a simple password reset after your email has been compromised (or the reset mechanism is otherwise compromised by social engineering etc.) 2FA means that an attacker also has to have access to that second factor (something that is normally only in your control/possession) in order reset your password or to continue to login. As such it prevents simple password compromise being enough to gain and maintain access. It's a lot to expect of a regular user, especially for ongoing login, but not so much for an account with admin privileges given how easy it can be to compromise someone's email if they have lax password security. If your WP and email passwords are super strong and you operate with good infosec principles then lack of 2FA would not necessarily be as much of a worry, but in the unfortunate event that your email is compromised it is a valuable failsafe. General best practice advice is to enable 2FA wherever you can in your online life, and if you have been granted a set of privileged keys to a high traffic site such as WP then implementing it should definitely be given high priority. Mfield (Oi!) 05:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been told that the 2FA implementation on Wikipedia is... not particularly good, though. Some sort of kludge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 05:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be disappointing certainly given the number of readily available, recognized and accepted, and even open source, 2FA solutions. Mfield (Oi!) 05:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Except we do use a "readily available, recognized and accepted, and even open source, 2FA solutions", Time-based One-time Password algorithm. See Help:Two-factor authentication and Meta:Help:Two-factor authentication.

As I understand it, the big problem and the reason non-admins need to specifically request to be allowed 2FA is we have no good way to remove 2FA from an account if the device with the 2FA and the scratch codes are both lost. We currently require someone convince a developer they are the account holder, and the developer can then turn off 2FA. There is a desire to allow others maybe stewards and checkusers to turn off 2FA but it hasn't yet been implemented. I think the main complication is how these people actually prove their identity, considering also our privacy policy and the data we allow others to access. Someone could use a committed identity if they have one, but then again I suspect often someone who ends up in such a situation won't have one.

And also, AFAIK, there aren't actually any real "readily available, recognized and accepted, and even open source" solutions to this problem. (Or you could say scratch codes are the solution.) Companies like Microsoft and Google rely on the fact that they paying a bunch of people to deal with the various problems their account holders have including the loss of their 2FA and they also have much less restrictive data collection policies and people also often readily hand over info so they tend to have more info they can quiz people on to prove identity. Even so, they're also vulnerable to spear phishing and social engineering where someone without enough info and who knows how to manipulate people may be able to convince some customer support person they're actually the account holder. It's always a balance.

More generally we only support TOTP and so the user needs a device to generate such a code, be it a computer or smart phone or whatever. This causes concerns for some people since it means that those who don't own a smart phone nor a computer probably can't use 2FA. (Own here meaning have access to one which they can treat as in part theirs.) Those who only have access to library or similar computers and dumb phones or maybe feature phones (I imagine there must be some feature phones with a built in TOTP client) probably can't use TOTP. I mean there may be solutions e.g. running something an a cloud computer, but the people affected probably can't do that. Some users would prefer if we also allow 2FA via codes sent via SMS e-mail but their are security and cost factors with doing that.

In addition we also don't have built in support for multiple devices. I mean you can use something like Authy which allows multiple devices to automatically share the secret. Or when enabling 2FA, you can give multiple devices the secret. But other than that, you'll have to disable and re-enable 2FA if you want to add another device AFAIK. Note that this is exactly uncommon, I think many service providers are the same one reason why stuff like Authy which easily allow multiple devices to share the secret are popular.

Of course there is also a lot of confusion about TOTP or our implementation. For those who are unsure [72] is a decent not extremely technical writeup IMO. E.g. some people think you need internet access or a smart phone. (You don't, there are implementations for many desktops OSes and even browser based ones. You obviously need internet access own the device generating the secret and logging in, but the 2FA device doesn't need it either to obtain the secret or to generate codes afterwards.)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at the long discussion link below, one thing I missed is it's not possible to regenerate scratch codes without turning on and off 2FA. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Whops I forgot to mention another concerning relating the the need to generate TOTP codes is that in some places having or using the software may be illegal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I maybe should be clearer. Use only supporting TOTP is probably a bit of a rarity compared to major sites. Most still support additional methods SMS or email or other methods even if there are concerns with such methods [73] and you may be to disable their use, because they're still considered better than nothing and are easier to use for some people. In fact, we don't even support something like Universal 2nd Factor or Client to Authenticator Protocol for those who prefer hardware tokens. Also other than manual verification, other sites often allow things like trusted computers which may be able to disable 2FA without needing a second factor or scratch code. So I'm not trying to downplay the concerns people have with out implementation, simply emphasising we need to be clear what we actually do and what the actual limitations. I'm particularly concerned that people are still talking about how you need a smart phone or similar incorrect claims. Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note: See parallel discussion at Arbcom Noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 4 May 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.

Review of closure that appears to invent new policy out of nowhere

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 believe Floquenbeam's closure at this ANI thread about Guy Macon and Fæ (will eventually be in ANI archive 1009 or 1010) should be reverted, and another closer re-assess that discussion. The closure statement does not represent the course of the discussion and the community input into it; there clearly is no consensus for censure or for block threats against Macon, for using a gender-neutral writing approach well-accepted by some and not the favorite of others. The close effectively invents a new policy by individual fiat that one may 'be blocked for personal attacks/harassment for using anything besides the singular "they"' in reference to someone who prefers to be referred to in a gender-neutral manner.

The obvious problems with this are numerous: A) There are many approaches to gender-neutral wording that even people deeply ensconced in real-world debate and study of the matter favor more strongly (including neo-pronouns like zie, etc.), and many reliable sources on English usage are critical of singular they. B) This isn't consistent with WP:BLOCKING policy; you can't just invent new block rationales. C) It's also against WP:EDITING and WP:NOT#CENSORED policies (forcing speech to take a specific form is no less a form of censorship than silencing, and sometimes worse, and nothing in any policy empowers anyone at WP to dictate what exact words another editor must use). D) Nothing about WP:NPA or WP:HARASS support this close in any way despite being the supposed rationale. E) There are far too many editors for us to remember all of each others' preferences anyway.

Whatever its intent, the close has the effect of a WP:SUPERVOTE and WP:FALSECONSENSUS. If it stood, it could and would be interpreted by a particular faction as a new "community" decision that any editor can be punished for any difference of opinion in how they chose to write if it doesn't agree with anyone else's pronoun preferences (and is already resulting in uncivil "gravedancing" and dispute-escalation behavior at Macon's user talk page [74], falsely equating his dislike of singular they with calling African-Americans by racial epithets; see also related SPI report). A repeated point in that thread was that our many thousands of editors cannot be expected to memorize all the pronoun preferences of all the other thousands of editors. Even if that were not the case, it's not the job of any editor A to force any editor B to use the English language on discussion pages in ways editor B disagrees with (for clearly stated reasons, as Guy Macon has provided in detail), especially when the real world demonstrably accepts multiple approaches to the gender-neutrality matter, even among gender-identity activists and language-change advocates (which is where things like zie come from in the first place!), and is nowhere near uniformly in favor of singular they. Nor are Wikipedians, for that matter, especially in encyclopedic writing; this gets argued about at WT:MOS heatedly and frequently.

Consider also that the referent of the pronoun in this case has changed that preference semi-recently (Fæ was still being referred to, without objection, by masculine pronouns in ArbCom reviews of Fæ's gender/sexuality topic ban as late as Dec. 2016), yet was just as testy before that about the prior pronoun). Are we all supposed to keep annotated lists? Fæ falsely accuses others of "misgendering" even when they select gender-neutral options that simply aren't the ones that Fæ would use (see the ANI under discussion, among other pages). But the user is rather rudely unresponsive to simple clarification questions about gender ID/preference, and apparently unconcerned about alleged "misgendering" when it happens outside discussion pages [75]. (Also relevant as to overall "genderwar" behavior pattern: concurrent Fæ-focused ANI here, the one in March, and the RfArb in February, among other pages.) A game is being played here, of using WP's internal community as a language-change advocacy experiment, leveraging fear of being character-assassinated as "transphobic" to marionette the results. Much of the "job" of a closer is to see through that sort of one-sided gaming (which evinces an activistic PoV – cf. WP:NOT#ADVOACY, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND), and to firmly ground their assessment of the discussion at hand in policy, or else recuse from the closure and let someone else do it, if they have difficulty being objective in their review.

If Floquenbeam wants to make singular they mandatory on WP, that's a WP:VPPOL RfC (I predict a SNOW close as a failed proposal, for obvious reasons – even if it were limited to editors with an expressed preference for that exact word). It's not a drive-by ANI close, by someone who self-declares as so busy "especially in May" that they barely have any time to be on Wikipedia at all. Closing something like this requires careful examination of the discussion and consideration of the ramifications for other editors.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Briefly, I don't think Floquenbeam is making up policy by fiat with that closure — what I think he is saying is that, in this case, it has become enough of an issue so as to warrant sanctions for failing to avoid it in the future, where it would constitute disruption and a personal attack. El_C 02:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Which doesn't assuage a single concern I raised. Closes like this are treated as precedential, and no editor (admin bit or not) has any business telling another editor that if A doesn't use B's preferred exact variant of widely disputed use of English that A is blockable for it. Nothing in DE or NPA policy suggests such a thing, and if you proposed to add something that did, the community wouldn't accept it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For eg., I accidentally called Fæ "she," only realizing it hours later — I don't think the closure has the effect of placing myself subject to sanctions. El_C 02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What if it happened again, and Fæ (or whoever) made a dramaboarding out of it? And whether you think you'd be subject to sanctions for such an irrational reason is beside the point. Macon certainly didn't think he'd be subjected to them for being actually careful to write gender-neutral, and I certainly don't think he validly can be, yet here we are right now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In my case, I'd think they'd be laughed out of the room — unless, of course, I've had a history of conflict (and therefore close familiarity) with the user in question, which if I understand correctly is being argued here. (But even then, I would allow for occasional momentary lapses.) Here, however, it's about an accusation of using pronouns in provocational way, which is a different story. El_C 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Using someone's preferred pronouns is a matter of courtesy. Is deliberate discourtesy a personal attack? It could be, under the right circumstances. Guy knew what Fae's pronouns were and made it a point to not use them, where he could just as easily have not used any pronouns at all. His apparent discomfort with the singular they is irrelevant to how we conduct ourselves as editors. Floquenbeam's close struck the correct note in a difficult situation. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You claim that "Guy knew what Fae's pronouns were and made it a point to not use them" I did not. At the time I posted that I just knew that Fæ objected to "He", She", and "It", and chose a form of gender-neutral address (Xe/Xem/Xyr) that I honestly thought would be acceptable. I should have expected the ensuing attack based upon Fæ's past behavior, but I really thought that I was doing the right thing. I am honestly perplexed at how I really really tried to not offend and yet still ended up being demonized. It really feels like I am not being given the tiniest shred of WP:AGF despite my edits really being good-faith efforts not to offend. If Fæ had simply informed me of their preferences, I would have instantly complied as a matter of courtesy. But courtesy goes both ways. Calling me a liar without any effort to defend that assumption with, say, multiple examples of me lying in the past is not a shining example of being courteous.

A person has every right to be referred to with personal pronouns that are gender-neutral. I fully support this and have done my best to comply with it at all times. A person does not have the right to force others to use a particular form of gender-neutral address. That is not a reasonable request. At least a couple of the approaches listed at Third-person_pronoun#Summary should be acceptable. I can see someone rejecting "It" (sometimes used as a purposeful slur against the transgendered) or "E" (perhaps they edit pages that contain E=MC2 a lot), but bullying someone into using the One True Gender-Neutral Address and complaining at ANI if the use any other form is not appropriate, and I refuse to be forced to use those words. So instead I am using "Fæ" as a pronoun. No doubt I will be criticized for this as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It takes a certain degree of confidence to (indirectly) lecture someone else as to what personal pronouns they should find acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Evasion noted. Do you retract your false claim about me? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It was unclear from the previous discussion that this was the case. Your repeated statements attempting to justify your refusal to use the singular they clouded (and continue to cloud) the issue. The important issue, which you're not engaging with, is that an editor (leaving aside the baggage) has made a reasonable request and you're treating it like an inquisition. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, you should have followed policy and talked to me first; it would have cleared up several errors you've made in characterizing my close. I have no desire to make singular they mandatory on WP. I have no desire to sanction, or criticize, people who mistakenly or forgetfully use the wrong pronoun. We are not talking about encyclopedic writing, so this has nothing to do with MOS. I have no firm idea how, or if, we should systematically handle preferred pronouns on WP; it's a complicated and evolving situation. This is not a new rule for everyone. It is a new rule for Guy, because he said he was willing to use singular they to refer to other people, and knows that Fae prefers that, but is not using it for Fae because they don't like each other. If I started referring to you as "she" because you've annoyed me, even if (or especially because) I know it bothers you, I would expect to be sanctioned for personal attacks or harassment. I didn't say anywhere that Guy was being transphobic, nor do I believe that. Instead, I believe he was being intentionally rude about an aspect that he knows bothers Fae. This was not a drive by close, but your assumption of bad faith is noted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Your belief that I was intentionally rude about an aspect that I know bothers Fæ is incorrect about my original use of Xe/Xem/Xyr (see above) but correct about my rather pissed-off initial response at ANI. I am now using "Fæ" as a pronoun. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Floq, your "if ..." recastings of what you think Macon was doing neither match the evidence in the ANI nor Macon's own statements about his intent and views; negative presumptions about another editor's intent without proof to back it up is a WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS failure, and as an admin you should know that and not be doing it. Nothing at this page says I have to address my concerns with you before bringing them here, so I'm not sure what "policy" you think I didn't follow. Please quote it. Some administrative decisions do formally require such a discussion before they can be opened for review (WP:DRV and WP:MRV are two such). Like WP:RFC, WP:ANI does not appear to be one of them; ANI already the admin noticeboard, so raising a demurer at the admin noticeboard (albeit a different section) is perfectly reasonable. WP:CLOSE, which is an {{information page}} essay, suggests taking it to user talk first regardless of discussion type, but that isn't a guideline much less a policy. Normally I would have (despite my finding that there is very close to a 0% success rate getting admins to revert their own closes, and not much better than ~5% rate in even getting minor revisions). However your own talk page disclaims – not just on it but in an edit notice so we can't miss it – that you're "not really around", and I'm not in the habit of talking to an empty room. I repeat that nothing at NPA or HARASS addresses your imaginary scenario anyway, which might be WP:BATTLEGROUND perhaps, but doesn't apply to Macon's non-hypothetical posts anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse close – (Non-administrator comment) I was not involved in the ANI thread or the underlying dispute. After reading it, I agree with El_C and Mackensen. It was a good close. Using the singular they to refer to an editor who prefers the singular they isn't new policy, it's the fourth pillar, which begins: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Leviv ich 03:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The forth pillar doesn't say what you think it says. Using a form of gender-neutral address to an editor who prefers the singular They is still "respecting your fellow Wikipedians". Xe, Xem, and Xyr are not in an way offensive. I was not aware at the time that I used them that Fæ demanded the singular They, but If I had my position would still be that I choose my words, and that any form of address that is gender-neutral is allowed. I shouldn't have to keep track of which editor insists on They, which editor insists on S/he, and which editor insists on Yo.[76]

If your position is that every preference of every editor must be obeyed or they will be brought before ANI without warning, I have a preference. Nobody is allowed to call me a liar without supplying evidence in the form of diffs. Nobody is allowed to falsely accuse me of "a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass" without supplying evidence in the form of diffs. So, will you enforce my preferences? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this: Using a form of gender-neutral address to an editor who prefers the singular They is still "respecting your fellow Wikipedians". This is the central matter at the ANI, is the proximal cause of this review/overturn/re-close request, and is much of why the close is faulty. However, there are multiple faults: It's incorrect from a policy angle in several ways, it mis-analyzes the ANI thread, misrepresents the real-world view of what is considered acceptably polite with regard to TG/NB people (including by TG/NB people), and it blatantly sides with complaintants who have no proof, and simply assumes the bad faith they allege is true despite all evidence to the contrary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that I am a living person.

That fact appears to have been conveniently forgotten based on some of the comments made here. Throw away remarks like I am now using "Fæ" as a pronoun blatantly treat me as an object and run counter to our shared principles of treating people and minority groups with basic respect for their dignity. Declaring that you personally hate Fae does not give you a free pass to ignore these principles and Wikipedia is not therapy to address why you hate people.

My pronoun preferences, gender and sexual orientation is not open for debate in the same way that SMcCandlish's disruptive but generic essay on pronouns was.

I am not a hypothetical talking point, and Wikipedia policies already ensure that I am not turned in to a free for all where those who want to play politics, be pointy or vent sarcasm can freely make jokes or grandstand at my expense.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ is handily demonstrating many of my points for me. I've been consistently also using the username in lieu of a pronoun when writing about Fæ, as I am doing right now in these sentences, just as above and in the ANI (it being one of the major techniques of gender-neutral writing, especially when one wants to avoid either neologisms or grammar that many object to). Did anyone (even Fæ) notice? Yet Fæ is now claiming this is objectifying and offensive, and throwing another habitual attempt at character-assassination – the true civility breach here – making bogus accusations of disrespect toward minorities (plus that weird "personally hate Fae" straw man – which ironically misspells Fæ, something the rest of us take some pains not to, out of the very respect the user falsely claims is lacking).

It's just absurd, and is even going to seems so to the average TG-related language-reformation activist. It's WP:GAMING / WP:WINNING / WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:NOTHERE / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:CIR nonsense, all at once. It needs to stop, and Macon and others need to stop being invalidly punished for "transgressions" against one lone editor's shifting, dispute-escalating demands that don't actually make sense to anyone but that editor. Not because I love Guy Macon or he's the best person on planet Earth, but because this "thought-police everyone to keep Fæ happy" bullshit is harmful to the fabric of the WP community. Now, note the total lack of a singular they anywhere in that material. None was necessary except perhaps in Fæ's mind, and no objectification or misgendering has taken place, and no minorities have been besmirched. It's the exact same pronoun-avoidance writing style we've employed at articles like Genesis P-Orridge.

The validity and acceptability of multiple ways to do gender-neutrality is the central thing that the close gets wrong and why this request is open. It's far more disrespectful to me as an editor to tell me I can't use this approach, or to Macon to tell him he can't use well-attested neo-pronouns if singular they is too-poor English for him to be comfortable using (hint: that's exactly what the close does), than it ever could possibly be disrespectful for us to go out of our way to write gender-neutral but just not in exactly the same way Fæ would prefer. This is important. PS: Nothing about any of this is using Fæ as "a hypothetical talking point"; this is very concrete, about Fæ's actual editorial behavior which has already resulted in a prior years-long t-ban from gender and sexuality. WP:AC/DS applies.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fæ appears to believe that Fæ has found a magic bullet that will always bring victory on the ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND that Fæ has made anything and everything related to gender into. Fæ has (correctly) figured out that I refuse to be bullied into using the exact words that Fæ demands, and thus Fæ is now feigning outrage at my best efforts to use inoffensive and gender-neutral language by inventing a new offense: suddenly calling Fæ Fæ is Evil. So Very Very Evil that Fæ... never mentioned it before? I am not treating Fæ as an object. I am purposely making my best effort to treat Fæ with basic respect. I am not being sarcastic or making jokes. Even if I wanted to do all of those things (I do not) I would be really stupid to do them at AN or ANI. I am doing the best that I can after being left with zero acceptable alternatives.. I do not hate Fæ, although I do find the games Fæ is playing to be incredibly annoying. Fæ says "My pronoun preferences, gender and sexual orientation is not open for debate" (I have and will continue to say exactly zero about Fæ's gender or sexual orientation, because neither is any of my business). My counter message is this: My refusal to be bullied or intimidated is also not open for debate. Pick any form of respectful gender neutral pronoun other than the one exact form you are trying to force me to use and I will use that. Refuse to give me any alternative that avoids my caving in to a playground bully and I will continue to call Fæ Fæ. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Declaring that you personally hate Fae - where is this said? I know you made a similar unfounded insinuation about me recently. FWIW, I think you have a valid point about trying to respect pronoun choices but you can't expect everyone to adhere to it every time. We all make mistakes, there are lots of people to track, and not everyone is as hypersensitive as you sometimes seem to be regarding issues such as this. I've been referred to as a member of every caste going, as being a Pakistani, an Indian, An American, a Hindu, a Muslim and all sorts of other stuff - I usually let it pass. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You will have to read the closed ANI discussion to work out who said what. "you can't expect everyone to adhere to it every time" I do not and never have, in fact above you can see that I have been criticised for letting it pass in 2016, like that debunks my preferred pronoun use. The only ones claiming this are those arguing to be weird about pronouns like it's a right of free speech to demean minority groups, or appear to want to be a pronoun martyr and are bending the facts to make me appear to be a monster. There is a surprising amount of fake news, ensure you look for actual diffs of first person edits, before believing the rhetoric and spin. For example stuff in quote marks is often not a quote, they are being used by some folks as "air quotes", or in the case of "transphobic" as a highly effective drama creation bomb even when literally nobody else is using the t-word. --Fæ (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you just provided the diff because if that was said then it might alter the tone of responses here. I just happen to think through our recent interactions that you have a tendency to misrepresent or misread statements made by others. I may be wrong on this occasion but yours is a big accusation. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Like Sitush, I am disappointed that, when pressed to provide proof for such an accusation, Fae failed to do so. -- Netoholic @ 09:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I searched for the word hate in the ANI thread and find two mentions, both by Fæ. The first is here, where they quote Guy Macon specifically saying "I don't hate you", and the second here where they claim Guy Macon has made an "open promise to run a battleground hate campaign". Have I missed something or is this akin to strawman rant or the recent equally absurd insinuation that someone was sexist? You seem to fling these types of word round a lot, without much justification - here is another rant, in an AfD "keep" !vote where you don't give any valid rationale for keeping that I can see but are happy to fling around the accusations. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The commitment to deliberately misgender me, and only me, and in that same thread deliberately misgender me using numerous neologisms is by any reasonable understanding of plain English a personal targeted hate campaign and blatant harassment. Just because someone says they do not hate you does not stop calling a hate campaign a hate campaign an accurate use of English. Odd to see the double think here of what free speech and political correctness is. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ's engaging in blatant misrepresentation even in the very post Sitush was responding to, along with more deflection handwaving. And more socio-politically laden character assassination; after this many DS warnings, I have to wonder whether there's a special pact I don't know about under which Fæ in particular has to do it, say, 100 times, or 500 times, before action will be taken.

I put "transphobic" in quotes because it is a direct quote, of Fæ accusing me of exactly that across multiple pages and multiple WMF sites (MfDs aside, see this one at Meta, and even worse nastiness in this canvassing post to WikiMedia-L), then kept at it again and again even after being given a {{Ds/alert|gg}}. So now Fæ declares neologistic pronouns to be "be[ing] weird about pronouns" because Fæ likes singular they better. It's just stunningly hypocritical. Worse, this is then turned into a weapon: if someone non-TG/NB, like Macon, happens to prefer those over they, too, then that magically transmogrifies into "demean[ing] minority groups" (a claim already dispelled – WP:IDHT), despite it being precisely what a lot of TG/NB people want CIS-gendered people to use!

Then more of the typical any-criticism-of-my-behavior-is-an-attack antics, like "make me appear to be a monster". No one's suggested any such thing; Fæ simply has a battlegrounding/advocacy and social CIR problem on gender matters. The t-ban was provisionally lifted on the condition that the behavior not head that direction again, yet it's gone there massively. At this point Fæ is just "thrashing" – throwing out random verbal chaff to try to confuse and evade (e.g., the non sequitur "fake news", and more straw men like "I have been criticised for letting it pass in 2016" – no one criticized, just observed as a timeline datum). While this thread is about a questionable close, the Fæ sideshow really all boils down to this and related ArbCom findings about that editor. Then Fæ does the IDHT again with another false accusation of "misgendering". If no one is willing to re-impose the t-ban, at very last a short-term block for intentionally disruptive editing at AN would seem to be in order. At this point, this venue is being trolled (either intentionally or in effect) by Fæ with circular, CIVIL/NPA-transgressing noise to bog down discussion of the actual subject of the thread.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it just me that finds irony in the fact that this post links to a seven-year-old finding that Fæ had made personal attacks, whilst in the very same post accusing them of (deep breath) misrepresentation, deflection, handwaving, character assassination, hypocrisy, battlegrounding, advocacy, CIR, CIVIL, NPA and IDHT? Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There may be other underlying issues, but Guy clearly went beyond acceptable behavior towards Fae with the particular comment that caused the thread over there, and it's continuing here. Even if there's a valid underlying claim to be made, personal attacks in the course of an argument aren't ok. I believe SMcCandlish is bringing this up for good faith reasons, but I agree with the implication and explanation later of the close, that there was in fact something wrong with the particular user's language that was called out, and it has to stop. It's not claiming a wider policy consensus or standard, just particular individual behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

GM certainly can't be expected to remember each user's preference, or to look it up each time even if the user lists it on his/her user page in an obvious way. However, GM clearly knows Fae enough to remember which pronoun Fae prefers. Even if GM had chosen a gender-neutral user name, if he consistantly told a specific user to use male pronouns, the user can be expected to remember this eventually, and certainly once being officially warned by an admin. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

So even though I clearly stated

"At the time I posted that I just knew that Fæ objected to "He", She", and "It", and chose a form of gender-neutral address (Xe/Xem/Xyr) that I honestly thought would be acceptable. I should have expected the ensuing attack based upon Fæ's past behavior, but I really thought that I was doing the right thing. I am honestly perplexed at how I really really tried to not offend and yet still ended up being demonized. It really feels like I am not being given the tiniest shred of WP:AGF despite my edits really being good-faith efforts not to offend."[77]

you are claiming that I am a liar? Do you have any diffs showing me telling lies elsewhere? Any evidence at all?

While you are at it, can you show me a single place where Fæ told me what Fæ's preferences were? Anywhere at all? Because that's what you are implying with your "if he consistently told a specific user to use male pronouns, the user can be expected to remember this eventually" statement. It isn't even on Fæ's talk page! You have to read Fæ's user page to find it. Do you read every word of every user page of everyone you interact with, just so you don't get dragged to ANI for some preference that is only found on their user page and which they never told you about? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, though, because you've refused to commit to using those pronouns even if you knew about them, and you (apparently) reject the validity of someone preferring certain pronouns and asking other editors to use them. Here's what you could have said: "I apologize, I did not realize that Fae preferred the singular they. I will use those pronouns going forward." That's not the hill you chose, and that's why you're having trouble selling your explanation. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Od Mishehu: Lay out that reasoning, please, especially in the face of what's been presented above. WP:ILIKEIT isn't much of an argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please ask Fæ to stop deliberately misquoting me? In this edit[78] Fæ claims that I wrote the words "Last I looked God did not appoint Fæ the arbiter of all humor. Nor does anything in this discussion have anything to do with heteronormativity; that was the first time anyone mentioned sexual-partner preferences here. I find that hilarious, since the point of Fæ's mini-rant was to browbeat someone about staying on-topic." Those are not my words. I never wrote that. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

AGF. Honest mistake, that quote is something SMcCandlish wrote, who's controversial view on pronouns seem identical to yours anyway, so no harm done. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I categorically deny that the words that you falsely attributed to me are in any way "identical to mine" As for your claim that it was an error on your part, I will AGF and believe you when you say it wasn't deliberate despite your repeated failure to AGF when referring to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fae, as to have your misquote of Guy treated as a good faith mistake. That is fair. At the same time you are unwilling to assume good faith when Guy used a gender neutral, singular pronoun when referring to you. That is very hypocritical. It looks to me like you, with WW's help, took a molehill and turned it into a mountain by playing the victim card. If Guy had used "It" as a a singular, gender neutral pronoun I would have seen it as a personal attack as "it" is dehumanizing when referring to people. Unfortunately, each time someone cries wolf over some petty perceived slight such as this it desensitizes people to real cases of gender identity discrimination. Springee (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

OMG. Please close this thread, but now perhaps apply the same warning to everyone else who seems to want in on this ridiculousness. --JBL (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, is it really true that no one has pointed out that Guy's comment that is the source of this came more than an hour after (and only four comments below) this from Johnbod? --JBL (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Just now is the first time I have read Johnbod's comment. I certainly didn't notice it at the time. If I had it would have saved me time carefully considering exactly how to respond in a gender-neutral way without triggering a shitstorm. --Guy Macon (talk)

• Endorse close - The close of that embarrassing discussion was well within the bounds of administrator discretion. If you have to craft long contorted paragraphs with multiple irrelevant policy shortcuts and rehash strawman arguments, you must already realize that the basis of your argument is little more than time wasting wikilawyering and forum shopping. Everyone here is a volunteer and no one is obligated to respond with a point-by-point rebuttal to everything that one wishes to throw at the wall in pursuit of a loophole that allows a tiny handful of editors to attack other editors by mocking their gender identity. - MrX 🖋 12:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please retract your false accusation that I attacked other editors by mocking their gender identity. It isn't true. I never did that. I carefully used gender-neutral language specifically to avoid causing offense. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I decline because it's not false. You unambiguously used silly made up words to mock Fæ, knowing full well that it would be unpleasant.- MrX 🖋 16:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• [79] Those "silly made up words" are good enough for the University of Tennessee ... ——SerialNumber54129 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• bollocks cygnis insignis 20:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Although it's true that xe and xyr are ridiculous, Guy Macon did not just make them up. They're actually legitimate attempts at gender-neutral pronouns. Reyk _YO! 16:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am well aware that Guy Macon didn't make up the words. It doesn't change the substance of what I wrote one whit. - MrX 🖋 18:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• @MrX: How does You unambiguously used silly made up words = I am well aware that Guy Macon didn't make up the words? As far as "changing the substance" goes...only diametrically, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 18:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand. The verb I used is "used", not "made up". The end. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

One would only hope that the administrator who wrote the closing summary that caused this thread to be opened would at the very least respond to the criticism of the closing statement before this closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

[80] --JBL (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse close of that thread and this thread. It could be considered a WP:IAR move. If someone wants to start an RfC on whether intentionally (not accidentally) misgendering someone is a personal attack, (s/t)he(y) can go to WT:NPA. (there might already be one, actually) SemiHypercube 12:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, Guy didn't misgender anyone. Guy used a modern, gender neutral, singular pronoun. Springee (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

They pointedly used Xe, Thon and other pronouns and refused to stop misgendering me. I am a person, not a joke, a political point, or a freak to be laughted at. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Did Guy use Xe any time other than that edit? Where did Guy misgender you? Xe is specifically a non-gender term that can be used as a substitute for "he" or "she". Your last sentence is exactly the victim card I was talking about. Where did guy say or imply that you (not your edits or arguments) are "a joke", a "political point" or "a freak to be laughed at"? Springee (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI for some people, this is a game. For me it is not a game or a joke. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ:, I asked if you could show where Guy did the things you claim. I asked if you could show more than one example of of Guy using the gender neutral Xe when referring to you. Your reply was a link to a comment by a different editor. Unless you think SMcC is a sock of Guy you didn't answer the question at all. Yet again, this is casting aspersions as you have presented no evidence. (Edit to fix ping) Springee (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think Floquenbeam is making a reasonable request by placing emphasis on the word "they". That word is simple, standard English, and its great virtue is that it fails to specify sexual orientation. I personally refer to other editors as "they" unless I know they are "he" or "she". Beyond that I have no opinion. "He", "she", and "they" are basically adequate for most situations on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn close and replace with this: "Guy Macon and SMcCandlish are banned from interacting with Fæ, indefinitely, as it seems they want to continue abusing Fæ's stated pronoun preferences in a way which is clearly designed to make a point. That point is harassment."

At the time, I read the discussion as Guy Macon headed for a one-way interaction ban, but Floquenbeam's advice was fair and measured, and probably better than my response at the time. This thread being brought up again just a day later, and with the actions of still pointedly refusing Fæ's stated preference but in a new way, is clearly retaliation and harassment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I might support that if you include reinstating Fae's previous TBAN. Springee (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What for? They're the one being harassed here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that Fae was being harassed. I do see that Fae is taking what very reasonably could be a misunderstanding and turning it into a weapon. Springee (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: see below, but also in case you didn't know (which is reasonable) Fæ's username contains an æ grapheme, and you must type it properly when you ping them or they will not get your notification. It's one character, not two. It is available from the Latin special characters box in the text editor, or copy and paste it from somewhere in the edit box if you can't find it or don't know how to type it. When you ping Fae, with an A-E and without the ligature, you are pinging a blocked account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up reg Fae vs Fæ and the ping system. I did catch that the grapheme wasn't just a signature character but in the user name. Springee (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In response to a number of sub-threads above (and Springee's edit-conflict comment above) about what policy is actually being violated, it's the harassment policy, and I would normally follow such a link with a quote of the relevant section, but Guy Macon and SMcCandlish are violating huge parts of the entire policy here. Misgendering someone, in and of itself, cannot be presumed to be a personal attack. Gender and pronoun preferences are tricky and controversial, and as someone else said, you can't be expected to remember everyone's preference. When someone states their preference to you and asks you to respect it, refusing is, well, a dick move. It's not a personal attack, but it's unnecessarily disrespectful. That being said, someone who has stated a nonbinary preference ought to be a bit more open-minded with respect to others' established habits, whether it's binary default or neutral he or singular they or whatever. The intricacies of nonbinary gender are not obvious to most people.

What Guy and SMcC are doing is harassment not because they're refusing Fæ's preference, but because they're clearly targeting Fæ, deliberately using non-preferred pronouns in a way meant to get Fæ's attention, which they know causes distress because they've been told so many times, and doing so in a way meant to draw as much attention as possible from the wider community (c.f. this thread). They're using the wrong pronouns on purpose, in a way meant to disrupt Fæ's editing experience. They should be blocked for it, but an interaction ban hopefully will suffice. Then they can carry on their pointless campaign against a pronoun without drawing Fæ into it repeatedly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for a well thought out reply. I don't know the back story here but other than the incident above, where has Guy used pronouns that misgender Fae? I don't recall seeing links and when I asked Fae for a link I was provided with a link to an edit Guy didn't make. If Fae doesn't like Xe, that's fine. Where did Fae tell Guy Xe wasn't OK and did Guy use Xe after that time? Springee (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's been my view from having followed similar discussions for a while that this is the case, and in my opinion just the one incident and the dismissive attitude that Guy Macon showed in response is enough to demonstrate harassment. I'll have to leave it to Fæ to provide other specific examples. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous- 1) Singular they is acceptable English. 2) All this xe and sie and thon and xyr nonsense is not, and if Fæ doesn't like it you should respect their wishes in this matter. 3) Get over yourselves, both of you. Reyk _YO! 14:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

When one can't remember someone's preferred gender usage, the {{gender}} template is useful (there's also the wp:magic word {{gender:}} which I've not tried). It's not necessary to use the template in a post; it can be used in preview to find the information. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Gender}} of course depends on a user having set their preference in the software, which at this time supports only male, female, and null. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Which corresponds nicely to the pronouns he, she, and they. Leviv ich 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There are also a set of specific case examples if you aren't an expert in grammar and don't know that "theirs" is the genitive, or whatever. See {{he or she}}, {{him or her}}, {{his or hers}}. All of these respect gender neutrality but they vary between using singular they or using some variation of "he or she". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• For a lot of people, pronouns aren't an issue but for Fæ it is, let's just keep it there. Ivanvector is correct in the analysis that Fæ is being targeted for having a preference and having a strong opinion about it. This needs an IBAN, that's about it (two-way, one-way, three-way, pick your poison). --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, my pronoun preference has never been an issue for me and the vast majority of Wikipedians I have interacted with since explicitly adding my preference to my Commons user page and later my Wikipedia page have zero qualms or confusion about getting on with using a singular they, or just avoiding pronouns. I created the MfD for SMcCandlish's essay about pronouns because it read as offensive to genderqueer people, and the majority of Wikipedians that took part in that discussion found it offensive, that MfD was not about my personal choice of pronoun. Guy Macon's issues with respecting my pronoun preference are theirs, not mine. I did not create this thread at AN, I did not create the thread at ANI, which clearly demonstrates this is other people making my pronouns a focus for attention by the Wikipedia community. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll ask again, can you show more than the one edit where Guy didn't respect your gender pronoun. You previously claimed Guy misgendered you. Can you show where that happened? Springee (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  This was already answered by others. I have do not understand what you are expecting as "evidence" that would convince you about what others can apparently see easily by looking at the ANI thread. --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Where? I can specifically point to your accusations against Guy but you haven't supported them. The only evidence you offered was an edit not made by Guy. So where is the evidence? Springee (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is exactly what I'm talking about Fæ, you have an issue at all with someone getting your pronouns wrong, especially if you think it is purposeful. Now, I am not saying that you shouldn't but that it is. It's not an implied mistake on your part. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, maybe the phrasing is confusing. I can repeat again that I have no problem with someone using the wrong pronoun. I have had Arbcom members do it and often I just let it ride. Someone openly stating that they are deliberately using the wrong pronouns, not because they are confused or mistaken, is an entirely different thing. Even then, I was not sufficiently motivated to complain about it, because you know, some people want to be a pain and often it's best to follow WP:DENY rather than encourage them with the attention they seem to be fishing for. --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Close – What the H is the purpose of this request to re-open?!?! This was a solid IAR closure, not ignoring a policy or guideline, but because there is no explicit policy or guideline, and applies common sense. My real question is what principle does User:SMcCandlish think they are supporting by pushing this review of the closure? What is he trying to do that is here to advance the encyclopedia? The two choices are to endorse the closure and close this, or to take boomerang action against the filer, but enough pixels have already been wasted, so just close this and leave the previous ANI settled. --User:Robert McClenon 17:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with the close. Guy Macon was rude, and Fæ was stirring up drama as per usual. You're both in the wrong. Why can't everyone just get along? Do you guys not get along with people in real life? What's the deal? Natureium (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Huh, you do get that I literally did nothing to provoke Guy Macon? I have no idea why they felt they had to start some nonsense about pronouns, as there has been zero interaction between us since they wrote on my talk page 2 months ago. In these circumstances accusing me of stirring this up is a very strange way of framing the case. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fae, as I noted above, you have repeatedly accused Guy of misgendering you and using the wrong pronouns. As another editor showed, U Tenn said Xe is a proper and preferred term. Unless you can show that Guy repeated the mistake after you told him to stop then that argument rests on an assumption of bad faith. Your claim of misgenedering is still unsupported. How should the community reply if someone accused you of being racist yet provided no evidence? That is what you are doing to Guy. Springee (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No, "Xe" is not a "proper and preferred term" to be used instead of my preferred pronoun. If you check Wiktionary, "Xe" is described as "Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers." Bending over backwards to us this term and others that are so breathtakingly rare that I seriously doubt you can find any Wikipedia user account that has asked for them to be used, instead of either avoiding a pronoun, or using wholly acceptable "they" as the most obvious gender neutral plain English standard word, is bizarre, weird, pointy and it is incredibly hard to imagine that in the context that Guy Macon took part in the lengthy debate about the disruptive pronouns essay, and had no problem at all avoiding pronouns when they wrote several times on my user page and made other references to me in the past, that this was out of ignorance that people might have preferred pronouns. My pronoun is not any word you can imagine or find on the internet for "gender neutral" it is to use "they" or nothing, so again it is hard to imagine why someone would believe that they should use gender neutral pronouns to refer to me, without knowing what my actual pronoun preference was.

Thanks for your interest, keep in mind that I neither started this AN request or the ANI request or had any interest in starting a complaint about Guy Macon. Please read the comments by others and examine the evidence. --Fæ (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Wikt: != WP:RS. ——SerialNumber54129 18:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree you didn't start this but you did make accusations that indicate bad faith on the part of another editor. Just because you don't like Xe doesn't mean it was used with mal intent. You accused Guy of misgendering you. Please show your evidence of this clear accusation. Springee (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear to others, as per the start of this thread, that the intention was mockery and harassment. Why don't you try asking others why they think it was deliberate mockery and harassment as they said? There has been no justification as to why it would be ever be okay to use several different archaic, rare or fictional (like "Peh", taken from comic books or "Thon" considered archaic since 1961) as pronouns to refer to me. Guy Macon used Xe, Xyr, Thon, Peh, Zhim. That was no accident, that was a deliberate choice to throw as many pronouns in as possible to make a parody of the use of "they". Want to know why, or how Guy Macon can justify their usage against reliable sources, ask Guy Macon. --Fæ (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy said that was not his intent. Why are you refusing to assume good faith? Has Guy done this more than once? You say, There has been no justification as to why it would be ever be okay to use several different archaic, rare or fictional. If U Tenn says these are not mocking terms then why should we believe Guy's intent was mocking? You seem to only want to assume the worst. Again you haven't backed your claim of misgendering. At this point I think it's safe to assume that evidence, what ever it might be won't be presented. I hope it was stronger than the last evidence you presented (an edit that wasn't made by Guy). Anyway, I guess closing is the correct thing to do. Springee (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon firmly stated they would deliberately never used my preferred pronoun of "they", simply because that was my preferred pronoun. Guy Macon deliberately referred to me using the comic book fictional pronoun "Peh" along with several other bizarre pronouns to mock my plain English preferred pronoun. You are still arguing that Wikipedia must presume that was in good faith? No. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to avoid future issues Guy, who made it clear he will not use "they-singular" for any editor, not just you. I have to admit I thought it was very awkward to use "they" singular and avoided it for some time but I've adopted a when in Wiki-Rome attitude towards it. Guy referred to you using pronouns that the University of Tennessee says are correct in this case. So unless you have proof that you made it clear that Xe etc were not OK it would appear you are making a big deal out of something that Guy has said was not meant to be taken as you have taken it. It seems unfortunate that this occurred during a discussion where you were both in strong disagreement as it made the assumption of bad faith rather easy. As for the misgendering, again, you made then claim but have never supported it. Springee (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring to anyone but a character in a comic using "Peh" is misgendering, by definition. Referring to any living person with the archaic "Thon" is misgendering, by definition. This is not an opinion, it is simple fact. No bad faith can possibly be presumed against anyone stating demonstrable and verifiable facts, doing so is an act of bad faith. --Fæ (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, show us where that is "by definition". The link to Peh in the original ANI doesn't say it's considered demeaning. Did Guy use it after you said you didn't like it? Since it is a gender neutral term how can it, by definition, be misgendering? Your logic just doesn't work and perhaps that is why you aren't posting the evidence needed to support your damming accusation. Again, I do understand that WW, not you, kicked off the original ANI but it's clear your complaint boils down to playing the victim card because you don't like it. Not because Guy used a pronoun that misgendered you or was considered improper per an authoritative source. Assuming Guy didn't use the terms more than once (you haven't shown or even claimed he did), I don't see what the issue is assuming Guy doesn't use those terms again and assuming you understand why your follow on accusations are unsound. Springee (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

With regard to "Guy referred to you using pronouns that the University of Tennessee says are correct in this case", no this is a false statement. Please read the source you are making references to before making claims about it, it makes no mention of most of the pronouns that Guy Macon used to refer to me with when they were deliberately avoiding using the correct preferred pronoun, an act that others have judged to be a blatant deliberate act of harassment.

Read this carefully please. I am not a character in a comic book, so using "Peh" as a term to make a point about my preferred pronoun is misgendering me. Guy Macon is the one playing the victim card, not me. I find Guy Macon's behaviour weird, I am not a victim, just a target of abuse. --Fæ (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse close Floquenbeam got it exactly right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse close. SMcCandlish, when I ran at RFA three years ago you were effusive in your praise; so perhaps you will actually listen to what I have to say. I think you need to step back a bit here. Floq's closure does not actually make several mistakes you (and others) are saying or implying it does. I don't know the root of Guy's objections to the singular they. I don't really care. Sanctioning an editor for not knowing someone's pronouns is silly; sanctioning them for forgetting them is also silly; but warning them when they are fully aware and choose not to use them anyway is very much within the spirit of our policies about harassment. So this doesn't create any precedent of significance; referring to an editor in a particular manner, while being aware that they would like to be addressed otherwise, is always going to be seen as problematic. Oh, and Floq's closure does not exculpate Fae's behavior either; as Floq noted, Fae does indeed need to avoid poking at Guy with a stick. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I volunteer for a one way interaction ban

Clearly the community is divided on this, so I have decided to stop having any interaction with Fæ until at least 01 January 2021, at which time I will reevaluate whether the interaction ban is still needed. I will be making no further comments here, so if anyone has a question or comment, please ask me on my talk page. Unless there are extraordinary reasons to not do so, I plan on terminating all such talk page discussions in three days so that this does not drag on. This voluntary one way interaction ban is not to be construed as any admission of guilt or agreement with any accusations that have been made, but rather as a considered decision taking into account what is best for the encyclopedia and my desire to maintain my 12 year record of having zero sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• If you will make this an indefinite IBAN (and better, if Fæ also agrees to a two-way IBAN), I will log it under ER. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IB, and oppose logging tings at ER just because it's there... ——SerialNumber54129 17:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: It is voluntary... --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Voluntary is the section where voluntary restrictions go and they are enforceable, because this is Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Request Re-Close with Salvelinus

There are two tangentially related issues here. There is a conduct issue involving User:Guy Macon using a neologistic pronoun for User:Fae that appears to have been resolved, whether with an IAR closure by User:Floquenbeam or by agreement. There is also a policy issue about whether we have policies regarding the pronouns used to refer to two-spirit or non-binary humans. The conduct issue seems to have been resolved. The policy issue is still open, and Floquenbeam found a way to close the conduct issue without spending a month or more resolving the policy issue. However, User:SMcCandlish has requested to re-open the closure. On reviewing their/his statement, they/he may have either of two reasons for that request. Either they/he are/is saying that the policy issue needs to be resolved, or this is a simple case of trying to keep a conduct dispute open, which is trolling. If it is the former, which is the good-faith assumption, then the matter should be taken to Village Pump, not re-opened as a conduct dispute. If so, a fish is in order for a disruptive way to trying to address the policy issue. If the latter, a boomerang is in order; but we assume good faith. So take this to Village Pump. --User:Robert McClenon 17:38, 7 May 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.