Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301

Block review for Clockback

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.

---

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

Clockback is in real life, British journalist Peter Hitchens. He was recently indef-blocked by JzG. I will argue here that the block, while warranted, was too harsh and has outlived its purpose. The circumstances are as follows. The matter is a bit delicate, so please bear with me.

Clockback's block log is clean. The current dispute concerns George Bell (bishop), in particular, the section Child abuse allegations. Hitchens has written a lot about this matter in the British press. Clockback has sporadically edited the article in the past two-and-a-half years, largely without incident. They have also used the talk page thoroughly (I count 22 comments by them). This is by way of preamble, to stress that Blockback has been largely restrained and largely proper in their edits and discussion.

In late 2017, the Carlile report on the matter was published. Please see this BBC or this NYT article for an overview. Around the same time, there was a long discussion on how to re-organize the section in light of the report. Clockback participated in that discussion, again, largely properly. For various reasons, the editor who started the discussion didn't find the time for a rewrite (or perhaps it was a failure of WP:BOLD). So the matter rested there.

On 21 July Clockback made two edits to the article edit1, edit2. Both have edit summaries and seem like good-faith edits to me (I take no position on their correctness). They were also explained on the talkpage. Another editor Charlesdrakew reverted Clockback's edits with no explanation; Clockback reinstated the edits. On 28 July, Charlesdrakew reverted the edits again, simply saying that Clockback has a COI and should get consensus first, but no direct explanation of the revert. Clockback argued more on the talkpage, but no further discussion happened.

At this point I should mention that the two editors had butted heads in the past. Charledrakew had complained (about an earlier version) that the section gives too much space to "professional loudmouths" and that the section thus "looks like a whitewash". I take no position on whether these concerns were correct, and whether or not Charlesdrakew intended to address Mr. Hitchens. The important point is that Clockback took these comments as a personal affront (Hitchens is quoted in the section).

Things spiraled quickly after the events of 28 July. Clockback made this edit as a humourous (he says) rejoinder, which tried to express his frustration with a reductio ad absurdum. After he was reverted, he edit-warred to keep the text in. It was at this point that JzG blocked Clockback to stop the edit-warring.

I tried to mediate between the positions, and reorganized the section thoroughly. You can read my explanation here. Both Clockback and Charlesdrakew, while not entirely happy, seem to be satisfied with my rewrite.

Clockback's repeated unblock requests have been denied because the admins say that he has refused to acknowledge his improper editing. This charge is undoubtedly true, but I would ask people to read the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride. On the important matter -- namely the text of the article -- Clockback has already acceded to a reasonable consensus. One should not expect people to grovel. The block is now only punitive.

The punchline to the story is given in my !vote below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Endorse initial block but support unblocking now: The edit-warring obviously needed to be stopped, and a (short) block was entirely proper. I would, however, argue that matter has been resolved satisfactorily, so the block no longer serves a purpose. Clockback's edits were driven by a sense of frustration, and were not typical of his other edits to the page, which were largely restrained and largely made in good faith.

  Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia bureaucracy can be forbidding to a casual editor. Clockback tried to discuss his edits thoroughly, but he was not well-versed in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, which led to this downward spiral. For instance, he was not comfortable with starting an RfC. I promise to help Clockback on this point. (Incidentally, many other people have told me the same thing: RfCs are very confusing. I routinely see people screw up RfCs.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblocking, an immediate indefinite block for the first offense? No. Fish Karate 08:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Note I'm not saying a block is wrong, just that an indefinite one is excessive. Fish Karate 10:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The tone of Clockback's response to notification of this discussion, as well as that of previous unblock requests, suggests to me that this block is still necessary. I've yet to see any indication that Clockback understands the problems with his editing; the edits for which he was blocked are symptomatic of a longer-running issue, and until there's some suggestion that these editorial and COI edits won't recur, I'm in favour of retaining the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblocking, an indefinite block for the first offense is too harsh.Keith Johnston (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse my own block obviously. I mean, seriously? An editor with a COI, adding "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco", that fails WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR, frankly.

His other edits are to Christopher Hitchens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI), Peter Hitchens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (WP:AUTO, COI), Education Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI, long-standing off-wiki agenda there), A Brief History of Crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (WP:PROMO, COI), The Broken Compass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (PROMO, COI) - you have to go back ten years for a single mainspace edit that's even arguably non-conflicted, and even then it's a likely conflict given his off-wiki comments on the subject matter added at Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Overall: WP:NOTHERE. Very definitely.

This is also as clear an example of m:MPOV as you could wish for.

If unblocked he needs to be TBANned from COI edits, which is, to a good first approximation, 100% of his editing to date. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Hitchens only edits in areas where he has a massive WP:COI. From his talk page it is clear he isn't going to change. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block. As I stated on his talk page, I would need to see some evidence his behavior would change, and I haven't yet. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Clockback's edits...were not typical of his other edits to the page, which were largely restrained and largely made in good faith. - Kingsindian

Really? "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco" was his addition to the ARTICLE. That prose wouldn't be acceptable in news reporting, let alone an encyclopedia. If he wants to promote himself and grind his axe, he's got The Mail on Sunday for that. --Calton | Talk 10:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect people to read properly. My comment was explicitly NOT about this edit, but the edits PRIOR to this whole unfortunate mess. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And I expected you to note that was single example of how wrong you were -- and maybe note the others who've commented about his track record, but I guess it's hard to read properly when you're up on your high horse. --Calton | Talk 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblocking The continuation of this block appears to be purely vindictive.Themunimentroom 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Themunimentroom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
• Endorse per Yunshui, Roxy, and Calton. Gamaliel (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblocking - surely blocking is a last-resort measure for vandals and those who cannot be reasoned with, not people an editor has a conflict of opinion with. It can be argued the editorial reverting of changes was unwarranted, and needs explanation. Otherwise, the whole edifice of wikipedia (of people setting down facts) becomes under threat. PS, I read he has a COI with the page dedicated to his brother - if this is the measure of COI then practically nobody shoudl be allowed to edit anything, as they all have a COI with the topics they care to write about! User:gbjbaanb 14:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — gbjbaanb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
• Support unblocking - really believe that a temporary block is enough, this is in keeping with the spirit of openness that Wikipedia should be known for User:theheatwick 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — theheatwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
• Endorse continued block, as unblock requests to date have pretty much consisted of i-didn't-do-that and you're-a-bunch-of-totalitarians. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural close we don’t accept 3rd party unblock appeals. A sanctioned editor must appeal themselves and address the issue. Every admin who has reviewed the block until now has declined to unblock, and none of them felt the need to bring it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, notifications to @Yamla, 331dot, and MaxSem: as the admins who previously reviewed this block as they don’t appear to have been notified that it is now at AN for review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So, in a complaint about the heartless Wikipedia bureaucracy, your solution is ... more bureaucracy? No wonder Wikipedia is dying. Also relevant, in light of all the brouhaha about COI and so forth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

3rd party appeals aren’t usually allowed because they miss the point of the entire unblock process: discussion with the blocked editor. They also tend to waste a lot of energy for no reason and are dramafests that quickly become disruptive. There is nothing special about this case meriting AN review outside of the normal process at the request of someone other than the blocked editor. Their appeals will be considered on their talk page, and the advantage there for them is that they aren’t considered banned and don’t require future AN review if the unblock is declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the purposes of WP:AN is to review blocks. Nothing substantial would change if I copy pasted Clockback's last unblock request above my own statement. It's pointless WP:BURO. And if you hadn't noticed, I have been copy-pasting Clockback's comments from the talkpage here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No, bringing it here on your own without the active appeal is the exercise in bureaucracy: we just don’t do that except in cases of unambiguous abuse, which this isn’t. There is now an appeal on their talk. This should be handled there by discussion with them instead of being made a spectacle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What the hell? There's a block review of an AE case just below this section. Blocks are reviewed here all the time. I am going to ignore this trolling now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

AE blocks have to be brought either here or to AE. Unblocking without consensus leads to desysop in those cases. There is nothing special about this block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So, if I give you an instance of the scores of block reviews which had nothing to do with AE, and were not brought by the blocked party, you'll go away, right? How about this one? Or this one? Or this one? I can do this all day. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's one from just a couple days ago where the block was overturned. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie:@Mr Ernie: So what is your opinion on the block? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment The user is currently WP:CANVASSING support for his unblocking on Twitter here and here (feel free to move/remove this if I have commented in the wrong place). Endymion.12 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block, this editor doesn't seem to be prepared to participate constructively. Max Semenik (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock Clockback please - having read the material, he is entitled to express those views, however controversial and unpalatable they may be for some. And he has made some grave points and should not have to beg for forgiveness for expressing his, founded, views. Ours is a plural society, please reflect the same on this platform for Mr Hitchens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.192.69.53 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually no he's not. He is entitled to express his views, founded or not, in accordance with the bounds of the law while writing for the paper, or on his own website or blog or anywhere else that welcomes it. However wikipedia is an encylopaedia written based on sources. Discussions here are intended to be about how we improve wikipedia. The views of random editors of stuff unrelated to that purpose aren't really welcome. Given our goals of building a community, there's some limited acceptance of editors express offtopic stuff like their views of subjectw within reason but this needs to be limited. Notably if several other editors feel that someone's specific expression of their views unrelated to how to improve wikipedia is harmful, it probably is since it's seemingly not improving community relations here but harming them. Note that I have not looked into the details of the case other than to know it doesn't appear to involve a living person since it's beside my point. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblocking, an indefinite block for a first offence is way too much, Huldra (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Guy's reasoning stands up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I will note that Hitchens has now made 4 unblock requests on his talk page, and all have been turned down (by 4 different admins) because they did not address the reason for their block. Filing multiple frivolous unblock requests generally leads to shutting off talk page access. In this case, Hitchens being a public figure may be working in his favor, as admins may be shying away from that course of action so as not to be named in the inevitable follow-up off-wiki commentary from Hitchens about Wikipedia's "autocracy" and "liberal bias" - but since that's going to happen anyway, no matter what happens now (even an unblock won't stop it), someone should just bite the bullet and shut him down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block - Canvassing one's twitter followers in order to get oneself unblocked certainly means that a user should never be allowed to return. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I am sympathetic to KingsIndian's position here, as I often am. But in this case I don't agree. We have just been through the Arbcom case of Philip Cross, where we had people involved in RW disputes editing about those disputes here in WP. This is not good for anybody. If you look at their edit count you will see that Clockback has pretty much only edited about himself, his family, his books, and things he pundits about in the real world.

Back in 2015 I tried to explain COI management in WP] to him, and he replied: I've tried it and it doesn't work. You'll just have to trust me. If I restrict myself, as I have for more than a decade, to correcting errors of fact, I can't see any problem. the temptation to rewrite the whole thing in better English is immensely strong, but I have resisted it all this time and will continue to do so. I really don't see why doing this, openly, is a difficulty. That was after he had just been edit-warring completely inappropriate content into mainspace about some picture of himself. (diff, diff, diff). An unrestrained temper tantrum. His claim is also somewhat contradicted by his actual edits to the page about him, which includes things like this

At the Bell page, folks have cited the edits at Bell - the first part about A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.. Has anybody looked at the rest of that diff? It also included This was a ridiculous statement, as under English law any accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Away back in 2007 he was all up into contesting the reality of ADD in his Mail column (e.g here. And sure enough he made around 30 edits to the ADD page including beauties like this.

Clockback obviously feels quite entitled to use WP like he would a column or blog to express his opinion and have temper tantrums. Wikipedia is however not his column, and he has not given us reason to trust his self-restraint. His temper tantrum over the block, is quite in line with what I have seen of him here.

KingsIndian I do get it that WP can be difficult to understand and navigate, but for as long as Clockback has been around, he hasn't really engaged with what we do here, how we do it, and why. There are many people drawn here to edit about themselves or some other external interest. Some of them take the time to "get it"; Clockback has shown little to no interest in WP's mission but a great deal of interest in using WP as yet another platform to express his opinions. It's just not what we do here. It is fundamentally a SOAP thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block Indef block is suitable for such disruptive editors. So what if he's Christopher Hitchens' brother? Wikipedia is not his soapbox, and the editor hasn't recognized what they did wrong. I think, as a whole, we were way too lenient on them - seeing that they still have their TPA intact. byteflush _Talk 03:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I tried to close this as "no consensus to unblock" before sufficient time had elapsed for this to be considered a "community block" (which is a block that ends up endorsed after "due consideration" by the community, thus becoming a de facto CBAN). I did this in an attempt to avert unnecessary drama, prevent the escalation of an unintended CBAN, and to let this user retain the normal options for unblocking. Both the OP here and the blocked user have objected to the closure as too quick, and while I thoroughly explained to them the much more serious consequences of a formal community-endorsed block that has been given "due consideration", the OP has strenuously insisted that they want a fair trial. So, if the consensus to endorse the block continues to hold for a reasonable amount of time, that is a risk that the blocked user was made aware of and decided to take. Swarm ♠ 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock A week would be sufficient, some people seem keen to support the block because of who he is. User:Charlesdrakew seems to be one of them and that his attacks are ignored indicates we aren't treating this case fairly and neutrally, which is another reason to unblock. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock as time served. If nothing else, they are clearly keen to discuss the matter, and they are equally clearly WP:HERE. I consider the block harsh for a first offence, and although Clockback does have a transparent COI, they apper to have been up front about it from the start, and with the exception of a couple of instances, adhered to our guidelines. Although of course WP:VOL says we do not, of course, have to do anything we don't want to do, I can't help but suspect that if they had received a litle more traction on the talk page, we might not be having this discussion. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On edit: I see Govindaharihari made an eminently sensible suggestion in the archived ANI thread which, personally, I think should certainly be revisted: A topic ban from George Bell and from editing his own biography, he can request edits to his biography on the talkpage. This would appear to address the issues at hand as well as inhibiting future reoccurance. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with the assessment that Clockback is WP:HERE. To date, the overwhelming impression I have gotten from his edits to both articles and talkpages is that he is interested in making Wikipedia read and operate the way he would like it to read and operate, without regard for Wikipedia's community, policies or processes. I've seen no indication that he has any interest in working on the encylopedia outside of areas in which he has a conflict of interest, and there is a definite hint of righting great wrongs to many of his contributions. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, a ban from conflicted edits is a de facto site ban, Clockback only edits where he has a COI and this has been the case for at least ten years. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - having a valid opinion on an issue is not a "conflict of interest". Zacwill (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Jzg and Jytdog. Really now, editor has continuously edited either with a direct COI or to support their own viewpoints contrary to npov etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block At first I was hopeful that this might be resolved relatively quickly but it has become clear from Clockback’s umpteen unblock appeals that he has not taken any of the advice in WP:GAB and is incapable of admitting that he has done anything wrong, and is continuing to attack his “opponent.” He has given no indication that he would not do the same thing again. I cannot see how we can unblock here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block I agree with TonyBallioni that a third-party block appeal misses the point. Discussion needs to take place with the blocked editor. Given the amount of discussion that already has taken place with them, I'm not convinced that the behavior leading to the block will not continue. The goal of a block is not punitive, but to protect the encyclopedia, which this block is doing. In addition, the behavior following the block (and relating to the block) is quite concerning to me, including the canvassing on Twitter and continued attempts at finding appeal proxies rather than handling the matter themselves per WP:APPEAL. The COI issues, editorializing, etc., don't have a place on Wikipedia and they don't seem to realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or blog. I think they should be given the standard offer and see where it leads in time once cooler heads prevail. Waggie (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse unblocking. I have for several years donated money to this organization with the understanding that it would be of good use for a non-profit organization such at this is in order to uphold this great informational website, available for all interested, had I known that this organization with its self proclaimed high values in the shadow uses censorship I would have never donated and will from now on never do it again until this unwrong is fixed. Quite amazing to see such a big ”trial” for what should be a small matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhellstrom (talk • contribs) — Mhellstrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

• So you've given lots of money, but never edited before today? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I am a frequent reader, not an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhellstrom (talk • contribs)

• Your donations to WMF are irrelevant, and do not give your comment any more weight. If anything, what gives a comment additional weight is if it comes from a Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, of which they are examples on both sides of this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block. No remorse and the posts at User talk:Clockback fail to persuade me that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Indeed, they seem to confirm that disruption is going to continue[1]. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block until Clockback’s attitude changes. I initially assumed this was going to be a partisan dispute of right wing versus left wing editors voting and was open to idea of supporting an unblock, but examining the facts and carefully reviewing his unblock requests, it is clear that this editor is disruptive and is draining of people’s time (he is behaving like the world and Wikipedia should revolve around him and he has the right to drain people of their time so he can WP:SOAPBOX his opinions (so much so he had to have his talk page access removed), instead of just editing productively and being willing to admit to mistakes. Should his attitude change only then can I support an unblock request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock with ‘mentoring’ by myself I have changed my vote having read kingsindian’s posts in clockback’s defence which triggered me to look even more deeply into this issue and I’ve found substantial evidence of Clockback seeking consensus and working collaboratively with other editors on COI talk pages, e.g. Talk:Peter_Hitchens/Archive_4. I would agree to mentor him (in the form of helping him with disputes and pointing him to relevant policies and guidelines or instructions as a major issue he had was how to deal with image approval and dispute resolution processes, etc). I do not think Clockback is a bad lad, he cares passionately about social issues which can create biased editing but the evidence of him working collaboratively with other editors most of the time to achieve neutrality makes this less of a concern. The block has served it’s purpose to prevent edit warring and to warn him that editorialising with original ideas not supported by sources is not acceptable. Give the guy a second chance. If I am wrong, well, it is easy to just block him again. Why deny a guy a second chance, are we that unforgiving as a community?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Clockback has appealed, albeit disruptively in article body text, for help and guidance from editors in areas of policy and guidelines where he is still a newbie, so I think he would likely accept a mentor (someone he could come to for advice or assistance navigating complex Wikipedia rules or to help resolve a dispute).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock I think an indefinite block is excessive in this case. I have looked through some of Clockback's contributions. He appears to always state that he is Peter Hitchens when giving his view on talk pages, and the recent edits at George Bell seem to be uncharacteristic of his editing. Edits such as this, the canvassing on Twitter, and other similar behavior display an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, but I believe his edits are fundamentally in good faith. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indef somewhat reluctantly, after reading the user talk page. I do not endorse a community-ban; perhaps once the situation has cooled down (and they've stopped trying to get randoms from Twitter to get them unblocked), they'll realize just how ridiculous contributions like [2] are, and that none of their excuses for it were believable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block he writes: "I was blocked indefinitely, an absurd over-reaction to a legitimate bit of mild mischief entirely explained and justified by the appalling behaviour of the unpunished 'Charles'". Until he recognizes he has to follow community guidelines. -- 73.170.168.69 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) — User:73.170.168.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
• Endorse block (Non-administrator comment) I've looked over the George Bell article edits and Talk page discussion, as well as the discussion on Clockback's Talk page. Clockback added inappropriate content to the article, edit-warred to keep it in, and declared that he would continue edit-warring. He calls the content "mild mischief" but to my mind, mild mischief is equivalent to mild vandalism. It is appropriate to indefinitely block someone who is edit-warring to preserve their mild vandalism no matter who they are or how long they've been here. Indefinite does not mean infinite and editors are blocked indefinitely all the time for first offenses (examples include vandalism, username issues, and legal threats). It would have been rather simple for Clockback to get unblocked but instead of doing that, he's said he can't guarantee he won't do this again and is blaming the other editor. Therefore, the block is preventing further disruption. I hope that we won't see any new appeals for at least six months; if that means that this block is converted into a community ban, I support that because he has shown himself through his editing (as detailed by JzG and Jytdog) to be NOTHERE. If Clockback is unblocked I support a topic ban on COI edits. Ca2james (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse Unblock Ought one be indefinitely blocked for causing certain people annoyance regardless of the importance of their contributions - and, potential contributions? It seems those in charge have forced Mr Hitchens to drink hemlock and, when he refused, into exile. Apologies if I have inserted my comment incorrectly. I have a feeling of trepidation while writing this and expect to be reprimanded or 'tagged' as I have just opened an account and this is my first edit. Is this the sort of atmosphere an interactive 'encyclopedia' should instil in its more sensitive users? Crosslaa01 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Antony (user: crosslaa01)
• Endorse block for the original reasons plus the reprehensible canvassing. Nihlus 13:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock I've examined all of the details and I believe the Indef block should be removed. Clockback seems to have been overwhelmed by the bureaucratic and sometimes kafka-esque system of blocks and sanctions. Nobody should have to beg, and the initial unblock responses by Yamla and Max seem to emphasize process over content. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I tried explaining to Clockback that there is a guide to appealing blocks, and that they are virtually guaranteed to be unblocked if they simply follow the instructions there. Reading the guide and submitting a compliant unblock request would have probably taken them less time and energy than the rambling diatribe they replied with. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block based primarily on off-wiki canvassing. I do not agree with the way Clockback handled the original dispute. However, I think that under all of the poor rhetoric, there might be (by stretching WP:AGF) an argument that he was trying to improve the project. (NB: I have fully reviewed the arguments here, and skimmed talk page and edits.) But there is no argument for the off-wiki canvassing if he truly wants to be part of the project. Again, assuming he was unaware of the policy on canvassing, after bringing that policy to his attention, he could've deleted his tweets. He has not. He asks the community to have faith in him, but he demonstrates no faith in the community or willingness to productively engage. Endorse block, though I would welcome revisiting this in a few months under the normal standard offer criteria if there is demonstrated remorse. If Clockback demonstrated remorse, I think that would be such a drastic shift from his current positions that it would warrant serious consideration by the community. Thanks to all the editors that have taken their time. --Policy Reformer(c) 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse Block per Ca2james. I've read through their talk page and don't find anything WP could gain by retaining him as an editor. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please see the discussion on Clockback's talk page. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As above, please see the discussion on Clockback's talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have suggested a topic ban as an alternative to a full block, but as Clockback is effectively a single issue editor he might not regard that as an improvement. Assuming this is Peter Hitchens, which I have no reason to doubt, he is too closely involved with the subject to edit without conflict of interest. Hitchens has long been a leading member of the Bishop Bell fan club and rants about it in his Mail blog. While Bell is long dead the women who complained is alive and deserves respect. I have modified Kingsindian's rewrite slightly so that it does not look as if the Carlisle review is a vindication of Bell. It is not, being entirely neutral and criticising the church's treatment of both the complainant and Bell's memory.Charles (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC) The following reply by Clockback is copy-pasted from his talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) If 'Charles' cares to look, he will see that my personal link with the sign-on 'Clockback' has been confirmed by me according to Wikipedia protocols. There is no need to raise any question about the matter. My involvement in the Bell case is wholly disinterested. I have never met George Bell, am not related to him, I am not paid by him or his family. I took up this case because it seemed to me that an injustice had been done. I don't wish to boast, but merely offer this comparison for an example. Would Emile Zola have been disqualified from any role in the Wikipedia entry on the Dreyfus case, had there been a Wikipedia at the time, especially if he had intervened ( as I have done) cautiously and with referenced fact to back up my edits? ? Please note the hostile and pejorative use of the derisive term 'rants' to describe my writings about the subject. I also note his derisive use of the term 'George Bell fan club' to describe a group which includes Frank Field MP, Lord Lexden, several prominent churchmen and women, and a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, a distinguished QC and a retired judge. It has attracted support from both left and right, and from different wings of the C of E, including from the Very Revd Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Revd Giles Fraser. It is quite nonpartisan. How 'Charles' can portray himself as a disinterested or impartial editor while behaving in this fashion (or how his claims to be such can be accepted ) I have no idea. I remain amused that this behaviour goes unnoticed and unrebuked, whereas my actions get me blocked *indefinitely* . This behaviour by'Charles' is of a piece with his abusive and ad hominem use of the term 'loudmouths' and his insulting use of the term 'whitewash' to describe efforts to clear the name of an unjustly pilloried person. I am not a single-issue editor, as it happens, but I do have a special and close interest in the Bell case, and ( as most of my fellow-campaigners for justice for Bishop Bell are even older and fustier and unskilled in the use of computers than I am), it has fallen to me to try to get the entry to try to reflect the considerable efforts of that campaign, and indeed its success, in overcoming the original mistaken and unjust presumption of guilt. I have always been very careful in doing so, because I understand that some people might think my intervention improper. I have only ever done so when it was clear to me that important changes needed to be made, and that nobody else would do them if I did not. I have explained myself fully on the Talk page and always been open to compromise. 'Charles' informs us: 'I have modified Kingsindian's rewrite slightly so that it does not look as if the Carlisle review is a vindication of Bell'. He then asserts:'It is not, being entirely neutral and criticising the church's treatment of both the complainant and Bell's memory'. This causes me to doubt if 'Charles' has read the Carlile report, or, as I have done, spoken to Lord Carlile about it. He cannot even spell its author's name correctly. It is a devastating rebuke to the church and the Sussex Police, and a demolition of the case against George Bell. It still amazes me that it forms such a small part of the Wikipedia entry, and that there was not, until I recently added it, even a direct link to it there. Lord Carlile said to me on the record at his press conference that he would not, were he a prosecutor in the case, have expected to secure a conviction of Bell on the evidence which he has seen (and he has seen it all). As Lord Carlile was specifically prevented, by his terms of reference, from ruling directly on the issue, this was as close as he could come to it. Charles says 'the women who complained is alive and deserves respect'. Why does he say this? I know of no occasion on which I have not shown respect to the claimant. I have never doubted that her accusation was sincere, and have never uttered a pejorative word about her, nor sought to insert anything uncomplimentary to her in the entry. Nor would I. Nor would any member of the group seeking justice for Bishop Bell. So what is the purpose of this sentence in this intervention by 'Charles'? This is about the Church, and the police, and those parts of the media which were beguiled by them, and always has been. Surely an alert and fair editor would be aware of this? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC) I'll make a comment myself, because I find the situation more and more distasteful. I don't know whether to laugh or weep. See this section on the WP:ANI page, where Clockback appealed for impartial eyes on the matter. To remind people: at that point, the only talk page discussion was by Clockback, and he wasn't getting any feedback at all, except constant reverting. What he got instead was an indef block by JzG, who says that they didn't even know that he was Peter Hitchens. If he knew, perhaps he would have seen this edit not as "editorialising" or WP:NOTHERE, but rather as a little bit of self-deprecating humour. I thought the British specialized in such humour? Or maybe being a Wikipedia admin requires one to be a humourless pedant. It was definitely wrong to try this sort of thing in a medium like text where humour doesn't carry very well. But this kind of edit deserves an indef block? Have people completely forgotten how difficult and forbidding Wikipedia is to edit, especially for new and casual users? And when that user tries to complain or get some help, he is met with an indef, instead of someone probing beneath the surface and trying to help them out? The humourlessness, arrogance and officiousness displayed in this thread is truly distasteful. Finally, a word about COI. Clockback has publicly declared their identity. He was not blocked for COI, but for "editorializing" -- JzG doesn't mention COI once in their block rationale, because they didn't even know that Clockback was Peter Hitchens. Now to suddenly shift the justification (but to keep the punishment) smacks of "sentence first, verdict after". It is truly a looking-glass world here in Wikipedia. The justification doesn't even make any sense. People with a COI aren't absolutely disallowed from editing pages. I can give you tens of examples, including WMF board members and Wikipedia arbitrators who have engaged in "COI" editing in this sense. As I mentioned, Clockback waited for over half a year before making these edits -- the person who had proposed the reorganization didn't find the time to do it, so Clockback did it themselves. Anyone who has ever dealt with COI editing on Wikipedia knows that this happens all the time. I can give tens of examples (again). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC) You do know that the COI makes it worse, not better, right? Declared or not, it's over a decade since Clockback made a single mainspace edit that can be remotely plausibly argued not to be COI. So the harder you look at the problem the worse it looks. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC) So, even though COI had nothing to do with the block, one must keep the block, because COI? It seems to me that you have already decided on the sentence, and are looking for reasons to convict. If you apply Cromwell's rule for just 10 minutes, and cease your motivated reasoning, you might reach a different conclusion. And, if the real reason for blocking is COI, why not unblock Clockback, and open a real discussion here (or elsewhere) about COI, where they can defend themselves? There's no imminent disruption here which requires a block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC) So that everyone here is aware, Hitchens has been tweeting about his block, and this block review (I won't link to every tweet he's sent, but these 2 are directly related: [3] [4]). Iffy★Chat -- 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm, I'm not an expert in these things but I'm guess canvassing your Twitter followers to come to this thread and !vote here in support of unblocking will not be kindly looked upon....--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC) I think PH has come to realise what many of us have known for some time: that wikipedia is currently in the hands of an anonymous and somewhat oppressive autocratic elite who are accountable to absolutely no-one. Mr Hitchens is perfectly entitled to make this subject public. Telling others about this matter is not a crime! Those interested in "wikipolitics" might want to research the Philip Cross affair which has recently been the subject of numerous interesting discussions about the true nature of wikipedia. I can still remember the time when wikipedia was largely a bit of fun and it really was a platform on which anyone could edit. Those days are long gone. Some pages are jealously guarded and editing them is impossible. I for one now largely avoid it. John2o2o2o (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC) You, for one, only have 211 edits in 6 years (at least under this account name) or which only 34 edits (i.e. 16%) are to articles. The bulk of your edits (167, 79%) are to talk pages. So, really, your opinion, as someone who has done little to nothing to improve the encyclopedia, is fairly negligible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Copy pasted from Clockback's talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC) I'd better respond to the various claims of 'conflict of interest' now being added on to the Kangaroo charges against me. I am probably the only living person in a position to know my father's actual function aboard HMS Jamaica in December 1943, and so perhaps nobody else could have removed the rather embarrassing claim (which my father and my brother would have hated) that my late father was in command of that fine cruiser at the time. As far as I can remember it was Captain Hughes-Hallett RN. The mistake arose from a misunderstanding of the Naval Rank 'Commander', which does not mean 'Commander of a Ship' (though some Commanders do command ships) . But if this is to be damned as 'conflict of interest', where are we? Nobody without such a 'COI' could have corrected this mistake. Should it then have been left uncorrected? Bizarre. I don't believe any such rule can be , or is consistently applied. As for my supposed crime in writing:' "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco', every word in it is absolutely true. But the qualification is only necessary because of the insistence by 'Charles' - who utterly refused to discuss the matter and who is emerging in this discussion as a thoroughly partisan and POV person on the subject of George Bell (would a topic ban be appropriate, do we think?), in retaining the pointless section on the non-calling of the police. One could likewise write, of this current dispute that the United Nations Security Council were not called in. But anyone who understood or knew anything about anything would not write that, and any editor of any sense would remove it. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Another copy-pasted comment: I feel it is now necessary to address the behaviour of 'Charles', and were I not blocked, I would do so. It is quite absurd that I should be muzzled while he faces no criticism at all. I have noted here 1: His refusal to engage with me on the Talk pages except to allege COI against me. 2. His repeated use of pejorative and hostile terminology directed at me and my associates ' loudmouth', 'whitewash', and now 'rant' and Bishop Bell fan club'. I think this amounts to a clear declaration of hostile bias on the subject under discussion. This is made worse, in my view, by the fact that (unlike me) his real identity is not declared and we cannot know what his interest in the issue may be, if any, whereas mine is quite open and undisguised.Those here who are so anxious to condemn me, mainly for mistakenly assuming they possessed senses of humour, are now aware of the behaviour of 'Charles' and cannot therefore ignore it. By *their own standards*, is this really acceptable in someone who boasts of a 'Platinum Star' for his editing? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC) @Huldra: It isn't a "first offence", he has been blocked for a long-term tendentious editing, WP:COI editing, and edit-warring. Please review the details. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC) @Endymion.12: what I meant, was that this was his first block. To go from zero blocks straight to indefinite seems excessive to me. (It can of course be warranted, but then you would have do have committed a "wikideadly sin", say Outing, or legal threat, etc. That is not the case here.), Huldra (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC) @Huldra: Given that they apparently do not understand why they have been blocked, and have refused to acknowledge that they have done anything wrong, I would suggest this block is preventative. They have already filed four unblock requests, each of which has been turned down. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Another reply from Clockback -- on the COI issue. I am simply posting the diff here, because this section is already very long. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) What's with the freaking lines? There's no reason that Clockback's comments should be set off any differently than any other editor's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC) This is the final statement from Clockback. Copy-pasted from their talkpage, in response to this diff from Jytdog. Any admin can assess consensus and close this block review, if they wish. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Well, where to begin? I appear now to be on trial for actions many years ago, and for my supposed attitude, though the actual block was my punishment for being foolish enough to ask formally for editorial help in a dispute with 'Charles' who still goes unrebuked for calling me a 'loudmouth', and accusing me of 'rants' 'whitewash' and equally unrebuked for repeatedly ignoring my talk page requests for discussion and his autocratic, unexplained reversions of my explained and well-justified changes, for which I had been arguing on the talk page for more than *two years*. I should have thought my long-stretched patience with him, and my readiness to compromise show clearly that I *do* try to abide by the encyclopaedic spirit . Instead of help I got an *indefinite* block, which cannot possibly, in my view, have followed proper consideration of a dispute that had actually been simmering for more than two years. Perhaps Judge Dredd here has a toothache or an ingrowing toenail, which make his temper short. The fact that I am a newspaper columnist ('someone who is a pundit in the real world')is alleged against me, thus : I am 'treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms '.On the first, I freely admit that many years ago, I foolishly attempted to edit the page on 'Attention Deficit Disorder;' so that it reflected the considerable disagreements on the subject and the grave scientific weakness of the case for 'ADD' and its treatment with amphetamines. I may, it is true, have lost patience from time to time. I have learned since then that entries on such issues (and even on less contentious matters too) have guardians who will not allow them to be altered and who have the barrack-room lawyer's close knowledge of the regulations which makes them impossible to fight without an army of supporters and limitless time. I have neither. I learned from this, mainly not to trust any Wikipedia entries on issues of current controversy. But also not to bother. To bring these ancient scuffles up as evidence in this case is plainly absurd. Likewise the ridiculous suggestions that I am seeking to advance my own cause in factual edits to my Wikipedia biography or my late brother's. Oh, honestly. Hilariously, before Judge Block realised who I was he was consumed with fury at me for having described *myself* as having 'sabotaged my own education', in the belief that this was a malicious, destructive edit. Well, he can't have it both ways. It *would* be a malicious edit if an anonymous person who was not me did it. But precisely because I did it, it cannot be. Doesn't this show, that by including material critical of myself in my own biography, that I am not self-seeking here? I have a strong belief that most of the faults of the internet are caused by anonymity, and so never hide behind it. I decided, as far as I can recall, from the first that I would say exactly who I was on Wikipedia, as I do everywhere else. If I did not do this, most of the allegations of supposed COI could not be made, because nobody would know. But the implication, that I am so stupid that I cannot tell an encyclopaedia entry from a newspaper column, or vice versa, and that I think I could or should get away with interfering in entries which concern me in a way that suits my case, *while using my own name* is rather insulting. I am just not that thick. Actually almost all my edits on these sites have been tiny factual matters where editors have just git it wrong, and I know from direct personal knowledge that they have. I can't really see that this is a serious breach. The George Bell case is, I agree, wholly different. My involvement in it is wholly disinterested, in that I am not a relative of, or a friend of George Bell, or in any way obligated to him personally. It is, however, true, that I have been prominent in a campaign to get justice for him in this case of alleged child abuse . When I say justice, I mean precisely that. If a proper fair tribunal finds him guilty as charged, I shall accept it. If it does not, and there has so far been no such tribunal, then I shall continue to demand that public bodies, newspapers etc treat him as if he is innocent of these charges, as is proper under English law. I understand perfectly that some people will view my involvement in the Wikipedia entry as questionable. That is why I have used the talk page to encourage others to make edits which I regard as essential if the George Bell page is to be accurate . For good or ill I am one of the people who is best-informed about it, and I do not see why i should kepe that knowledge udner a bushel, when i could sue it to ensure a more accurate entry. This would have been a lot easier in the absence of the abusive, unresponsive, uncompromising and openly partisan editor 'Charles'( who as well as calling me a 'loudmouth', describing my work as 'rants' , characterising my efforts to get justice for an unfairly condemned man as a 'whitewash', describing a nonpartisan campaign containing many powerless people. the Revd Giles Fraser, and some other notable left-wingers as 'right-wing' and ' establishment' sneered at a disinterested and highly serious group of people ranging from members of the Chichester cathedral congregation, a group of former choirboys at that cathedral, a former chaplain of George Bell (and decorated naval veteran of World War Two) who, though dying, yet gave testimony in his favour, the daughter of a victim of Hitler helped by Bell, several distinguished academics, a retired judge, a QC and a dissident Labour MP to the former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the Dean of Christ Church as 'The George Bell Fan Club'). I have been most restrained in my interventions. I wish others would take on the task, but most of those involved in the Bell campaign and so knowledgeable enough to do so, have even weaker computer skills than I do, many are even older, and it was left to me. The satirical edit for which I am condemned (though every word of it was true) was never intended to stand, but it was intended to break the deadlock caused by the obduracy of 'Charles'. So it did. But my formal appeal for help got me ....blocked. That'll encourage the others. Well and good, that was a risk I suppose I ran. But it was clearly a ludicrous and hasty over-reaction, and people should stop making up retrospective reasons for it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose nobody cares that Calton (who has participated in this discussion, so is not uninvolved) has now hatted the above section, which includes my comment here. What gives Calton the right to go around hatting sections? Nothing is going to surprise me now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Report

This appears to be the investigative report mentioned above by Clockback that they seem to want to write about in Wikipedia. I have not read it all but it seems relevant here that it discusses "jounalist Peter Hitchens" on page 25, para. 110; and page 52, para. 204. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COISELF says "If you have a personal connection to a topic . . . you are advised to refrain from editing . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He did refrain from editing. For more than half a year, in fact. The COI guideline does not absolutely disallow editing, but expects that you discuss things on the talkpage. Which he did. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The COI guideline does not give editors with COI any authorization to go ahead and make policy violating edits under any circumstances, to the contrary, it prohibits it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask you something. You make a point about COI guideline saying that editors being advised to refrain from editing directly. I reply to this point. You don't even acknowledge what I said, and go on to make another point, one which I never disputed. Are we talking to the void or having a conversation? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had replied to your point, but if it is unclear, your attempt to render null the community consensus in the guideline's various provisions advising/telling/asking/imploring/prohibiting the COI editor not to edit, is irrelevant wikilawyering. It is what should be done, it being a guideline, and that means a COI editor should do it, and 'I am not getting what I want' is not a valid reason for not doing what should be done by the COI editor.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

COI stuff

Let me address the point about COI raised by several people, including the initial blocking admin JzG and Jytdog above:

1. According to the WP:ANI thread which resulted in Clockback's indef block, JzG wasn't even aware of their identity when they blocked them -- within 15 minutes of their post at ANI -- indefinitely. This means that JzG never even looked at Clockback's userpage (where Clockback self-identifies). Does anyone feel that a summary "sentence" -- in which such basic material facts as the user's self-declared identity weren't considered -- might be a tiny bit problematic? We report, you decide.

An obvious example of how identity is relevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In particular, if JzG was aware of Clockback's identity, they would not have fingered this edit (cited in their ANI response), as some kind of WP:NOTHERE or "unsourced" and "editorializing" edit. The source includes the quote by Hitchens "[I] made sure I would never get into Oxbridge. It was my own fault". To render this source as "sabotaging his own education" is a perfectly acceptable WP:summary style edit. And why would JzG tell Hitchens what he does or doesn't know about his own actions?

1. COI was not mentioned in the block rationale. Clockback made 5 unblock requests. None of the admins -- none -- mentioned COI while declining the block.
2. Now, this new charge of COI has been added to the chargesheet. Why? Supposedly the conduct is so bad that it merits an indef block without any prior warning or discussion? Where is the disruption or imminent disruption?

I submit that this is a severe case of "bad block". If the COI issue is really important, the proper way to proceed would be to first dispose of this unrelated matter. Hopefully unblock Clockback, and then talk to them or discuss their actions at a noticeboard. See this discussion by Jytdog, for instance. I will only say here that the COI guideline does not directly disallow people from editing the articles. I said above that I can provide tens of examples of editors (including WMF board members, and sitting and past arbitrators) who have violated the COI guideline in this sense. Test me if you want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The general issue, and then the specific one.

The general point on COI: COI guideline says that -- with a few exceptions -- conflicted editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. I believe that this notion has fairly broad and deep consensus (there are very vocal dissenters, of course). There is good reason for this guidance and the consensus behind it. When conflicted editors edit directly, they tend to add bad content and tend to behave badly trying to retain it -- edit warring and making tendentious arguments to keep it. Accepting the restraints of the COI management system spares everybody that drama, grounded on an acknowledgement by everybody involved, that a conflict of interest is present, and needs management.

As a last general matter: I acknowledge that there are cases of glaring COI editing. WP is shot through with garbage content along with good and like any human institution has flaws and hypocrisy in its administration along with good. But I am somewhat dismayed to see you, whom I respect, making an othershitexists argument.

Now to the specifics: What I tried to emphasize in my vote, is that with Clockback we have someone who is a pundit in the real world who is a) treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms and not engaging with the mission of WP and the ways the community has developed to realize it and b) editing about themselves and the issues they punditize about in their RW platforms. The latter is where the formal COI is, but the former is the deeper problem, which the COI only exacerbates.

The block log says Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.

In my view that aptly summarizes Clockback's entire career here in WP. It summarizes a) above, and b) above helps explain why Clockback behaves this way. Many people have a hard time seeing the mission clearly and engaging with it and the ways we realize it; conflict of interest makes it yet harder yet for people to clearly see what we do here (and hard to not see WP as a soapbox/platform for promotion). Someone whose real world occupation is writing their opinions will have a very hard time. We should not unblock Clockback until he shows some glimmer of self-awareness about how incorrect his approach to WP has been. (and btw, expressing self-awareness is not "grovelling"; that is, sadly, how many tendentious, indefinitely blocked editors frame this essential part of the community reconciliation process.)

I'll add that I trust Guy's instincts a great deal. Not perfectly, and I have been on the wrong end of him shooting from the hip. But he has a great sense of whether somebody is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia or not, and understands that good faith is not a suicide pact. He indefs perhaps quicker than most admins. I have breathed a sigh of relief after many, many of his indefs.

A question I will turn back to you:

What evidence do you have that Clockback understands or even cares about a) our mission to create an encyclopedia with articles summarizing accepted knowledge, working in a community of pseudonymous editors, and b) the way the community realizes the mission -- namely by placing authority in reliable sources, not on the opinions or claimed expertise of any editor, and striving to summmarize those sources neutrally? Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that you didn't address a single point I raised. You say you sympathize with my points. I don't want your sympathy. And you can keep your faith in JzG. I have no interest in such things. Unless you address my points -- all directly relevant to the block -- I'm afraid, there's no use talking.

Here's a direct question: Does indef blocking a Wikipedia editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without taking into account their self-declared identity, without even checking their userpage, and making at least one demonstrably wrong assertion about their edits, indicate "due diligence" to you?

And what does COI have to do with anything? That's not what the block was for.

I promise that if you address my points, I'll address yours, even though I consider COI to be essentially a red herring. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Red herring? You named this section 'COI stuff' --- the account was blocked for non-policy compliant editing over years --- but that there is WP:COI, would be a probable explanation for such an editing pattern. Others think that enough talking with the editor about their problematic editing did occur before the block over those years. Indef does not mean infinite, it means address understanding (and/or formal restraints) for/of issues/pattern/policy, so that the disruption will not re-occur.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

COI was not the primary reason for blocking, but the edit that triggered the block absolutely was COI (along with many other tihngs) and more than a decade of nothing but COI edits in mainspace is a great reason for not unblocking IMO. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian I am sorry that you feel I didn't address your points. I feel I did. Let me walk it through:

Your first sentence: I submit that this is a severe case of "bad block".

I addressed why I thought it was a good block per the block rationale, which in my view accurately summarized what Clockback has been doing in WP. I also discussed the particulars of Guy's blocking style and how this fits with that.

Your second sentence: If the COI issue is really important, the proper way to proceed would be to first dispose of this unrelated matter.

I tried to explain that in this matter, COI helps explain Clockback's pattern of behavior, but I very explicitly said in (a) that the fundamental problem is Clockback's lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it. I even used the little "a" and "b" to try to make the difference clear between the problem "a" and one cause of it "b". I also tried to explain (and I will elaborate here) that COI matters come to the community's attention because of the kind of content conflicted editors tend to generate, and because of how they tend to behave. There are content and behavior problems. These problems can be described without any reference to COI - violating NPOV, adding unsourced content, edit warring, tendentious arguments on talk, etc. These issues can also be addressed at ANI or by admins without any reference to COI. We bring COI into it, because if there is a COI and the person acknowledges it and how it creates problems in this particular environment, they will generally start to behave better and edit better -- the understanding by the conflicted person is essential. COI is a definable, well-understood thing. This can lead to better outcomes for everybody. I try to do the same thing when somebody edits as an advocate and creates bad content and behaves badly -- I try to help them become self-aware of their own passion, so they can self-manage it better. Advocacy is less well-defined in the real world, and much harder for everybody to think about and manage. But again, what calls attention, is the bad content and bad behavior -- the observable, diff-able things they do in WP. These are what were addressed in the block notice for Clockback.

Your third and fourth sentences: Hopefully unblock Clockback, and then talk to them or discuss their actions at a noticeboard. See this discussion by Jytdog, for instance.

I directly addressed this and said that the block rationale was solid, and Clockback should not be unblocked until he shows self-awareness that he has been using his editing privileges incorrectly - namely as an extension of how he writes in his columns and blogs without regard for WP's mission and the methods by which we realize it. He seems to be unaware (and unconcerned) with what we do here and how we do it.

Your fifth sentence: I will only say here that the COI guideline does not directly disallow people from editing the articles.

I directly addressed this.

Your sixth sentence: I said above that I can provide tens of examples of editors (including WMF board members, and sitting and past arbitrators) who have violated the COI guideline in this sense. Test me if you want.

I directly addressed this.

So... ? I do not agree with you, but I did try to speak to everything that you raised. I did try. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog It should be pointed out that [5] would be inappropriate whoever added it. To say that someone "sabotaged" their education would require robust sourcing even knowing that it was added by the subject. This had no source. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: My points are numbered. There is a big chunk of text before the "first sentence". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry let me directly address them as well.

1) you wrote:According to the WP:ANI thread which resulted in Clockback's indef block, JzG wasn't even aware of their identity when they blocked them -- within 15 minutes of their post at ANI -- indefinitely. This means that JzG never even looked at Clockback's userpage (where Clockback self-identifies). Does anyone feel that a summary "sentence" -- in which such basic material facts as the user's self-declared identity weren't considered -- might be a tiny bit problematic? We report, you decide.

As I noted, the problem was Clockback's pattern of observable behavior. Those who are in the "content not contributor" camp and oppose addressing COI matters much if ever, should be delighted that this was based solely on diff-able observable behavior without regard for who this person is. Unmanaged COI has been (as I have now said twice) a cause of the behavior, but the problem is a deeper lack of engagement with what we do and how we do it. See discussion above about what calls our attention to APPARENTCOI in the first place -- observable, diff-able behavior.

1a) You wrote "In particular, if JzG was aware of Clockback's identity, they would not have fingered this edit (cited in their ANI response), as some kind of WP:NOTHERE or "unsourced" and "editorializing" edit. The source includes the quote by Hitchens "[I] made sure I would never get into Oxbridge. It was my own fault". To render this source as "sabotaging his own education" is a perfectly acceptable WP:summary style edit. And why would JzG tell Hitchens what he does or doesn't know about his own actions?"

I really didn't want to respond to this (which is why I haven't so far) but now that that I am, I will say "Jesus fucking christ." Think about that last sentence. So you would give people who verify their identities more authority here in WP than other editors? Shall we also give company reps more authority? Shall we just hang up our hats and call this "PRopedia"? What the hell? (first question is real; last three are rhetorical)

Calming down, and dealing with the ref and the edit -- did you look at what else he did in that diff? Look at the block of text that includes "as part of the group of reporters accompanying Margaret Thatcher After witnessing the collapse of the Communist regimes in Czechoslovakia and Romania". There is unsourced autobiographical writing. Not OK here.

With regard to the bit that you pull about "sabotage", yes that does have some support in the source and Guy was incorrect about it being unsourced; that is a valid "gotcha". However, that phrase is something that should catch anybody's eye as "color" in a BLP article and does call for examination. Looking at the source -- there is an intentionality to "sabotage" that is not necessarily present in the quote. Fucking up in a way that turns out to have longterm consequences (as passionate young people often do), and owning the fuckup and its consequences, is not the same as intentional destruction i.e. "sabotage". A lot depends on what "Made sure I would never get into Oxbridge" actually meant in that conversation. To resolve which it is, would require discussion and looking at what other sources say about it.

2) you wrote:COI was not mentioned in the block rationale. Clockback made 5 unblock requests. None of the admins -- none -- mentioned COI while declining the block.

As I noted, the problem was Clockback's pattern of observable behavior. It is appropriate that COI was not discussed.

3) you wrote:Now, this new charge of COI has been added to the chargesheet. Why? Supposedly the conduct is so bad that it merits an indef block without any prior warning or discussion? Where is the disruption or imminent disruption?

As I already have written, it is not so much a "charge" as everybody going "yep that explains some of the behavior" and "yep unmanaged COI is a problem". I have consistently been trying to separate out the long term behavior and the underlying lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it, from this cause of the behavior. I am starting to feel like I am repeating that too much. gah.

I have written too much but I just want to end the same way I ended my !vote. Clockback has not shown they understand what we do here nor how we do it. It is a WP:NOT problem -- It is fundamentally a SOAP thing. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will go back-and-forth (once or twice max.) with your reply to my points (just to clarify the points). After that, as I promised, I will reply to your own points. Feel free to end the conversation any time, but let me know if you do.

Let me make a general point first. Perhaps I am unfair, but it seems to me that you're trying to find reasons as to why your position is the right one. That is not the correct way of evaluating hypotheses. So, if one is in a Bayesian model, one can have a prior (say, "JzG is usually right about COI or indef blocks, so this block is good with probability 90%."), but must be willing to update it. I don't see any updating at all here: you may concede a point here or there, but ultimately, you change no positions. None. That's not really an argument; that's just providing justifications -- what theologians call "apologetics". Sophisticated theologians can construct quite elaborate apologias.

Let's be specific now. When you say Those who are in the "content not contributor" camp and oppose addressing COI matters much if ever who do you mean? Do you mean me? I never said or implied anything even remotely like this. So why construct this elaborate strawman? Could it be that you're trying to find reasons for justifying the block, and and not updating the probability of the hypothesis "the block was made improperly"? Again, I'm telling you how it looks to me. It looks like apologetics.

Let me make a simple assertion: The identity of Clockback was indeed relevant to his editing. Everyone in this discussion agrees with this assertion. Indeed, people are now insisting that his identity is hugely relevant to the matter, because "COI! COI! COI!". So how could it not have been relevant when he was blocked? It follows directly that a basic, material fact was disregarded before passing this summary "sentence" of indef block. As far as I can determine, you never challenge this simple point. This is evidence for the hypothesis "the block was made improperly". You seem to disregard this. Apologetics.

Let's look at the "diff-able" behavior. It is not me that "pulled the bit" about "sabotage"; it was JzG. You concede that I am largely correct about the matter. Ok: more evidence for the hypothesis "the block was made improperly". But you quickly move over this concession and try to find other evidence -- which JzG doesn't cite -- for the hypothesis "the block was made properly". Apologetics.

Lastly, you read my sentence: "none of the admins ever mention anything about COI while declining unblock". You read it, acknowledge it, and skip right over it. No updating anywhere. Apologetics.

Ok, you decide if I'm being fair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think smaller bites might be helpful.

Is ~think~ you are perhaps asking "was the original indef valid?" and the answer you are hearing is "based on my evaluation of this person's behavior, the indef is fine".... and that is not answering your question. Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I made several points. My first point was about irregularities in the original block. And I was pointing out that because of the irregularities, COI was not and could not be a factor in the block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes you made many points. Hence "smaller bites". This was the first small bite. Which you did not make clear and instead smooshed over and brought up other unclear points. The broad conversation isn't working and a step by step one isn't working, so I don't know how to proceed with you. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, I was directly responding to a request for a "smaller bite". You asked me to clarify what you ~think~ I'm asking. I told you what I'm asking. I actually did it once above. Here, I'll restate it for you (in the form of a direct question): "Do you think that it was proper to indef block an editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without even looking at their userpage, without even knowing their self-declared identity? And that one of the two diffs cited while blocking was a misreading (at best) of the source."

Every word of what I said above is true. What I have an issue is that you acknowledge these facts -- plainly relevant -- and skip over them to try to find other reasons for the block. But you are still taking the validity of the block as a given, and never seriously consider the possibility that the original indef, when riddled with this many irregularities, could be wrong.

Again, to take the Bayesian analogy, you never update the hypothesis in the face of the given evidence -- cited by the blocker, not me -- and instead try to search for more evidence in favour of the hypothesis. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A simple question to Jytdog, JzG and others who claim that COI is the real issue here. There is a big schizophrenia in this thread. On the one hand, there are people (to pick Ca2james's comment as a random example, also every admin who responded to the unblock request, also Swarm), who claim that this whole drama could have been avoided if Clockback weren't so damn stubborn and unrepentant, and if only he acknowledged that their edit (about the Tesco and Fire brigade) was improper, he cou aould have been unblocked. This is accompanied by the intonation: "indefinite is not infinite". On the other hand, you have JzG and Jytdog claiming (and people agreeing with them), that the "real problem" is the long COI record, and thus he shouldn't be unblocked because he has and will engage in COI.

I submit that the latter is simply rationalization after the fact (I have given proof of it above, and won't repeat it here). The former is wrong because Clockback has already accepted my rewrite; all he wanted from the start was impartial eyes on the article, because he was making no headway in the talkpage discussion. Instead, he got a kick in the face from JzG. I do not support his edit-warring -- but the conduct deserves pity, not contempt. Also, see this comment by Clockback. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain this? The original block was for WP:TE/WP:DE/WP:EW (and WP:POINT, frankly, and possibly WP:CIR, certainly WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS), the block review that you instigated has shown that in addition to being tendentious and disruptive, all this user's edits for the past decade are also WP:COI, despite numerous past warnings, and many are WP:PROMO. This is a user who simply does not accept our COI policy and who views his opinion as ineffable truth (m:MPOV). Add WP:NPA and (of course!) WP:NCR, leading to TPA removal, and I am left thinking that the only reason for unblocking at this point would be for comedy value, to see if he can collect the full set of policy violations before the next inevitable block. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice series of blue-links you have thrown there. Considering that you were demonstrably wrong on one of the two diffs you cited in your block, I wouldn't crow too much about WP:CIR. As for the claim that it's only a matter of time before the next "inevitable block", clearly, Wikipedia administration is completely useless, since Clockback has never been blocked before. Indeed, an undeclared probably paid/COI editor merrily edited Education Policy Institute and never bothered to even post on the talkpage, while Clockback did discuss the matter extensively on the talkpage. Now Clockback is indef blocked while nobody gives a fuck about COI. Out of sight, out of mind. Nice work. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian, ok, the small bite. The block. So Guy's statement at ANI, in its entirety, was "I have blocked Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on a review of contributions, which skew heavily towards highly biased editorialising e.g. "sabotaging his own education" and "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco". This looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and m:MPOV. Undoubtedly WP:TE, and the opinions are unsourced." at 08:24. That was a response to Clockback's OP made at 08:09. I've already quoted the block notice made at 08:21 (this is where you got the "15 minute review" thing) but will do it again here: Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.

So. you have accurately pointed out that the last sentence of the ANI statement is only half-correct (one of the two, was unsourced). Guy cited two examples. I do not believe that these were meant to be exhaustive, but rather examples. Anybody can click through large edits in Clockback's contribs and find those and the others and reach the same conclusion that Guy did, as expressed (with an error) in his ANI note or his block note, each of which focus on Clockback's lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it. Without considering who he is.

So I find the initial indef very valid. I figured since 2015 that this is where he would end up. That is my actual a priori here... based on my own past interactions with him and having considered his contribs before. If it ever would come to a drama board, he would not survive. Too many bad edits, too ignorant, too arrogant. (I always find it so weird and kind of sad when intellectuals make a bunch of drama about losing editing privileges when they have obviously not spent any time trying to understand what has made WP possible and write things that are just ...silly, yet said with such gravity.)

Now, in addition you seem to be saying that Guy's analysis of Clockback's contributions would have reached a different conclusion, if Guy had taken Clockback's identity into account.

I have a sense that you (and some others who have !voted to unblock as well) want to cut much more slack to people who come here who want to edit about themselves, especially if they do it under their real name. Be somehow more simple and gentle about things; smoothing over rough spots where they get caught and then kind of scooting them on their way. Like one would do with a child. If that is where you are coming from, part of me finds that lovely. And (if that is correct) there is something good there about not taking this whole thing too seriously. Is that at all accurate? Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

arbitrary break

@Jytdog: Thanks for answering my direct question. In your opinion, JzG's block rationale was not supposed to be exhaustive, just illustrative of something fundamentally wrong with Clockback's editing. JzG sensed something was wrong, but they couldn't pinpoint it since they didn't know Clockback's identity. JzG themselves says roughly the same thing. Please let me know if I've misunderstood you. Ok, let's take this position seriously, and address it. And this reply will address your initial points as well.

For just a moment, consider the following hypothesis seriously: "Clockback is in the 95th percentile of COI editors. His edits are restrained, largely justified, largely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and any harm they did is minimal." You may respond with disbelief: "WTF Kingsindian? Are you mad?". Well, I am indeed mad, but am I right? Let's apply Cromwell's rule.

For evaluating such a hypothesis, one needs to look at all the evidence, not scattered diffs. And then we update the probability of the hypothesis accordingly. Space does not permit me to offer a full accounting, but here's what I'll do: I'll take three articles which Clockback edited, and look at all the edits they made to the article, as well the edits they made to the talkpage. Note that these are the articles which JzG and Jytdog themselves cited, so I am taking the hardest possible sample.

---

Article 1: Education Policy Institute: This was the state of the article before Clockback edited it. It was largely written by, as I mentioned above, a likely paid/COI editor. JzG seems to have indef blocked the editor after I pointed it out, but that was never my point. Clockback pointed out on the talkpage that the article nowhere mentions the link between this organization and the Liberal Democrats. They discussed this matter on the talkpage. This information is present in the lead of the article now. I count this a clear case of WP:HERE.

---

Article 2: Peter Hitchens The edits to this article go back a long way. I will only look at the edits post-2009 -- namely those discussed in Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 4 and Talk:Peter_Hitchens. I count at least > 90% support for my hypothesis. Let's take a look.

Examination of talkpage edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section: As far as I can see, Clockback is > 95% right. And they thanked the editor who fixed the problem. No issues. This section: Clockback is entirely correct. Another editor implemented the suggestion. Clockback thanked them. No issues. This section is trivial and no importance. This section is WP:FORUM thread started by some random editor, and is of no importance. It is largely civil. This section is entirely correct. We discourage such cases of "Jew-tagging" on Wikipedia. This section. Hitchens is, let's say, at least 80% correct. All good-faith arguments. No issues that I can see. This section is complicated. I think we can all agree with the assertion: "The Peter Hitchens article is improved if there's a photo there". Clockback went to great lengths to try to achieve this end, and it was finally met, albeit after lots of teeth-gnashing. See also, this section, where editor Maproom helped them out by cropping the photo. At least a few of Clockback's edits were improper. This was due to frustration with WP bureaucracy, which does not excuse it, but mitigates it. Here's the main thing. The edits improved the article, and did minimal harm. I count this > 50% WP:HERE. This section is purely discussion with the editor and Jytdog. I see no direct effect on the article, so it's hard to judge. It's probably best if I simply don't comment on this.

Now to article space:

Article space edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First, a general comment. I count 21 edits by Hitchens in the past 500 edits. This means that to an overwhelming extent the article does not have any kind of spin that Hitchens themselves put on it. It is largely written by other, independent editors. Now specific edits. I can't look at all 21 edits (this reply is already too long), so here's what I'll do. I'll look at the 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 21st edit. 1st Simple date correction. Entirely proper. 6th This is the edit JzG cited. As I mentioned, JzG was > 90% wrong about this. 11th Simple correction. Entirely proper. 16th Bad edit. Jytdog calls this as a "temper tantrum". I have discussed this case just above (see the discussion about the photo). 21st Simple edit, add photo. Entirely proper.

Article 3: George Bell (bishop): I'll carry out the same procedure. First look at talk space edits, then article page edits. Again, I submit that there's > 90% support for my hypothesis.

Talk page edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section. As far as I can see, Clockback's comments are entirely proper and civil. They are very restrained, and they first ask other people to make the edit. The other editor Relentlessly apologized by saying that they didn't have the time before, but helped Clockback out by fleshing out their contribution. Clockback thanked them. Editor Charlesdrakew averred that the section gives too much weight to certain things, and Clockback discussed it politely. This is a classic content dispute. Another editor GroupCohomologist added material on the German Wikipedia based on the entry here, and thanked Clockback for their contributions. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, Clockback is almost certainly WP:HERE in this section. This section is where relations between Clockback and Charlesdrakew deteriorate. As anyone knows, this is often what happens when there's a content dispute. Clockback is almost entirely civil and on-point here. WP:HERE again. This section is about the Carlile report. Clockback discussed the matter thoroughly on December 17. They waited 2 weeks. Almost nothing happened: the article contained a very short (and completely weaksauce) sentence about the findings of the Carlile report. Clockback discussed on the talkpage again, imploring someone to fix this state of affairs. In response to this, a new-ish editor finally made a somewhat substantial edit to the article about the findings of the Carlile report. Clockback waited another six months for their next edit, and explained it thoroughly on the talkpage. I have discussed the aftermath in my opening statement, and don't need to repeat it here. WP:HERE or no? You decide.

Now to article space:

Article space edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will only consider the edits PRIOR to this unfortunate affair. As I have already said, a (short) block for edit-warring is entirely proper in the circumstances. No dispute there. Therefore, I will look at the edits prior to 26 Nov 2016. Clockback made 27 edits in total (most of them are copyedits). I'll consolidate the copyedits and discuss them all. This edit is the very first discussion of any criticism whatsoever of the Church's decision. This was the state of the article at that point. WP:HERE, clearly. Another criticism. WP:HERE clearly. This edit is from a House of Lords declaration. It's a primary and not a secondary source, but the source is WP:RS. One can find secondary sources discussing the matter. Example, a BBC article. Clockback added several more criticisms, which might have been a bit too much (hence Charlesdrakew's protestations). But it is clear that there was a LOT of criticism of the affair. One can WP:AGF here and call it 50% WP:HERE. This edit is not good, and might well fall under "editorializing". Perhaps I can add some context here, now in the light of the Carlile report. The Carlile report criticizes the police action (in a serious though understated manner typical of lawyers), and especially the use of the word "arrest", which he says was very prejudicial, and likely led to the whole mess with the Church. Clockback makes exactly the same point, somewhat clumsily -- only once -- Charlesdrakew reverted them, and they didn't repeat it, but rather discussed on the talkpage. This edit is not ideal, because it's a primary source and probably not WP:RS. However, secondary sources can be found easily. Example from The Guardian. Let's say > 80% WP:HERE. This edit is the connection of the George Bell case to the wider case of historical abuse. Jytdog calls a similar edit of their own "important context". WP:HERE. This edit is the first reference in the article to the Carlile review. WP:HERE.

Punchline: I have tried to make a case for a hypothesis: "Clockback is in the 95th percentile of COI editors. His edits are restrained, largely justified, largely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and any harm they did is minimal." On its face, it looks absolutely absurd and is rejected vehemently by the "endorse block" people here. Consider, please, that you might be mistaken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If I can interject here, Kingsindian: I am convinced clockback’s editing is good faithed, but he has adopted a battleground mentality such as recruiting people via his twitter account to come here and vote against his being blocked and other issues (this could well be due to a lack of familiarity with our policies). Many of his contributions were indeed helpful and he has the potential to be a productive editor, without the drama. I am not convinced there were major COI issues, outside of him being emotional about social causes and issues - especially as he was open about his identity and was willing to use talk pages. If he could familiarise himself with our policies and guidelines, and agree not to repeat certain problematic behaviour, I would likely, after the standard six month period, support a later appeal to lift the block. I would like to be pinged if a future appeal is submitted. You are making me think Kingsindian, and making me look closer at what motivates clockback’s editing, and I think behind the emotion and drama is a decent guy who means well and cares about injustices and people, it is just the community doesn’t want the associated drama is the issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your good faith does you credit, but all the available evidence is that Hitchens edits only where ha has a COI, and many of his edits (e.g. to the articles on his work) have very strong overtones of self-promotion. His interest in Wikipedia appears entirely restricted to advancing his off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

On this COI page, Talk:Peter_Hitchens/Archive_4, taken as a random example, he is interacting diplomatically and seeking consensus with other editors. He is definitely opinionated which could be seen as biased in several subject areas he edits, but this is not necessarily the same as having a COI. I am not in denial that he has behaved poorly and warranted being blocked. However, I would have liked him to have talk page access so that I could discuss some concerns I have and offer advice, but that right was taken away from me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kingsindian. Your description of my perception of the initial block is not correct, but I don't want to quibble about that. The bulk of the post seems to be what you have been wanting to say for a while now, and I am glad you have had the chance to say it.

Before I respond, would you please clarify if this "95th percentile of COI editors" language is based on some data or if we have data to evaluate it with, or if that is just use of the anchoring tactic/rhetoric (and by that please read "bullshit")? If it is the latter I would be happy to have a conversation about a hypothesis like "Clockback's behavior as a conflicted editor has not been unreasonable" or the like.Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "95th percentile" just means "better than the vast majority". I don't have any hard data on this, no. But as you know, I have been a regular at the site-that-should-not-be-named, and have seen tons of COI editing on Wikipedia. So I believe my general impression is not entirely inaccurate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. :) I am happy to have a conversation about how his behavior fits in the range of conflicted editor behavior, based on our experiences/observations of conflicted editor behavior. I have real world stuff today; will respond tonight. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, how about supporting an unblock with mentoring? I just changed my vote to this, and I offered to mentor and I imagine Kingsindian might help as well. Clockback actually asked for Wikipedians to help him so should accept mentorship, albeit in a disruptive fashion of inserting this appeal into the article text! I assume Kingsindian feels a likely injustice is occurring here and would like people to reevaluate the situation and how they voted, so.....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Clockback has any interest -- not a whit -- in understanding what we do here and most importantly, how and why. I tried back in 2015. You can bring a horse to water... Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, so let's look at their edits to the EPI article and its talk page.

• 1st diff 4 Nov. 2016. Unsourced addition of "closely associated with the Liberal Democrats. No edit note
• 2nd diff. 16 Nov. 2016 Inappropriate unsourced editorializing in mainspace. No edit note.
• 1st and only talk page contrib 26 Nov. 2016. A bunch of unsourced opinion and speculation including What is more the EPI received corporate donations of almost £300,000 in its last recorded year. Given its governance, it seems more than possible that these donations came from supporters of Academy trusts..
• 3rd diff to article 5 December 2017. Terrible edit. Strips tags without addressing the issues including the "COI" and "primary source" tags. Adds unsourced opinion from 1st diff again. Adds a bunch of primary sources -- in fact only primary sources (!) and content based on them. Adds content about their "current" leadership. The next day the edit was very rightly reverted.
• 4th diff. 7 December 2017. Again restores the Liberal Democrat thing, now sourced... wait for it.. to his own blog post entitled.. wait for it.. "How Many Journalists Realise what the Education Policy Institute Is?"

I do not consider anything there as good faith, aiming for the mission, or even remotely concerned with how we generate content here in WP. It is a perfect example of him abusing WP like it is his own soapbox/blog.... Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Ok. Let's do look at the edits to the EPI article. Let us first establish the truth of the matter (is the truth important, or isn't it?). Educational Policy Institute was rebranded from "CentreForum", which was indeed very closely associated with the Liberal Democrats. This information is present in the lead section of the article now (the sources aren't great though -- I'll update them). This claim is extremely true, and extremely relevant. Here is proof of it, having nothing to do with Hitchens, all in reliable secondary sources:

• Channel 4 News Incidentally, the source they quote, Mark Pack, describes "CentreForum" as "the closest thing the Liberal Democrats have had to a think tank".
• Schools Week Please read the entire article -- it's all about the matter.
• The Economist ...Centre Forum, favourite think tank of the "small state" wing of the Liberal Democratic party...

Ok, having established the truth, we now look at ALL of Clockback's edits.

We first note that at the time Clockback edited the article, there was no mention of this extremely relevant and extremely true fact. Indeed, Clockback's initial attempt to add this information was reverted by ... wait for it ... the likely undeclared paid/COI editor who I mentioned before (and who is now indeffed), and who never bothered to discuss on the talkpage -- and who also didn't use an edit summary for a single edit.

After being reverted, Clockback opened a talk page discussion about the matter. What you call "unsourced speculation" is actually the truth -- editor Seaweed confirmed its truth in the discussion itself. Clockback says in effect, please update the article to acknowledge this extremely relevant and extremely true fact, and says that he will wait till December 15 (twenty days after his post), so that someone gets around to it.

Editor Seaweed makes some edits to the article, but as you can see from the version here, there is STILL no mention of the extremely relevant and extremely true Lib Dem connection.

One year later, nothing had been done. Clockback tries to add the completely relevant and completely true information again. I don't understand much of the edit, because Clockback actually says that In June 2016 CentreForum became the Education Policy Institute – focusing its research on education and young people’s mental health, and making clear it is an entirely independent, politically impartial organisation. This is the opposite of the point which Clockback has been trying to "push" into the article. So I interpret this as trying to provide some amount of WP:NPOV -- perhaps this is simply too much WP:AGF from my side. The edit was, overall, clumsy (as you note) and was reverted.

As of this moment, the article is still in a terrible state. It could easily qualify to be in the "Crap articles" and "Obvious paid editors are obvious" threads on the un-nameable site. However, one thing is for sure: the person who was trying to add extremely true and extremely relevant information to the article has been indeffed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI does not contain an exemption for situations where you don't get what you want, and Clockback's talk page commentary makes it absolutely clear that he will follow COI rules only as long as he does get what he wants - pretty much as you outline above, in fact. Soon we will have namespace-based blocking, at which point we can change the block to mainspace only and that will be fine. He only edits where he has a COI, he does not respect COI policy if he doesn't get his way, so we can control that with a mainspace block when it becomes available, thus we get the "benefit" of his talk page commentary (I am not convinced, but you seem to be and I take that on trust) without the problems caused by his COI edits to the encyclopaedia itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

He has heavily edited George Bell (bishop) and was reasonably blocked for policy violations on this article. What is the alleged COI on this article? To me he has formed an independent opinion (without a COI) which might be POV and possibly biased and has been vocal publicly in his opinions but I don’t think having a strong opinion constitutes COI.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI says: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns", it further covers actual, potential, and apparent COI: Here, "journalist Peter Hitchens" -- the person -- is in the apparent Bishop George Bell Report, "journalist Peter Hitchens" is mentioned material in the report's investigation of the topic of George Bell (bishop). One may be forgiven for not knowing that "Peter Hitchens" is discussed in the apparent report, if you just read Clockback's representations of wanting to write about that report on the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic, and that this User read the entire report, because Clockback apparently fails to disclose on Wikipedia that "journalist Peter Hitchens" is actually in the report - a seemingly telling omission by Clockback of relationship and connection to the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not a COI, he is mentioned in the report because he has a POV and pushed it in public, but doing so is not a COI - if it is then somewhere between 99% and 100% of WP editors on Donald Trump articles need topic banned as a matter of urgency, but who then will edit the article.... Anyway, Peter Hitchens is just mentioned briefly in the report and he did not have any involvement, to my knowledge, in writing that report. He doesn’t have to disclose he is mentioned in the report since it is irrelevant. In fact, even if he had wrote the whole report by himself he could still cautiously cite it, per WP:SELFCITE. Still not seen any evidence he has a COI in George Bell article, in other articles he edited, sure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it is WP:COI. Come on, now. You obviously have no proof that many Trump editors are also writing about Trump reports in which the User is discussed, nor any basis to claim that. You may somehow think and contend "Peter Hitchens" is irrelevant to the Bishop George Bell report and topic but that is just your baseless unsourced contention, because the investigator included "Peter Hicthens" in the report making, "Peter Hitchens" relevant -- your "lack of involvement" claim is also misleading, again because "Peter Hitchens" is there in the report, which is involvement. I was coming back to expand that I did find Clockback disclosed on the talk page that he is a "partisan" (and therefore he was reluctant to write in the article) on George Bell, which is a type of disclosure, even though he did not disclose "Peter Hitchens" is in the report. His reluctance to edit was correct (he should have stuck with that and not edited) because that is a type of WP:COI editing, you can't be a party, and be discussed in reports about the topic, and also write about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer: My reference to Trump editors was about people having a significant POV and then editing the Trump article, i.e. having a POV and pushing it is not a COI, I did say being mentioned in a report you had no control over is irrelevant to COI. I read the COI page and quoted SELFCITE to you, it is your opinion that is unsourced to policy and guidelines. Yes, partisan, as in biased (like 99% of our Trump editors) which is not necessarily the same as COI - and your example of him preferring to use the talk page rather than edit the article because he is partisan shows evidence that he was trying to work with people, not against them, but things obviously went south and he was justifiably blocked. The question is whether this block should be indefinite or if he deserves a second chance. I have been persuaded that he deserves a second chance. Can you link to policy or guidelines that prevent him from using that source he is mentioned in? I linked you to WP:SELFCITE on WP:COI page; he could have edited the article even if he wrote the report himself. It appears there are other editors who have the opposite POV to Clockback who helped to maintain NPOV, so I am not overly worried about that article being turned into a POV monster. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your odd-diversion to WP:SELFCITE is nonsensical because it has no basis in fact, here. (Similar to your made-up Trump claims). Yes, the WP:COI guideline says use common sense, the common sense that arises when an editor says they should not be writing on the topic, and the facts here are, the report makes "Peter Hitchens" relevant to, connected to, and in relationship to the George Bell topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Literaturegeek and User:Alanscottwalker... i kind of struggle with "COI" being applied to Hitchens with respect to the George Bell article. What is very true, is that Hitchens was very embroiled in the real world dispute over the church's handling of the allegations. I noted here at the Bell talk page that the noted Carlile report (the definitive "postmortem" on the church's handling of the matter) had a paragraph that said: There was a perceived problem that people such as the journalist Peter Hitchens, who recently had described Bishop Bell as a personal hero, would regard the Church as ‘caving in’ and would cause a media storm if the Church was insufficiently robust in its position. In this context, it was recommended that it was important that the Church openly should say that it had ‘settled a claim’, so that it was clear ‘there has been a legal test and an investigative threshold has been set’." The report overall found that the church "oversteered" its process toward a position sympathetic to the woman, for several reasons. This was apparently one of them.

Somebody that involved in a public dispute has no business getting involved in directly editing the topic. It is really an WP:ADVOCACY issue more than COI per se. If you check his edits to that page they are a continuation of his real world raw advocacy. In other words, exactly like his edits to the EPI page, but this time on steroids.

I will say that edits like this (which is also full of unsourced opinion) encroached on BLPCOI by changing "female victim" to "female alleged victim" which is moving very much toward dehumanizing her - a living person. (the "alleged" was restored by him again here... it remained until I did this, changing it to simply "the woman"). In fairness to Hitchens I think he generally tried to be respectful of that person. But that kind of advocacy edit pretty much trampled on her.

It is really abuse of WP as a soapbox. Which is what I have been saying all along. Kingsindian has been framing this as some kind of strict COI claim, but this is not what I (at least) have been emphasizing.

I also call your attention to the recent Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles, which is a bit different as it involved WP:BLPCOI (which is only marginally at play here with Clockback, if at all) but yet relevant, as it was about somebody abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox with respect to recent British politics. I have had that case very much in mind through all of this, as I reckon (I am only reckoning; I do not know) Guy did; Guy brought that Arbcom case after having been involved in administrative matters relating to it prior to that. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's the old common sense adage 'don't become part of the story'. When you are part of the story because the independent report discusses you, there is a conflict when you seek to write encyclopedically on the story that you are now part of. (All the more so, because we can't dislcose in our encyclopedia article, 'Dear Reader, I'm 'so and so', I was involved here and here is my take, and opinions of what went on . . .', to give the reader a tip-off) As for a more general case of opinion-writers coming here to cite themselves and/or write up their own opinions in Wikipedia, it seems doubtful anyone could think that's a really good idea under any of our alphabet policies. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, he does not say that he will follow COI rules only as long as he gets what he wants. You keep repeating this unfair claim without any proof. In fact, Clockback was not very happy with my rewrite of the George Bell article (I was almost entirely ignorant of the matter, so my rewrite wasn't very good). But he accepted my rewrite as a reasonable compromise position. On the matter of the EPI, he happened to be right on the facts of the matter, so he tried to insert the extremely true and extremely relevant information very infrequently, after nobody had done it for a year after he had posted on the talkpage. This is a massive failure of the supposed ideal COI process: "oh just make your points on the talk page and we'll deal with it. If you actually dare to edit the article, we will screw you.". Doesn't being right actually count for anything? Or are we all just wikilawyers here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one who disputes this interpretation of his talk page statements. Have you ever read his column? I need to check the article to see if "opinionated" is actually his baptismal middle name. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian, in the EPI edits, you seem to have missed that at the time they inserted the LibDem claims, this was already outdated. You give sources supporting their addition, but all these sources are from before the change of affiliation. When they made this change in Nov 2016[6], they reverted the article to the situation before June 2016[7]. When a think tank has officially severed its ties with a political party and has become independent, it is not a "factual" or "neutral" edit to remove "independent" and replace it with "is [...]closely linked to LibDem". It was wrong in 2016, and the way they readded it in late 2017[8] was a lot worse, both the contents, the extreme COI source, and the edit summary. Defending these edits as "the person who was trying to add extremely true and extremely relevant information to the article" is a very charitable view of what was clearly one element in his pattern of COI editing, ignoring the changes made to the structure of EPI earlier and casting it again as the political thinktank it used to be, with his own unreliable POV blog as source. Trying to argue for unblocking based on the edits to EPI seems very misguided. Fram (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Clockback's point was that "independent" is a self-described label, nothing more. When an organization which was started by Lib Dem politicians, was very closely associated with Lib Dems, and even now is headed by a former Lib Dem politician (David Laws) some people might feel that calling it "independent" is a bit much. I see the same sort of fights over whether to call B'Tselem as "leftist" or "started by leftists". Go to the talk page and see these arguments. Nobody claims that people who wish to insert this kind of stuff should be banned from the B'Tselem page. The EPI article contains a big section on the history of EPI, where there is a throwaway sentence about it being a liberal think tank. Isn't a sentence or two summarizing this section appropriate in the lead?

These are all essentially content disputes. A blunt instrument like an indef block is not the way to deal with them. Again: Clockback waited for over a year before someone did something about the points he was raising. Correct or not, it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the removal of "independent", but about the insertion of the political affiliation as a currect fact, after this was no longer the case, and sourced to his own blog which makes it quite clear that his point was not simply the removal of "independent". "it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith." YMMV. Fram (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit did both things. The second part, to be clear, was calling it "closely linked to the Lib Dems and the Academies movement". I have already given the connection with the Lib Dems. As Hitchens points out in his blog, the latter includes notably Sir Paul Marshall, Chairman of ARK Schools and also Chairman of EPI, and Sir Theodore Agnew, a Trustee of EPI and also chairman and sponsor of a multi-academy trust based in Norfolk. Again, the claim is neither wrong, nor wild, nor made in bad faith.

One can debate if and how to present these things in the lead. There's a section on EPI's history, maybe it should have been presented there first, and then summarized in the lead. But these kind of disputes all the time on think tank/NGO articles (I already gave the B'Tselem example, and can give many more). These are essentially content disputes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be Paul Marshall (investor), who left LibDem in 2015 (i.e. before the edits under discussion), and Theodore Agnew, Baron Agnew of Oulton, who never was a LibDem (as far as I can tell) but a Conservative? In what way is Agnew, past trustee of the rather more conservative Policy Exchange think tank as well (founded by Michael Gove and Francis Maude), evidence that EPI is a LibDem affiliated think tank? Oh right, because Hitchens says so on his own blog... he is cherry-picking evidence (taking the LibDems as evidence that it is a LibDem thinktank, but ignoring the non-LibDems, who are not important enough to counter the political affiliation but suddenly are important enough to establish the "academies movement" connection), to support his POV. Since that is all he has done here this year (and, as discussed here, in 2017 as well), and he gives no indication of changing this approach in the future (in the many declined unblock requests), I see no reason to unblock him. Fram (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have argued enough here, and I am rather tired of the whole thing. Do what you wish. This will be my last comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Did Kingsindian meatpuppet edit the disputed claim into the EPI article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_Policy_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=853843921 -- 2603:3024:200:300:280C:B160:52AA:3448 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody restore Clockback's user talkpage access?

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 told Clockback that he can respond to the points raised here on his talkpage, and I'll transfer them here. It's somewhat tedious, but working. I have done this process before with other blocked users. For some reason admin Jpgordon has swooped in and removed talkpage access. They are not responding to messages, so I suspect they're offline. Can some admin restore Clockback's talkpage access? It hurts nobody and makes this process fairer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse TPA removal. If jpgordon hadn't removed TPA, I would have. The discussion there was not productive and Clockback had taken to canvassing for support on the above discussion. They may use UTRS. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You want to remove talk page access in the middle of a block review? Why? What possible justification could it have? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that the discussion above seems pretty clear in terms of a result and the reason for it. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Who are you to prematurely close the discussion? Nobody died and made you king. Ridiculous. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted, frankly at the amount of correspondence this issue has generated. The individual who has been blocked (from his own talkpage) has revealed his identity as Peter Hitchens. Mr Hitchens is, and has been for many years a well known and respected journalist in the British media.

The arrogance of anonymous admins such as "331dot" and "jpgordon" is frankly staggering. Have you people nothing better to do than bully other users? Mr Hitchens is perfectly entitled to talk to others about issues affecting his life and you have no right of any kind to prevent him from doing so. What are you people? Some sort of Orwellian thought police brigade?! What moral right do you have to dictate to other users of this platform? I disagree with you 331dot. Are you able to handle that? Can you bear to have others disagree with your position? (That is a rhetorical question).

This episode, to my mind highlights a very big flaw in the functioning of wikipedia. Namely, that certain users who have an elevated status: "admins" are able to act without impunity. I believe that in order for wikipedia to work effectively, these individuals must be subject to some sort of public accountability. Perhaps the elevation to admin status should be accompanied by a requirement for them to reveal their true identities (as Mr Hitchens has done) in order for others to hold them truly accountable. They should not be able to simply hide in a cowardly fashion behind their aliases and bully other users. John2o2o2o (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon isn't anonymous. He's J P Gordon. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

John2o2o2o You are certainly entitled to your views. I am perfectly capable of handling disagreement, that isn't the issue here. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Who are you "331dot"? And thank you, but I don't need your permission to express a viewpoint.

Mr Hitchens is also entitled to his views. You should immediately restore his access to his page and leave him alone. In my humble opinion. And the issue at hand here is the high handed actions of "admins".

Furthermore, I have never heard of J P Gordon. Perhaps you would like to explain to me (and again this is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer) in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens? John2o2o2o (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Odd that you (213 edits in 6 years), of all people, should question the bon fides of 331dot (admin, 73,070 edits in 6 years) and jpgordon (admin, checkuser, 62,984 edits in 14 years). What the hell have you ever done in the service of Wikipedia? The most you've ever edited an article was 4 edits to Ancestry of Elizabeth II. It appears that all you really do is chat on talk pages (78.4% of your total), where you like to present your own opinions as an "professional genealogist" as being more reliable than reliable published sources, claiming you discovered facts before the first published mention of them, and failing to give your sources when asked to (i.e. [9], [10], [11], [12]) Other editors can make their own assessment of what that makes you, except, at the very least, it makes you someone who is not at all conversant with Wikipedia policy, and really has no place at the table for this discussion, because, frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't granting permission; my permission is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• @John2o2o2o: See my reply to 185.192.69.53. People are allowed to think whatever they want. Outside of wikipedia, they are allowed to say whatever they want within the bounds of law and if wherever they are saying it allows it. On wikipedia, the primary purpose of discussion is to improve wikipedia. There is some limited tolerance of other discussion but it's inherently limited and any discussion which harms wikipedia is not welcome. Notably we consider that it's harmful to use your talkpage when blocked for anything other than requesting an unblock which includes responded to any unblock discussion but does not include canvassing others to help you get unblocked. In fact canvassing is a more harmful use of you talk page than a lot of other nonsense that goes on on blocked editor's talk pages. (Canvassing is harmful regardless of whether you're blocked.) Note that as I said below, I have no specific opinion on anything that went on here. Actually what I said to 185 still applies. I have not looked at the specifics and frankly probably won't be doing so. I am simply dealing with your apparent belief that wikipedia is a free for all where people can talk about whatever they want. It isn't. In the modern age, there are so many forums and social media, plus the easy ability to start a blog or website where people can do that stuff. And as I understand it, the subject is a journalist anyway likely giving them even more avenues. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon removed talkpage access and immediately went offline, leaving no response to messages. What kind of WP:ADMINACCT is this? On these grounds alone, the action should be reversed. This whole matter is bringing out the absolute worst in Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Admins or any user are not required to be on Wikipedia 24/7. People have lives and are all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody asked them to be on 24/7. However, if they have to leave, they should at least have the decency to not take admin actions at the last moment, actions which directly impede an ongoing discussion. It's rather sad that I have to explain this to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If we required admins to be online for several hours or more after their actions, we would surely have a lot of problems because things simply aren't being done. It's entirely reasonable for an admin to take non contentious actions just before they expect to go offline, and it surely happens many times every single day. I agree it can be problematic when an admin takes some contentious action and then is offline for a prolonged period although speaking generally, it's easy to see it's not always going to be obvious when an action is contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

They left less than 15 minutes after, not "several hours" after. And are you saying that removing talkpage access in the middle of a block review is an example of a "non-contentious action"? Meanwhile, here's what WP:ADMINACCT says: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. They could have posted in this thread to say that they're leaving, and maybe someone else could have handled it. A hundred things could have been done. I'm rather stunned that people are defending this behaviour. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

15 minutes or a few hours is largely besides the point. Ultimately if someone is not online for a few hours, there's no guarantee they are going to be online to deal with any fall out. Even a few hours doesn't guarantee it although if it takes a few hours for anyone to notice there's a reasonable chance it's not that important that timely action results. Do you not understand what 'speaking generally' means? In case it's still unclear I have no specific comments on the specific actions here. They are completely besides my point. I was simply replying to obvious nonsense suggesting something which would be extremely harmful to wikipedia namely that admins should not take action unless they expect to be online to deal with any fallout. This is clearly utter nonsense and I can't believe anyone would actually say that. And let me repeat for the last time, I have no specific comments on what happened here. They are entirely besides my point. I only wished to deal with utter nonsense express on AN suggesting something which would be incredibly harmful to wikipedia. If a page clearly needs to be protecting because of persistent proxy vandalism, or a non proxy vandal is going on a vandalism spree or whatever other nonsense that clearly requires quick admin action, I should not have to waste my time finding an admin who is going to be online in 15 minutes or whatever the fuck time period someone thinks is necessary. And yes this is a big deal to me because I live in NZ and at certain times of editing, somewhat less in than in the past but it still happens, there are a lot fewer admins around. And I don't like wasting my time dicking around with IRC or whatever the fuck you think I should waste my time dicking around to find an admin to take action who is going to be around for however the fuck you think they should be to take action which anyone who has spent any time on wikipedia knows is needed and does not need someone to hang around for. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: UTRS appeal #22275. SQL^{Query me!} 21:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• - Jpgordon removed talkpage access and immediately went offline - disgusting action - see Gordon s recent activity is total minimal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jpgordon - to jump on this is awful authority. This admin action and the block itself is embarrasing, see and read Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability- Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Disgusting" I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant "disgraceful", which would not be true either, but would at least be apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Any admin who wants to is welcome to restore the user page access. I know nothing whatsoever of this conflict other than what I was drawn to as a result of the request for unblock. Just like his unblock requests, the verbiage on his talk page did not seem to be addressing the reasons for his block, and did not seem to me to be going in a useful direction. As far as "who is jpgordon", well, I'm probably one of the least anonymous editors on Wikipedia; I've been entirely public in my networked life since the early days of usenet and BBSing. But that's meaningless here. The question is asked, "in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens?" That's easy. I'm one of 1,211 administrators on Wikipedia, and, like each of us could, I exerted blocking authority regarding the Wikipedia user account identified as User:Clockback, with the intent of reducing disruption to Wikipedia. Obviously it has failed in this instance; the disruption instead increased. Oh well. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well you shouldn't have jumped in should you. No one cares if your anonomous or not or who you are you are a wikipedia admin and should adhere to standards for that. Your comments are exactly similar to the blocking admins claim , ow, I didnt know anything I just blocked , I just removed talkpage access - laughable that our admins are aware of so little what is going on and that they use tools we provide them and trust them with without checking what the full picture is. Sadly, I am fully aware that Gordon and Guy are both really smart fully aware experianced editors and know exactly what is going on and it would do them and us a service if they both admitted that. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is no "standard" or policy which requires admins to be available around the clock, regardless of what action they have taken. Please take a look at WP:ADMINACCT to see in what ways admins are accountable for their actions. Jpgordon removed Clockback's TPA at 14:15, 4 August 2018, posted about it on Clockback's talk page, and then went offline. Their very first edit once they returned online is the one you see a few comments above this one, explaining their action. That is the very definition of administrator accountability. Your complaints are totally without merit, as are Kingsindian's, and you both need to calm down and stop bloviating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• For the benefit of those of us with less hyperactive imaginations, could you detail what, precisely, you think Guy and Gordon have 'going on'. Nick (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support restoring talk page access: I think his talk page access should be restored. I understand his behaviour was disruptive but the community needs to be able to consider any further comments for evidence of remorse/regret and willingness to change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• He had ample opportunity to do that, and chose not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Literaturegeek: Clockback appealed his talk page revocation via UTRS and I can confirm for you that there was absolutely zero hint of "remorse/regret and willingness to change". He flatly claimed that he was blocked out of spite. Swarm ♠ 00:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t think allowing him temporary talk page access for one or two days while this unblock request is in process is a big drain on the community. My line of thinking is that talk page access is necessary, or at least helpful, in the hope he could reflect on himself and realise that needs to and will stop being a WP:DICK and be able to voice this to the community who are voting on whether to unblock him. I realise that it is bit of a long shot but he deserves that chance to prove himself to be a long-term benefit or negative editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• He'll almost certainly get temporary talk-page access back at some point. If the community endorses the indef block -- as it certainly seems it will -- the block then become a community ban. If and when Clockback appeals that ban, some admin will likely restore TPA so his appeal can be copied over. Under normal circumstances, they might even unblock him to participate in the appeal directly -- but in this case, that's quite unlikely to happen, given Clockback's behavior after the indef block; I don;t think even the AGF-ingest admin would trust him with that license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse TPA removal - Clockback was using the talk page to file frivolous unblock requests which blamed other for his block, and did not address the reasons he was blocked. Further, he was also using it for WP:POLEMIC purposes. The primary -- if not only --- purpose of a talk page to a blocked editor is to deal with getting unblocked, but Clockback showed by his actions that he did not take that seriously. Hence the removal of TPA is appropriate and should be continued. Clockback can pursue an unblock via UTRS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse TPA removal - finally; I already mentioned above that I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. If this editor was not related to the famous Christopher Hitchens, this would have been done a long time ago. They had enough time to violate WP:NOTTHEM multiple times, hadn't read a single policy, guideline or essay linked to them (WP:GAB, WP:COI, WP:FREESPEECH, WP:MEAT - those first came to mind, surely there are others), made several frivolous unblock requests and yet they were still pushing their PoV on the talk page, saying that the block was unfair. And - as the icing on the cake - some editors even supported their unblock request. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. byteflush _Talk 00:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• People are missing the entire point of why this talk page removal is bad. I told Clockback that he could respond to stuff written here on his talkpage, and I will transfer it over. I have been doing this, as I have done so for other block reviews for other blocked users I have carried out in the past. When Jpgordon says that he saw lots of "verbiage", this is what he saw. What possible disruption is so huge that it couldn't wait till this review is over? As for people claiming that he was disrupting by opening unblock requests, that is also false. The last request was when Jpgordon declined it, and Clockback opened no more unblock requests before this wholly unjustified action by Jpgordon. What is wrong with you people? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• You realize that you telling an editor something does not in any way constrain an uninvolved admin's actions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Did I say anything like this? I was giving explanation of why Jpgordon was seeing "verbiage" on the talkpage -- this is because I told Clockback that he could respond to claims here (this is completely standard practice). Jpgordon himself has taken the position of "I have very little familiarity with the whole matter, so please excuse me if I stepped on some toes". And I'm not allowed to give him context so that they may change their mind? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

But much of that "verbiage" was not relevant to his being unblocked, and was, in fact, attacks on other editors - like all the stuff about "Charles". You really should not have copied it over, since by doing so you gave heightened visibility to those attacks. It was also a mistake on your part, since that stuff just made him look worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

He was responding to an AN thread. So of course there would be comments on editors. That is the whole purpose of an AN thread. To discuss user conduct. If I had a dime for every personal attack made at ANI, I would never need to work a day in my life. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are, as you state in the edit summary, tearing your hair out, you are too invested in this matter. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse TPA removal. When consensus is against you, and you have to say "What is wrong with you people?", it might be time to also ask "Am I really in the right on this?" - and perhaps "Am I helping X, or hurting them?". I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone canvassing off-wiki, nor can I see much reason to re-instate access to someone whom causes plenty of disruption here without access. SQL^{Query me!} 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse TPA removal. Entirely within policy and justified under the circumstances. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse TPA removal, unless I somehow missed that WP:NPA is now optional. Max Semenik (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse TPA removal He was wasting everyone's time, and frankly, providing even MORE justification for the indefinite block. Why Kingsindian is choosing this particular hill to die on is beyond me. --Calton | Talk 09:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why these comments about "dying on this hill" or "I'm too invested"? I'm still alive, and I am not aware of having broken any policy. I am quite calm in real life, rest assured. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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 NAC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

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 would an uninvolved administrator review the close of the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Chains RFC by user:Steelpillow. There has been significant discussion of this closure in the following section (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Units and conversion) in which the closer has participated. There are objections to the closer from multiple people (most notably Redrose64, Johnuniq and Andy Dingley), with the primary reason being that the closure does not relate to the actual discussion - note that it hinges on "defining" (which was not mentioned by anyone in the lengthy discussion) and is at best tangential to what the question actually was and seems to be largely based on the closer's interpretation of the outcome of a different discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would note the following, for your information:

• I made the close following this discussion on this noticeboard.
• MOSUNIT (aka MOSNUM) was mentioned by the OP as a relevant guideline. "Definition" is just its way of expressing a particular nuance to the central discussion in the RfC: when to use and when not to use an oddball unit such as chains. I chose to follow the wording of MOSNUM, but I need not have.
• The RfC ran through, to my count, eight distinct proposals, none of which led to any clear consensus that I could see. None of the several related discussions, linked to by the OP, fared any better. I confess that I am now equally unclear as to how anybody can define "what the question actually was" sufficiently narrowly to claim that I ignored it.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• It seems odd to me. Chains were a primary unit for permanent way infrastructure for most of the period up to the diesel era, and the position of items along the way is still referred to as "chainage" - the specific point Steelpillow made re "the nearest watering point is 43 chains further on" appears to be incorrect, since the watering point would be referred to in miles and chains and thus the distance in chains would be defining. I need to go back to my photo references but I am pretty sure that the minimum curve radius for rolling stock was specified in chains on the plates until at least the 1950s. Yes, it's archaic, but equally, so are many of the subjects of our articles. There are still lever arm signals in use, after all. We shouldn't be using MOS to override actual real-world practice. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• The discussion is, in essence, a reconsideration of the MOS guideline, so the appeal to it is essentially a demand to have the same discussion all over again, which is a sin against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in my opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mangoe: Not really. The discussion is basically "how should we interpret and apply the various bits of guidance in the MoS and elsewhere in relation to this specific topic area where the underlying facts are significantly different to the general case." The discussion about it at WT:MOSNUM began as a fork of this one. This is a similar sort of misunderstanding of the discussion that the closer made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • That would not be my interpretation of the discussion, since anything other than the status quo would be to not do what the MOS directs. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The MOS does not direct anything, it guides and like all guidelines it explicitly notes that it should be applied with common sense and that exceptions may apply. MOS:UNIT explicitly notes: "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in." (as noted in at least one of the various discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• That looks like an awful close to me; by basing it on things not discussed in the RFC but on their own personal opinion, it's a blatant supervote (and IMO a clearly perverse result as well, as anyone with the vaguest knowledge of the UK railway system knows that for reasons of cost and tradition the metrication process has bypassed it, and distances are still officially measured in miles and chains). Reopen it. ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed, I looked over the close and post-close discussion yesterday and it seemed to be a supervote as well. The close didn't even attempt to discern the consensus of the discussion. ansh666 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Closure was requested at WP:AN/RFC by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) with this request at 11:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC). Some days later, Steelpillow (talk · contribs) offered to close it with this post at 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC). This offer was accepted by Mjroots (talk · contribs) at 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC), and closure occurred at 12:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC).
  I do not think that twenty-four minutes is enough to read and fully digest the discussion that was closed. It certainly does not give enough time to also read the prior discussions at Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London and Talk:East Croydon station#Chains nor the ancillary discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains and Talk:Chain (unit) (at least three relevant threads). In this post, Steelpillow admits to have not looked at the earlier discussions, although in this post they claim to have "taken note" of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Twenty-four minutes is indeed not enough. I had been looking at it for some time before I made the offer. I have also been criticised for drawing from the MOS discussion, so it is not consistent to also criticise me for not drawing from some of the others. There is a strong aroma of "I don't like it" about a lot of this. Nevertheless, I take some of the criticisms as valid. I have a suggestion for a way forward but it is my bed time now, I will post again later. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If the closure is to be reviewed, there is no need to reopen the discussion in the meantime. Editors had plenty enough time to give their input whilst the RFC was running. For now, let's wait for Steelpillow to post his suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• That closure is a mess, and I would hope Steelpillow's way forward is to revert himself and let an admin close it as per the guidance at BADNAC. To say "Beyond this, the arguments presented on both sides have shown no clear conclusion" is a nonsense, there's clearly a consensus for option 3. The closure is, as others have said better than me, a SUPERVOTE, there is indeed a strong aroma of "I don't like it", but it's coming from the closer. If Steelpillow doesn't recant that close then I would imagine we shall be back here asking for the close to be undone, which it could and should be under BADNAC. Fish Karate 09:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• It is a bit hard. Six (VI) proposals. I think that each proposal should have been addressed in the close separately. Then, each result compared, and probably put to a refreshed discussion. Multi-choice discussions tend to be very hard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• I am a bit confused as to why whether the user is not an admin is relevant. You are not required to be an administrator to close any RFC. The close might be bad (I have not judged whether it is so), but BADNAC applies only to deletion discussion. --Izno (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact it's in the deletion section doesn't mean it's not good advice. Fish Karate 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Not really. RFC closes can and should be contested when they are bad closes, but this one cannot be overturned under the rationale of BADNAC, nor can the user be sanctioned for such an act. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggested revision

'Morning all. As I said, I acknowledge some criticisms of my closure. I gave no status headline, leading some editors to wonder what I was saying at all. The second half tried to offer a suggestion, which unintentionally strayed into supervote territory. All in all, I wrote too much, and too incoherently.

But I stand by my view that no real consensus emerged: of the many proposals, most had split votes. The last one was not only not voted on, but only around half-a-dozen editors engaged in discussion and they did not discuss a key suggestion in it, that the primary units in the lead should differ from those given in the body. That appears to go against MOS:UNITS, though it is not clearly stated whether the participants were aware of that. I did not, and do not, judge that final discussion to have established a clear overall consensus to differ from MOS:UNITS. The situation had not fundamentally changed from when SMcCandlish wrote this.

I would be willing to substitute a much shorter closing summary, say: "No consensus to differ from MOS:UNITS. No consensus on the implementation of that guideline." That seemed to me at the time to be overly short and unhelpful, so I went and erred the other way. I would be happy to modify my closure as just quoted, perhaps with some short commentary to be agreed here first.

But if you all conclude here that a consensus was actually reached, then my closure should be rolled back and another editor make it. May I suggest that to save time you address this point first.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel it would be best if you were to roll the closure back yourself and allow an admin to close it, per WP:BADNAC point 2 - "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator". And of the proposals, proposal 3 at least had a comfortable majority in favour (22-7), so I'm not sure you could quantify things as no consensus. Whether you consider the proposal to differ from MOS:UNITS is your opinion, as that's definitely a matter of fine distinctions, and your opinion should not be imposed on the closure. All of this combined tells me you should undo your closure, before it's undone for you (as that's where this will go, I suspect). Fish Karate 10:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to close this; I'm uninvolved, and as someone who once worked for British Rail in the dim and distant past, I'm familiar with the subject. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

NACs were supposed to be able to replaced unilaterally by any admin. Not sure if that remains in the documentation? I note that the best NACers are very quick to revert when approached. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the guidance to which you refer is that added over ten years ago in this edit. It reached substantially its present form with this edit last year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with F&C. @Steelpillow:, I think perhaps the message hasn't been clear enough: the general motif is not that you tweak / alter / shorten / lengthen your original close, but that, since this RfC was always—from day one—going to be controversial, you should not have closed it in the first place. WP:BADNAC has already been quoted above, but to reiterate: he outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. All of that sentence applies. Most of the questions were a close call and there were (therefore) several (or no, which would be equally controversial) valid outcomes arising from them. And as such, yes, the close would have been left to an admin.

NACs, after all, are intended to draw the weight from admins and act as a time saver. The fact that your close has led to this AN thread and is now taking up the time of multiple editors clearly suggests that, as an exercise in time-saving, it has failed spectacularly.

I also agree with SmokeyJoe that the best NACers are very quick to revert when approached, and draw it to your attention. @Black Kite:, I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I thank you for it. Hope this helps! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am going to repeat something I said just above, just for emphasis: I am a bit confused as to why whether the user is not an admin is relevant. You are not required to be an administrator to close any RFC. The close might be bad (I have not judged whether it is so), but BADNAC applies only to deletion discussion. (You should respond above, because this comment is not relevant to this subsection.) --Izno (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's supplementary to WP:CLOSE, which is not specific to deletion debates. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to be an administrator. As I said, the close may be bad, but that doesn't mean BADNAC should be cited. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Who's mentioning sanctions? The point is that it was a bad close (unlinked, if you prefer), and should be reclosed by someone with more experience and / or appreciation of the nuance; which is all this discussion has been about.—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Until you, F K, and Smokey all brought up/referenced BADNAC explicitly, it was just about a "bad" close (scare-quoted because again, I haven't reviewed it). I did not think the user would be sanctioned, but I did wish to make it clear that wasn't okay either. If you are challenging the close, that should not be one of the bullet points even remotely related to why you are challenging the close. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact, CLOSE makes the same point I am making at Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.[3] under section "Challenging other closures" --Izno (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two reasons admins do this. First, we have specific experience in weighing policy versus voting. Second, we have thick skins. This needs an admin to lose it because otherwise (as we see here) there will be drama. In addition, the close does not reflect consensus. A "no consensus, case by cse" close would be OK, bit this close is a supervote and unacceptable on its face. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There are experienced users outside the set of administrators who have demonstrated weight of policy versus voting (they close RFCs too--this RFC is not different), and I can think of at least one with a thick skin :) (he participated in that discussion). (Insert offtopic discussion about pathological standards at RFA.)
As I said, I haven't judged the close itself.
"needs an admin to lose it" --> well, there are lots of things on Wikipedia that might need an admin to lose it--good thing they don't ;). --Izno (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I still chuckle at BHG labelling Xdamr a "loser". [13]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Reclosed

I have re-closed the RfC with what I believe is a closer analysis of general consensus on the topic. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Good re-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Confirmed request

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

---

Could a sysop consider confirming Y000mtah's account ahead of time; their anti-vandalism work is repeatedly triggering filters 1 and 249, and there's no need for that. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Advice needed - COI, outing, Wikipedia email confidentiality, etc.

I need some advice please. I have received an email via Wikipedia from a user asking me to edit an article on behalf of the subject of the article. The name of the user making the request is the same as the name of the CEO of a company of which the subject (who has also been a politician in one of the more disputed parts of the western world) is Chair, and in the email the user says that the subject is Chair of "our company". The user has previously edited the article, but without making any declaration of COI. I do not appear ever to have edited the article. The information the user provided to me is that submitted by the subject to a well-known directory of people in public life. Now obviously I am not going to carry out edits on someone's behalf like this, but what is the etiquette about revealing that such a request has been made, another user's COI, etc? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I think the best course of action is to forward the email to [email protected], per the information at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. WaggersTALK 11:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now done this, and emailed the user to tell them of this and to point them to our guidance on COI. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OTRS is not the correct location for this. The functionaries mailing list would be. You can send it to them at: functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. Please remember to include email headers. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the content matter, OTRS can handle. So DuncanHill did the right thing there. Outing etc? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OTRS told me it wasn't their chicken, and to email functionaries, so I have. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I emailed functionaries 14 hours ago, and apart from an automated response at the time saying it was being held for approval I've heard nothing. Is there anywhere one can find out if anybody's noticed it? DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

DanielPenfield and archiving

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § DanielPenfield and archiving

Graham87 10:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Pending review"

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

---

Could someone enlighten me as to why my recent change to Chuckle Brothers ([14]) is deemed by the software to be subject to "pending review"? I'm assuming it's some technical glitch, though I don't know which technical board to go to to ask about it. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It was caused by a "pileup": an IP's edit needed confirmation, and this affected all succeeding edits. Should be fixed now. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Does this usually happen after one edit that needs review? I'm sure I've edited after such edits before, without this occurring. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it must happen. The idea is that someone must approve the IP edit or take action such as revert, and this is why all subsequent edits are marked as not reviewed until the action has been taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• That pending changes feature is a peach. EEng 06:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jonnycraig888

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:Jonnycraig888 is a new account, just created two days ago, that's making a surprisingly large number of edits to random AfDs. I'm assuming this is just vandalism and I've blocked them for 24 hours to prevent further damage. Looking for additional admin eyes to take a look and validate my assumption before I indef them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. I'm seeing someone who created an article, the article was passed by AFC, then in main space immediately sent to AFD. They've made several edits to that AFD. They seem to have an interest in music generally and Australian music specifically as most of the other articles and AFDs they've touched have been in that topic area. I didn't do an in-depth look at all their contributions or even all the AFD contributions, but the ones I've looked at look like good faith edits. There are no warnings on their talkpage at all. What specifically are you seeing that causes you concern? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To me the contributions look like good faith attempts from a new user to participate in AfD. Given the contents of the comments I don't think this is a sockpuppet or other user with prior experience of AfD. Hut 8.5 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jonnycraig888 created Draft:Cxloe which was declined then Nana222222 created Cxloe which was declined and moved over the draft - is the deleted content similar? Both users have participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinder (band), for an article created by Nana222222, and at a few articles including deletion of a notability tag[15]. Whether it's sock puppetry or two people collaborating, it looks like an attempt to circumvent the review processes. Peter James (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nana222222. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Acceptable username?

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – at WP:RFC/N

• I have come across a user named User:대한민국 헌법 . Google Translate translates this from Korean as "Korean Constitution". Is this within the rules as a username? Special:Contributions/대한민국_헌법. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No worse than this one. Who is an admin. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

the proper place for such a discussion is at WP:RFC/N, only after you’ve discussed it with the user in question. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Review of UpsandDowns1234 block

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

---

User:UpsandDowns1234 is requesting a community review of their block. The previous review was closed as "no consensus". The text of their appeal follows:

At this point, I truly understand what I absolutely did wrong that merited my block about a year ago. First, I completely obsessed about policy pages without taking into consideration whether it improves the encyclopedia, which is disruptive. Second, I abused talk pages (including my own talk page) and Twinkle for no apparent or good reason at all. Third, I see many places where I can improve on articles, particularly accuracy, vandalism, and images, such as the articles for musical.ly and Tik Tok (app). Fourth, I have abused my own userspace as a webhost, which violates the user page policy, and wastes time of RC patrollers who have to patrol each and every userpage edit (this is the reason why I requested to be blocked about a year ago in the first place). Fifth, I created pointless redirects that was the same problem on wikiHow and got me blocked there. Sixth, I created project and policy pages that did not line up with community guidelines, and was too vague in my edit summaries for any admin to interpret them as a good or bad edit (or set of edits). Seventh, I obsessed too much about the MediaWiki software, such as that extremely long discussion about changing the title of the main page and explaining why it would be technically impossible (also got me blocked from wikiHow). Finally, I see that whatever business I am doing on wikiHow does not affect my block over here, which at this point, for the next 6 months-1 year, I have to either shape up or shape out. I absolutely am sorry for this, understand the reasons for the block, and promise that this will never ever happen again. My incompetence was because I was attempting maintenance of Wikipedia without actually gaining experience on Wikipedia. My (not deleted) mainspace edits are <500, and if I were to narrow them down to not include the pointless template-adding games, they would probably be less that 100. And as Iridescent said, I have promised way too many times to not play games. This time, I actually mean it. Once again, I absolutely am sorry for whatever disruption I caused on Wikipedia, and hope to get my edit access restored soon. Ups and Downs (↕) 04:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser shows there is no evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion on their current IP. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose an unblock at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support but suggest the user is monitored for a while to ensure they truly have taken on board the issues raised. Happy to do this. Aiken D 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock and a second chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, in that the user does seem to recognise the wide-ranging issues exhibited, let's assume good faith and give them a chance to demonstrate improvement. Fish Karate 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sure TonyBallioni (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning support, having effectively tanked U&D1234's previous SO appeal here. I would be interested to hear User:Iridescent's feelings, as they were very much involved with this editor—and the myriad issues that that involved—from the start. Leaning support in spite of hearing from them, though, as if IIRC, Iridescent did support that last appeal, which tbh was not half as convincing as this one. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Clarify: My slanty support would change to a regular, perpendicular one if so editing restrictions as discussed below were agreed to and implemented. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• support, seems to have taken criticism on board and wants to learn to do better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support The appeal clearly shows they now know better and needs a second chance to demonstrate that. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. Nihlus 18:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Reaffirm support with the below conditions by Iridescent. Nihlus 16:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support if and only if U&D is willing to abide by some kind of explicit "no more fucking around" restriction; as U&D himself says in the above request, we've heard "this time, I won't goof around any more" from U&D far too often for it to have any credibility. I'd be inclined to formalize the conditions I proposed last time (You make no edits to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (if a policy prevents improvement of an article you can discuss your proposed changes somewhere else); No disruption of Wikipedia processes such as your drive-by nominations at WP:RFPP, and we decide what's disruptive not you; No experimentation on any page other than sandboxes; No creation of redirects, if you genuinely feel a redirect is necessary, you can suggest to somebody else that they create it; No screwing around with html to make your userpage or talkpage intentionally difficult to read; If anyone complains about anything you do, regardless of whether you feel the complaint is merited, you immediately stop whatever it is that caused the complaint.), but if that's too bureaucratic, "If anyone tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it immediately without argument, and if any admin feels you're trolling, timewasting or misusing Wikipedia as a webhost they can indefinitely block you without prior notice or discussion" would serve just as well. Also notifying Primefac and NeilN as the other two admins who had their time wasted trying to assume good faith of UpsandDowns1234 in the past. ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think your proposal could be simplied to [U&D] is restricted from editing any non-"talk" namespace other than the Article, User, and Draft spaces. Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be immediately stopped and self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: "Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be immediately stopped and self-reverted" means the complaints should be stopped and self-reverted. Presumably, you meant something more along the lines of "Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be responded to by immediately stopping and self-reverting"? AddWittyNameHere 02:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure! Primefac (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as second chance.The user clearly understands and recognize his past mistakes and is willing to work towards rectifying the issue. Razer(talk) 09:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support once editing restriction is codified, as suggested by Iridescent and simplified by Primefac. Alex Shih (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Seems pretty sincere, let's give them another chance. Waggie (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note There's a clear consensus to unban here, as well as a clear consensus for the condition of a formal and final warning against continued disruptive conduct of any kind, to be determined by the discretion of any administrator. For the sake of simplicity, the precise wording will be as follows: "UpsandDowns1234 is unbanned, but remains on a final warning status for disruption, broadly construed. Should any admin feel that they have caused or are causing any sort of "disruption" whatsoever, they may reblock for any period of time, or indefinitely, without further warning." The aforementioned details proposed above have all been made explicitly clear to fall within this warning, and it will be logged at WP:EDR under "final warnings". Swarm ♠ 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Please delete incorrectly created module

I can't seem to add a CSD template to Module:Multiple chess, however I request deletion as G7 (author request). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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.

---

Just a note that there are currently 32 open reports on AIV. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

My user page history,

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 wondering if an admin can strike "Revision as of 17:35, 18 April 2017 by User:TalhaMusaddeq" on my Userpage, I really hate seeing that pornstar bit in my history. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

And I simultaneously did it a more old fashioned way so you wouldn’t ever be reminded of it again. Courcelles (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you guys. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:

Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles

WP:DRN, WP:DR, WP:ANI Advice Disconnect

At the dispute resolution noticeboard we sometimes have filers who submit disputes that are not suitable for DRN because they were advised at WP:ANI that their dispute is really a content dispute and should be taken to WP:DRN. It is then sometimes necessary for the DRN volunteers to close these case requests, which results in disillusioned new users, but we can only accept the sort of cases that we can accept. The proper advice should in general be instead to read the dispute resolution policy and use whatever content dispute resolution policy is appropriate, which may be further discussion at an article talk page, WP:DRN, a Request for Comments, or a specialized noticeboard.

To clarify, DRN is a lightweight mediation forum, taking disputes that can be typically resolved by compromise or mediation within one to three weeks. We only accept cases that have been the subject of talk page discussion, but the talk page discussion has been inconclusive. (Try to discuss on a talk page before coming to DRN.)

There are a few possible ways to deal with this disconnect. First, we could change the charter of DRN to make it a point of entry for all content disputes, or all disputes. I do not recommend that. It would be a drastic change in how Wikipedia does dispute resolution, with limited benefit, and would not be consistent with the current volunteers that we have at DRN. Second, DRN volunteers can be asked to provide more detailed guidance to editors who file cases that are not appropriate for DRN as to where to take them instead. Asking the volunteers to give appropriate follow-up advice does seem to be a reasonable step. I would suggest a third step. Sometimes the advice to go to DRN is given at ANI by admins, and sometimes by non-admins. I would ask that admins take the lead in advising editors at ANI to read the dispute resolution policy and follow a dispute resolution procedure, rather than in advising them to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard (which may or may not be the right place).

I will also comment that, too often, the comment that a dispute is a content dispute is half true and useless. Most disputes start as content disputes, but, if one user is disruptive or combative, it may not be feasible to refer the dispute to a content forum, because content dispute resolution only works if all the participants are civil. A conduct aspect to a dispute must be addressed before the underlying content dispute can be resolved. (Telling the parties in such a dispute to resolve the matter as a content dispute is unfair to the civil party and favors the uncivil party because, by ignoring the disruption, it permits the disruptive editor to engage in bullying, insults, innuendo, filibuster, or whatever.)

Can administrators try to remember to send content disputes to WP:DR rather than WP:DRN? Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

TBAN for paid editor

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 am requesting a topic ban of User:Danilo Two from Bank of New York Mellon. This person works for the firm, Buetler Ink.

Why?

While this person has disclosed and is putting things through the peer review, the proposals are not grounded in the mission of WP and the policies and guidelines, but rather are raw PR for the client. We have TBANed people in this situation before, for example this thread from April 2017.

The final straw for me is this RfC posted today, which is absolutely un-neutral.

Earlier, they had made a proposal here which as I noted here, was trying to turn the WP page into a proxy for BNY's website, reflecting its current business and status only, and not an encyclopedia article with information of enduring interest. I noted that problem at their talk page in this diff.

Subsequently here they wrote These graphs were not provided by BNY Mellon, but a third party.. They offered no explanation as to why graphs that are independent are somehow "worse", here in Wikipedia. I pointed out that problem to them, on their talk page, here. I also noted at the article talk page that no policy based reason was given.

And now the RfC linked above. I called their attention to how un-neutral the RfC was at their talk page here. They responded by tweaking the RfC here. The RfC statement still makes their argument, instead of posing the question neutrally.

There is no sign that Danilo 2 intends to do anything other than represent what the bank wants. That is not what editing privileges are for, and is an endless time sink for the editing community. Paid editors need to be Wikipedians first, and if they won't be, then we should politely close the door. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not grounds for a topic ban. Have you tried Wikipedia:Third opinion? Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Never request a Third Opinion with Beutler. If they don't get it, they will then go to DRN, and if necessary to WP:ANI (although with no real issue at ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Never attempt to service an edit request for Beutler. If you try to help them, they treat you like an employee and think that they have the right to censure you for failure to do their job. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I complained because another editor had shown a pattern of highly idiosyncratic interpretations of content guidelines in responding to requests. I quickly found there was not a receptive audience here, and so I went back to working through these challenges. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel You have missed the point. Being here to represent the bank, without regard for WP's mission, policies, and guidelines, is not an acceptable use of editing privileges. This is not about the content dispute but rather Danilo 2's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

He's on the talk page starting an RFC, it looks like he has a lot of regard for WP's policies and guidelines to me. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

He sort of knows how to work Wikipedia. I have not denied that. But the RfC itself is far from neutral, which is not valid DR. But thisis again not the point. Using the talk page and certain DR processes in order to advocate for what the bank wants, regardless of the content policies and guidelines, is not being here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to do PR. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (tweaked w/o redaction, since this has not been replied to Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC))

As long as he's trying to build consensus on the talk page, not editing the page itself, and is fully disclosing his interest, I see no reason for a topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Following the paid policy and COI guideline is a minimum - necessary but not sufficient. As noted -- we have TBANed people in this situation before, for example this thread from April 2017. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the editor appears to be diligently following the paid-editing/COI rules. The RFC seems to be worded neutrally-enough; while the argument about different corporate entities isn't terribly convincing, I don't think it's biased. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki on what planet is giving an argument to do X in an RfC about what to do, considered "neutral" in Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Earth, apparently. I haven't figured out how to get to any other planets yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The wording Should the three graphs covering data for 2000-2008 in the Historical data section of the BNY Mellon article be removed or kept? seems fine to me; the original wording seems acceptable as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki everything above the signature is part of the RfC question. You correctly identify the actual question in the fist line as simple and neutral. But in both versions there is an additional paragraph giving the bank's/Danilo 2's argument. Everything above the signature is part of the "request". Neither version is even close to neutral.Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to respond here to defend myself a little. I think a lot of the issues that Jytdog raises are misunderstandings and some come down to preferences on information to present.

First, the request that Jytdog says was aiming to turn the Wikipedia page into a proxy for the company website was aimed at updating the Operations section which typically represents and is framed as the current operations of a company. I am not trying to remove historical data entirely from the article, nor turn the whole page into a company profile, but offer some suggestions to streamline the information and bring it up-to-date. After Jytdog offered his feedback, I didn't push this request further and I've in fact collapsed it (earlier today) and noted that I'd refocus my suggestions based on that feedback.

Second, with regards to the graphs, I believe the way I worded my note has caused some confusion and I'm sorry for that. It was not my intention to say that third-party materials are not appropriate or that information from BNY is better; I was trying to respond to Jytdog's prior note that suggested it would be ideal to add new graphs showing a greater range of information, rather than delete the existing ones. The situation is that the existing graphs were provided by a third-party that owns the copyright; that third-party has produced more up-to-date graphs but they're copyrighted, so can't simply be added to the article due to that. I wanted to clarify that the graphs were produced by someone other than BNY Mellon, to explain that I didn't have access or ability to provide ones that were up-to-date and that keeping the graphs updated would be complicated.

Third, for the RfC, as Jytdog notes, I adjusted it to make it neutral and I'm open to editors' suggestions.

Finally, as Jytdog and others have noted, I'm keeping to the guidelines here and am not editing directly, and I'm responding constructively to feedback. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Giving your client's reason for removing the graphs in the statement is not neutral. That you are here arguing it is, is pretty much exactly what I am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• So Talk:Ogilvy_&_Mather#Edit_request:_Updates_Round_1 is another example of the kind of thing I am trying to articulate. The page has been almost entirely rewritten with reviewed content from Buetler folks - first Heatherer and now Danilo 2 is stepping in. People generally review proposals, and everybody being busy, what usually happens is that the foundation is kept and really just the copy is checked to remove puffery and to ensure the content is supported by the sources. But the aim and overall messaging remains. You will see this if you review the talk page.

Now... Ogilvy & Mather, like most PR agencies today, has been struggling to adapt as more and more companies bring "creative" in-house and as the industry changed from emphasis on "creative" to buying ads in digital media (per this for example; likewise this)

Our article doesn't provide that context (it should, briefly) but different companies have responded in different ways at different times.

Ogilvy responded by profilerating divisions or subsidiaries to handle different aspects in different regions.

Two years ago new management came in, and they have completely done over the company, consolidating most everything into one entity and creating new divisions within it to handle different things. There is an interesting business story there. something people could learn from.

The proposal Talk:Ogilvy_&_Mather#Edit_request:_Updates_Round_1 would just erase the old structure and write in the new one. No context, no sense of history. Just turning the page into Ogilvy's website with a bunch of woo about "rebranding".

There is nothing about building an encyclopedia there. I am sure the proposal will be duly reviewed and implemented and the page made over into Ogilvy's image.

Like the intention at Bank of New York Mellon. Erase history, try to drive the page to express the Bank's messaging today. About today.

Is that we want? I say no. I say that just disclosing and putting up (absolutely formulaic WP-content-looking edits that are actually just PR dreck) for review is not what we want. It is a time suck on the community, and even the best intentioned volunteers generally just polish the turd and don't ask paid editors to write encyclopedic copy (and if they won't, just saying "no thanks" or ignoring it) Leading to pages in WP becoming polished PR turds. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support but I don't see why we should bother with a TBAN. Indef and be done with it. All this account has been used for is PR; they are clearly not interested in helping us write an encyclopaedia. The paid editing guidelines are a minimum requirement to comply with the WMF's terms of use. They're not a license to ignore our core content policies and behavioural guidelines (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, WP:DIS & WP:GAME, for example). – Joe (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• support indef-My primary impressions align with Joe.∯WBG^converse 06:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - what Joe said. If you can get paid to write a good encyclopedia article, I've got no problem with that, as long as you are being open and honest about it. We have some paid editors that do just that. But if you are here to spin a Wikipedia article for your client, go away and don't come back. Y'all haven't forgotten Tony Ahn yet, have you. Stop the time sink now with an Indeff. He gets paid to promote his client. Working our system to do so will always end up in the paid efiedi getting what they want. They are earning their bread and butter by working the system. At some point, every legit editor will have to back away so he or she can go support their family. That's a glitch in our system that we absolutely cannot let paid editors exploit. John from Idegon (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef No one needs to query my stance on paid editing. Be gone Danilo Two and refund your customers. I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing this editor has done is out of line with what other paid and COI editors have been allowed to do. We allow [Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-10-08/In_the_media political operatives] to edit articles about political opponents, so it's ridiculous to block a paid editor who is completely following policy. Gamaliel (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also oppose any sort of restriction at this time. The editor has worked to resolve issues from what I have read of the interactions on the talk page. Describing the RFC as non-neutral can be fixed simply by adding a signature to the first paragraph, which looks like a sufficiently neutral question to me. (I do not know if Jytdog is simply unaware that this is the fix to this issue.) The RFC starter is allowed to give his opinion first in an RFC. I am definitely not seeing any failures to meet our core content policies by the paid editor, nor any of the behavioral ones--and we don't topic ban users unless they do fail to meet the intent of those. --Izno (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Izno to be clear, what I am saying is that they are violating WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV by working consistently to make pages simply reflect their client's current business and current messaging, with no regard for our mission to write encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not meant to be a proxy for organization websites. However much the content proposed by Danilo Two looks like normal Wikipedia content, it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic-Ban - Beutler is in the business of systematically trying to game the system and is a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia. (If there is a proposal for a block or ban, I haven't seen it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• TBAN (preferred) or block if that can't be worked out. Robert McClenon is spot on here: a threat to the integrity of the project. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I was not going to weigh in here, except my name has been invoked a couple of times, and Danilo Two is on vacation this coming week. It goes without saying that I oppose placing any editing restrictions on this user, who is a colleague of mine. Let's back up a moment and recognize that WP:TBAN or WP:INDEF are reserved for editors who are disruptive, which Danilo most certainly is not, and WP:BLOCKNO advises against blocks based on content disputes, which is what this really is (Jytdog opened this thread after Danilo started an RfC). Except Jytdog is trying to make a more abstract case, that simply being a COI contributor is a violation of WP:HERE. This is a novel and dangerous theory to advance: whether you like "paid editing" or not, it is regulated by the WP:COI guideline, and Danilo has followed the advice of pages like WP:PSCOI to the letter. To propose any block or ban would not only be wrong on policy, but it would not serve Wikipedia in the long run. If COI contributors who disclose their relationships and avoid editing mainspace articles are blocked, only undisclosed paid editors will remain, and that would be a threat to the integrity of the project indeed. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WWB Too: A few points. One, I raised WP:NOTHERE and proposed an indef block, not Jytdog, who as always has displayed an admirable dedication to giving paid editors a fair chance, despite the evident lack of appreciation. Two, it is not remotely "novel" to block editors who are here solely to promote the interests of external organisations. WP:NOTPROMO is a much older policy than WP:COI, and is policy not a guideline. In any case, COI contains the text: If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts; continuously wasting the time of our volunteer encyclopaedia editors with POV attempts to further your clients' PR agenda is disruptive. Paid editors like yourself seem to find it convenient to ignore everything in WP:COI except for the bare-minimum requirements that let you carry on your trade within the terms of use. But in fact, if you actually read it, the overriding message of the guideline is don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop. Discussions like this are the consequence of ignoring that very good advice.

Finally, the tired excuse that you are the lesser of two evils holds no weight: yes, undisclosed paid editing is harder to deal with, but we don't solve that by giving disclosed paid editors a free pass to flout Wikipedia's core principles because they have a template on their talk page. Veiled threats aside, what does this project lose if we revoke Danilo Two's editing privileges? What has he contributed to our shared goal, when he's not being the errand boy for a bank? – Joe (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If I thought that Danilo Two's actions did in fact "flout Wikipedia's core principles" I would agree with you. But the case for this is non-existent; please look below to my new subsection explaining the underlying disagreement and let me know if you still think it sounds like Danilo was trying to subvert Wikipedia to the company's PR gain. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment See "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" on Bookfarce. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I came here from a note on the CREWE Facebook page. Looking over the material, Jytdog's case is solid. Topic ban or block - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN at the least, and likely that is the best for all accounts that have a COI with this subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the support votes are largely in favor of a back-door attempt to ban paid editing at an inappropriate forum; such a proposal should be an RFC advertised on WP:CENT. I don't see any other argument for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Power~enwiki: how is TBANning one specific group of editors who are continuously polishing articles that they have a disclosed COI with a 'back-door attempt to ban [all] paid editing at an inappropriate forum'? We are not discussing a change to policy or anything here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  No, we are being TOU bludgeoned by a spammer who doesn’t want to follow WP:NOTSPAM, a core policy. Our disclosure and COI review process does not exist to facilitate promotion, and those who use it as such should be sanctioned. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't reviewed much of what User:Danilo Two has posted, but I'm disturbed by many of the comments above. In particular, Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not require paid editors to contribute non-paid hours in order to be in good standing. This discussion should not be about (a) why such a (new) policy/guideline is desirable, or (b) getting in yet another swing at the goal of banning all paid editing. I will note that the cited thread from April 2017, is not at all similar - in that example, the editor had edited only one article; used sockpuppets (blocked); had an article ban put in place against her; and was caught placing articles in the press in order to use them as sources. All of that, plus her non-cooperative postings to the article talk page, would be sufficient to get her banned from Wikipedia even if there was no obvious COI. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:John Broughton I don't believe anyone has said that paid editors are obligated to volunteer. They are however obligated to follow the content policies and guidelines, and trying to turn WP pages into proxies for company websites and into PR violates WP:PROMO as well as WP:NPOV; articles about companies should be encyclopedic, covering their whole timeline with no particular WEIGHT on the company's current business. But this Danilo Two's proposals consistently do just that, which you would see if you did review their contribs. I had suggested removing them from just that one page, to try to bring their attention to this problem with their approach to WP. Others have taken it further. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog - it's those users who have taken the matter further that concern me. Comments like "don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop", and "I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation" aren't relevant, or helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:John Broughton I see. Thanks for clarifying. Discussions like this bring out people with strong feelings on the topic. I disagree that those expressions are irrelevant. Paid editors should be mindful that paid editing is tolerated, not loved, by the community, and that this tolerance is pretty easily exhausted. I write about this some on my userpage at User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular...but !votes paying attention to the particular issues are of course most heeded by closers. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef as ArbCom has already ruled, and WP:PAID makes clear, disclosure is a minimum. Individuals who are paid must also follow the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, one of which being an absolute prohibition on promotionalism (WP:NOTSPAM). If someone doesn’t get that, they have no businsss editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. Working under the WP:PAID rules is fine for editors who are helping improve an encyclopedia article in line with NPOV guidelines", but that's not what I see here. What I see is a persistent bludgeoning approach to try to get this article to reflect what the company's PR wants it to say. And that is an abuse of volunteers' time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  And if indef does not gain a consensus, I support a topic ban as my second choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself: a fair reading of the discussion at Talk:Bank of New York Mellon will show that Danilo's proposed changes were based on policies and guideline concerns. No one has explained how WP:NOTSPAM was actually violated; any such argument would be extraordinarily weak. Likewise, I've seen the word "bludgeoned" used to describe Danilo's participation twice, but this is uncharitable in the extreme. Danilo and Jytdog previously had a perfectly cordial relationship on this page going back to September 2017, and it's quite baffling to me why this latest round of requests has produced this result. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per as per power~enwiki, Gamaliel and Izno. Nobody dislikes paid editing more than I do. However, that is just my personal feeling, but my personal feelings don't come into it. This editor is not doing anything contrary to Wiki policy in regards to paid editing. We cannot change policy willi nilly based on our own personal feelings. This thread comes off as a direct attack on the character of a fellow editor, and I'm not comfortable with that at all especially when they are following the rules. If we make a precedent here based on our own personal feelings without following due process, I fear the knock on effect that will have on this project - that most of us are trying to build. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Examining the original disagreement

Editors commenting here should read the original discussion that led to the RfC that Jytdog identifies as his reason to make the TBAN proposal. Danilo Two had suggested the removal of this paragraph in the BNY Mellon article because it was outdated, lacked context, and wasn't helpful to readers. Jytdog stated that it would be better to update the charts, so Danilo explained the challenges to doing this, which included a desire to avoid COPYVIO. It was a civil conversation, which could have used more voices—this is why Danilo opened the RfC. And when Jytdog found fault with the way he presented the RfC question, he agreed to adjust the wording. I must ask, is this behavior worthy of a TBAN? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are trying to cast this as a mere content dispute. The TBAN request is due to behavior issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the behavior issue? Yes, Danilo Two did include his perspective in the first version of the RfC, and that was a mistake. When you objected, he changed the wording. He is clearly willing to take constructive feedback, and is unfailingly polite. So which part of WP:WHYBLOCK did he violate? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Persistently trying to turn WP articles into proxies for company websites, focused on their current status and messaging, and erasing history while doing that. That is not what we do here. The minimal requirement for paid editors to be members of the community is to follow the PAID policy and COI guideline. But like everybody else paid editors need to aim for the mission and follow the rest of the content policies and guidelines. I have now almost verbatim repeated myself. That is tedious to me and I am sure everyone else, and I have no more to say to you here. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jytdog, but that is simply false. Danilo suggested removing an iffy section, but that is not "erasing history". Furthermore, in several instances he suggested moving outdated information to the History section. It's just wrong to say he was only serving a PR purpose, and not trying to make it a more accurate and informative page. If this is your last comment, that's too bad, as we've been having a more constructive version of this conversation on your talk page. I am certain there is a solution here well short of topic-banning an editor whose edit requests you think are wrong. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree. I am uninterested in entertaining further debate with you about your employee and I will not further tolerate your misrepresentation and misframing what I have been saying as a content dispute. I suggest you stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User interaction investigations & Interaction Timeline

Hello all,

Want to give an update about a new feature for the interaction timeline tool and talk about my observations when I’ve tested the tool on active cases on AN/I

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T197148

The interaction timeline tool will soon generate text output that can be shared in on wiki. This allows people who are preparing a report about user conflict or doing an user interaction investigation of a noticeboard report to add a link to the results with a brief summary of results. This new feature aims to enhance one of main purposes for the tool–to provide a neutral and complete chronological record of the interaction between two users. I'm interesting in learning about how this improves or harms discussions.

My experimentation will some live active AN/I cases shows that there will still be heavy lifting to do a thorough investigation on complex cases, but it improves the investigation by:

• eliminating only seeing one sided cherry picked diffs from one or both parties to the dispute
• giving a complete chronological record of the pages where interactions happen with a diff that can be expanded for further review of the interaction. In addition to showing the frequency of negative interactions, this could aid with understanding the scope of topic or interaction bans.
• calculating and displaying the amount of time between interactions in small red text,
• allowing you to change date ranges to see a longer view of interactions or narrower view restricted to a shorter timespan when a conflict heats up.

Lastly, I started a page on wiki that highlights the tools that can be used to investigate user interaction conflicts. Wikipedia:Tools/User interaction investigations. Time permitting, sometime later this week, I plan to add more details about approaches to investigating complex cases. I welcome review, improvement, and sharing with others if you think it is useful.

As always, I’m interested in learning other people's experiences using the tool. You can share either here in this discussion, by email, or on my talk page.

Cheers, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to get into the weeds on this, but some experimentation suggests the new tool is useful only if (a) the set of pages in common is small AND (b) that set does not include a page such as ANI. Otherwise you get massively unwieldy output. An advantage of the old interaction tool is that you get a list of pages and minimum interaction times and can "zoom in" on those that looked interesting. Here we get one gigantic pile. Maybe if there was a way, once the initial output begins, to click-to-exclude a page, or click-to-temporarily-show-only this page, or things like that. The more I think about it the more I think starting with some kind of summary-by-page, followed by a selection to expand a subset of pages, might be best. EEng 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:EEng I appreciate you expanding your feedback to include a suggestion for improvement. :-) I see where you coming from. I've brought your idea to User:TBolliger (WMF) and the rest of the Anti-Harassment Tools team and we'll add it to our phabricator board to consider for the next phase of improvements to the tool. We are also considering a filter for namespace or pages. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to get into it, but you're drawing me in. Here's how I imagine this might be used. First you get a list of pages where both/all editors have edited, with some basic info like # of edits by each, min time between interacting edits, # of edits by each during the time they were both active on the page, stuff like that. You can select individual pages one at time to investigate -- you're looking for conflict, presumably -- and then after looking at a given page you either "keep" or don't keep it. After looking at various pages, you can then go to a presentation much like you have now, except only showing the keeps. Another idea might be to use coloring, or other visual cues, to show quickly which pages are which as you glance down the combined interaction display. There... that should keep you busy a while. Oh yes, one other thing... there needs to be a way to get a permalink for what you're seeing, so when you post to ANI or whathaveyou everyone can see exactly what you're seeing. EEng 19:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: I love it, it's similar to what we're thinking for phab:T189850. I won't drag you into this further, thank you for your comments and for your time! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager (t) 22:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I checked out the phab thread, so just to say that if you can figure out interactions down to the thread level, that would clear out a lot of chaff. Similarly, I guess, you could ask whether 2 editors did or did not edit the same section of a given article. Those better be options the user can turn off, though. EEng 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the names are case sensitive. I typed in "sir joseph" and it worked, in that it selected a "sir joseph" but no results. I had to type "Sir Joseph" and that showed results. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sir Joseph: This is a larger problem with good-ol' case-sensitive MediaWiki. The tool pulls from the Wikimedia user table, on which there is both User:Sir_Joseph (you) and User:Sir_joseph (an account with 0 edits.) We did make the input box on the Timeline ignore the case of the first character, as it is always capitalized. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager (t) 17:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppetry

We have had three sockpuppet investigations (re five accounts) at Talk:Israel over the last few days (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יורם שורק). The sock keeps coming back, and has done so again today. The SPI process takes some time, so the sock seems happy to continue to open new accounts. Is there anything that can be done to block them completely, or do we need to resign ourselves to a long term game of Whac-A-Mole? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC that has experienced this much verified disruption can have the weight of a consensus. Is it possible to protect the talk page so only extended-confirmed accounts can participate for a time? It might be best to scrap this one and start over. (This is also just a good idea to deter bad behavior in the future.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin cmt) I think that both those moves would be very wise. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot my password

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 think I just forgot my password, need restoration. If needed ill create new account just in case I lose password Glorium (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Which account? Orientls (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Glorium: ^^^^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If your account has email enabled then you can use that to reset your password. Hut 8.5 17:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No need anymore I found my password — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorium (talk • contribs) 2018-08-10T23:16:58 (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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

Login help needed for Textorus, continued

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 a continuation of a request for help I made a month ago, now archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Login_help_needed,_please

I have been away but now am back, and am really hoping some kind soul will take pity on this old geezer and restore my access to my original account, user:Textorus. I have made a new account, but of course it lacks my 12 years of history and contribs, etc.

Many admins responded to my first request, and I appreciate that, but the consensus was that there was nothing they could do. Someone suggested I go ask for help at phabricator, but that was misguided: I did that yesterday and here is the response they gave me: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Uibpipy0i2ug8k2u&topic_showPostId=uid9wiuuvlzwowt8&fromnotif=1#flow-post-uid9wiuuvlzwowt8

So once again, I ask for my password on user:Textorus to be reset so I can get back to work making the Internet not suck, in my small way. I understand from the first discussion that I have no email address on file (I must have deleted the original when I got a new email years ago and somehow forgot to enter the new one); and that therefore, all the rules say I am screwed. I also do not know any other Wikipedians who can vouch for me personally.

However, from having worked 40 years before retirement in business and government with computer workstations, and frequently interacted with IT administrators, I do know that resetting a user password is a very simple thing, and in the world outside of WP is done all the time. I realize many delinquents and malefactors are also causing wikitrouble night and day, and I have no way of proving that I am not one of them - but guys, why would some hacker hoodlum want to impersonate a boring old guy like me and take over my boring old user account? When he could much more easily create a dozen clever, crafty new accounts on WP in the time I have taken to type this request? I ask you.

I am not a high-profile Wikipedian, but as a now-retired professional editor and educator I have for many years enjoyed clarifying, correcting, and sourcing wikiarticles, which is a nerdy but inexpensive hobby, and which does, I hope, contribute in small, unnoticed ways to the greater good.

So can someone please take a chance, WP:BRAR, and give an old man his wikidentity back? Thanks in advance for any help. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Textorus2: there are no English Wikipedia positions that have the technical capability to reset your password. The only people that can do this are developers, and you need to file a phabricator ticket to request their assistance. The link that you were provided at mw:Topic:Uibpipy0i2ug8k2u is the link to phabricator. You can see what an example password rest request look like here: phab:T198536. If you convince the developers you are the person that should be in control of your account they may be able to reset your email address so you can generate a new password. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Xaosflux, but the link I was given is "to report a bug" - I have no bug to report, just a password reset request, which is the simplest thing in the world - my bank does it over the telephone, no photo ID or fingerprints needed. The second link you gave shows someone asking for a password reset, but I do not see how to get into that discussion board. I am old and retired from a long career, and my brain is too tired to decipher and burrow into all the technical complexity there. If no one has the time or patience to help me out, maybe it's just time I retired from Wikipedia too. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Textorus2: WMF does not have telephone support, the intake system calls everything a "bug". Unlike a your bank, we don't know may private things to authenticate you (like "what is the amount of your last deposit, who did you write check number 3212 to, etc", which is why this is hard. The basic steps to open this "request" are below:

1. Go to this link
2. Fill our the form with what you want, include some links to discussions, etc.
3. Ensure there is someway to contact you privately (You can tell them to use the wikipedia email you registered with this account for example) ( You do not need to write this private information directly in to the ticket)
4. In the "Tags" section type in "Wikimedia-Site-requests" and "Trust-and-Safety"
5. Click "create new task".

Hope that helps. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

phab:T201612 was filled --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It did indeed help, and I've just now gotten signed back into my "real" account. Thanks so much for your assistance, User:Xaosflux. Please consider yourself the recipient of the the Kind to Old Geezers Barnstar. Textorus (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Textorus: welcome back, I'm glad to hear this worked out for the best for you! Sorry you had to go jump through so many hoops, WMF is extremely strict on editor privacy and account security - severely limiting who can do certain tasks. This is mostly for very good reasons. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Antifa page and the Department of Homeland 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.

---

The web is an intricate trail of IP addresses and I feel that the Department of Homeland Security should investigate the antifa page with Wikipedia authorities!

America has experienced election meddling with foreign actors (most recently in 2016) and it's not just Russia -- China is involved as well as the U.K. The simple matter is that anyone capable of editing a page on Wikipedia has the ability to shape the narrative about a subject by creating original criticism. This is of particular concern with pages, like antifa where some editors take a hardline response and attempt to silence others. They aim through attrition to intimidate others.

With regards to antifa, he United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

Members of antifa “wear black pants and sweatshirts, with either helmets or hoods over their heads, bandanas across their faces — and dark sunglasses, goggles or gas masks over their eyes. Many carry makeshift shields and flags, whose staffs can quickly become weapons. They call themselves “antifa,” short for anti-fascist, and they’re part of a loosely organized national network of anonymous anarchists.” Select editors would like to hide this fact.

I have met with resistance at every well documented citation: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a

I am happy to speak with anyone regarding the concerns of our nation! SDSU-Prepper (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antifa (United States)--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:DUCK check requested for a SPI

Could an uninvolved admin please look in on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. The situation is a little complex: it appears that Romanian-and-proud (talk · contribs) may have been mistakenly identified as an Iaaasi sock a few years ago. It is my view (and the view of several other editors) that R&P has returned as Torpilorul (talk · contribs) given the editing patterns and views they've expressed. A checkuser run hasn't turned up a link between Torpilorul and Iaaasi, but the checkuser noted that "I accept that Torpilorul could be R&P". I'd be grateful if someone could investigate the behavioural evidence. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I am involved, but agree with Nick-D that there is a fair amount of behavioural evidence for a link between the two. We had what could be described as a pro-WWII Romanian (and Holocaust-apologist) series of posts on WT:MILHIST recently by Torpilorul, and I have the same suspicions as Nick-D. It would be good to clear it up for the future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: when you open a thread challenging an admin action it's customary to ping the admin whose action you're challenging (courtesy ping DeltaQuad). Other admins are welcome to have a look of course, but it's already several admins' opinion that the two accounts are probably operated by the same person and thus violating the multiple accounts policy, and so the new account would be blocked regardless of their connection to the SPI case. It's also my opinion that they're all the same person as the sockmaster. I don't really understand the forumshopping going on here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the protocol mess up. I'm not challenging DeltaQuad's admin action whatsoever: checkusers aren't expected to do WP:DUCK tests, and in her comments she alluded to this being helpful. I'm not intending to forumshop: I was concerned about the SPI being closed early due to what seems to be a procedural foul up in earlier SPIs. I'd be more than happy for the SPI to be re-closed if I've misunderstood the status here, and the check is unnecessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I’m not sure it matters much now. R&P hasn’t edited since 2016 and there is no active appeal. Torpilorul is blocked for reasons other than socking. I’m not a clerk, but as an admin who is fairly active at SPI, I can say that closing in this case is pretty normal: a behavioral determination wouldn’t change much and any future appeal by either account would bring with it new CU data and the behavioral evidence could be reviewed then. Simply from a practical standpoint right now we don’t need to make that judgement call. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corben

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.

---

Jeremy Corbyn ‎ Article is under discretionary sanctions clearly on the edit screen as one revert - User:Exzachary is breaking those conditions. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

the addition is well-sourced and neutral.Exzachary (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours as a regular admin action (not AE) as they don't seem to be formally aware of the sanctions and were continuing to edit war after getting a warning, which is disruptive regardless of XRR. Any admin is free to unblock if I'm not around and they agree to stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Dispute

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 would like to ask for opening a dispute here [16] concerning this entry [[17]] After many discussions it is difficult to arrive to a consensus and at the moment the entry is blocked and with a version that in my oppinion is not based on facts but on oppinions of third people (videos and articles). The accusations of having links to far right organisation is very serious. Thanks!--Manlorsen (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Wheel of Fortune vandalism

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 IPs have been vandalizing Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show): this one and this one.

I have seen IPs in a similar range, leaving similarly malicious edit on a fan wiki for Wheel that I founded, such as this one. Given that they use the "newer" style IP ranges that are a huge mishmash of numbers, I don't know if a rangeblock is possible or not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: The range would be 2601:81:8500:f6e0:81e2:404a:5521:8cae/5, which is too large for a rangeblock. Home Lander (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: what would be the best way to curtail this vandalism then? I almost suspect it may be a bot, given how it vomits randomly related words onto everything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: If it gets super bad, request WoF to be semi-protected, I'd say. Home Lander (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for a week. Let me know if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Not sure if it matters, but it doesn't look like 2001:1970:521F:2900:C9C0:36D1:EDC8:E736 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is included in the range; that is one that I included to calculate the (too large) range above. Home Lander (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a different ISP and in different country, and it only made one edit which was several days ago. Maximum block for IPv6 allowed is /19. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93: That's what I get for not running whois on more than one of the IPs. Home Lander (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

May I please get some help with a request on my talk page?

Hi all, I can't look into this right now, and I'm not terribly good with IP range stuff. On my talk page is a request from the very polite editor KatnissEverdeen, who is experiencing problems at some Scooby-Doo-related articles. IP range 73.61.1* seems to be the issue, and since they keep hopping, she's not been able to contact them to encourage them to discuss their changes. She also wonders whether or not this could be an open proxy. If anybody could look into this, I'd be appreciative. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Done! Swarm ♠ 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

These edits (the ones to the cartoon articles) remind me strongly of Fangusu (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu) but the locations are wrong. Hmm. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

mass deleting edits of a banned editor

I have yesterday nuked a large number of pages created by a banned editor, basically per our banning policy, and because I feel that here WP:DENY applies (their contributed material is their trophy). Special:Nuke applies there (standard) deletion criterion 'G5', which I did not bother to change, nor do I know if I can. I can see that strictly spoken here 'G5' does not always apply.

I have undeleted pages where I felt that there were significant edits by others (excluding categorisations, tagging, etc.).

I am asking here for a second opinion: am I correct in deleting all page creations by a banned editor, regardless of the quality. Does G5 apply there, or do I have to delete them per WP:BMB/WP:DENY. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know (not privy to the confidential behavioral evidence) the editor in this instance was banned for uploading copyvio images. G5 says to only delete content when it relates to the reason for the ban, so in a strict reading only images (and not articles) should have been nuked. Also, who cares about whether socks collect new-article trophies? Regular editors do that all the time; it's not problematic nor (except in extreme cases of automated bad stub creation) ban-worthy behavior. But I have no reason to doubt the identification of this editor as a sock, and while it's annoying that apparently-good new stubs got nuked I'm not going to argue for the re-creation of the ones that had no subsequently added content from other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

G5 says to only delete content when it relates to the reason for the ban - this is not true. G5 says the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. If a user is blocked or banned, any and all content they create under a new account is a violation of their specific block or ban, and is subject to G5. The reason for the original block is irrelevant, they are violating it simply by editing. The specific-violation cause kicks in if the user is topic-banned or subject to editing restrictions, but otherwise still welcome on the site. In those cases, G5 would apply to new pages created on topics that fall under the ban (or violate their restrictions) but not to any of their other new content. Beetstra's deletions of both articles and images are correct here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@David Eppstein: As I see now, strictly reading of G5 would here not apply, though I will argue that all of WP:BMB does apply (and I recall ArbCom having statements about that, where a restricted editor was adding and self-reverting in mainspace, then arguing on the talkpage to re-revert to have the material included 'if it was good' - blocks were applied for that behaviour). Regarding 'who cares about whether socks collect .. trophies' .. so there you have the exact paradox of WP:BMB that WP:DENY/WP:RBI are basically talking about, rooted in policy. Just to note, this editor has earlier asked for a non-en.wikipedia contest on article creation where all his articles were nuked as still counting for the contest.

I have absolutely NO problem with independent re-creation of any of the articles I deleted.

The behavioural evidence (99.9%) is all on-wiki (though some now deleted). I have asked a CU off-wiki to fill in the last 0.1%. Their edits are basically a dead give away per WP:DUCK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think quality is the issue here, carelessness is. You deleted several pages that had unambiguously been "significantly" edited by others, e.g. Leanne Redman, which David had declined a previous CSD on and substantially rewritten. You also restored blatant vandalism just because Slowking5 happened to be the one who reverted it. I understand the importance of enforcing blocks on sockpuppets, but doing so shouldn't be at the cost of (re)introducing bad edits, deleting the contributions of good faith editors, or overruling the decisions of other admins. Maybe in future do these manually, rather than using the 'Nuke' tool (in fact I'm surprised to learn that such an indiscriminate tool exists). – Joe (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Joe Roe: I was under the false impression that Special:Nuke only deleted pages that were only edited by said editor, my apologies for that misunderstanding (more work for me next time to evaluate all pages ..). I also agree on the one mistaken rollback ..

I disagree on the point that I overruled the decision of the other admin, I deleted for completely different reasons, per policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BANREVERT is the relevant policy. They don't necessarily have to be reverted—use best judgement.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" - and this is not ambigious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I was only stating the relevant policy. Without having looked at the reverts/deletes, I have no opinion on your specific actions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand, I did not want to give the impression that I understood differently. Note that you would need to know the history of the edits of this sock, not the just the reverts/deletes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

this is a frequent dilemma--the oractical way of enforcing a ban is to deny the contributions, but if the subjects are important enough, this harms the encyclopedia. I would not have asked about Larssen, nor (presumably) David Epstein about Redman and Wang , had we not judged the individual awere so important in their fields that coverage was essential--and had we not been specialists in that particular subject area. And even so, I would probably not have asked about, Larssen has I not previous to the deletion worked significantly on the article, to the extent of an almost complete rewriting. When an article by a banned individual has been worked on by a responsible editor here, that editor is normally considered to have adopted the article adnd taken responsibility for it. Whatever we do about the sock's work, you can not remove the work of editors in good standing'work under G5. That's the problems with mass removal--they are indiscriminate and do not take account of circumstances. .It is normally considered that mass removals require specific prior authorization at ANI -- and, even so, in recent cases most of the articles subject to such mass removals have in practice not been deleted because established editors spoke up for them.

(but since the question was raised, I do want to say in all fairness that Beetstra's decision to delete an article I worked on was not overruling an admin decision. My working on it was an editorial action, not an admin one. Similarly for my declining the speedy: any editor, not just an admin , can decline a speedy). DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The oractical of Delphi

-EEng

What's "oractical"? EEng 19:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's reading of the situation. Furthermore, since Slowking4 / Warren5th (is there a specific reason we're not mentioning him by name here?) was not actually sanctioned because of problematic edits in mainspace per se, deleting notable content from the encyclopedia seems counter-productive. One possible compromise would be to undelete the remainder of the articles, send them to AfD, and see what the community thinks on a case by case basis. My understanding of G5 is that it was used to sanction somebody who used sockpuppets to repeatedly create blatantly unsuitable pages, and was introduced as a device to save time - Iridescent can remember the specifics, I think. See here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Do you understand that this is an editor who has argued that they should be eligible for prizes in a contest for the work that they contributed after all that work was deleted (a step up from the general 'I win prizes for collaboration')? And again, WP:BMB "A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content." - are we arguing here that we should just leave good editing by banned editors, just block? Maybe we should then update that in the banning policy. I feel the cause is here more important than the 'crime'.

I did not mention the names, the discussion is more about the general conflict / paradox in my use of administrative tools, not about the block / socking / block evasion itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this prizes for an on-wiki contest (in which case tell him a) he's not having them and b) grow up) or somewhere else (in which case contact the organisers and explain why he shouldn't get anything)? In any case, that's a separate issue to the content that gets left behind. In ten years' time, everyone will have forgotten about the editor, but the article will still be around for people to read, if they want to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, on-wiki contests. And that is exactly my point.

Note that, going through their socks, I see copyright issues from September 2017 .. going through the contributions of the last sock, I see article duplication, and cases bordering on plagiarism. I am sorry people, there are all types of problems noted in the history of this editor which are ongoing. I have undeleted a couple of articles now, but I would not be surprised that some of that material is blatant copyvio. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have opened up a more specific question at WP:VPP#WP:BMB to suggest a different solution to wholesale deletion in specific cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My 2p - I'm very firm with DENY and nuke on sight, but if another editor asks me to restore an article/category etc. then I happily do so. GiantSnowman 09:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Same here, with the caveat that I would need a good reason, not just a blanket request, and certainly not a blanket request to restore all of them. "Banned" = we don't want you here, not "we don't want you here, but if you edit anyway, we'll keep the edits", which basically gives banned editors a good reason to continue socking. Fram (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• SPI clerk here. I normally reserve G5 deletions for pages very recently created by banned users where mass-creation is their MO, or where the pages are recreations of pages they've previously created, especially when they're obviously gaming create protection or regex salting. I also don't think I've ever used mass delete. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous cases only - if there's any doubt as to whether content is acceptable, deletion should be up to discussion. At least in edge cases, a deletion discussion sets up a rationale for WP:G4 deletion in the future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Creating pages is part of the MO, whether it is 'mass' is a matter of definition. The situation is complex here, this is a case where the editor very clearly thrives on the material that stays .... the paradox is that anything short of damnatio memoriae (which I indeed may have tried too eagerly to achieve here) is going to be an encouragement for further disruption (I have next socks already on my radar ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

One month and counting...

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.

---

InfoWars § Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"?

Can someone put this thing out of my misery? Ta. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Puzzled what the request here is. --DBigXray 18:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably for someone to close the discussion. Natureium (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks. then it should go here, with others Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Other_types_of_closing_requests No urgency is mentioned above. Moved With this edit --DBigXray 18:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ANRFC

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.

New proposal about MediaWiki_talk:Movepage-moved

That maybe of interest for you MediaWiki_talk:Movepage-moved#Link_to_the_talk. Thanks--Pierpao (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to noinclude deletion tag for protected Template:Japanese episode list

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 deletion notice should be moved inside the noinclude tag or into the documentation, the template is currently transcluded on at least 2300 articles and it's currently causing quite a lot of deletion notices to show up (e.g. The_Mythical_Detective_Loki_Ragnarok#Episode_list and List_of_Fullmetal_Alchemist_episodes#Episodes). The deletion discussion page was vandalized twice already (possibly as a result of it). -Sonicwave ^(talk) 07:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is obviously not how {{Template for discussion/dated}} was intended to function, and I would support going ahead and apply the quick fix; perhaps invite more comments by leaving a note at WT:JAPAN. Alex Shih (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice disabled. {{Template for discussion/dated}} is designed to show up in articles, but certainly not as 30 stacked up notices Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Request to lift topic ban

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

---

I was topic banned on May 1,2018 for violating several wikipedia policies while editing a caste article. I was relatively new to wikipedia and was not familiar with the policies. I know that ignorance is not an excuse. I apologize for my rude behavior. Since then, I have been making good contributions in other areas without any complaints so far. I promise I will continue to abide by wiki rules and remain a good editor. I request to consider my appeal to lift the topic ban. I have appealed for a lift in the past but was turned down. I am requesting again. I am ready to address any concerns you have about me. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't the standard to wait 6 months? that's November 1 by my calendar.  MPJ-DK  21:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sharkslayer87, MPJ-DK is correct, the standard is to wait six months. And especially in your case, you should wait. Did you read these comments on your original ban appeal, which you posted a mere hour after the topic ban had been placed? Several admins experienced users there stated specifically that a new appeal from you should not be entertained until a minimum of six months had passed. I agree with them. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
• I, too, would recommend waiting, and using the six month period to demonstrate that you can build content responsibly in other areas. A lot of your activity at present is anti-vandalism, which is good, but does not provide us a basis with which to judge whether the topic ban is still necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hi Sharkslayer87, continue your good work at other areas. getting back to the same topic prematurely may risk you getting back to the similar situation. it will serve you well if you spend 3 more months by getting familiar with rules and policies. There are lot more places where you can contribute as a new editor. see Wikipedia:How to help --DBigXray 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Request to lift topic ban (Robertinventor)

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 wish to get my indef topic ban in the Buddhism topic area lifted. The main reason given for the original topic banthe original topic ban was that my talk page posts were too long, and I did too many of them. A secondary reason was that I did too many minor edits after posting them. Several other points were mentioned, but those were given most weight in the discussion. All of these are easily addressed.

First note that I'm an editor in good standing, with no other sanctions against me. Also I am frequently involved in extensive conversations in other topic areas. My posts are sometimes technical and detailed, however, they are always to the point, intended to help improve wikipedia, and usually are appreciated by the other editors in the conversation. In the topic areas that interest me, often other participants in the discussion do long posts too, and I appreciate their long posts as much as they appreciate mine; this discussion is an example. I have never been taken to ANI over the length of my posts on any other topic.

However, I agree that my talk page habits did cause a major issue in the Buddhism debates. Occasionally they causes minor issues in other debates. I sometimes have found it hard to adjust to Wikipedia from other platforms because

• If you edit your post after posting it, this sends alerts to editors watching the talk page. and fills talk page histories with diffs for all your edits
• Other editors will see the whole of your long post when browsing a thread (on other platforms they see only the first few lines until they click more).

But I have a solution!

Sandbox solution

The main change since the t-ban is that I have got into the habit of composing replies in my sandbox if they seem likely to need to be edited after posting. I never thought of this way of using my sandbox until @Softlavender: suggested it during the t-ban appeal discussion (apparently someone mentioned it to me before, but I didn't notice).

• This completely solves the issue of minor edits filling talk page histories and sending multiple alerts to other editors. Sometimes I forget to use the sandbox, or don't think it is going to be necessary. When that happened recently, an editor posted: User:Robertinventor#Too many edits for a talk page post. In response, I immediately started using the sandbox for this discussion, which solved the issue raised in that comment.
• I have also been using the sandbox for long talk page posts. This gives me an opportunity to review them and shorten them using my User:Robertinventor/Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments. I can even leave a draft there and take a break and then come back and find a way of making it shorter.
• As for doing too many posts in a short period of time, if this ever arises again, I can deal with that by either taking wikibreaks, or slowing down the pace of conversation, and giving other editors lots of time to respond before returning to the conversation myself.

I have also added messages to my user space to encourage other editors to please draw my attention to the matter if I do any of these things.

• User:Robertinventor#Over lengthy talk page posts or too many posts
• User:Robertinventor#Too many posts
• User:Robertinventor#Too many edits for a talk page post? Just remind me to use the sandbox - thanks!

I have also just now added a reminder text message to my user page and talk page: REMINDER TO SELF - YOU ARE NOW ON WIKIPEDIA - USE SANDBOX TO COMPOSE YOUR COMMENTS IF THEY ARE LIKELY TO NEED EDITING AFTER POSTING

This should help prevent similar issues arising in the future.

Wikignoming and new editing interests

Although I only did wikignoming in this topic area in the past, I have developed new editing interests since the dispute. As a result I wish to edit some of the Buddhist biographies.

I also have a special interest in the modern movement for reintroduction of the full Bhikkhuni ordination for women to Buddhist traditions that have lost this, and may be able to help improve articles in this topic area.

I would also help fix broken links, and add extra cites and so on.

Most of these edits are likely to require little by way of conversation. At most, I expect a few comments back and forth.

This is one of the biographies I'd like to work on:

• Milarepa has multiple issues of sourcing and neutrality.
• Milarepa draft is my new draft of it uploaded to miraheze (a free community wiki). It fixes these issues, see diff.

It is based mainly on the translator's note by Andrew Quintman, a good WP:RS on this topic that is cited in the original article. It won the American Academy of Religion’s 2014 Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in Textual Studies and the 2015 Heyman Prize for outstanding scholarship from Yale University.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking through your contributions, it appears that you're still posting long comments on article Talk pages over at Talk:Clathrate_gun_hypothesis#Update_needed_on_shallow_Arctic_methane_clathrates so it's not at all clear to me that you'd work with other editors in a concise way in the Buddhism topic area. Moreover, in the ANI where you were topic banned, you'd previously promised to reduce the amount you post and edit your posts and didn't carry out that promise. Unless you have diffs showing that you have actually been taking the steps you outline above, and have done so for at least six months, this reads to me as an empty set of promises.

Also, reading original ANI, it's clear to me that although your posting style was a major part of the reason you were topic banned, it wasn't the only reason: the topic ban came about because you had strong feelings about Buddhism and the way the articles had recently been changed. Your suggestions to fix this posting style do not address the other issues with sourcing, tagging, and accepting consensus that were raised there. Ca2james (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Previous editing restrictions and timeline, for context. While Robert is not under any other editing restrictions at this time, it should be noted that he had a previous topic ban in this area.

• From May 2016 to November 2016, Robert was under a six-month topic ban on pages related to the Four Noble Truths (a Buddhism-related subtopic). As far as I can see, once Robert understood how topic bans worked on Wikipedia he respected the ban without problems. This ban was of a set duration rather than indefinite, and lapsed when the time expired on 27 November 2016.
• A very cursory glance at Robert's contribution history suggests that he made a dozen or so edits on Talk:Four Noble Truths in December 2016, then stayed away from Four Noble Truths and other Buddhism-related edits entirely until early April 2017. (Please correct me if I've missed something.)
• Less than a month after resuming edits in the topic area, he was subjected to the current, indefinite, broader-than-the-original topic ban now under appeal, imposed in May 2017. That ban came with the stipulation that no appeal would be considered for at least six months. As far as I am aware, this is the first appeal; fifteen months have elapsed since the ban was imposed.

I don't offer a judgement either way on the appropriate outcome of the appeal. I do think that a previous topic ban in the area is relevant information for people evaluating the current appeal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

===Response to Ca2james===

'Response to Ca2james @Ca2james:, I'm not sure of protocol here. I don't want to break the thread by an indented long comment, but you made many points for me to respond to. It seems best to do them as a new section.

First, on sourcing, the concluding statement just says

"A fair part of this thread relates to content and sourcing issues. While interesting, these aren't a matter for ANI."

So, I was not sanctioned on sourcing issues. But - in case it is needed, I expand on sourcing issues below:

Extended content

In any case, I never attempted to add new content of my own to the Buddhism topic area in any of those debates. The remarks about improper sourcing in the appeal debate refer to the methods of sourcing used by the main space editors up to 2014 on the articles I was trying to restore. They had used them for several years at the time of the rewrite to remove material sourced in that way. I was a wikignome (in this topic area) trying to restore material that I thought had been improperly deleted. To be as clear as possible: I recognize that the approach to WP:RS used up to 2014 by the editors of those articles is no longer regarded as acceptable in the Wikipedia Buddhism project today. Unless someone else re-opens the question and requests comments, I don't intend to return to this topic. And if I ever do - it will be with restraint and making sure my comments do not overwhelm the conversation, one per day or per week or some such. But it is unlikely that this topic comes up again in the near future. @Dorje108:, who was the main editor of several of those articles, is no longer active in the project and I think most of those who supported the old sourcing approach have either left or are inactive. The areas I plan to edit, of biographies like the biography of Milarepa, and of bhikkuni ordination, are far removed from any of the topics discussed in the articles that I tried to get restored. The edits are also minor ones. In the example I give of the Milarepa article my edits are to solve issues of neutrality and unsourced content, and I expect my edits to be non controversial. Most of my edits of wikipedia are.

(self collapsed - as optional section - as not what I as sanctioned for)

On long posts: The Clathrates debate you brought up is the only occasion since the topic ban itself when anyone has complained of walls of text. They only did that because one of the editors in the debate read through my talk page and found the topic ban. They assumed I was a problem editor because of this. They soon came to realize that they were not walls of text, as the conversation continued. See the last section Talk:Clathrate gun hypothesis#Some of the main points for attention. I have given a list of 11 points that need attention in the article. I asked the other editor who made the recent changes to discuss them. They did not. I asked them to supply a quote for a cite behind a paywall. They did not. I asked if they were okay with me making the proposed changes. They did not reply.

A third editor who was involved in the debate then said diff "I'll review and edit as there is time and interest, about all I can say. Follow Wiki rules and do as you will." So that is what I plan to do, but haven't had time to get back to the article since then. I think if you review the conversation you will find I behaved in a proper fashion there and complied with the Wikipedia guidelines on talk page activity.

The reason I do a fair bit of talk page activity is because if I encounter a conflict situation like this, I never edit war. It is rare for me to revert an edit apart from vandalism. Where possible I avoid the R of BRD and just do BD. In the clathrate debate after that editor's bold rewrite of the article, most editors would have done a R first then a D. I just went straight to D. It is slower, maybe, but I prefer that approach.

Use of the sandbox The concluding admin @Euryalus: only said this about the sandbox:

"There was discussion of WP:REDACT and the refactoring of talkpage posts, but on balance there was insufficient comment to establish consensus for a sanction. Robertinventor's offer to use the sandbox sounds like a good idea and will hopefully address the issue"

Sometimes long talk page posts are acceptable in wikipedia, as in the example I gave of a detailed discussion of an extremely complex article on microtonal music. It would severely limit our ability to work on such complex articles if comments were always required to be short. Robert Walker (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Votes on Request to lift topic ban (Robertinventor)

• Oppose lifting of topic ban The length of this "wall of text" request itself, and its failure to address the full range of issues that led to the topic ban, convince me that lifting the topic ban would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia and would be highly likely to result in additional problems for this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (Non-administrator comment). This wall of text request and the walls of text at Talk:Clathrate gun hypothesis show that this editor has not yet learned how to write succinctly, let alone to write succinctly in Buddhist topics. Moreover, this editor has also broken his topic ban several times although he self-reverted each time. The most recent topic ban violation was on August 6, [18] only about 30 mins after violating the ban on another article.[19] With such recent topic ban violations, I don't see how the topic ban could be lifted. Ca2james (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Robert is well-intentioned but unfortunately their style of discussion makes collaborative editing virtually impossible. I had observed this at the talk-pages of Karma four-years back (do take a glance at archives 3, 4, 5, 6) and had offered this advice as a non-participant in that discussion. It is obvious from this AN discussion itself that passage of time that advice similar advice from numerous other editors topic ban, have not made much difference. Given that, I am opposed to easing of any editing restriction, and would sincerely ask Robertinventor to consider if wikipedia with its requirements to collaborate is a suitable venue for them to contribute their time and knowledge. Abecedare (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support there certainly isn't a convincing case that Robert has learned to express his views clearly and concisely. On the other hand, I'm not sure how a topic-ban regarding Buddhism solves that problem or helps the encyclopedia. The 2013 version of the Four Noble Truths article is very different from the current one; it's not unreasonable that an editor might prefer the earlier version but struggle to explain why. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the request itself already is WP:TLDR... And the reminder of the four noble truths "debate" alone is enough to make me feel unwell - literally. I really don't even want to imagine to go through that debate again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And he did it again:

I noticed this major rewrite in November 2014. The editor who did the rewrite had never edited the article or its related talk page

The real diff for the edit by Jonesey95 is this; what he is referring to is my series of edits in november 2014, which cleaned-up the contributions from Dorje108. It's not about WP:RS; it's about the way popular publications are being used as sources for presenting personal interpretations and understandings, while neglecting relevant scholarly sources, a point which obviously still has not dawned on Robert. It's totally irrelevant that I'd never edited that page before. What's relevant here is the repetition of Robert's WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. No lifting of the topic-ban for him, period. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

NB: the wholesale inclusion, for example, of Robert and Dorje108's preferred version of Four Noble Truths at Robert & Dorje108's Encyclopedia of Buddhism, which was thoroughly rejected during the extensive "discussions" with Robert, is a tell-tale sign that there is no intention whatsoever by Robert to accept the outcome of talkpage-discussions. On the contrary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a reminder of the kind of "discussions" Robert creates: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 225#Sources on Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Robertinventor is an intelligent and knowledgeable editor. Though the biggest problem might have been with the use of sources and writing wall texts and the problem with the wall of texts has not been carefully addressed by Robertinventor. I think it will help Robertinventor if he trims his appeal and name a couple of very good contributions he has made in these recent months. GenuineArt (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Robertinventor: Are you willing to answer these concerns? GenuineArt (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• While I sympathise with you on your apparent inability to write succinctly, your point and block of texts here further convince me that the topic ban is still necessary and should even be extended to unban requests for your own benefit. There's whole of editing world beyond Buddhism topic, you should explore that as neither your screed address the main problems identified nor your contributions to other areas demonstrate so, including this very request. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. All this request shows is that the problem has not gone away. Robertinventor is still convinced he is right and determined to change Wikipedia content to reflect that, and to argue ad nauseam until people die of boredom or walk away in frustration. That was the problem in the first place. [20] and [21], both less than a week ago, are unambiguous violations of the ban and would have resulted in a block had he not self-reverted. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out that. Lack of scrutiny I suppose. GenuineArt (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Robertinventor / Robert Walker has had two issues in the Buddhism space articles. First, the wall of text issue. Second, his unwillingness to comply with our core content guidelines which emphasize among other things that our articles reflect a neutral summary of peer-reviewed scholarly sources and equivalent RS. This means the editor must set aside her or his own personal feelings, interpretations, wisdoms and prejudices. Robertinventor's editing has been a tedious pattern that disregards peer-reviewed scholarship in favor of questionable sources, personal interpretations, projections and feelings. The combination of the wall of text issue with personal interpretations issue is problematic, seriously problematic. It damages the encyclopedia. It also does not help us build it because such behavior takes valuable time of our productive editors plus admins to figure out what is going on, what is the best thing to do. That has been the history. What about now and future? This submission, as others note above, suggests the wall of text issue is still there. Ok, we can live with walls of text, but what about the second issue. I have reasons to believe that Robertinventor's editing continues to be an issue, most recently in the example Softlavender and JimRenge discuss below. It does not matter whether the edits are accidental or Robertinventor is building a parallel encyclopedia as an alt-wikipedia, it does matter whether Robertinventor shows care in how he treats RS versus his own interpretations of Zen/Buddhism/whatever. For all these reasons, I regretfully oppose this request, regretfully because Robertinventor comes across as a passionate, well meaning individual and I am always wanting to give everyone a second chance. I do hope that we leave the window open for Robertinventor to come back in 12 months or sooner, after his future editing history confirms that he has addressed these two issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a competency issue when you get down to it. No matter what value Robert's viewpoints may have, he has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of competency in complying with Wikipedia norms. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Drmies. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion and request for advice if you vote Oppose, Thanks!

{{ping|Cullen}}@Cullen328: I wish to be a better editor. Please tell me, what have I failed to address? Also, 'what was unnecessary or verbose? Incidentally in case it is unclear - the section on the sourcing is one I collapsed myself - as an optional section because Ca2james raised it - though it was specifically excluded by @Euryalus: as not what I was sanctioned for.

I have done everything within my ability to satisfy those two somewhat conflicting requirements, to give a short reply, yet to answer everything in enough detail for admins to assess it accurately. I spent several days working on the orignal appeal off-wiki (because of the t-ban). From the time stamps in my sandbox I spent 47 minutes working on my reply to @Ca2james:, mainly to shorten it, and copy editing for clarity. I have spent several hours on this response working on it from time to time to try to shorten it. There is no lack of good will and intent to benefit Wikipedia here. What is missing is mainly knowing what it is you require of me. I would appreciate it if any of you who vote Oppose would give a little time to advise me in this section about how to move forward in my talk page editing practices, or anything else, for the next appeal, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Robertinventor, you need to learn how to be succinct, and you need to abandon your POV pushing on topics related to Buddhism. You have done neither. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am Cullen328, not Cullen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As a stylistic note, it is unnecessary, distracting, and disruptive to create a new section header for each of your own comments. Trust other Wikipedia editors to be able to follow a threaded discussion. More generally, one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia is to accept that sometimes someone disagrees with your assessment of a situation. The impulse to think If I just explain it to them longer and harder, they'll come around! is hard to resist, and we all fall prey to it from time to time—but you're not doing a good job of demonstrating you can pick and choose your hills to die on, and you're continuing to hurt your case in the process. You've now broken this appeal up across a sufficient number of subheadings that it's not even entirely obvious where an editor endorsing your appeal should post their comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Oh sorry to hear that. So the issue is that in my response to @Ca2james: I expanded on things I already said in the original t-ban appeal and I should have just let the original statements stand "as is"? That is useful feedback, thanks. Moving forwards I can't fix it now per WP:REDACT. However, I think it is okay to remove the "response to Ca2james" heading to convert it back to a threaded discussion, if I do it with strikeout rather than just edit it away, and add a new "Appeal votes" heading with underline, to make the organization clearer. That may help. As for this new new section, it is because I didn't want to comment directly on a support or oppose vote, and I think a discussion section is normal enough here? Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - sorry for getting the ping wrong. I have edited it to fix it. It seems I have to answer this to get the t-ban lifted. So, please note that the topics I suggested are as far removed as could be from the topics that lead to the original discussions in the vast topic area of Buddhism. Also, I am an editor in good standing in Wikipedia, for instance I am the main editor of the Planetary protection article, and wrote about half of its content, also the main editor of Interplanetary contamination and this is a controversial area with many WP:POVs. I was not pushing some eccentric view of Buddhism of my own, but trying to restore material based on the previous consensus on how to present articles on Buddhism in the topic area up to 2014. I recognize that this consensus has changed and have moved on. I am involved in editing in a WP:NPOV and WP:RS way in many topic areas in wikipedia and it shouldn't be a problem to do the same in the suggested topic areas too. I can prove this by my actions if you lift the topic ban. Details collapsed again as it is not what I was sanctioned for:

Extended content

The issue of whether or not the current articles on central topics in Buddhism are WP:POV was based on a change in view on what counts as a WP:RS in 2014 in the topic area that came to ahead in this RfC. I got involved as someone who had only done wikignoming in this area who had Karma in Buddhism on my watchlist. I noticed this major rewrite in November 2014. The editor who did the rewrite had never edited the article or its related talk page and this was the status of the talk page when the rewrite began. It was one of the earliest articles on Buddhism, written in 2006 and as you can see from the talk page discussions at the time, it was regarded as stable, NPOV and well sourced by all the editors who commented there up to 2014, and this, and similar material in three other articles is what the discussion was about; never about work of my own that I wished to add. This seems to be the main point you wish to make so I thought I should answer it in full, but do bear in mind that I was not sanctioned for this. I can answer on short comments separately.

Robert Walker (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am preparing a reply, more soon Robert Walker (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@GenuineArt: I am concerned about trimming the appeal because it seems too much like editing my posts after I've made them. However, I will gladly point to some good contributions I've made:

• Hawking radiation#1976 Page numerical analysis - 28 July 2018 - added a paragraph about the timescale for evaporation for various sizes of black hole
• Perigean spring tide - 23 July 2018 - added statement about how often they occur to lede.
• Megatsunami#Potential future megatsunamis - 29 June 2018 - Recent research disproves possiblity of future La Palma and Hawaii megatsunamis
• Stellar population#Population III stars - 7 June 2018 - The European Southern Observatory's discovery of a pocket of bright stars in a red shift 7 galaxy.

I hope this shows that I can express myself without a wall of text. Robert Walker (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Those three edits that @Ca2james: mentions all occurred when I was copying Wikipedia's source material to use on another site--which T-banned editors are allowed to do. Basically, my finger slipped. I self-reverted all three as soon as I could [22][23][24] Robert Walker (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That is entirely implausible. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What you never accidentally left a long edit summary by the slip of a finger??  MPJ-DK  21:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert, your edit summary for the first deletion was "removed - not well sourced and in line with leaving out controversies about living people - para about whether authorized to teach zen". It wasn't a slip of a finger. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe in Roberts explanation. Robertinventor/Robert Walker forgot where he was. He is the administrator and creator of the "Encyclopedia of Buddhism", a closed wiki (wp licence allows the creation of wp mirrors and modified wp content with attribution), where he is importing large numbers of Buddhism related articles. Compare [25] with [26], it is the same edit on the same day. JimRenge (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Then he should have said that. He said "Those three edits ... all occurred when I was copying Wikipedia's source material to use on another site .... Basically, my finger slipped." Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Oh sorry. It is not meant literally. It's an expression meaning 'small accident.' @JimRenge: is right. I was busy working on the Encyclopedia of Buddhism and I lost track of which site I was on because both sites use the same editing screens, based on the MediaWiki software. I edited the text and saved it in the wrong tab of my browser. The editing summary [27] refers to EOB policies rather than Wikipedia policies. I reverted my changes to the Wikipedia articles as soon as I realized my mistake.

My editing interests in EOB mainly center on biographies[28], and other topics such as Bhikkuni ordination Central topics in Buddhism are Dorje108's province in the new encyclopedia. They have never been an encyclopedic editing interest for me, except as a wikignome. They have been of great interest to me as a Buddhist practitioner.

I didn't feel it was appropriate to mention our new encyclopedia in the appeal text, or the discussions. I was not sure it was covered by WP:BANEX, to even hint that it might exist. But now that it has been discovered by others, this is the background. Robert Walker (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Robert, I'm going to suggest that you continue to edit your EoB, which sounds like a great idea and project. The "rules" on Wikipedia are very strict, and the community seems to feel that you are not inclined to follow them in this area, and they feel they are wasting valuable community time dealing with you. It is definitely the case that in many subjects on Wikipedia, there is a community of editors who uphold very stringent policies and do not allow for any fringe-y concepts, sources, or citations, no matter what the popular or public or prevailing view is. I do not see this changing any time in the future, so, based on the inclusions and interpretations and sources you prefer to use, I would suggest using that EoB as your outlet for your encyclopedic interest in Buddhism. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I hope to make this clearer in my next appeal. It got obscured in this one due to other matters being raised. I have never had any interest in editing articles such as Karma in Buddhism, or Four Noble Truths except as a wikignome. My interest was only ever in restoring content developed by others. I am well aware that I am not a suitable editor to add significant content to these particular articles myself, and in my talk page discussions have told other editors to please not use any of my talk page content in the articles themselves. But the topic of Buddhism is a vast one. There are other areas where I can contribute.

When it comes to biographies, or the topic of Bhikkuni ordination then the sources I would use are exactly the same ones as are currently used in those articles. There is no dispute over what countes as suitable sources for these articles. I have shown that I can use reliable sources and produce good content outside of the topic area of Buddhism for many years now, as with the four examples I gave in response to @GenuineArt: for the months of June and July of this year. I could provide numerous other examples. I can do the same for Buddhist biographies - a topic far removed from the topic at dispute. As an example, I showed with my draft that I can make a major improvement in the Milarepa article which is currently flagged as having multiple issues, compare my new version Milarepa draft diff. The current version just treats the mythology as if it was fact, and it is not surprising it was flagged with multiple issues. The suggested new version, in its lede, covers scholarly attempts to find out more about the real historical Milarepa and how the mythology developed. This topic interests me greatly, of how mythologies in Buddhism developed, and what the historical core was. My edit is based on a summary of research into this figure, by Andrew Quintman that won the American Academy of Religion’s 2014 Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in Textual Studies and the 2015 Heyman Prize for outstanding scholarship from Yale University.

If you were to lift the topic ban to see what happens I think you would get a big surprise to find it is problem free. And the editors who anticipate problems would be surprised too. @Joshua Jonathan: has never edited this article[29] and nor has @Ms Sarah Welch: [30] - and nor would I expect them to (unless they happen to have an interest in this which is a completely separate topic). Robert Walker (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: - you have hit the nail on the head with your:

"it's not unreasonable that an editor might prefer the earlier version but struggle to explain why."

That is exactly what was going on. I prefer them mainly because they match what my teachers taught me. I am academically trained in mathematics and philosophy, but not in Buddhism. As a practitioner. I evaluate the articles according to how they match the teachings I've recieved and my understanding of the Buddhist path. It was basically a wikignome trying to get material restored on a topic of great interest as a practitioner rather than as an editor - not too surprising it failed. Please note I have moved on, all the 2014 articles that the dispute was centered on are now in our new EOB, and I have no interest in trying to restore them here. Robert Walker (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

[Apologies - forgot to use the sandbox for my reply to @Softlavender: - could trim it down a lot, but it is too late now, just did a couple of format fixing minor edits]

Robert and Dorje108 writing their own Wiki seems like a great solution. And no, I've never edited Milarepa, but Robert's draft does not seem to solve the issues with the lack of an encyclopedic tone. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There were three issues identified, neutrality, sourcing and tone. Tone is subjective. For instance I am the main author of Planetary protection and nobody said it lacks encyclopedic tone. Note that @Joshua Jonathan: has just edited[31] the main Milarepa article to remove the banner. He gives only one of the two main sources for Milarepa's biography I mention in the lede. He does not mention the issues with his dates of birth and death or the historical context. Although he removed the banner about issues of sourcing, all the paragraphs are still marked as [citation needed]. He also presents a mythological account as if it was regarded as a historical biography, and so does not fix the issue of neutrality. He has also removed the section on "supernatural running". This breaks the redirect from Lung-gom-pa which is the reason I had for retaining that section in my draft. My proposal on the talk page of my draft is to make this into a separate article and run the redirect the other way. In short, it is a hasty edit of an article on one of the most important historical figures in Tibetan Buddhism, and sloppy work, introducing new issues that need to be fixed. Robert Walker (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You're breaching your topic-ban here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's definitely a topic ban violation, and also shows why the topic ban should stay in effect. The fact that you didn't use your sandbox approach for at least one reply here shows that the "sandbox solution" isn't a viable solution for you. About Planetary protection: you were far from the only editor there, and it existed before you started editing it. Compare that article to Modern Mars habitability, which you wrote completely and which is not at all encyclopaedic in tone (disclosure: I've nominated the latter article for deletion). Ca2james (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

First a reminder that I am doing this in the context of a formal appeal process. So, @Joshua Jonathan: and @Ca2james: - according to WP:BANEX, it is not a topic ban violation to talk about the topic during a formal appeal, so long as it is relevant to the appeal.

I've been told that topic bans are about conduct, not content. We let brand-new Wikipedians edit articles like this one all the time. This is about whether my conduct will be disruptive. I'm confident it won't.

I would not suddenly do a bold edit of an article like this. I would copy my draft over to my user space and then post to the talk page, asking other users if they think my draft is an improvement, or has content that is worth merging into the article. And take it from there. This is my normal practice as an editor. Instead of BRD, for mature article edits, I do DB (continues R D, if there's a revert, rare). For recent examples of my use of DB see my edits of the talk pages for: Conformal cyclic cosmology and Cosmic microwave background. All these talk proposals do is to fix minor omissions, but just in case of stepping on anyone's toes, I comment on the talk page first. This is what I would do with Buddhist bios too.

If my edits for Buddhist bios are not accepted, for some reason, I would still like to have the topic ban lifted for wikignoming, since I spot such issues from time to time while importing content into EOB. My main focus is on improving articles in our new EOB. That Milarepa article is one that I worked on in EOB on and off for the last two months, from May 22nd and I felt that I had material in it that was a useful addition to Wikipedia, which is why I mentioned it in this appeal. Whether some or all, or none is useful is for editors here to decide.

By practicing in the sandbox over the past year, I've been able to reduce the number of small edits I need to make to my own posts down to reasonable levels. You'll see I didn't need to make many here in this thread. Robert Walker (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: we can continue discussion of the article you nominated for AfD on its talk page. I am in the process of fixing the issues you identified with it as best I can, as per our discussion there. Robert Walker (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: - I have some extra points I wish to make but they will require some more thought. I have to step carefully because of WP:BANEX but I think I may have some useful things to say even so. It is to help with mutual understanding as this goes foward, whether this t-ban is lifted now or for future appeals. You do not have any reason to be concerned about a repeat of what happened before, and one thing I'd like to do is to give a brief explanation of why that is. This is of course directly relevant to the t-ban appeal.

More later, as I have got caught up with many things suddenly in the last few hours, both on and off wiki and am having difficulty keeping track of everything and fulfilling my commitments. Robert Walker (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You accidently pinged me when you were writing in your sandbox, so I've read your comments on Milarepa, and used them to improve that article. Thanks; that's exactly what a talkpage is for. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I decided that this is not particularly what I want to talk about, so I have decided against posting that material anyway. After all that is more for discussion after the t-ban is lifted, if it is. I'm told that t-bans are about conduct and not content. If only I'd had that clearer in my mind at the start of this appeal it could have been a lot simpler. Robert Walker (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait - if Robert is topic banned from Buddhism, how did he suggest improvements to the article without violating his topic ban? Ca2james (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A brief note on long posts. You may get the impression that comments in the Buddhism topic area are typically short. But that's not the case at all. Here are some examples from @Joshua Jonathan: [32] and in context here: Response by JJ - (1071 words and 6920 characters) and here [33] and in context here: Response by JJ 1726 words and 11,164 characters. That's not including signatures or wiki markup.

Many more examples could be found. By both of us. From this it is clear that >1000 word coments are commonplace in this topic area (as is not unusual for a highly technical subject on Wikipedia). I do not think that long posts by themselves were the reason for the t-ban. It was long posts combined with the issue of many minor edits of these long posts on my part that drove other editors distracted in this topic area, if only I'd noticed at the time. It is important for me to keep comments succint in most situations, but when talking in a context where long comments are expected, then there is no reason why I shouldn't do them also. The closing remarks don't say that my posts all have to be short. Robert Walker (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: - I have another matter I need to post about, but I'm off to bed now, so will do that later. Robert Walker (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Article deleted, talk page not

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

 – TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Could an admin please nuke Talk:Will Phillips? The article was deleted but somehow the talk page got overlooked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, You can tag this with db-G8. Natureium (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Post closure note @Natureium:, TenPoundHammer is topic banned from adding CSD tags to pages. Iffy★Chat -- 13:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

AfC request - Create article over salted page

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

---

Moved from WP:ANI

Hey all, Draft:Peter J. Peters (version 2) has been submitted through AFC. The topic looks to easily meet WP:NSCHOLAR but the destination Peter J. Peters has been salted since 2008 (I assume for an unrelated reason, but I can't see the deleted content). Can an admin please de-salt the page (or just move the draft into mainspace). I've got it on my watchlist so I'll clean up after the move is done. Thanks! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not the place to put this up. Please go to the main admin noticeboard or another appropriate venue. funplussmart (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. That's a poorly-sourced and promotional draft. I hope it doesn't get moved until it's cleaned up. I'm not going to move it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The draft, while definitely needing cleanup, looks promising in my opinion. funplussmart (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a promotional BLP with tons of unsourced content. Under no circumstances should it be sent to main space at this time in this shape, even if notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I agree. Ajpolino, you (or someone else) should fix the draft first, and then it can be moved (not the other way around). funplussmart (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've cleaned up the worst of it. Any chance someone is now interested in making the move happen? Thanks for your help! Ajpolino (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I lowered the protection to semi, but I did not look at the draft and have no opinion on whether it is ready to be moved (a (and looking at the article I would have a COI anyway, the guy was part-time employed at our department for some time).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Moved. Thanks all for your help and commentary. Ajpolino (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Request permission to improve Gene Hackman bio.

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 would like permission to edit the Gene Hackman article. He's 88, was one of America's leading star actors with close to 100 films to his credit, yet his bio's Career sections are mostly a text filmography with little commentary and few sources. There are paragraphs and some entire Career sections with no citations. There are few facts given besides film names for the Career sections. His article gets up to 5,000 average daily viewers. Consideration would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) with the Power of Wikipedia conferred to me by his Wikipediness Jimbo Wales, I DBigXray, hereby grant you the power to edit this page and improve it. So go ahead and WP:FIXIT. (Unless you have any WP:COI of course which you should disclose before proceeding.) --DBigXray 23:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Light show (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. The page has no protections so such a request is not needed in future. --DBigXray 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What they’ve failed to mention is that they are subject to a topic ban on BLP articles, so actually the answer is NO. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Seeking input about regex for spam blacklist

At meta m:Talk:Spam blacklist#seeking input on two regex I am seeking input on the potential for, and consequences of, a blacklisting of two url strings

• photobucket.com/images
• search.com/search?q

I would appreciate feedback from enWP on the pros and cons of that blacklisting. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Add Gadget

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

---

Hi, please add gadget "Pod nadpisem článku zobrazit odkaz na položku ve Wikidatech s jejím štítkem a popisem" from Czech Wikipedia. You can find it here (Uživatelské rozhraní). Thanks --Patriccck (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The name is "WikidataInfo".--Patriccck (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Patriccck: What does it do? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: cs:MediaWiki:Gadget-WikidataInfo.js. Ruslik_Zero 20:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"What does it do" is still a really good question. SQL^{Query me!} 03:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Gadget add line under tittle with link to Wikidata Item, description (on Wikidata) and alternative names. --Patriccck (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

—SerialNumber54129, can you add it? --Patriccck (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I know what I'm being asked to add  :) but the answer is likely no, as I am technocratically inept and incapable of doing anything like that without a script / a bot holding my hand. Unfortunately what was linked to above is in Czech, which I also can't understand. But—@SQL:—It occurs to me, do you think it could be an equivalent to our short description helper? (A script for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions?) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Doubt it. If I'm translating his Czech (I can read snippets of it), and parsing his English correctly. He's asking about a gadget that links from articles to the relevant Wikidata page. Toto je plugin, který přidává pod titulní řádek odkaz na příslušnou stránku na Wikidatech, pokud existuje - This is a plugin, which gives, under the article title, a link to the relevant page on Wikidata, if it exists. The only word there I needed GT for this was "prislusnou" which reads like "prisluskivati" to me and would mean "to eavesdrop". I figured that couldn't be right. I tested the feature on the Czech encyclopaedia, and that is exactly what it does. Link to the Wikidata page under the article you are viewing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This gadget adds only marginal utility at Wikipedia I'd say. The description and extra names end up in the text-proper of the article anyway. The link is provided twice in the sidebar (once under tools and once under languages). --Izno (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

History of Islam

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

---

Hi, I had removed all the maps from the article History of Islam. Because there is no map in the other articles like Christianity and Shamanism (Shamanism is the religion of the Mongols). I am a Mongol and I feel very much disheartened about this. I feel like that my religion has been undermined in this encyclopedia. So I tried to remove the maps and bring balance in Wikipedia. I have come to you administrators. Please give your neutral decision about this matter.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Genghis khan2846:, you need to start a discussion about this at Talk:History of Islam, and do not try to remove the maps again, this will be perceived as Edit-warring. Here, we can not do anything about this, administrators do not have any privileges as far as content is concerned (in fact, you reverted one and did not even notice this).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Genghis khan2846 (talk · contribs) is quite evidently forum shopping after not getting the answer they want in WP:NPOV/N they should probably be cautioned about the risk of WP:BOOMERANGSimonm223 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I think wp:nothere come into play, they pretty much seem to be an SPA with a user name that implies the same.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If I want to include any map in the article Shamanism and Christianity will that be accepted? Please answer this question.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This not the correct venue for a content discussion (and yes I have already answered you, as have at least two others).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Input requested

Please offer input regarding the current unblock and clean start request at User talk:Pixiemasters. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, while I understand the intention is probably to keep the discussion in one place, personally I think it's better if we could have the discussion here so it would be slightly more streamlined, in my opinion. I am immediately reminded of this AN discussion, although the net positive aspect and the maturity level doesn't seem to be on the same level. I would support unblock though. Alex Shih (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User request

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

---

Hi. I would like to request that all revisions on my userpage from [34] to [35] are all suppressed and hidden from the public as a user request as there is information in those revisions that I want hidden. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I will request speedy deletion of my userpage. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

When I recreate again without the old revisions, I would like my userpage semi-protected again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, I deleted the user page. Pls request the semi once you are done with recreation.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks. I requested semi-protection via WP:RfPP. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem,  Done as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This thread can now be closed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Need a new POTD coordinator

This has turned into a conversation for WP:POTD and/or WP:FPC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Hi everyone. Given that apparently people are just rescheduling things willy nilly, without any discussion, and that I'm busy with a toddler and PhD work, we need a new POTD coordinator. I'm done. Anyone who wants to handle it, go ahead.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also, while we're at it, please de-sysop me. The only reason I was keeping the mop was to handle POTD.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Please see your talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and notified Amakuru of this topic for you. SQL^{Query me!} 01:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I did initiate a discussion here, in which I pinged Crisco personally. Obviously he was busy and off-wiki, which is fine, but I could only act on the best information I had, and in truth the text was misleading; sources generally agree that the Indonesian rupiah was launched in 1946, not 1943, (although I think there may have been a short-lived version of the Netherlands Indies gulden that had "roepiah" printed on it in the Indonesian language and "gulden" in Dutch). So with no further discussion eight hours later, and the switchover due imminently, I decided to make the swap and then I worked yesterday to source up the article and make the text match. So I'm sorry for upsetting Crisco in changing the order of the POTDs at the last minute, but I think I did the right thing in the interests of keeping the main page accurate. This matter aside, I thank Crisco for all his hard work at POTD in the past years, and his other contributions to Wikipedia, it is much appreciated, and I hope he will have a change of heart and return.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I had to look into this but it looks like Crisco has been scheduling POTD for several years. I'm not sure how to go about this and I'm not sure who else is even involved with POTD. We currently have pictures lined up until September 2, so assuming Chris doesn't return, someone else is going to have to start taking over fairly soon. @Armbrust: Any thoughts on who could/would/should take over as the POTD coordinator? Surely it doesn't have to be an admin? Swarm ♠ 20:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Otherwise, there is always a default option to take POTD from Commons. I have never been involved with the selection there (though I transfer POTD to smaller projects every day for ten years already), but usually they do not screw up by selecting pictures.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I thought POTD was simply FIFO from when they were promoted and little else was required. Surely a bot could handle that task? What does need to be addressed is the lacklustre approach to the blurbs that accompany each POTD, around 50% of which usually contain completely unverifiable material. It's the only part of the main page that seems to allow that kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why we don’t just don’t use Commons? I have my issues with that project, but their POTD is always superb and going through their archives is my first stop if I want a new desktop or phone background or something of the sort. On the flip side, I’m not sure I’ve ever noticed en’s POTD. This seems like a case of doing extra work for no real benefit. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you trust commons not to have a week of tastefully photographed genitals? (or badly photographed self-submitted...) Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Commons Featured pictures category is separate from the English Wikipedia's WP:Featured pictures, and they both have their own selection procedures. If I recall correctly, the en-wiki one is supposed to have slightly more of a focus on whether the picture is encyclopedic in nature, and would not pass if it wasn't used in any of our articles, but I might be wrong. So it's not automatic that we can just use the same ones they use. I don't mind helping out with the POTD selection a bit if a pair of hands is needed, and queuing up some future ones. As TRM says, the meat of this job is in ensuring the accompanying article is up to scratch and has sufficient verifiable text to produce a decent blurb for the picture.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Enwiki POTD comes from enwiki FPC. It's one of the few reasons we have our own FPC process. I opened a thread on VPI a couple months ago about enwiki's relatively inactive (and, to some, redundant) FPC process here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_25#Enwiki's_Featured_Pictures_process. There are lots of opinions about whether we should make FPC more permissive, how to attract more participants, changes in how we articulate its criteria, whether it should be a subset of Commons' FPs, how to better emphasize "encyclopedic value" vs. Commons' "educational value" (or the "wow factor" and technical merit that play a larger role in the Commons process), etc. If we defer to Commons for POTD, I think a lot of the arguments for holding onto our FPC process would go out the window. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think our own community should retain full control of what appears on our own main page, rather than simply let Commons decide, and I would not trust those at Commons to listen to our input if we ever had reason to weigh in there. The workload here is so minute that it's traditionally handled by one person; I see no reason a couple of volunteers can't simply take over when the longstanding POTD coord quits. Swarm ♠ 22:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh, this is one of the few things that I think Commons does significantly better than us, and where I think punting to them would really improve the encyclopedia. I don’t feel particularly strong about it to the point of starting an RfC or anything, but it just seems like putting in extra work for marginal to no benefit besides saying we control it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) It looks like the Commons option does not get much support here, which is fine, just wanted to clarify that using their choice of POTD does not per se mean they have control over our content - the files and the descriptions do not appear at our main page automatically, they need to be copied manually by someone who can edit the corresponding template here (not on Commons).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • We could also default to Commons POTD, but allow for local consensus to override it for certain days. Commons POTD is booked wayyyyyy in advance (as in it would be a few months before finding an open spot and there are various days filled going out a couple years), so there would be plenty of time to take a look at what's coming and address anything that we decide not to work for enwiki's purposes. For reference: commons:User:Rhododendrites/potd. Blue links means there's already a POTD slated for that day. As of today the next red spot is 2019-01-22, and bluelinks are scattered through December 2020. It's worth noting regarding labor, however, that Commons POTD typically has significantly less text with it. A basic description of the subject/photo rather than a blurb about the encyclopedic subject it depicts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Technically there is a way to automatically use Commons's POTD without having to manually update anything. Via Wikidata. While adding another project to the mix is probably just going to add more nos to the equation it is technically doable. [[File:{{#property:P18|from=Q14334596}}|border|300px]] will display the current Commons's POTD at 300px. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • We could also have an adminbot do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Yep. I already have User:JJMC89 bot/Commons picture of the day, which includes the caption. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I definitely think that we should defer to Commons for deciding what qualifies as a featured picture in the first place (technically and artistically), and maybe even abolish the concept of a separate Wikipedia "featured picture" concept as well... unless anyone can demonstrate a valid use for it outside POTD. However, when it comes to the POTD scheduling, as I said above, the most tricky and arguably the most important part of that (given that we are an encyclopedia and not a repository of images), is (a) determining which pictures are representative of proper encyclopedic topics, and then (b) ensuring that the article for that topic is up to scratch for the main page, and lifting a decent amount of suitable text from that article to accompany the image. Evidently (b) is the main value-add that Crisco has been providing to the process hitherto, while (a) is served by Wikipedia's own featured picture process. Just blindly copying over the Commons FP would not be a substitute for either (a) or (b), though, and I oppose the proposal to do that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
            • And what are we to do when there is a Commons POTD that is not used in any English article, has no English article, or has no article in any language? For example, the current Commons POTD has articles only in Italian and French. GMG^talk 12:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Well, skip writing blurbs altogether. What's there now is often unverifiable, so no blurb is probably better than an embarrassing one. But if blurbs are important (and I think they are) then using Commons is a complete non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
                • It is "picture of the day" and not "article that includes a nice picture of the day", so that seems like a decent approach. I dare say having a picture of the day that does not have an English Wikipedia home may inspire folks to create an article, too (or add it to an article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this discussion occurring at WP:AN? It doesn't seem the right venue. Our FP process has different criteria than Commons'; most importantly, the images need to have clear encyclopedic value while at Commons they can just look attractive but not actually show anything properly. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So to that end, what's needed in the role of a POTD co-ordinator? Just following the FIFO approach (main page feature in order of FP promotion) and writing a blurb for each one? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how long that would be sustainable. So far this year, from scanning the history of WP:FPC, we've had a little more than 1 month's worth of pictures promoted. By contrast, Commons promotes about 4/day. Surely one in four is a viable encyclopedic subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It's sustainable enough in the medium term. There is a large backlog of FPs that have never been on the main page, and it will take quite some time to get through all those. I can try to assess the exact numbers later on, but it means we can take the time to think through the process and not have to rush anything. The immediate challenge is to make sure there are entries for enough days going forward, and I'm happy to do that myself for the time being. I've already done one for August 27, and will look at August 29 next. @The Rambling Man: out of interest, when you're evaluating pictures of the day to determine what to put on your errors page, how much do you look at the article itself? Do you flag citation-neededs and unreffed-paragraphs in the article, or only those that pertain to the prose of the POTD itself? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru I just check that every claim in the POTD blurb is verifiable in the target article. As that's been a major problem lately, I've hardly had time to worry if the rest of the linked article is junk. This has been mentioned many many many times at (the defunct and happy clappy) ERRORS but wasn't ever responded to, hence your sensible actions in withdrawing the Indonesian currency one before improving it and replacing it. As for the junk target articles, we need to take one step at a time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Using Commons won't work because you'll just end up with images that are linked to articles that are unsuitable for the front page, which is what caused this problem in the first place. Only a few days ago we had the image from Cigaritis_cilissa, which is an article with ONE sentence, during which it manages to make a claim that isn't actually in the source provided. I was seriously considering swapping that one out as well ... Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, and it's not like POTD errors weren't reported. They were, they were just summarily ignored. Let's refresh the section with some new thinking. A new era which matches the expectations of our readers based on the same quality thresholds as the rest of the main page. Avoid unverifiable crappy blurbs, avoid one-line stubs, focus on featured pictures with some kind of valuable encyclopedic content behind the target link. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Inversion of redirect

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 some administrator can help me for this inversion 2018 European Athletics Championships – Men's Marathon Cup (right) with 2018 European Athletics Championships – Men's Marathon Team (wrong), because The European Marathon Cup stil exist as European Marathon Cup incorporating in European Championships (not dispute in Olympic year) see here and the references of this artcile: European Marathon Cup. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish Karate 12:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Accidental addition of rollback flag

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.

---

It seems that some admin has added the rollback flag to me since the rollback links [rollback][vandalism] appear when I look at the contributions sub-page of any other user. However there is no log entry specifying which admin has given me the flag. Please remove rollback since I am not experienced/eligible enough to use it. Regards. — fr  12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

FR30799386 those links are from twinkle Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter You mean nothing will happen if I accidentally press them FR30799386 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

See TW rollback; clicking on them will do a rollback similar to rollback from a rollbacker but slower as it isn't server side Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe Twinkle also asks you before performing the rollback, but I use it so infrequently.... --Izno (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Temporary Interface Editors Nominated

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Stop-gap_users_nominated. This process is completely ad-hoc and I've proposed it as a temporary measure due to the looming software change next week. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Close review

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.

---

So we have this nonadministrative close by User:The Gnome.

This closes a side discussion of an actual RfC that I opened on June 5, about whether to include a list in the page. This side discussion was opened on June 11, and the actual advertised RfC attracted only 2 new people after that date. The side discussion was about how elaborate the list should be.

Only 7 people participated; 4 of them favored an elaborate list; 3 favored a modest list. One of those three nodded a bit toward the "elaborate" stance, but never changed their fundamental 'simple and modest list" stance. (an 8th person placed their RfC !vote in the subsection, as often happens).

The close did a "headcount", counting the 8th person as a !vote in the side discussion, and counting the nodder as "elaborate", so found a 6 to 2 headcount as opposed to 4 / 3-. Also not regarding the extent to which !votes were based on policy considerations.

The outcome will have a large effect on the page content.

The discussion was not well advertised and it is clear to me that we have no actual consensus; there should be no "close" at all, or if there is, it should be "no consensus". We should have a full RfC to obtain one.

I asked Gnome to withdraw it (the section is (here) and they are standing by their close.

So I am asking that this nonadministrative close of a sparsely attended non-RfC be withdrawn, clearing the way for an in-process actual RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose I will copy here what I wrote on The Gnome's talk page around the same time Jytdog was opening this thread:

Determining whether to call something an RfC is very much a technical matter. The RfC system is formalized and intended to bring outside participants into the discussion. It's with that basis that a consensus determined by RfC tends to carry more weight than consensus determined more informally. So something needs to be tagged as an RfC to qualify as such. However, it was a subsection of the RfC section, started a few days into it. In my experience, subtopics of an RfC may or may not be considered part of the RfC but when they are, they're typically closed at the same time as the RfC or specifically acknowledged in the close. I would want to ping Winged Blades of Godric about that, since it looks like he closed the top part of the RfC but left the section in question open. It's a hard call, from a procedural standpoint.

That said, an RfC is not required to have a discussion or find consensus. The Gnome felt there was a clear consensus to present the table in a certain way, and it's certainly hard to read that thread as a consensus not to (i.e. no consensus would be the alternative). IMO it is hard to justify removing the content at this point, but I also think it should be uncontroversial for Jytdog to immediately open a second RfC focused on presentation since, at very least, that subsection did not receive the participation of the original RfC thread and was seemingly not included in WBG's close thereof. In other words, I don't think AN is necessary. Default to including based on a weak consensus on the talk page and use RfC, if desired, to find a stronger consensus one way or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with withdrawing this and doing an actual RfC if that will be perceived as in-process. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, I did explicitly ask for both parts of the RfC to be closed at RfCl, and I did ping Winged Blades of Godric when they only closed the first part, with no response. And I did ping all participants in the main RfC to alert them to the subsequent one.

I'd also like to note that in the case of WP:NOCONSENSUS, the result would be that the table would stay anyway as that was the state of the article prior to these discussions. The list was in the article from its first edit until Jytdog unilaterally removed it without discussion. I did not immediately revert this removal as a courtesy given the heatedness of the discussion, but that does not change what the status quo is if there is a finding of no consensus.

Lastly, when I restored the table after the close, which explicitly said "The consensus is to Keep the draft version", User:Jytdog immediately reverted my edits implementing the close twice [36] [37]. Even if Jytdog was going to appeal the close, they should not have reverted it immediately. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth nothing that Antony-22 is literally a paid nanotech advocate on Wikipedia, as has been brought up in talk page discussion on the page in question - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

David Gerard's accusations are demonstrably false. I am not paid to advocate for nanotechnology. My Wikipedian-in-Residence position with NIOSH is in fact to contribute information about hazards found in the workplace, including of nanomaterials. My work on the Feynman Prize article is strictly in my volunteer capacity, and I have been editing it since 2011, long before my Wikipedian-in-Residence position started. I have warned him before multiple times about making false accusations, and he is WP:HOUNDING me by casting aspersions for which he has provided no evidence and are easily disproven. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Having seen this accusation and response a couple times now, this should really be addressed. David and Jytdog have both (see below) accused Antony-22 of being a paid advocate, and Jytdog specifically said it was the reason for their edits to the article in question (see below). I see this was also raised at COIN recently, where the only other voice was Doc James, who said it was not a COI issue. Either Antony-22 has a COI with regard to nanotechnology in general and should be aware of that (it seems he is not under that impression) or the accusations of promotional editing due to COI should stop. I'm not sure where the best forum is, as the COIN thread failed to attract much of a response. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that COI and paid advocacy are different. The latter is a substantive statement that money is being exchanged for edits that are against Wikipedia's policies, and is a bannable offense. Unless I have misunderstood, this is what David Gerard is accusing me of. Users may still contribute with COIs as long as they disclose them and follow Wikipedia's policies. I've disclosed my activity in nanotechnology research literally since I started on Wikipedia, and I believe I've been following the rules, both in my volunteer and WiR capacities. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites what you have written is incorrect. David Gerard and I have different takes on what is going on with Antony. David has said, as they say here, it is paid advocacy; I have said only advocacy (as in "fan"). Please redact your comments. Thanks.

But the purpose of this thread, is the close review, so we can establish a framework the article can exist and grow within. If you want to open a different thread on behavior, please do that separately. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, my mistake. Struck part of the comment above. Here is the statement that led me to conflate your comments and David's. On the talk page you said that Antony-22 is "under some intense advocacy pressure that I do not understand", which sounds to me like an accusation of COI (i.e. "under advocacy pressure" does not sound like saying he is a fan). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the term "advocacy" specifically means that policies are being broken, while COI does not make that assumption. According to WP:Advocacy, "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies", emphasis mine. It's important not to mix up the terms. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Kinda; people with a COI often edit with advocacy which is what leads us to ask about it. Advocacy is the drive itself and man you are driving on this prize article. Editing with that kind of drive often leads to badly sourced, over elaborate content and aggressive behavior, and those are where the policy violations (behavior and content) come in. People do it because of financial COI and because of passion; it looks the same.

I get it that nanotechnology is a big deal to you. But this is not the Nobels. There is not a single place in this whole discussion where you have agreed to treat this proportionally to its relative importance. You haven't listened to what people said in the RfC at all. Anybody reading through that thread, will see your unbending, straight line in the discussion, and it is there in article this, before, is basically the same as this, after. And yes that is a problem, but I have not taken that to the drama boards. The reason why, is that you have followed DR pretty well, at least in letter. Not in spirit. (the unbending line) Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say I haven't listened to the RfC at all, when I'm exactly following what the RfC closes said. Look, honestly, we're both involved and it's not for us to determine what consensus is. That's what the RfC closes are for. I'm happy to wait for the result of this closure review and if we have to do yet another RfC based on that, so be it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - I see nothing unusual about the close, and not everything has to be advertised in order for it to be a valid consensus (especially with regard to a single page where the discussion took place on its talk page). Nihlus 19:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment looks like "no consensus" to me, and using nose-counting for an interim result seems fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Was this an actual WP:RFC? (I don't see the term "RFC" in the title, and I'm not going to try to figure out if it ever had an RfC template.) If not, then there's no stricture about creating an actual official RfC on the matter, which will get site-wide input. Hopefully the wording of the RfC can be clearer (perhaps with options "1, 2, or 3" or some such). Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• There was an RfC, which is the second-level heading on the talk page. A third-level heading was created under it a few days later to discuss some specifics. When the RfC was closed, only the top section (the originally created RfC section) was closed. The subsection was closed later. The subsection did not have a separate RfC tag as it was opened a few days after the initial RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not really kosher to add a subsection poll(s) into an existing RfC a week after the RfC was opened and the usertalk-notified uninvolved people have already !voted but won't see the new polls. So if there was any objection to any part of that entire "RfC", I suggest starting an actual WP:RFC with only one subject, not several, to resolve whatever is still disputed or still in question. And repeat with separate RfCs for each disputed matter. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : I believe that decisions should be self-explanatory, be they about an RfC, an AfD, or anything else in Wikipedia. If a decision must be explained and it only then gets approval, then it was a poor decision in the first place. So, as the closer of that RfC I will only elaborate some more on the technical side of the decision, i.e. whether or not this was a "bona fide" RfC or some other animal. I will stay out of the discussion about the substance of the decision, which in my view stands on its own. That includes issues such as the clarity of the offered choices, and the like, which have been addressed in the decision.

As it happens, the specific discussion came to my attention while checking out the Admin Board where closures of formal discussions are requested, i.e. here. So, there was an open request to close an RfC, called exactly that, by name, a request which was up for weeks, under the "RfC" section of the board. What's even more telling, however, is the fact that we had at the tail end of the very discussion an explicit notice ("Close request") about closing down "this RfC" ("Is it time to request a close of the RfC?" etc). Never a doubt was expressed by anyone about this being a legitimate RfC, not until the decision came in.

A general remark: RfC formats are far from rigid. (I'd prefer them more rigid, myself, actually, but this is how Wikipedia rolls.) The site provides examples in the relevant page where it is stated that there are multiple formats for Requests for comment. Some options are shown here. All of these formats are optional and voluntary. (Emphasis in the original.)

WP:RFC itself states that there are many acceptable ways to format an RfC. In my view, the one chosen for the contested RfC might not have been the best (I would not format it like that, anyway) but it was nevertheless an acceptable format, an RfC for all intents and purposes. So, I'd have no quarrel with anyone who'd prove that the decision in the RfC was wrong, I made mistakes, policy was violated, etc. But I see no objection that can be raised based on the claim that "this was not a proper RfC." Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My objections are specific; editors have taken it to be a definitive expression of community consensus (of an RfC) (which your close leads them to believe) and the close does not reflect what people actually said in the subdiscussion nor in the discussion above, where the topic of how to present the list was mentioned by several people prior to the subdiscussion being opened. So - the close is both overplayed and not accurate. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure interested contributors will examine what went down and come to their own conclusions. I very much disagree with your point of view, and especially the way you have framed the whole process, including the counting of !votes, but this is now a matter for the community to decide. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• A non admin closing anything that is disputed should simply revert his closure and allow a more authoritative closure by an admin, I thought that is the guideline. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Govindaharihari. On which guideline exactly is what you claim based? Perhaps it'd pay to revisit the policy on non-admin closures. Looking up WP:BADNAC, I pay particular attention to the note stating administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's only the policy for WP:AFD (and possibly other deletion discussions). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It comes up pretty regularly. Admin not required for an RfC. Regardless.. This thread should just be closed at this point. Whether an RfC with consensus, an RfC without consensus, etc. there was not consensus to remove a bunch of the detail based on either of the RfC/non-RfC discussions, and a new RfC can address that. The material has been restored (albeit with tags). Other stuff regarding David, Jytdog, and Antony-22 that's apart from this can be dealt with in a separate thread as noted above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• this is classic being a jerk that just creates friction that gets in the way. I keep checking to see if any of the other folks there have answered and keep seeing that trolling. Gr. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, Jytdog, and it would not be the first time, but did you just call me "a jerk"? I hope there's some mistake here. Otherwise - just wow. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, you don't need anyone's permission to start an RfC on material or discussions that were never part of the originally posted RfC to begin with. If you dispute or dislike the results of anything that was not part of the originally posted RfC set-up, then create an RfC. You would even be within your rights to re-do the original RfC question if you dispute that outcome as well, since the RfC was constantly tinkered with to add new questions, which is not allowed -- those questions should have been outside the scope of the original RfC discussion, and they may have even muddied the overall close of the original RfC. In terms of will people "accept" an actual RfC on the list format: That's what RfCs are for-- to be official consensuses, with outside input, rather than informal non-binding conversations. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I hear that, but given the promotional pressure I am going in small steps and would like to get buy-in. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I personally feel like a new RfC would be a lot of work for little benefit. Either a consensus to retain the table as-is or a no consensus finding would have the same result, since the article contained the table before all this began. I suppose it's possible that actually there's a consensus that these types of lists should not have photos, but given that most FLs of this type do contain photos, my take is that that's a remote possibility. The other benefit would be to clear up the technical process questions that have been raised, but I don't see the point of doing this "on principle" in the case that the actual article content doesn't change. Honestly, we've been discussing this article nearly continuously since the beginning of May, and we're now above 100k of discussion on a 25k article. If this forum supports having a new RfC, I will respect that, but I'd really rather spend my time improving other articles at this point. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your perspective on this Antony. Other folks here, this is what I mentioned above, about the usefulness of small steps. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the smallest step one would expect from you, Jytdog, is to strike off the personal insult above. Calling other editors "jerks" creates the opposite of usefulness. -The Gnome (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I described your behavior. Throwing snark in response to a question that was not asked of you, especially when you are explicitly taking a stance of someone uninvolved in the underlying dispute, is jerk behavior, adding friction where it was both unnecessary and unhelpful. Just bad judgement. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a pity, Jytdog. It's obvious you cannot understand when you have crossed the link into boorishness. There was no sarcasm at all from my part, simply an attempt at humor in a situation you were making unnecessarily tense. I thought the 'smiley' would help but we're beyhond that now. From the "jerk" then, only this: Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw the smiley. You suggested that I will only settle for an outcome that gives me what I want. That is not correct -- anybody reading the actual RfC can see that I saw the trend toward "keep a list" and adapted to that developing consensus, and this is what I do generally. For you to write that particular response to me at the article talk page when I am questioning your close, was bad judgement. I have no more to say about this. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Restored removed {{Do not archive until}} notice. Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Move review discussions are all closed. Wikipedia:Close review discussions also should all be closed. A close of this close review would answer whether the RfC close should be endorsed or overturned. It would also answer whether a new RfC is supported. Even though as Softlavender said permission is not required, from Jytdog above, "I hear that, but given the promotional pressure I am going in small steps and would like to get buy-in." Cunard (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Copyvios on main page

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

---

The article Atal Bihari Vajpayee is currently posted to WP:ITN. As with a regrettable number of articles on South Asian politics, it is attracting a lot of clueless attention, including the frequent addition of text in violation of copyright. I have, despite being WP:INVOLVED, revdel'd some of the egregious violations per WP:IAR. I would ideally like another administrator to look over my actions, but more urgently, some other admins to keep an eye on the page and delete further revisions/perform blocks as necessary. Some other less egregious copyvios were removed yesterday, too. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it was requested, I have reviewed the revdels and the material being added was unambiguous copyvio and appropriately deleted from the page history. Have the page watchlisted and will keep an eye, but given the length of my watchlist and editing-pace on the page, will appreciate a ping if deletions/blocks are needed. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers: I'll let you know if anything is needed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also watchlisted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

About Toshi12345

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 think this account may be used to edit semi-protected pages. If you look at the history of protected pages Category:Environment of Tibet & Battle of the Barrier Forts,we find that the editors(IPs) are highly consistent from the editing history of these pages.

Also I want @Toshi12345: and @Samweithe4: to explain the reason for deleon on Category:Environment of Tibet.--Tr56tr (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m not at all sure what it is that you want an admin to do here, but fr the record Toshi12345 has been blocked as a sock, and Samweithe4 hasn’t edited in a month. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Default sunset periods for community-authorised sanctions

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:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions are six community-authorised sanctions, of durations noted as "indefinite". There is something unsatisfying about this. The indefinite period of duration of the sanctions was not formally proposed, considered, discussed and decided. If general sanctions are no longer needed in a topic area, they may be revoked through discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. By default, this leaves them active forever, based on one relatively brief discussion.

I propose that for all, in the absence of a community consensus on the duration, that a default duration period should apply in place of indefinite. I propose the period, dating from the close of the discussion authorising the sanction, should be five years. After five years, the sanction will expire. The sanction may be renewed at any time by a fresh proposal agreed by consensus at WP:AN. An alternative period may be applied if formally proposed and agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be less bureaucratic to leave them as indefinite, until revoked by proposal agreed by consensus at AN. Fish Karate 08:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"When no longer needed", who is going to come here to to propose that? If it is needed, and no one at the time discussed the duration, surely it is worth a review after five years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, is there an example of where the existing setup (indefinite opportunity to request) has not worked, and where this alternative proposal (5 year automatic non-renewal) would have likely solved things? —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s about the trend of these things. A week of AN discussion, and people think they have authorisation for arbitrary deletion, unreviewable. The current setup, it’s written in stone, unrevokable except by a stone mason. Does it require a consensus to uphold the largely unbridled power, or does it require a consensus to overturn it? That one week AN discussion, did the participants really consider the five years plus possibilities? You were almost asking a good question, but “5 year automatic non-renewal” is not how things work, as continuation motions are very easily put and supported. As a matter of principle, powers should be periodically reviewed, and five-yearly is a pretty generous period. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a specific example where this is a problem and/or what you propose is some sort of solution to an actual problem, this isn't going to go anywhere. The "matter of principle" you mention is mere question-begging: what "principle" is this a matter of? --Calton | Talk 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The principle is whether AN is an autonomous regulating board, separate from the community, and specifically whether AN ruling are indefinitely applying even for short term problems where duration of the sanction was not even mentioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In other words, no, you don't have an actual applicable principle nor a problem you're looking to solve. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a parliament and does not have a parliament. If you want to repeal any of these, I'm sure we'll figure out how it works then. The only one that might get repealed is the one related to The Zeitgeist Movement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• • On the parliamentary analogy, these are not parliamentary devices, but executive regulations granting police powers. The Adminstrators Noticeboard is granting itself the power to give wider policing powers to admins to take unilateral actions, affecting content. With no sunset or review periods, the arbitrary power is quite a lot. Noting that the discussions didn’t consider duration, a default of consensus applies until overturned by consensus is a bit rich. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• If they aren’t needed, they won’t be used. If they are needed, they will be. Either way, a sunset clause doesn’t add much value. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The value is in clarifying that the role of WP:AN is in administrating, not legislating, and forcing AN to be explicit when they do decide to make rules that are permanent. Is this a community-run project, or an administrator-run project? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Indefinite does not mean infinite". Any editor can start a discussion on AN to end any of these sanctions if they see good reason to do so, so a "sunset" provision would only have the effect of potentially harming the project by allowing what could be necessary sanctions to lapse at some arbitrary date, instead of being closed out when no longer needed. If they are no longer necessary, start a discussion. If you object to some particular sanction, start a discussion. The same mechanism which brought a sanction into existence can be used to get rid of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite does not mean infinite" is a WP:BLOCK policy cliche. This is not editors blocked under discretionary sanctions being indefinitely blocked. An indefinitely blocked account must submit an unblock request, even if the discretionary sanction expired. Is that there concern? No, this is about admins being given very broad latitude to block users & protect pages under a specific discretionary sanction. If the discretionary sanction was implemented without discussion of duration, and the trouble was short term, it should not stay on the books indefinitely. --02:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)

• Oppose per the above and largely per Beyond My Ken who's said it better than I ever could - In short indef doesn't mean forever and if any of those parties listed wants to end the sanction(s) they know where AN/ANI is, Suggest someone closes this non-starter. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose These are rarely a "one size fits all" situation. Discussion is always an option. While WP:CLEANSTART is usually about blocks any editor who is sanctioned can use it as a way to explain to the community that they understand who they were sanctioned. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This sounds a lot like a solution looking for a problem. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suggestion that AN decisions are set in stone is false, as they can always be appealed at AN again later. And no, cliché or not, indefinite doesn't mean permanent. I think the current system of leaving an indefinite sanction in place until someone sees no further need for it and seeks a new consensus (eg below) is working fine and I see no need to change it. (And that's really just saying "per Beyond My Ken", I guess.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Blackmane said it best. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Blackmane said. Even the so-called principle at stake makes little sense. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

case by case

RE Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_to_revoke_General_Sanctions_regarding_the_Zeitgeist_Movement. I guess case-by-case is preferred. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal to revoke General Sanctions regarding the Zeitgeist Movement

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.

---

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement

In 2015, the community authorized General Sanctions on the topic of The Zeitgeist Movement, an organization related to filmmaker Peter Joseph and his films the Zeitgeist (film series). This is not a high-profile organization or topic. No sanctions have been imposed under this sanction since 2016, and the one block issued expired in 2017. A new merge proposal (which was the original impetus for the ANI thread leading to the sanctions) has languished unnoticed since March, and both Earl King Jr. and Sfarney have not edited since 2016.

The authority for admins to impose general sanctions on this topic is no longer necessary, and I move to revoke it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per why not and BURO. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• support. It served its purpose and is no longer needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unless someone can present a good reason to keep it live. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Doug Weller - if disruption picks up again, reinstatement should be the immediate result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support since it is no longer necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, it can always be reinstated if issues re-arise. Fish Karate 10:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can't really add more than has already been said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Don't see the reason to keep it at this point, and if needed it can always be reinstated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sure no reason to keep it, but I also find voting on these things to not be the most productive use of time since they aren’t actually used. In other words: this really isn’t changing much. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the understanding it can be reinstated if its removal results in disruption. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Removing the GS looks fine to me but pinging Salvidrim! and Ian.thomson for their input since they have admin-ed in the area and are currently active. (I think it would be good practice to invite concerned admins to any future discussions over lifting of community authorized general sanctions.) Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• No objections - I closed the original discussion authorizing the GS and have issued a few notifications but I haven't stuck around the topic area and couldn't say whether it's calmed down enough to remove to GS or whether it's only calm because of the existing GS. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above me, No point in keeping it if it's not been applied to anyone for over 3 years. –Davey2010^Talk 01:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock question

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 posted the following to WT:SPI a few days ago, and am yet to to get an answer. Maybe someone here as some thoughts on the matter.

I've been looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aggiefan47, and would like a second opinion on whether or not a range block is potentially appropriate here. The range in question is 98.200.12.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There is a very prolific editor on this range, interested only in baseball, and who may very well be Aggiefan47. Best I can tell there have been two other editors on the same range in the past three weeks, who have engaged in unrelated, but also problematic editing: Unexplained removal of content at Mile 22 and POV editing at Did Six Million Really Die? and Sudetenland. On one hand, there is clear risk of collateral damage; on the other, preventing the unrelated edits might actually be beneficial. I'm leaning towards saying no, simply because the behaviour of these other editors has not reached blockworthy levels of disruption, but I'm unsure enough that I'd like a second opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I've taken action at the SPI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for Topic ban removal

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 banned from making religion related edits in the beginning of 2016 for 6 months. I abided by the rule for rest of the year. Since than I have been mostly inactive. I have had previously made a request but lost the tract of ANI & now can't find the thread. Yesterday I made an edit on religion related topic when I was reminded that I am topic banned. Therefore, I request that my topic ban should be removed. Regards Septate (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I have found the link to previous thread [|here]. Septate (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers should note that this topic ban resulted from this 2014 ANI discussion, and was unsuccessfully appealed in 2016. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. It seems that after the user made some edits pushing the edges of this ban and unsuccessfully appealed in July 2016, they went away for a bit. I was going to just say that this fails to demonstrate the pattern of constructive editing normally required by the standard offer and reject on that basis. But they have made 10 article edits since the previous appeal, 5 in 2016 (all topic ban violations) and 5 yesterday (3 of which are clear violations, such as adding a large section at female genital mutilation emphasizing the practice among Muslims). And so on that basis I think this user should be indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But they've also already been warned about that edit and are here on that basis, so I'm not endorsing a block here. But the next violation will surely be the last edit this user makes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the last request, they pulled the exact same thing that time. The discussion is still on their talk page so it stretches credibility tht they just didn’t know any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Ivanvector. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose You need to abide by the topic ban before asking for it to be lifted. This request is basically DOA, I suggest you withdraw it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Beeblebrox. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. No benefit in a block right now, but if they once again disappear for a year and then start editing religious topics they should be indef-blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Closing comment @Septate: I would caution against repeating what you have done here in disappearing after 10 edits and coming back here to appeal. Please demonstrate a history of constructive editing in other areas (abiding by this topic ban) before appealing again. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Hilarious spambot text merge

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.

---

Ran into the funniest text merge from those spambots: User:ThaddeusEstrella "The name of creator is Vanda Marlowe. My wife fuel tank live in Virgin Group of islands. The thing I really like most playing crochet and I'll be starting something else along from it. I used in order to become unemployed nowadays I am a software developer." No further action needed. It was just so funny that I had to share it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right Gogo Dodo, that is pretty good --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of English As She Is Spoke. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Incorrect info on the Silybum marianum page.

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

---

The Scotch Thistle and Milk Thistle are not the same plant. The picture is of a Scotch Thistle. The leaves are remarkably similar however the flowers are very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.118.152 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not an issue for admins to deal with - admins deal with user behaviour, policy violations, etc, but have no power to judge article content issues. If you wish to question the correctness of the photo (which is labeled "Milk Thistle flowerhead" and looks remarkably similar to the illustration of Silybum marianum from Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz and really quite different to the flower photo at Onopordum acanthium), then please raise it on the article's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Review of Leaderboard's block

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

---

Wotcha editors - I received a message from Leaderboard regarding their block here from 2013 by Admrboltz. It was, at the time, a good block - Leaderboard believes it is now no longer needed to prevent disruption, and I agree.

• Leaderboard was blocked for a username policy violation, which related to a web browser called "Leaderboard" (admin only link).

• As I mentioned above, this was a good block at the time

• In their recent block appeals they state Leaderboard is just my pseudonym. It is NOT a company. and that the browser was defunct since 2014

• I believe this makes the violation of the username policy moot

• "Leaderboard" is a generic username without the context of the above defunct web browser

• Leaderboard has made good edits to other projects, and is an administrator on the English Wikibooks

I would have unblocked based on my above belief that the block is no longer needed to prevent disruption, but decided not to, as there had been recent block appeals which had been declined and I did not want to override any of my colleagues decisions on the matter.

I've asked some other admins for opinions regarding this, and most agree an unblock without a rename should be possible. Some have said that the user should be renamed. I'd like your opinions please - TNT ^💖 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @331dot and PhilKnight: as the last two reviewing administrators - TNT ^💖 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock I've reviewed a small random sample of contributions to wiki books and see no problems. Given their number of edits to that project and the fact that they are an admin there, it would be awkward to insist on a rename. In fact, I was close to pulling the trigger on doing the unblock but want to give the last two reviewing admins a chance to comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock The username is no longer promoting anything, and I reviewed recent Wikibooks edits too. No reason to force a rename here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that if the user writes about their web browser, they may be blocked again. The block was justifiable; the deleted user page was definitely promoting this web browser, and the username policy is pretty clear that we disallow usernames that represent a product or service. However, the browser doesn't really exist anymore, and the word "leaderboard" is such a generic name that no one is going to look at it and think of a web browser unless they were already aware of the deleted user page to start with. This, combined with the fact that the user has no intention of continuing to write about their web browser, is enough for me to conclude that there is no risk of disruption if we unblock this user without forcing a rename. Especially considering their tenure on other Wikimedia projects. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Meh, I don’t find the sysop on Wikibooks argument particularly compelling: it’s not a major project and I don’t even know if they have a UPOL. I don’t think current policy allows for this name on en.wikipedia. That being said, I think UPOL should be marked as historical and replaced with one sentence: Accounts with disruptive usernames may be blocked. this username is clearly not disruptive, which makes this a perfect example of how UPOL and the blocking policy don’t line up. I’d be fine unblocking if there is consensus, but it’s worth noting that it’d be an IAR block and the solution is to vastly simplify the username policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, unified login became active in April 2015 so the editor cannot have a different name here and on wiki books.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but his activity on Wikibooks has absolutely no impact on local username policy on the English Wikipedia, and it should not be taken into account. de.wiki allows corporate names, and we block accounts here that are active there with no qualms, and it is a significantly larger project than en.wikibooks. I support an unblock, but only because I think keeping blocked for a generic name that happens to be shared by a company is in violation of the blocking policy as it isn’t disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That being said, I think UPOL should be marked as historical and replaced with one sentence: Accounts with disruptive usernames may be blocked. this username is clearly not disruptive, which makes this a perfect example of how UPOL and the blocking policy don’t line up. Hear hear. I note that we don't have a global username policy, that this isn't the first time we've seen conflicts about usernames that are acceptable in one place but forbidden in another, and the last proposal for a global username policy I can find was pretty much SNOW-declined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the subject has global edits to 13 projects, not just WikiBooks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't want to stand in the way of an unblock if any administrator feels one is warranted. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Unblocked I went ahead and performed the unblock. I think it's quite warranted; if someone feels it requires IAR, so be it. I had initially wanted to give Phil Knight a chance to chime in but while that editor is reasonably active they haven't edited in 48 hours so I don't see any point in waiting longer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock The conditions since the block have changed. Lets give the editor a chance, if the editor violates the policies he can then be re-blocked. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

SPA has COI

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.

---

Moved to WP:ANI § SPA has COI

So this SPA Balochworld (talk · contribs) from the day first has been trying to write this BLP Nabil Gabol in a promotional and biased manner using unreliable sources. I fixed this BLP earlier this month, but this SPA is back again and for the past couple of days has been trying to revert the BLP back to his own version which is poorly sourced and promotional. For the past couple of hours, SPA has been edit warring using this account and an IP despite several warnings on their talk page from several different editors. --Saqib (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Comment the user Balochworld (talk · contribs) appears to be "not very familiar" with the policies. Saqib you being the more experienced one, did you try and engage BW for a discussion on this content dispute on the talk page ? I dont see any thread on the talk page, Please do and inform him that Edit summary is not considered a discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Just a heads up

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.

---

Resulting from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301#Block review for Clockback, Peter Hitchings has published a rather critical piece on Wikipedia's handling of the case.I don't know or have an opinion whether it warrants review of the previous discussion, but I suspect this may lead to some off-site activity related to the issues (both on the original matter around Bell, and on this ban). --Masem (t) 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The piece is fairly typical of the kind of hyperbole that we hear from banned users. He may have a wider audience than most but I don’t see anything of substance that would merit re-opening the closed discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably not (and I also do not see why, since he pledged to never return), but he is right that there are content areas in Wikipedia where a dissenter can not do anything does not matter what quality sources they bring and what arguments they make.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that audience overlaps quite a bit with Daily Mail readership, who I don't believe have the capacity to accomplish anything meaningful or lasting (otherwise they wouldn't be reading the Daily Mail). There might be a handful of new users or inactive ones crawling out of the woodwork to try to "fix" this (the ban, the topic that got him banned, whatever) with about half of them pretending that they aren't Hitchens-fans (just "concerned about the neutrality of it all") but they won't be aware enough of how anything works to accomplish anything beyond temporary annoyance and disruption. A couple of users blocked in the immediate future could possibly cite Hitchens in their sour grapes complaints disguised as unblock requests. I will (buy a hat and) eat my hat if this gets so bad that Arbcom has to get involved. Five years from now, the site regulars are probably not even going to remember this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• There’s nothing to reconsider here. He was already given special treatment in an attempt to prevent this very article. I specifically closed his community unblock request early so that it wouldn’t unnecessarily escalate into becoming a CBAN. I explained to him clearly and specifically that he had the right to appeal to a new administrator ad infinitum, that an indefinite block is very easily lifted with a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request, and I all but guaranteed him an unblock if he only read and followed the GAB. I also clearly explained to him that the situation would change if he insisted on a community appeal, and that he would likely end up CBANned with no options on the table. Apparently, according to his article, the sticking point was his generational inability to “surrender”, so, I’m spite of my warnings, he insisted that he be given the “due process” of a community appeal. As I forewarned, the discussion resulted in a community ban, and now he wants to act like he was kicked off of Wikipedia with no second thought. He’s omitted the full story in his article, and while I feel bad that his situation ended badly, nobody but himself tried to bring about that result. Swarm ♠ 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is nothing the admins or the community can do about it unfortunately. He is already CBANned, and the only thing higher than that is a global ban or WMF ban. But I don't think he qualifies for any of those. Afootpluto (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t think there is anything to be gained by even discussing this. He’s banned. He got the due process he asked for, and it didn’t go his way. He says he doesn’t care but he’s clearly very bitter about it.(this isn’t the first blog like this he’s written elsewhere) Sounds like a lot of not my problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor point - I wouldn’t call his treatment due process. He immediately received an indefinite block, which then required him to explain why he was innocent. Quite backwards from the real way it is done. It’s no surprise the community failed Hitchens; he had already been judged guilty by a quite powerful admin.Mr Ernie (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the dearly departed

No, he did not receive "Due process", since he wasn't blocked foe a long time for his obvious COI/POV editing, and after he was blocked he received a block review that was incredibly more extensive than is normal, by at least an order of magnitude. That's not "due process" that's "extraordinary special treatment". He's got nothing to complain about, since he brought it on himself, and then refused to even attempt to understand what was required by way of a response that might get him unblocked. His current article was to be expected, and there's nothing that could have been done to stop it, except perhaps to have immediately unblocked him, chopped off the head of the blocking admin, apologize profusely, collectively tug at our forelocks and offer Hitchens the keys to the city and a Wiki-knighthood. He's a partisan "reporter", for crying out loud!

Now, would someone please close this? Enough innocent electrons have already died because of this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Electrons do not die, the lepton number is conserved. They can recombine with positrons, but this typically does not happen at low energies because we do not have any positrons around.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You can see for yourself that they do die, since I've provided an image of one just above -- so who are you going to believe, those darned over-qualified government-grant-guzzling sub-atomic physicists or your own eyes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : As an uninvolved editor I must say I find some of the comments above quite disturbing. Irrespective of the exact core issue (articles, COI, ban, etc), this strong-arm discouragement of dissent is anything but welcome. An admin above even drew a portrait of any editors that would dare in the future question the course taken by Wikipedia, i.e. by its administrators: Such editors would be ignorant ("they won't be aware enough of how anything works to accomplish anything") Daily Mail readers who seek "annoyance and disruption" motivated of "sour grapes"! And just to pre-empt such "attempts," the prediction is that "five years from now," no regular user will remember the issue!

Another administrator, writing in rather angry prose, wants to see this discussion terminated a.s.a.p. even when the issue has gone beyond a mere ban of a user to become a public matter concerning Wikipedia's inner workings. Don't we at the very least owe to the public at large a stronger response to Hitchens/Clockback's claims? Because I fail to see such unanimity against dissent improving Wikipedia in any sense of the word. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (1) I am not an admin. Never have been, never will be. (2) No, we don't "owe the public" anything except to build the best encyclopedia we can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suppose part of the process of building the "best encyclopedia" would also be avoiding such incidents. But if everyone feels this has been handled as best as it could've been, then there's little more one can say. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you'd suppose wrong. The internal behavioral processes are almost completely irrelevant to whether the articles in the encyclopedia are neutral, well-sourced, well-written, and well-presented. That is what makes up a good encyclopedia, not whether some biased editor is pissed off that he got kicked off the team because he refused to follow the rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think I'm wrong here. The process of creating something cannot but affect that something. And this applies to everything from edibles to encyclopaedias. I'm actually pretty certain about this! And part of the process, of course, here in Wikipedia, is the regime of interaction among the multiple creators of content, i.e. what you call "internal behavior." For instance, an authoritarian regime in Wikipedia would most probably produce a very different work than what the current, quite open and free regime has produced. But, like I said, if everyone feels this has all been hunky dory, then fine. -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Exhibit B: So good... but sometimes best not to inquire what's inside

Exhibit C: Many died, many lived tortured lives in the building, but it's still one of the Wonders of the World, because the process doesn't necessarily determine the outcome, materials do

Unfortunately for your surety, I happen to know that you're more wrong then you are right. I've been involved with the creation of many, many works of performing art, and I can tell you from personal experience that some of the ones which were undeniably great were absolute hell to live through the creation of. The general angst of the creative process was not reflected in the finished product. A creation can be in some way affected by the process of creating it, but it is not necessarily determined by that process. Alternately, I've been involved with productions that were a dream to put together, but which were not artistically successful -- and every conceivable combination in between, because the process and the product simply don't have the one-to-one relationship you posit.

And if you don't want to rely on my personal experience, I offer as Exhibit B every sausage ever made by mankind: you really don't want to know what goes into them, but they can be delicious anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about Exhibit C: The Pyramids. Built by slave labor, in a process that was undoubtedly cruel and unfair to the workers, yet they remain one of the Wonders of the World -- because the process of building it had little or nothing to do with the majesty of the work.

We ain't building the Pyramids here, but building an encyclopedia is still creative work (something that some editors tend to forget as they try to force it into the mold of an assembly line). It's the materials used which are most important, in our case good research, good writing, good layout makes good articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The pyramids were not built by slaves, as stated by various sources and repeated on here. (But if the pyramids are a product of slave labor, who are the slaves hauling the stones around in this analogy? I hope Jimbo will not lash me if I refuse to create content. ) Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That section of the article is reporting a theory by one man "Dr. Zahi Hawass / Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments". I can think of many reasons why an Egyptian politician, even assuming they are scientifically qualified, would want to think that the pyramids were not built by slaves. The section is supported by a NatGeo article, a Harvard Alumni Magazine article (!), an Associated Press news report, an article by Zahi Hawass and an archived article by Zahi Hawass: in other words, they are all essentially regurgitations of the same thing. I'm about to go back to the article and remove that section per WP:WEIGHT, as there appears to be little independent evidence to support Hawass' theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

NB: That section of the article has now been re-written and re-sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• To sum things up: "Talk shit, get hit." --Tarage (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the place to air unrelated grievances, thank you. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh please, this isn't a "public matter concerning Wikipedia's inner workings". This is an editor with a newspaper column who got banned from Wikipedia by the community via a public forum, in spite of our best efforts to afford him special treatment and all the "due process" in the world, even in spite of direct attempts to shield him from a community ban so that he could quietly negotiate an unblock. He insisted on making a big spectacle over his block, insisted the community review it, and then when that tactic backfired spectacularly and the community endorsed the block, he goes running to his audience (either in an attempt to save face or simply garner sympathy) with these bizarre claims that he was shadowbanned by some sort of faceless and soulless bureaucratic establishment or something. I assure you "the public" at large does not actually care about Hitchens' ban and Wikipedia will go on in spite of his whinging. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the specific person's "audience" is by definition the people who read his column. And there is no other audience available to him, is there? As to what others will make of the episode, I cannot tell and thus cannot share your confidence that "the public at large does not actually care." After all, The Spectator has a circulation of around seventy thousand print copies. But I agree, of course, that Wikipedia will go on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens attempted to recruit his Twitter followers to argue his case and did not receive much support, so the project likely will not lose many editors over this. But I imagine it has not been a great few months in terms of British public confidence in Wikipedia, with the Philip Cross case alienating some Corbyn fans and this now possibly alienating some Rees-Mogg (or whoever Hitchens is aligned with) fans. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Site ban proposal for User:NadirAli

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.

---

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

Last month,[38] NadirAli's mass sockpuppetry was discovered. Consequently, Ivanvector blocked NadirAli but only for 3 months contrary to the actual standards for such violations.

After I objected the duration,[39] Ivanvector started an ARCA clarification request.[40] The outcome of the request was that NadirAli should be "treated like we'd treat anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry".[41] I proposed siteban by motion, to which Worm That Turned responded, "you make a strong argument for a site ban... If you still strongly feel that the site ban should be put in place, why not suggest it at AN with your explanation. There's no reason that the community cannot pass a ban based on past behaviour."[42] No arbitrators disagreed with that.

ARCA request has been archived but the outcome is still pending. Some significant points regarding the misconduct are as follow:

• NadirAli was evading his siteban before he was unbanned.[43]
• After getting unblocked he abused IPs and created Boxman88 (talk · contribs)[44] to evade the Arbcom topic ban. The topic ban was later overturned.
• He was blocked indefinitely for copyright violation.[45]
• He was topic banned from uploading any images.[46]
• He was blocked indefinitely for violating that topic ban.[47]
• Violated his ban on image uploading by creating a new sock, Posuydon (talk · contribs).[48]
• Indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict.[49]
• Violated topic ban on India-Pakistan conflict last month,[50] however, he denied any topic ban violation,[51] just like he used to deny copyright violations.[52]

It can be safely said that NadirAli is the most disruptive editor in the South Asia topic area. Had the sockpuppetry been discovered early, the damage that his actions have done to the project could have been avoided. In these twelve years, NadirAli has engaged in a very large degree of disruption and displayed clear inability to act collegially, and this was on display even in his last edit. A siteban is probably overdue for someone who is currently topic banned from several areas for an indefinite period and has been socking this rigorously for such a long period. --RaviC (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. Apparently I don't understand the new rule, because I would have imagined that he qualified for automatic siteban. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• PS, note that NadirAli has three indefinite blocks in his main account's history. Some of us have gotten multiple non-problematic indefs, due to mistakes or testing or rogue admins (I have one mistake and two testing; Jimbo Wales has one mistake, two rogue admin, and two I-don't-know-what), but all of NadirAli's appear to be deserved. It's rare for an active editor to have more than one, and truly exceptional for an active editor with three indefs to get a deserved definite block for violating an Arbcom injunction. I'm thankful that Ivanvector is willing to be gracious, but I don't think it's the wisest choice. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Overall net negative. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. His trolling (I have no better word) [53] has been just out of hands. Orientls (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Orientls, how about you not call it "trolling" at all? The comment is a bit verbose (" judged by the fact that your opinion is a minority view as per these sources"), but I don't see what else is wrong with it. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • He was misrepresenting the author who said Pakistan is not a regional power to be claiming that he says Pakistan is a regional power. As well as "all" provided sources say Pakistan is a regional power, when they didn't. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and reject, the user is already sanctioned and serving out a block as methodically prescribed in this and previous such cases. Sanctions are designed to be preventative, not punitive. The filer has presented no tangible argument why the already-existing sanction needs to be replaced. I have known NadirAli for a few years, and his contributions to Pakistan articles have generally been thoughtful, constructive, and overall positive. Right up until his block (which was both sad, unnecessary, and a serious lack of acumen on his part), his behaviour was cooperative, normal, and not something that would qualify as sabotaging or disrupting the project en masse. The two (the filer and NadirAli) and others here undoubtedly have had past beef, hence the reason why I would read between the lines and take things with a pinch of salt IMO. Also waiting for comments from Ivanvector, who obviously would've had good reasons of his own to extend the block for 3 months rather than the usual line of action; he would be in a better position to explain why that was decided. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Have you even read what has been already said above? Arbcom has already clarified to Ivanvector that NadirAli's sock puppetry should be dealt like "anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry", i.e. indef block or a indef ban. Orientls (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, the line of action for such cases is to enforce a block, which I'm already seeing. The user is blocked. The enforcing admin would've had reasons to determine why this length was appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector certainly had his explanation in ARCA and Arbcom has clarified the misunderstanding. I can just hope that he would agree with what we went over at ARCA. Furthermore Mar4d, you may not know, but NadirAli has edit-warred with you as well [54][55] by evading his ban with IPs. Interestingly, this is the same article where he was caught socking last month.[56] --RaviC (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support WP:CBAN. Should have been done a while back. Agree with Nyttend that NadirAli got away with a number of violations for which he deserved an indefinite block. When it comes to disruptive editing, NadirAli has done it all - Sock puppetry , Edit warring , factional editing, misrepresentation of sources, and the list goes on. His presence in the ARBIPA area is what can be defined as long term disruptive editing with having the dubious distinction of being banned in first and only Arbcom case concerning this area. Looking at the most recent edit of NadirAli, we get the idea that his motive is further disruption. I think as a community we have wasted enough time on him and he has been given enough rope, hundreds of chances over a decade. It is time to take a binding decision on this matter. Razer(talk) 11:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As per Nyttend. NadirAli's editing is mostly shady and the non-shady part is mostly worthless. I don't see why the community needs to keep wasting its time on this editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note This comment was struck by the commenter ([57]) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you elaborate what you mean by "worthless". I saw his contributions over the years, and before the block occurred, and they were mostly positive in terms of content creation and expansion. No one is free from mistakes, including you. I disagree with your unnecessary aspersion. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments: When a a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli was brought to WP:ANI in July 2017, I was one of the people that opposed it. Even though it was hard work to battle NadirAli's POV, I thought his presence was still beneficial for the project. Little did I know that NadirAli had just begun doing proxy edits for a banned editor. I believe his first post as a proxy was this one 3 June 2017. The polished, westernised English of that post is easily distinguishable from NadirAli's broken English a month earlier. The reference to "shady" above was my filing at ARE bringing it to the admin attention. Since there was no admin action, NadirAli and his puppet master were emboldened and, since then, made hundreds of edits across dozens of page. Two other editors were recently blocked/banned by Abecedare for doing exactly this. I really think we need to get rid of the scourge of proxy editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(responding to the ping) I haven't taken a look at NadirAli's case-history in any depth, and therefore haven't !voted in this discussion. As for proxy editing: on a quick glance the case is not as obvious as it was for the three instances in which I blocked, topic-banned and warned recently. This comment, for example, has some grammatical and punctuation errors, but of the sort that are par for the course for talkpage discussions. If there is a stronger case for proxy-editing to be made, I think it would be best to marshal evidence independent of this immediate discussion; the account is blocked for 2 more month, so there is no real rush. Abecedare (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The limited blocks and bans had been tried enough number of times. The Arb case should have been the final whistle for Nadir to stop such activity. The Kind admins like Ivan have already given the user enough WP:Rope to improve but by multiple violations as pointed above the user himself has decided to hang himself. The assumption that this editor will improve his behavior to avoid the ban would have been valid for earlier cases, Nadir by choosing to edit in conflict with the bans has already made the good faith assumption void. Proxy editors and the handlers need to be sent a strong message that indulging in such activity will not get any benefits and will only lead to strong administrative actions. --DBigXray 14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support--The length of the rope, provided thus far, was not meant to approach infinity.....Thanks for your services, Good bye.∯WBG^converse 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose-Per V93.And, this partisan noise......∯WBG^converse 12:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support this editor has a history of getting indefinitely blocked for many different kinds of disruptive editing, only to be unblocked with a topic ban, editing restriction or "last" chance. People like that should be shown the door. A three month block is very generous for socking by an experienced editor, especially one who has been ordered not to use multiple accounts by ArbCom. Hut 8.5 17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's an unfortunate fact that nationalist disputes in South Asia bring out the worst in many of our otherwise capable editors. Nadir Ali has at various points demonstrated that he has the ability to edit constructively, but has chosen not to make use of it. I recommended a t-ban for him a few months ago, but that was before evidence of further sockpuppetry was brought forward. His edits have been a net negative, and this ban is necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Moving to weak oppose after reading Zzuuzz's comment about when logged out editing took place. I spent some time examining NadirAli's editing history, and their interactions with several other editors. I still think NadirAli's behavior is far from ideal, and they need to take a hard look at how they respond to conflict. However, the fact that much of logged out editing occurred a long while ago, and the substantial probability that some of the logged-out editing was done with the intent of avoiding harassment rather than evading scrutiny, I now feel a siteban would be an over-reach. @Kautilya3 and Winged Blades of Godric: I suspect you may be interested in that comment, though it may or may not change your minds. Vanamonde (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• What CU detected as logged out editing was sure "recent" as CU can only detect what happened in last 3 months. If there was no recent logged out editing then CU would not convict the user of logged out editing. CU won't reveal those new IPs which they discovered per privacy policy. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Nadir Ali definitely was a disruptive editor in both South Asia and science fiction subjects. There was an ANI against him last year,[58] and thus, we can't say that he didn't have enough chances since he actually received far too many. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have reason to believe that this request is not in good faith, but yet another example of the factionalized editing identified in the AE topic ban thread from a few months ago in which many of the previous commenters here were named and (temporarily) topic-banned. I should have noted more clearly at the time, but I have doubts that the accounts named in the most recent of the SPI filings against NadirAli were actually NadirAli's accounts, versus a sophisticated attempt at joejobbing - the checkuser result was inconclusive, and the two accounts are blocked for being sockpuppets of each other, not for being sockpuppets of NadirAli. Of course, NadirAli is hardly an innocent party in this ongoing dispute as evidenced by his long block log, including several indefinite blocks as Nyttend noted, but note also that indef != permanent, and all of those blocks served their purpose and were eventually replaced with appropriate limiting sanctions, which NadirAli has largely abided by since appealing to BASC in 2014. He's slipped up a couple times, but who hasn't in this group? It's a literal disaster, none of these editors don't have notations in their block log and/or their names repeatedly mentioned at AE or the various admin boards. The recent SPI hinged on IP edits from a huge (/11) subnet in Brampton, Ontario, a large Canadian city with a very significant Pakistani population, most of which were more than a year old at the time of the report. NadirAli is only currently blocked because of what appears to have been an oversight that his Arbcom topic ban was rescinded but his parallel no-logged-out-editing restriction was not rescinded at the same time (why I asked about it at ARCA), and had that restriction not been in place, I would not have blocked him but treated the situation as time served with a warning. It's only because that restriction remained in place, and admins do not have latitude to admin in conflict with Arbcom, that he is blocked at all. Sitebanning him for that is an incredible overreach. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you but that was unnecessary. NadirAli is the only serial sock puppeteer here. In place of righting great wrongs why don't you just try following what Arbcom told you after you specifically asked them. You are acting like an apologist. You are degrading your own credibility by encouraging his disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Orientls It's one thing to argue that IvanVector is wrong; it's quite another to suggest that by exercising due diligence, he is an apologist for sockpuppetry. This is precisely the sort of us-vs-them nonsense that earned nine others topic-bans along with Nadir Ali, and I suggest you refrain from attacking anyone else's motives. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • You are right that I need to use better words. My comments were directed on Ivanvector who is exactly attacking others motives and derailing this thread by making vague claims about others who are nowhere near the disruption of NadirAli. Not to ignore the apparent falsification of the sockpuppetry about NadiAli. Orientls (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Doubling down by accusing Ivanvector of lying isn't exactly a great idea either. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
          • He claims that NadirAli didn't deserved block for sockpuppetry even after having CU confirmed the intentional logged out editing and also found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions. "3 months block" for long term socking and putting the blame of someone's disruption onto others is absolutely a bad idea. Orientls (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Can you provide evidence for where a CU 'found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions'. Because Ivanvector seems to be correct that in the case of Boxman88 and Posuydon, the evidence was unclear. "The checkuser data for Boxman88 is extremely limited and doesn't provide a direct connection to NadirAli. However there are some other things to consider. There are some technical similarities which makes it possible". Note that I had no intention to take part in this discussion but happened to notice this diversion. Your comments cause me to look into the case and am I am likely to be !voting oppose unless you can provide evidence for your claims because it's looking to me like IvanVector is correct. Nil Einne (talk)
              • @Nil Einne: CU said "the CU result between the two accounts is somewhere between possible and inconclusive".[59] But Ivanvector misrepresented that as "the checkuser result was inconclusive". Ivanvector was also aware of that discussion. Not to forget WP:DUCK evidence floating in entire SPI. Orientls (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Thank you for confirming my thoughts. Ivanvector's summary is far more accurate than your highly misleading claim "found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions" since no such connection was found. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Do you really see no difference between "possible and inconclusive" and "inconclusive", what about the WP:DUCK evidence? NadirAli was evading CU, but shared same behavior. That is what it is all about. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • This is probably the last comment I will make on the matter. Read my comments carefully. I never said there was no difference. All I said was that Ivanvector's comment was far closer to being accurate than yours. Your comment was highly misleading and you seem unable or unwilling to accept that instead you're just trying to throw fault elsewhere. I do think it would have been better if Ivanvector had been slightly clearer but it's not something major enough that I'd even bother calling them out on it. As I said below, I don't care to debate the DUCK evidence. I've looked into to it and I'm not convinced enough. And note this is beside my main point which is that your misleading claim combined with your refusal to even acknowledge this leads me to believe there is something off with your !vote. The fact that others have evidently violated their topic ban gives me more reason to think it isn't only you. These aren't reasons to !vote no. But my evaluation of the evidence is that it's too weak to conclude anything other than some probably minor violations by NadirAli with logged out editing and a lot of that is a while ago I am !voting even though I probably would have just ignored this case otherwise without these concerns. As mention by Ivanvector and others, it's quite difficult to conclude how much logged out editing has happened especially when done over a wide range where it's likely there are several people with similar views, and in it's in the distant past. NadirAli is definitely far from perfect, but I don't think a siteban is needed yet. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons given by Ivanvector. Nadir's past policy violations resulted in sanctions being placed and time served. Those violations can't be held up against him. We should be viewing Nadir's current conduct, which in my opinion is productive and a net positive. Son of Kolachi (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• You didn't even registered your account when NadirAli was editing. Lorstaking (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per IvanVector. He's quite right - a siteban is a massive overreach here, considering the behaviour of other actors in this mess of an editing area. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you name anyone else who has been sitebanned and indeffed multiple times after coming off from a siteban? Except NadirAli obviously. How can we afford to have an editor who is editing for 12 years and still dont know what is a topic ban violation? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe he has been an extremely concerned constructive editor who has been working to build a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. His contributions to the platform are such that the encyclopedia would see a great loss in his absence. I see nothing that warrants a site ban. I don't want to see it not do I think it is proportionate.KA$HMIR (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• And you logged in after 35 days for making your first edit in this noticeboard.[60] Why? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Ivanvector and other editors opposing this unnecessary site ban. Sanctions are supposed to be preventive and not punitive. NadirAli has served time for his past violations and currently under a ban and according to Ivanvector, no current sockpuppetry allegations were proven. We should not be extending a ban without a solid recent violation. It will be definitely a massive overreach as Ivanvector has rightly put it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Competence is required and NadirAli has none. Agree with Kautilya3 that NadirAli's edits were either shady or simply useless. According to the CheckUser: "The first obvious thing to say is that User:NadirAli has clearly been editing while logged out. This is to an extent you couldn't describe as accidental, and includes subjects such as the Kashmir dispute along with the Star Wars stuff.... There is also extensive logged-out editing from this set, which again includes Pakistan-India along with the Star Wars stuff."[61] This is a clear abuse and deception in addition to socking with two accounts for evading the topic bans after being blocked for violating them. Siteban after handing out multiple topic bans to a previously sitebanned user was itself unbelievable. Siteban looks like a delayed formality now. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Five of the above users in support were very recently defending a blocked sockpuppet, who caused a lot of disruption. Many are certainly not here for charity. The vast majority of the above have also been involved in content disputes over the past 12 months. In my eyes, the credibility of this proposal and the intentions of the filer can't be taken seriously. NadirAli did some commendable work on content creation, and has been doing so for several years. Sure, he slipped up, but he got sanctioned for it and remained cooperative. I'm seeing nothing which would warrant replacing his existing sanctions with a punitive ban. This is an extremely weak case and not in good faith, as admin Ivanvector pointed out. Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mar4d:-Well, I'm one of those five users and you might wish to go through this thread.I defended him precisely because the SPI investigation failed to satisfy me and that has got nothing to do with your snide generalized personal attack, (at your second line).∯WBG^converse 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support due to abuse of multiple accounts to evade scrutiny and edit in defiance of his restriction, even after a lengthy block. This is someone who does not respect the restriction or our policies. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. I may change my mind if Orientls is able to provide evidence for their claim as I mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nil Einne. Clearer evidence needed. Agathoclea (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Agathoclea and Nil Einne: Do you need evidence of NadirAli's confirmed "extensive logged-out editing"[62] in violation of Arbcom's restriction that he can't "edit from any Wikipedia account other than "Nadirali", nor edit anonymously,"[63] or do you need evidence for Ivanvector's own words that NadirAli "has evidently created sockpuppet accounts"[64]? NadirAli's socks quack loud,(example 1: [65][66], example 2:[67][68][69], example 3:[70][71]) because they were operated by himself. Ivanvector himself tagged the accounts as suspected socks of NadirAli.[72][73] Evidence is already here. Lorstaking (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the evidence and agree with Ivanvector. The fact that other editors like Orientls make such misleading claims and then provide no explanation when called out for it really tells me all I need to know about this case anyway. Note that my specific point was that Orientls made a highly misleading claim. I don't care to get into a dispute over the evidence for other stuff. Neither Orientls nor you have provided any evidence for the claim "CU confirmed the intentional logged out editing and also found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions" as that was about the CU finding based on CU evidence not any behavioral evidence. If editor A says I am editor B and editor B says I am editor A and they edit all the same articles with the exact same edits, that doesn't mean it's okay to claim CU found a connection with two socks when they did not. P.S. To be clear, I'm not saying most people supporting the tban are doing it for the wrong reasons simply that there are clear problems with at least one of the supporters which gives me great concern when combined with what I've seen of the evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • CU is not a magic pixie dust. NadirAli clearly attempted to evade CU but totally failed at it. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • That sort of thing is possible in principle, but it seems not to have happened here. Above, you are claiming that the editor trolled by misrepresenting something. That is exactly what you're doing here, except that in this case it's plain to see. You seem to turn "between possible and inconclusive" into "confirmed", attacking Ivanvector in the process (as noted by Nil Einne, Black Kite, Vanamonde93), which is silly. "Between possible and inconclusive" is, for SPI and other purposes, basically "inconclusive". No one should block or decide on bans or whatever based on such CU evidence, and I hope no one does; it's not even "possilikely", which already demands admins look for other evidence to help base a decision on. So yeah, CU is not magic pixie dust--and yet you take the CU results as if they are, which is just completely wrong. So whatever may be wrong with the editor's contributions, you simply cannot base anything on those CU results. But hey, what do people like Vanamonde and Ivanvector and me know about CU and adminning, right? Drmies (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you Drmies for clarifying that. Orientls (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Nyttend sums it up perfectly: When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. It should also be noted that issues are not limited to just deceptive sock puppetry and time has shown that this user is unable to reform himself. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure where the claim of denial is coming from, I have not seen it. Here are some of the user's last edits [74] [75] [76] where he is acknowledging his sanction before the block and SPI closure. He had no other edits prior to these relating to his block. I certainly haven't seen any denial, unlike this case whom several above defended. This is misleading in my view. Mar4d (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, the claim and its proof come from near the end of the initial statement. In this edit from 2 July 2018, NadirAli edits India-Pakistan relations, including bits about their conflict. And in this edit from 6 July 2018, NadirAli says I have not violated the topic ban and have not edited any India-Pakistan conflict pages. NadirAli was subjected to a ban on "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" on 15 May 2018, and clearly India-Pakistan relations is a page related to conflict between India and Pakistan, so unless the ban were repealed in the month-and-a-half between imposition and edits, we have an easily proven violation of the ban. He edited the page in question just four days before making this statement; it's too soon to give him leeway for possibly forgetting, and since he remembered the ban on 6 July, it's going a bit far to say that he may have forgotten it on 2 July. This is what I meant by you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Lean oppose. As the checkuser who checked the SPI, I think I'm entitled to say that I'm satisfied with Ivanvector's actions and drawing the line there. I think I'll also comment a bit more on the SPI. The SPI is stuffed full of IP addresses - many were added after I commented at the SPI - some are from over 7 or 8 years ago - most are from years ago - some of which are credibly disputed - and none of which were recently (if at all) confirmed by checkuser. Most of it is distinctly historical. What I've seen of recent activity, from my privileged position, in my view does not warrant an indefinite ban. For the record, I am sure about the logged-out editing (which has not been disclosed in detail anywhere), and "somewhere between possible and inconclusive" is not a strong proof. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Though extensive logged out editing is itself enough of the evidence of sock puppetry in addition to further disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You've again misrepresented the checkuser's comments: zzuuzz said "I am sure about the logged-out editing" but did not say "extensive", and confirmation (for all intents and purposes) of logged-out editing, a violation of an Arbcom sanction, is the entire rationale for NadirAli's current block, not any "further disruption" as you seem insistent on describing edits nearly a decade old. Your repeated misrepresentation of facts from the sockpuppet investigation is one of the reasons why I don't think you're here in the spirit of what's best for the encyclopedia at all, but rather just trying to pick off your opponents by any means necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

He said "extensive"[77] on the SPI, to which I was referring. NadirAli was the one picking up fight by filing bogus AREs[78][79] against me by misrepresenting my comments and supporting a suspicious account,[80] which was deemed to be a sock of an indeffed user who's edits have been frequently restored by NadirAli per the SPI.[81] For all that disruption I am supporting the siteban so that we will never have to waste anymore time on him. Is that clearer now? Orientls (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This 'suspicious account' in question is not blocked. Can you be more clear what you mean by "deemed to be a sock"? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. This group of editors has no business at all calling out frivolous use of admin noticeboards, not one editor on either side of WP:ARBIPA. On that very page you linked to (twice) we have four incredibly obviously retaliatory enforcement requests, all from seemingly random uninvolved accounts, all accusing some opponent editor of being a sockpuppet of some other editor. The first supposed "bogus ARE" you link to is one filed against NadirAli, in which he makes just as convincing a case for you being a sockpuppet as anyone has made for him, and the second is just making his observation formal. Shall we indefinitely block you based on these flimsy reports?

• When I said in the mass-topic-ban ARE thread from those few months ago that "these editors have turned this subject away from collaboration and have made it their own personal battleground, and at this point the only way we're going to come back from that is to remove them from the topic" this is exactly what I'm referring to. I've become convinced in the months since that the lot of them should just be indefinitely banned for even after all that still continuing to perpetuate this ridiculous feud. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, they're just here to push their point of view and to fight with anyone who isn't on "their side", and to harass their opponents with "bogus" reports like this one and the many ridiculous reports at SPI and ARE this year. That's all that this entire proposal is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is interesting that NadirAli had two indefinite blocks since vacation of siteban for copyrights issues. That is something an editor who is editing for a decade would better know about but that's completely missing in the case of NadirAli. There is no denial that sock-puppetry for evading scrutiny and editing in defiance of topic bans was continuously carried out. The recent topic ban violations and zero acknowledgement of problems with own conduct makes siteban as the only suitable option. GenuineArt (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Per my comment to MBlaze Lightning, the "zero acknowledgement" comment is not accurate. Here are the user's most recent edits, and the only one which relate to his block. He is clearly acknowledging his sanction. [82] [83] [84]. He definitely has not denied it anywhere. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - He was sitebanned before for same behavior. In this case the ban is clearly long overdue because he is frequently violating copyrights, attacks on ethnicity[85][86] even after warning,[87] filing spurious reports, breaching topic bans, exhibiting inability to contribute constructively, and engaging in each of these violations using socks for over so many years. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Because of the long list of sanctions and horrible block log. There seems to be a lack of productive editing and continued engagement in battle ground mentality even after being sitebanned for it earlier. The sock puppetry (including logged out editing) was probably last straw but he had to walk carefully since the ban in place of becoming subject to multiple topic bans. Onkuchia (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And strangely enough, this is your second edit ever on WP:AN after this one. No prizes for guessing what transpired there also! Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - To ALL partisan editors, please chill out. Blocking your opposition from Wikipedia will only reduce the quality of the entire platform. Focus on generating a healthy competition over coming up with reliable sources to support your own POVs which you all clearly hold, and dont turn this into personal disputes. Enough with this constant crying to the moderators over account/topic bans etc. Take the actual issues over content to arbitration, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, leave personal attacks out of it. Code16 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - Last year, I had started an ANI against NadirAli, and proposed a topic ban because of his recurring CIR issues. [88] That topic ban could've helped NadirAli, but now it seems like only a siteban can help him. Knox490 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Time and energy get spent into undoing willfull damage to articles in deliberate manner. Said editor is apparently guilty of doing such things for significant period of time, thereby leaving no other option at all. Devopam (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban as a) overkill (far too rapid an escalation for what is not an on-going problem) and b) unhelpful (would not address the underlyiing issues at all). I agree with Ivanvextor's (slightly) more nuanced approach. This very discussion proves the old adage, "a plague on both your houses" somewhat. The sheer amount of bad faith—on both sides—not only illustrates plainly that more than one editor is at fault, it also shows, equally plainly, that removing said individual from the theatre will make not a jot of difference to the toxic atmosphere. And on that, winding back on the various insinuations of sock / meatpuppetry would be a start. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that you spelled my name wrong. You might say I'm ... Ivanvexed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ooops! Apologies, Ivanvector  :) That was me (slightly!) more nuancing your name... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial, you may have made this comment in Good faith, but your rant above, makes me to conclude that your oppose !vote is a "drive by comment" citing "Everyone is fault" and Whataboutery, and I feel it is made without due diligence, just by reading some of the comments here. Well everyone is free to make his opinion in whatever way he feels like, one should understand that these comments of "blaming everyone" not only allows the problem to escape and get away but also encourages him and other similar actors that this is escapable. Knox490 above raised some more valid points. Volunteers are here to improve Wikipedia, not to indefinitely coach a tendentious editor who has no regard or respect for policies of WP:NPOV and Blocks/Bans. Do you really believe that Nadir was not given enough chance ? Countless warnings and even blocks were handed out and yet, he continued doing the exact thing he was sanctioned for. Admins dont want to get into content disputes and understandably so, but then the problems continues and editors working on the articles are left to tolerate the tendentious and WP:BATTLE behavior, and when they raise the problem here, Whataboutery is thrown at them. I feel the topic of the discussion is genuine and needs a serious thought based on its own merit, you may not be affected by it, doesn't mean nobody is affected. Yes "Give the person more rope", sounds good, but this has to have an end somewhere. Nadir, is only to blame for this situation by his own actions. --DBigXray 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• • @DBigXray: I wouldn't usually template a regular, but when you accuse editors that are making a good-faith assessment of ranting, that's all ya get. Make sure you archive it as quickly as possible. Good luck. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I am well within my rights of personal opinion to consider your "good faith assessment" that accuses the nom and others of "sheer amount of bad faith" as a "rant". Lets agree to disagree. Thank you. --DBigXray 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: You are very much mistaken. The fact is that your remarks verge upon being personal attacks, and mine did not. That you cannot understand the difference is—worrying. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support The editor has clearly been warned of his infractions. The blocking history reflects him to be an incorrigible sock puppet. This creates extremely unhealthy editing atmosphere in the improvement of articles on South Asian subjects. The repeated long term sock puppetry and large block log shows that siteban is necessary. Previous record of contributions can never be an excuse to let off a defaulting experienced editor, especially a repeat offender and one whose contribution history is so tainted. Let us remember that letting off NadirAli would set a precedent which would help future sockpuppeteers to wikilawyer their way from getting appropriate sanctions. AshLin (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - an interesting phenomenon occurring here is the number of experienced and active accounts commenting in this discussion who have either never edited this page before, or have not done so for very long periods of time. I don't have a hypothesis to suppose, but for example the comment above this one was made by an editor who last contributed at this noticeboard in 2012. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My edits are severely reduced due to my being diagnosed with a blood disorder and complications since some years, I spend less time on WP nowadays and generally prefer to edit constructively and argue less on issues and on noticeboards, though they are on watchlists. Once in a while I visit and comment occasionally. Check out my contribs. AshLin (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a catching thread. Using "evidence" that actually did not prove the point as an argument, caught my eye. AN and BN is a must read even in periods of "inactivity" or at least latest when returning to duty. Agathoclea (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - this user's sockpuppeteering and other abuses outweigh any positive contributions he's made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. -- Begoon 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose too many partisan editors for this forum to impose a community ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we're seeing the familiar pattern: editors from the Indian faction are joining to vehemently support the proposal, and the ones from the Pakistan side are fiercely opposing it. But it's easy to see who's who, so it shouldn't be too difficult for the closer to filter out the partisan "noise", should it? – Uanfala (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Ivanvector, funnily enough you had enough time for saying all of this at WP:ARCA but you didn't. Your own actions contradict your current attempts to change goalposts. You had blocked both sock accounts of NadirAli as his suspected socks and now you are saying something that not even NadirAli has said. CU has informed us that NadirAli deliberately engaged in logged out editing in violation of his Arbcom restriction.[89] CU also said that he was doing logged out editing in Kashmir-related subjects. He is currently topic banned from that subject. You can just say that NadirAli tried a little to evade CU but couldn't really evade it or avoid an impression of WP:DUCK.[90][91] The list of IPs and accounts including the ones that I had provided are not joejobbing because no one has time to replicate behavior of NadirAli. Each of those IPs and accounts  have made the same edits as NadirAli. NadirAli was not editing with his main account around that time and he is the only person who has claimed that Tarek Fateh was born in India,[92] and he enforced that outrageous BLP violation with his IPs too.[93] The high multitude of same distinctive POV pushing with those IPs is evident only in the history of NadirAli. Finally, if you really have problems with any other editors then you should consider opening separate threads about them. At this thread we are only discussing NadirAli and not anybody else. -RaviC (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaviC: ARCA is a forum for seeking clarifications of existing Arbcom rulings, and nothing more. I had a specific question about NadirAli's sanctions, I asked it, I got an answer, end of. You're the one who showed up with an off topic site ban proposal, clearly forumshopping your disagreement with the result at the NadirAli SPI. In much the same way that your ally My Lord did after Bbb23 told them we don't sanction for alleged violations of topic bans which occurred years in the past. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe, if I am not mistaken, it is not forumshopping when Arbcom themselves recommended RaviC to propose siteban on WP:AN. 3 months block is not much for sockpuppetry; and more so when it is still going on for this long. People keep getting site banned for exactly the same offense. NadirAli seems to display multitude of issues such as sock puppetry, attacks on ethnicity, copyright violations, topic ban violations, edit warring, several topic bans, WP:OR problem like Tarek Fateh etc. Thank you! Sdmarathe (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It was forumshopping for RaviC to have tried to effect a different result from the sockpuppet investigation by hijacking an ARCA thread to which they were not a party. Worm That Turned did suggest they should take it up here instead, which I have no issue with as far as forumshopping is concerned. As I explained in my closing comment on the SPI, I felt that Arbcom had already directed the appropriate sanction for NadirAli's logged-out editing, I merely enacted their sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. But people get indeffed for first or at least second instance of logged out editing and NadirAli appears to have done it with intent to mislead people and appears to be doing it for years. "Logged out editing" is not the only issue because NadirAli socked as Boxman88 and Posuydon to violate the topic bans. NadirAli appears to have done this even after promising several times that they won't engage in sock puppetry. That to me seems wrong that they are willing to show remorse and continue with same violation in future! That leads me to support that siteban is still necessary given the large amount of disruption and repeat violations. I certainly understand wikipedia should be a constructive, lively forum, but we need to hold users accountable for repeated disruptions. Of course, I do not wish to stretch this any further, but those were my additional 2 cents on this discussion :) Thank you! Sdmarathe (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the evidence for Boxman88 and Posuydon being NadirAli's sockpuppets is highly circumstantial. Those two accounts are blocked because the technical data showed that they were socks of each other, not of NadirAli. The tags on the accounts note the suspicion and refer to the page with details, because that's how the tags work - we don't have an {{obviously somebody's sockpuppet}} tag. Since the close of the investigation it came up elsewhere (in an unrelated case) that it's possible to adjust these tags to more accurately reflect the situation, and I will do so at the conclusion of this discussion but not before, for reasons that I hope are obvious. As for other users being indeffed for socking, yes that happens, rarely on a first offence not involving other misconduct (usually a term block in that case, a week or two) but sometimes when a user is socking but also disruptive or spamming or whatever, we indef them on the first go. When a user has been a contributor for as long as NadirAli has, and when there are many other circumstances to consider such as the divisive nature of the topics they often edit and the sometimes combative nature of others they're frequently in disputes with, when they have a more recent history of improved behaviour with respect to actions they were previously sanctioned for, when the supposed offence is unclear and/or isolated, and when (as I've alluded to in this discussion with admittedly less civil discourse) hardly any editor seeking sanctions for conduct in this topic area does so with clean hands, it's not so simple as "sockpuppetry == ban". I felt at the time and still do that indefinitely blocking NadirAli would cause Wikipedia to lose a prolific contributor while doing next to nothing to improve the WP:ARBIPA topic area (and noting that NadirAli is already banned from that topic), and thus on the balance it would be harmful to Wikipedia overall and particularly so to the other niche topics to which NadirAli contributes entirely free of conflict. Free, that is, except for the occasional score-settling revert from some other IPA editor from a past dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You had blocked NadirAli because he was "editing from alternate accounts and while logged out".[94] Block log entry made by you says "using multiple accounts and editing while logged out".[95]

• Boxman88 added a WP:SPAM link on Hindu on 6 January 2016[96] and 11 months later NadirAli edit warred on 11 December 2016[97][98] to restore that spam link.
• Boxman88 on 20 June 2015 added wikilinks like "*[[Languages of Nepal]]" on Languages of the Indian subcontinent[99] and NadirAli on 23 November 2016 added categories like "[[Category:Languages of Nepal]]" there.[100]
• What about these two 100% same edits[101][102] made on Dari language?
• NadirAli has a history of censoring the article "Partition of India" from Pakistan article. He censored it throughout 2007,[103][104] while Boxman88 censored it in 2015,[105] because NadirAli was topic banned at that time that's why he used Boxman88. Once NadirAli could edit this subject again he censored the article using his main account.[106]
• NadirAli censored the word "India" from Pakistan article in 2007,[107] and Boxman88 censored the same word in 2015,[108] when NadirAli was topic banned.
• Boxman88 censored the word "India" on Vedic period [109] in 2015 as NadirAli was topic banned from this subject, unlike in 2007 when NadirAli account was used to censor the word "India"[110] on this article.

Can you find same edits in the whole history of these articles outside these two accounts or anybody supporting those edits? Either NadirAli could imitate Boxman88 or Boxman88 could imitate NadirAli, but they imitated each other because these accounts are operated by the same person.

NadirAli has edited every single month since his return in May 2014 except entire April 2015 - 28 June 2015.[111] Boxman88 was mostly active from April 2015 - 28 June 2015.[112][113] NadirAli edited on 29 June 2015 and Boxman88 didn't edited that day but Boxman88 edited on 30 June 2015 and NadirAli made no edits that day.[114][115] Lorstaking (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained my rationale at SPI, and my later concerns with some of the findings of that SPI at least twice in this thread. Other editors reviewing can search for my username further up the page for my response to what Lorstaking has repeated. I am considering making myself a template for responses so that when the next editor in the line pretends to ignore what I wrote and drops the "but he's a sockpuppet!" comment, I can just type out {{NadirAli SPI reply}}, but it's not going to be today. I should note here that RaviC's edition of "but he's a sockpuppet!" appears below, and was written a few days before this comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Apart from making same changes in matter of days or months, these accounts have edit warred in tandem. See this one: Boxman88 makes a very dinstictive edit on History of Pakistan [116] and after 1 day NadirAli edit wars for restoring it.[117] That's complete WP:DUCK. According to your "rationale at SPI", NadirAli "evidently created sockpuppet accounts in violation of an Arbcom-imposed unblock condition".[118] One account (Boxman88) was created for editing Indian subcontinent and other account (Posuydon) was created for Science fiction - the only two subjects of NadirAli. Those two accounts have no overlap with each other,[119] and they can be construed as socks only if NadirAli's editing has been taken into consideration. Lorstaking (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

{{NadirAli SPI reply}} Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have prepared the following table after reviewing some diffs above as well as some recalled from my own experience for summarizing numerous severe issues with NadirAli, which are more than just sockpuppetry.

Issue	Evidence
Mass copyright violations	Large number of warnings have been posted on his talk page regarding copyvio and apparently he never heard any. He was blocked indefinitely in 2016.[120] after uploading images in violation of copyrights even after this warning. Later topic banned from uploading any images as unblock condition.[121] Violation continued and NadirAli was indeffed again in December 2016.[122] None of the above incidents helped him. He copy pasted most of the 32k bytes in May 2018.[123] He was warned for this mass copyright violation,[124] but he restored the copyright violation again,[125] by falsely claiming that he "trimmed quotes". Upon investigation he rejected any copyright violation[126] and abused proxy IP to support himself.[127][128] Later he blamed the copyright violation on User:Kautilya3 claiming that he learned it from him.[129]
Reports in WP:AE and WP:ANI	July 2017: "Warned not to edit war." July 2017: Closed as no consensus November 2017: "Warned to focus on content, not nationality". May 2018: "Indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan... warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block." Even after these reports, NadirAli continued to engage in edit warring and he has never stopped making personal attacks on other editors by speculating their nationalities. He has also violated this topic ban on various occasions.
Edit warring	He has engaged in mass edit warring. He was even blocked in May 2017[130] for that. Since examples of edit warring are too numerous, let us look at the two recent ones:- 31 May 2018: Margot Kidder - 3 reverts in 24 hours.[131][132][133] 12 May 2018: Princely state - 3 reverts in less than 40 minutes.[134][135][136]
Personal attacks on other editors by targeting their race or nationality	His attacks on other editors by referring his opposition as "Indian", "Hindu" for which he was sitebanned by ARBCOM in 2007[137] have continued to this day. I would not count each of them since there are too many. Let us have a look at those that came after numerous recent warnings from November 2017, given to him by multiple admins for attacking editors by speculating their nationality or ethnicity.[138][139] "after the POV pushing Indian editors... usual Indian nationalist occupation of Pakistani articles"[140] "constant disruptive editing by certain Indian users.. fourth by Indian POV pushers"[141] "case here that Indian editors have taken to harass"[142] "am referring to the Indians involved"[143] "whose value Hindu POV pushers want"[144]
General WP:CIR issues	NadirAli's large range of disruption shows that he still doesn't understand the basics of Wikipedia. Assumes bad faith in edit summaries:- "Do not attempt to intimate me by trailing my edits. i'll report you (or anyone else) accordingly if it reoccurs. Team-tag hounding will also be reported if required" [145] "POV my foot. I've cited the edits and you have been trailing me for this kind of purpose"[146] "continuous attempted harassment by same user. You better behave yourself" [147] ^^In all three examples you can only see him edit warring to restore his content but he never joined the talk page[148][149][150] to discuss his edits. Has violated his topic ban on various occasions in last 2 months[151][152] but claims he never did it.[153][154] Tried to WP:GAME the system by edit warring on WP:ARCA to remove his name from the topic ban appeal,[155][156] after adding his username by himself.[157] He has no idea what a vandalism is contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[158][159] Makes a page move by misspelling the "Bangladeshis" as "Bengladeshis"[160] and claims that Bengalis are Bangladeshis, despite large amount of population found in India and elsewhere. Claims "sources agree and are calling Pakistan a regional power",[161] when source exactly contradicts it by saying "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power".[162] Makes senseless votes on AfDs, such as "Keep as supported by WP:GNG"[163]. Only person to vote against "Keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike. This shows he has no idea about AfD either.

To make it very simple, NadirAli has many issues like language problems, edit warring, frequent assumption of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, copyright violations, sock puppetry, topic ban violations, battleground mentality, casting aspersions, ethnic POV pushing, proxy editing and so on.

He is exactly doing what resulted in the ARBCOM siteban in 2007 and his behavior has never improved but only deteriorated and retrogressed. We have enough evidence to establish that he is, in overall, disruptive. RaviC (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good research. Interestingly, just a few months ago, NadirAli was alleging others of "IP socking"[164], "using IP socks",[165][166] and I find that very ironic; since he himself engages in mass "IP socking". Bharatiya29 15:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are 18 blocks in his main account and many more in his IPs and socks. Even if he had never socked, the continued attacks by speculating nationality of users, several topic bans and complete failure to understand the policies are enough grounds for a siteban. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 09:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. As I had pointed out in this user's topic ban appeal at WP:ARCA; this is someone who has been intentionally and recklessly causing disruption to our project for a very long time now, be it through WP:CIR issues or sockpuppetry or copyright violations. He has been given so many "last chances", yet instead of compensating he has only caused more disruption. I believe the recent topic-ban violations, sockpuppetry, among other violations as noted in the table above are the last straw--and as a community we should not hesitate to show him the door. Bharatiya29 12:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the very persuasive evidence posted above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Given the gravity of the sanction being considered, may I ask you to actually read through the "evidence" above? As Ivanvector has said below, there's a lot of misbehavior listed there, but much of it is multi-partisan in nature, while a lot of the rest represents a genuine content dispute as evidence of incompetence. Maybe you will still believe a site-ban is necessary; but, at the very least, you would be supporting it with a more complete picture of what's going on. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Nice observation VNM, the editors here should simply disregard the loads of evidence that has been presented and instead think about the Illuminati and !vote accordingly. No picture is complete without mentioning the omnipresent Illuminati. I reckon, Nadir Ali had done all these above violations under the influence of Illuminati, so no one should blame Nadir. All Hail blame the Illuminati. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Don't be silly: all I'm doing is asking BMK to read the evidence for themselves. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Do you think that I had someone else read the evidence and then tell me how to !vote? I said explicitly above that my comment was based on the mass of evidence presented. I feel no need to go through it again, nor do I think that doing so will expunge NadirAli's block log, which remains one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: By "read the evidence" I really meant "read the entirety of the linked diffs and page histories". The table above is also evidence, of a sort, but I believe that it isn't an entirely accurate portrayal. If you've read through all of the links, and you're conclusion remains unchanged, we can agree to disagree on whether the site-ban is necessary. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I got a weird email today asking about NadirAli, followed up on the emailer's talk page], and from there discovered this whole magnificent thread. (I did not see a notice about this discussion at NadirAli's talk page, though I'm happy to drop one in.) Anyway, I'm reluctant to say support because Wikipedia isn't as much my community any more -- unless a wealth of time and energy kick me back into gear, I won't really be affected by this decision, and "the wiki belongs to the living." It also doesn't help when I only recognize ~two user names in this whole mess, both of whom I respect, and there's Black Kite (talk · contribs) saying a site ban too much and JzG (talk · contribs) is for it. All this hemming and hawing aside, though, I will share that when NadirAli and I bumped heads a couple of years ago, his underlying "I don't hear you" reminded me very much of User:A Nobody, nee Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Take that as you will. Miss you all. --EEMIV (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody thinks Nadir Ali is A Nobody. Collapsing as a digression--regentspark (comment) 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

43 article overlaps between A Nobody and NadirAli. [167] A lot of Star Wars stuff, but a lot of other things mixed in, making the overlap appear pretty unlikely to be random. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ...and 47 between me and you - [168], which surprised me somewhat. I'm not saying the theory is right or wrong, just offering a comparison, or "control" test, if you like. -- Begoon 05:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC) True, but one of the things I look for is the combination of a common subject area and unique articles which are not in any way connected to the subject area. Any two Star Wars fans are going to edit a lot of the same articles in the subject area, but if two of them do that and they both edit, say, the article on Anton Solomoukha, a "Ukrainian-born French artist and photographer", then you have a different matter, as it would be an unlikely overlap for two Star Wars fans. I don't see that kind of combination in the overlaps between you and I, whereas I do, to at least some extent, in the overlaps between A Nobody and Nadir Ali. In any case, EEMIV says that they didn't mean their remarks to be taken that way, so... Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I think it would likely not surprise anyone that Star Wars is a topic of interest to many people. As an SPI clerk, if I were reviewing a case where the evidence presented was that several accounts were all interested in Star Wars, I would consider it no better than noise. I'm generalizing: there's of course more complexity to this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Nononononono. I don't think it's him. The behavior is similar. Similar mindset. That's it. Turn off the klaxons. Stop taking it as you will, and take is I intended for you to take it because you can obviously read my mind. --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I would be very surprised if Nadir Ali was A Nobody. Their writing styles are very different. Assuming no one will object, I'll collapse this as a digression. --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Prolonged display of incompetence as adaquately evidenced above. Failure to understand massive violations in defiance of dozens of sanctions including blocks and topic bans shows another siteban is the only option we have. Excelse (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If an editor shows a constant trend of violating Wikipedia's policies, such as been presented in NadirAli's case, then a ban is necessary I think. I am always for second and third chances, but apparently NadirAli has continued with the pattern presented despite being given another shot. I have personally had only one run-in with NadirAli a few months ago, but on that one occasion he displayed a battleground and POV-pushing attitude and at one point I even suspected he was possibly using sockpuppets to influence a voting regarding the deletion/merging/keeping of an article. I voiced my concern and in that specific case it turned out he wasn't (despite another sockpuppet being discovered) but I now guess my intuition wasn't far off regarding him. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  @EkoGraf:. Re this diff, were you canvassed for this !vote? Please do make a declaration here if that was the case. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark:. Nope, that was a completely different matter, see my next edit here [169]. What happened was Lorstaking accidentally saw my personal email when I mentioned it in a discussion and wanted to advise me to remove it with the help of oversighters so others wouldn't see it. But you could say him contacting me on this matter (the email) lead to me coming here, because while I was waiting for his reply I checked his contribution history and saw he made a comment on this noticeboard about NadirAli. I remembered NadirAli from my previous encounter with him (see my above comments) and decided to state my own opinion on the matter of this editor. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: Between, here's where I first voiced my suspicions of NadirAli being a sockpuppeteer several months ago [170]. I hope this all clears it up? :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As per WP:EW and bringing a sense of confrontation to already sensitive and edit warring pages, also had to go through lot of arguments with a sock ! ? , have also noticed has misused wiki in all possible manner creating kind of menace, unfortunately see no other way Shrikanthv (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I have encountered with this user before on some Iran-related articles, including on the articles of Iranian cuisine and Iranian peoples, where I undid his edits per WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV. It appears that he has for long been violating WP:POINT and is WP:NOTHERE.
  —Rye-96 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Rye-96 is another user who has just suddenly remembered a two-year-old beef with NadirAli, having just today apparently randomly stumbled across a file NadirAli uploaded that was in use on a page Rye-96 has never edited, and that hasn't been in use on any page on the project since the end of 2016. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I have been editing articles related to Iran, especially in the area of ethno-linguistics, for a quite long time, actually. And yes, I happen to remember NadirAli. With or without my vote counted, this looks like a popular concern.
—Rye-96 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• A few notes on RaviC's table:

• The supposed copyright violation discovered in May 2018 was subsequently discovered to have been uploaded by a different user almost a year earlier. RaviC is the latest in a long line of editors who have misattributed this violation to NadirAli, clearly trying to draw sanctions inappropriately.
• The topic ban in May 2018 was applied to ten users simultaneously, in what was very much an end-of-the-rope "let's ban everyone and see if it helps" solution. Obviously it did not, but it is highly inappropriate to attribute this ban solely to NadirAli without mentioning the other nine users who were also banned. Some of their comments have already been struck in this thread.
• That edit wars in South Asian topics are "too numerous" should hardly be news to anyone here, but again, NadirAli is hardly the sole source of this problem. Same goes for personal attacks.
• As for CIR, these are content issues not competence issues. I just picked this one out because RaviC provided the source. As far as Pakistan's status as regional power is concerned, the quote provided is pulled from an introduction to a section discussing the query, "how do we understand Pakistan as a regional power?", a query which to me appears to be phrased as though the author is arguing the affirmative. It does open the discussion saying "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power." It then immediately qualifies this with "This alone requires additional clarification." The source then discusses interpretations of regional power for a few lines, and near the end of the source's preview we can find this statement: "Pakistan is clearly a significant power from a simple materialist perspective." It then goes on to discuss that argument up to the end of the preview; I don't have the offline source and cannot see what the author actually concluded. Regardless, I find it highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to assert that Pakistan is factually not a regional power based on this source. RaviC's insistence on one interpretation is a matter of fair editorial disagreement, not one of competence.

As I've asserted previously in this thread, the cherrypicking and misrepresentation of evidence on the part of the original proposer should be considered in context of the partisan nature of these editors and disputes. RaviC did not prepare this proposal to address a pressing issue (at the time, NadirAli had not edited in a month and is blocked for another two), chose a time when NadirAli could not reply directly, misrepresented my conclusions from SPI and continues to misrepresent them having had that misrepresentation clarified in this thread several times, has misrepresented a copyright investigation, and has misrepresented at least one source, in making the argument for NadirAli to be site banned. Not to mention EEMIV clearly being canvassed by GenuineArt, my comment above about Rye-96, other editors appearing here who never edited AN before, RaviC's arguments having been pulled from other editors who have tried the same arguments before - it feels like there is more to this than what we are seeing on the page. I don't suspect that whoever is behind it has the project's best interests in mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. NadirAli has major competence and temperament issues. He has been a time sink and numerous topic bans and blocks have proven that nothing has helped him enough to reform.  Second site ban is simply overdue at this situation. desmay (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support a Site-Ban. The block log is one of the longest I have seen. Enough is enough. This is an editor who obviously is not here to improve the encyclopedia, even if we don't know what they are here for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support for indef block/site ban Wikipedia must not entertain such editors who are involved in disruptive editing and using socks. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 09:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Call for close

I suggest that an uninvolved admin evaluate this thread and close it appropriately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we have enough feedback from the community on this case. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang for Orientls

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.

---

Going through this thread, it does not look like NadirAli is a problem anymore but continuous battleground behavior, misrepresenting the CU results, and attacking admins unnecessarily on Orientls part are a problem so why not turn it around against them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but I would like to note this is a wider problem involving others as noted in my comments regarding this case. The entire premise of this mess is axe-grinding and one-upmanship. Sigh. Mar4d (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reason I oppose the ban on NadirAli... Please stop involving admins over personal disputes, it wastes their time. Focus on the content and take content disputes to arbitration committees, and/or find more reliable sources. Code16 (talk)
  • The Arbitration Committee does not handle content disputes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • For disputes where the locus of conflict is a particular content issue, avenues for resolution are available in the guide at WP:DR (there's a thread somewhere up this page about exactly that). The disputes here are all bad blood and entrenchment, and admins should handle them with that in mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (probably moot given the subthread directly below) - while I'm disappointed and frustrated by yet more deliberate cherrypicking of sockpuppet investigation results to support a conclusion presupposed by the original filer of the ban request, the subsequent bad behaviour in this thread is not on Orientls. At least, it's hardly solely their doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violations in this thread

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

---

I've just blocked four different editors for violating their topic bans by participating in this thread. If you are topic banned from this topic area, the sniping is over for you. Further topic ban violations will result in further blocks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose the closer can ignore those contributions (both opposing and supporting, ironically) per WP:G5. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • They most certainly can and should. It wouldn't hurt to evaluate whether the topic bans in this area should be expanded as well. I'll leave that to someone else. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13, to make things easier for everyone, would you mind striking what these four have said? I don't think the closing admin should have to check everyone's block log when evaluating votes and statements. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13 and Nyttend: I went ahead just now and struck the topic-banned users' bolded !votes, but left the other comments intact since other users have already responded, and also noted where Kautilya3 struck their own comment. Feel free to check my work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Ivanvector, thank you for the help; it's nice and clear and neutral. And yes, thank you for noting that Kautilya's was self-striken, lest someone think that he'd been penalised for something. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: speaking of expanding sanctions, I noticed yesterday that you warned Kautilya3 to drop the stick (my paraphrasing) after a comment on Mar4d's talk page. Did you happen to notice that Kautilya3's next edit after your warning was to use the revert button on two year-old wikiproject assessments NadirAli made on an article he created two years ago, outside the India-Pakistan conflict, in a topic which Kautilya3 had never edited before? Maybe it's nothing, or maybe it's reflective of a series of NadirAli's edits that MBlaze Lightning swung by to revert, outside IPA and on topics they'd never edited before, after NadirAli was most recently blocked? Especially these two which were also messing around with NadirAli's WikiProject banners, but also all of these reverts. Given this discussion and everything else going on here, Kautilya3's revert hardly seems in good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. That was completely accidental. I have just reverted it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So, you just happened to be scrolling through NadirAli's edits, went back over a year, accidentally picked out one that was a most recent revision on an extremely niche topic you have no apparent interest in, accidentally clicked on Twinkle's big red vandalism button, accidentally accepted the resulting popup confirming you wanted to revert all of NadirAli's 2 preceding edits, accidentally closed the new tab that opened to NadirAli's talk page, and accidentally didn't undo your "accident" until eleven hours later and only after someone else pointed it out? That's one hell of an accident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, that's actually an easy mistake to make. If Kautilya3 was investigating past overlap between MBlazeLightning and NadirAli, it's unsurprising that he ended up there; and clicking rollback or twinkle rollback accidentally is something we've all done. I am however seriously concerned by all of this reverting outside the topic, and I'm wondering if an interaction ban may also be necessary in addition to the t-bans. Vanamonde (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I accept that clicking on one of the rollback buttons occurs by accident, we've all done it, I've done it several times I'm sure. But this is not that. Kautilya3 reverted on a page where the last two edits were made by NadirAli, and the edit summary indicates it was done with Twinkle. Unlike WP:ROLLBACK, Twinkle always reverts all contributions by a user back to the revision prior to that user's edits, and when reverting more than one edit it generates a browser message asking you to confirm that you intend to revert all of the user's past # of contributions; you then have to click "ok" to confirm. It would have been at that time, had Kautilya3 clicked the rollback button by mistake, where he could have cancelled the action, but chose not to. That's assuming he clicked the "vandalism" button; had he clicked "rollback" then Twinkle would have prompted him for an edit summary, and he would have realized the error at that time. But the edit was reverted, it's right there in the revision history, meaning Kautilya3 saw the dialog and accepted the action, and was aware that he was doing so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that my apology and self-revert haven't been accepted. I was indeed researching into NadirAli's edits around June-July 2017 late in the night. I was either half-sleepy or had dozed off in front of the computer. So I have no consciousness of what I did to achieve the result that occurred. All I can say is that it was completely unintentional, and I self-reverted as soon as you pointed it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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.

REVDEL on 1967 USS Forrestal fire

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.

---

Following this discussion, I'm looking for a second opinion on whether RD2 applies for BLP offenses such as this. My assessment is that they're not worthy of RD2 (not severe enough). Thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 20:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• No: I don’t think that’s a gross BLP violation, but a simple vandalism/BDP issue. Also, AN should generally not be used for this purpose, as it defeats the point of revdel, but I’m responding since I don’t think it qualifies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks; appreciate it. Maybe it's time I get on IRC. Airplaneman ✈ 20:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Either that or email the oversight team. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User Indici, uploading copyrighted images, automated creation of gastropod articles.

There is a user Indici, which appears to be either some sort of bot, or a user using automated scripts. The user has recently created a very large number of articles on gastropods. There is a concern that all of the images being used on these articles are copyright violations, some of which clearly have a watermark which indicates so. The user has also taken to overwriting articles with thier script's output, with dubious increased usefulness (See: Calliotropis_philippei). The user has not responded to the numerous comment and complaints about their behaviour on their talk page. The issue gets bigger with every new article they publish and I fear that what I have seen is just the tip of the iceberg. I cant spend time investigating myself at the moment, as I am at work. Could someone please look into this user's contributions and decide if action needs to be taken? The copyright images issue seems to be a pretty big problem. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, They claimed to be the owner of the images here=, but that is pretty much the only interaction they have had with other editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is user Indici here. I'm only trying to contribute our information that we have of the new described species of shells by citizen scientist and book author Guido Poppe. Many of the species do not have a page on wikipedia or have outdated information that has been pulled out automatically out of WoRMS many years ago. Also many of the species do NOT have an image. So a few days ago I took it on myself to start uploading all the missing information and images of all species that we described and discovered. I read that some people think these images are not mine. They can always contact me for more clarifications. There is no BOT, it is me who is entering and uploading all this information to wikipedia. ....added at 02:26, 23 August 2018 by Indici

Yes, you have been contacted for more clarifications. Make them here and now. These images that you are uploading: Do you own the copyright to all of them? -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

More urgently, please respond at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Indici. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be moving along at a snail's pace. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, apart from the image issue, it is extremely bad practice to completely overwrite existing articles with new material of doubtful quality. Taking as an example Conus beatrix, over which you edit-warred (as in a lot of cases) with Plantdrew: your version erases the reference to the original species description, distribution and size information, a number of useful external links, and the synonyms list. This amounts to a net loss of information, not an improvement. You cannot wade into articles like that and expect everyone to cheer you on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Understoond: I'll review this, it seems I misunderstood some of the workings of the system. I'll check and revert where needed and add the new information where suitable. --Indici (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, you have said "I've ownership of all the images uploaded." Unless you explain this persuasively at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Indici, I fear that they'll all be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And the image ownership claim implies an additional concern with WP:COI, besides the mass rapid-fire unexplained reverts and problematic changes; an advance discussion of game plan at WT:GAST might have saved some trouble. Dl2000 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the final version (1 Feb 2011) of the soon deleted page Conchology, Inc. read:

[...] In cooperation with other companies and museums, we aim to provide the best services worldwide and to enrich the malacological world with new informatic tools of significant purposes in the taxonomical/nomenclatoral fields. [...] The secondary function of our company is, as a consequence of the above, to promote the study of the systematics of the Mollusca. [...]

(my emphases). This was after seven edits by Indici; the only other edit was Zachlipton's request for speedy deletion (G11). -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici may have dropped out. See this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Quickie close?

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.

---

Folks are offended by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts; I've withdrawn it but cannot close it, as there are a couple of supports. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material

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.

---

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_blanking_of_talkpage_or_deletion_debates

This AfD discussion contains libelous assertions by User:M. A. Bruhn. That user says that certain professors, at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere, are

"co-opt[ing] mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

and that

"The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discour[s]e. No publications in journals outside their own", no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations."

Johns Hopkins University's Medical School is not a place where a physician becomes a professor without publishing a lot in respected scholarly journals.

The Ancestral Health Society's on their history says the founding members are Brent Pottenger, Aaron Blaisdell, and Chris Owens.

• Here is Brent Pottenger's web page identifying him as a physician at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and as a winner of the Samuel Novey Prize in Psychological Medicine conferred at the Convocation Ceremony for JSU's School of Medicine, and listing some of his works including publications in scientific journals, poster sessions, and other articles. Are we to think that this publication or this one are (quoting from the Wikipedia page whose courtesy blanking I am requesting) "entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discour[s]e" and that their author has done "no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations" and that he has published in "no [ . . . ] journals outside their own (i.e. that of the Ancestral Health Society)? This and other lists of his publications show his collaborations with other professionals, yet User:M. A. Bruhn asserts that there are none.

All this information is so easy to find instantly by googling that one must conclude that User:M. A. Bruhn did not attempt that simple task before making these false allegations.

• Here is the university web page of Prof. Aaron Blaisdell of UCLA's Department of Psychology, about whom User:M. A. Bruhn makes the same allegations.

These and other professors who publish in respected journals and have co-authors who are similarly situated professionals are those of whom User:M. A. Bruhn says they are "co-opt[ing] mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

I suspect that the doctors who were libeled will find that the page does no harm to their reputation, but if they did sue, I suspect their suit would fail because a Wikipedia AfD page is such a contemptible source that it could not harm their reputation, i.e. it's libel but not efficacious libel. However, the cleanliness of Wikipedia's soul makes it in Wikipedia's interest not to engage in libel. (oh .... Except that at least one of the doctors is in England, where the libel laws are stricter than in the U.S.)

I am requesting suppression or courtesy blanking of the page with the libelous assertions. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's normal to discuss the reliability of sources and how mainstream their authors/publishers are in a deletion debate. That's all I see M. A. Bruhn doing there. Note that the AfD in question is two years old and was part of the dispute that led to Michael Hardy being reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee. – Joe (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussing reliability of sources does not mean lying about them, saying they've never published in respected journals when they have, saying they have not collaborated with others in research and publication when they have, saying they are "co-opting" the standard terminology of the fields in which they are professors at prestigious universities in order to create a false appearance of respectability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And observe that legitimacy of an organization, not just the reliability of sources, and the honesty of individual professors, not just the reliability of sources, was not merely questioned but denied. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any significant behavioral issues here, or anything "libelous" either, so I would oppose blanking the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: : So there is nothing libelous in saying that a professor who publishes in respected journals has never done so, that a professor who jointly authors papers with others in his field has not done so, that a respected professor is trying to "embroider" his "efforts with an appearance of legitimacy" simply because he uses the standard terminology of his field?
Where I use quotation marks, I am quoting someone. Why do you use them with the word libelous? Indeed, do M. A. Bruhn's remarks not clearly imply that such a professor's efforts are not legitimate? Do you condone the statement that they are not legitimate? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose blanking. There is no libelous material in that discussion; there are only the standard strongly worded opinions and debates and assertions made at any number of WP:AfDs. The place to counter anyone's opinions or assertions would have been the AfD, which has been closed now for over two years. In my opinion Michael Hardy is massively wasting the community's time here, and considering his former related reprimand by the Arbitration Committee may warrant a WP:BOOMERANG for this time-sink, or even a WP:CIR block/ban for just not getting it. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • An addendum here: This is not his first stop. He also raised this at WP:VPP prior to coming here, so WP:FORUMSHOPPING also seems to apply. John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @John from Idegon: I inquired on that page, asking what is the appropriate forum for this issue. I did NOT post anything there similar to what I posted on this page. This is indeed my "first stop"; i.e. it's the ONLY place where I've posted this. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any serious issues that will warrant blanking much less suppression here, although M. A. Bruhn may have expressed himself using softer approach. Also seeing that this AfD is over two years old and ensuing ArbCase, it seems Michael Hardy still has unsettled issue with M. A. Bruhn even though they're no longer editing. I hope MH will understand how resuscitating this resolved, two-year old issue will not be of benefit to either him or the community, so it is better to forget this and move forward. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not only is M. A. Bruhn (talk · contribs) "no longer editing", it's fairly clear that the whole Michael Hardy bullying affair is what drove him off of Wikipedia at the end of the ArbCom case in late September 2016. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ammarpad: I don't have an issue with M. A. Bruhn and I can't see why it's not obvious to you that I have an issue with blatantly false material being kept on display. It says that respectable professors do not publish in respectable journals when in fact they do; it says that they don't collaborate in research with other professors when in fact they do; it says they are falsely trying to create an appearance of legitimacy. It is absurd to say that that is not libelous. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My sentiments exactly. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: You endorsement of abusive ad hominem is noted. And your disregard of facts concerning my history of Wikipedia editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: I am one of Wikipedia's most respected editors, and have been so for years. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Michael Hardy: You seem oddly passionate about getting a two-year old AfD blanked. Do you have a CoI to disclose? Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Simonm223: I have no connection with this organization. I am the original creator of an article, not about the organization, but about what they work on. It was deleted for lack of sufficient tertiary sources. Some have remarked on the fact that I've been "oddly passionate" about a variety of things at times. I explain it by saying it's because I'm a normal human. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: Since the time of Aristotle, ad hominem has been understood to be logically fallacious. And there's nothing but ad hominem in your comment, and in this instance it ignores my very extensive record. It is dishonest. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Just to note that whatever merits of the request filed by Michael Hardy are (I am not commenting on them) he is still a respected member of the community, and did not deserve neither casting aspersions, nor guessing about their motivation. May I please request the commenters to keep to the point (of the request). Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @John from Idegon: @Ammarpad: @Beyond My Ken: What would you consider libel? (1) An assertion that professors do not publish in respected journals is not libel when in fact they do, (2) an assertion that they do not collaborate with others when in fact they do is not libel, and (3) an assertion that they are creating a false impression of legitimacy is not libel, so what would be libel? Michael Hardy (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Warning on throwing around "libel", etc.': I doubt you'll find an admin to blank the entire discussion. It's delicate because what you appear to be alleging is a kind of "group libel" [171], where you have to factor out expressions of opinion, even "insults" or "epithets"[172]. Perhaps there is some uninvolved admin, or even editor, who would refer the matter to WMF legal (for targeted refactoring) but the admin or editor should be very circumspect in any expression on wiki that someone has committed a crime or civil tort. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alanscottwalker: Indeed. I have not done anything like this before. It's not something I "throw around". Michael Hardy (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose blanking - I'm not seeing anything libelous either, Why are we caring about a 2 year old AFD ? ... Does this ex-admin have nothing better to do with their time?...... Would suggest closing this pointless thread. –Davey2010^Talk 13:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: I am a current administrator. What is the nature of your competence in legal matters? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Not sure why I thought you were an ex admin however the point still stands, I'm not a know it all when it comes to legal stuff however I know libelous when I see it and in this case I'm not seeing it and neither is anyone else above me. –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Given the personal nature of the comments from everyone who has said there is no libel here, one can only have suspicions of strange political motives. Discussion should be of the issues rather than the sort of personal ad hominem stuff. I guess some people are conservative in supporting the in-group Wikipedia-Establishment. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Really?? I haven't commented on any of this, but your obsession with this remarkably obscure issue smacks of WP:COI and your amazing lack of good faith (paranoia even) casts doubt on your judgment as an administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Really. I must be paranoid when I see personal attacks instead of people addressing the issue, including "Softlavender"'s statement that I am generally incompetent as a Wikipedia editor, although I am one of Wikipedia's most respected editors. That is not proper behavior. Lack of good faith? There's plenty of that in this present thread. But it's not mine. Defending myself against personal attacks is not lack of good faith. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

An admin in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory is now floating conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence, for those who disagree with them. This is most troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Off-topic personal attacks are evidence. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Not of a conspiracy they aren't. MarnetteD|Talk 14:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I never said, nor thought, that there's a conspiracy. Read more carefully. 2601:445:437F:FE66:F5E8:18C7:9032:F66D (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If this post is from MH is there a reason that you are not editing from your account? The statement "one can only have suspicions of strange political motives" reads as a "conspiracy theory" as far as I'm concerned. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Much like Toddst1 I suspected a CoI because of the peculiarity of the timing of the blanking request. Waiting two years seems awfully odd for a good-faith concern over risk of libel. I have literally no vested interest in the original dispute though and am willing to take you at your word that you don't have a CoI. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who repeatedly refers to themself as "one of Wikipedia's most respected editors," clearly has lost the argument. In fact they should be looked at with the greatest of scrutiny. See WP:NVC, I am now thinking WP:CIR is an issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the personal nature of the comments from everyone who has said there is no libel here, one can only have suspicions of strange political motives.

Huh. I've been told that since the time of Aristotle, ad hominem has been understood to be logically fallacious. --Calton | Talk 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bugger Aristotle. Dunning–Kruger effect FTW. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: ok, By what theory do you explain my record of contributions to Wikipedia? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: @Roxy the dog: @Softlavender: @John from Idegon: @Ammarpad: @Beyond My Ken: Why do you not at least attempt to present any arguments?

• I said that a statement is libelous if it says that particular professors at respected universities are using the standard jargon of their fields only to create a false impression of legitimacy.
• I said a statement is libelous if it says that those professors do not publish in respected scientific journals when in fact they do.
• I said a statement is libelous if it says those professors do not collaborate with colleagues not belonging to a particular organization when in fact they do.

All of you have said I am wrong about those three points. Will you use only attempts at intimidation to silence me or can you present any arguments? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. Can we just 1) agree that we have consensus that there is nothing libelous at this AfD or any action needed there, 2) stop speculating on why Michael Hardy is so unaccountably passionate about it, and 3) close this ongoing waste of time? --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Block review of user Gunnermanz

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.

---

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

I yesterday blocked this user. I have never heard of them until several days ago, when they added a wall of text on Talk:RT (TV network) [173] (which is on my watchlist). After they were reminded (by another user) of WP:NOTFORUM they posted another wall of text equally violating NOTFORUM [174]. Then I hatted the topic. They were unhappy and responded with further walls of text (see [175] and the messages above that one) at which point I gave them a warning. Then I went to their talk page to log the warning and saw that earlier that year they were blocked for exactly the same behavior for 72h by NeilN but their only reaction was to remove the warning [176]. They have in total slightly over 200 contributions, and since 2016 I only see contributions on talk pages (last page of their contribution log), so that I decided to block them indef per WP:NOTTHERE. They are unhappy with that, but, rather than posting an unblock request they are posting further walls of text on their talk page. Since people in the past had issues with my admin conduct, and the user is complaining exactly about the admin conduct, I am bringing it here and would appreciate a second pair of eyes - may be I was too harsh with them? They seem to have made some useful contributions in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Good block but support lifting block anytime soon or whenever Gunnermanz writes a convincing unblock request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Good block; might be time to revoke talkpage access though.They also appear to have removed the block notice. Curdle (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the block, but I also concur with Curdle about revoking talk page access, especially considering this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• User talk privileges revoked. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• That looks fair enough, at least unless the user promises to stop using article talk pages as forums to post walls of text. I did especially like this 14k wall of text which starts with "I am extremely busy at the moment and this response is therefore written in some haste". Hut 8.5 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot to everybody who responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps he meant he was going to type his response really, really fast? Blackmane (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Block review

Just blocked User:Evansjack1, who appears to have been a problematic editor more or less since the start. He hasn't edited in a while, but has gone right back to the behavior that led to two other blocks before. It appears he's only here to edit the article about himself to remove controversial information (despite having been advised to only edit the talk page due to COI). As you can see on User talk:Evansjack1 he seems to lack the basic competency to interact productively with the editing community, and he seems to be here mostly to scrub his Wikipedia article. Bringing this for review because of the potentially high-profile subject (although I'm not sure his identity was ever actually confirmed). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I remember this editor well. This is long term (even if sporadic) disruptive editing, and I endorse your block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to help this user a few days ago and opened a discussion on the talk page about a reasonable complaint they had regarding inappropriate text in their article. And there was clear agreement from the local editors with his viewpoint that the text in question was inappropriate and should be trimmed (save for the user who wrote the content). Jack then immediately proceeded to derail the discussion with a laundry list of edits he wanted made to the article. The local editors, without blinking, began discussing his issues point-by-point and at length, as you can see on the talk page. So, while I sympathize with someone having an article and feeling that they're treated unfairly in it, Jack was receiving a high degree of hands-on assistance from people who were genuinely trying to help improve the quality of his article while listening to his input and attempting to address his concerns, in spite of the fact that he was obviously attempting to be way too controlling over his own article. Given that, there's really no excuse for him snapping like that and edit warring over the removal of content. I very recently told him not to edit the article, and he should be well aware of the COI standards we have by now. It's a reasonable block, and he will definitely need to accept a topic ban from editing his article as part of any unblock. Swarm ♠ 07:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This block has now been written about by DCist: <http://dcist.com/2018/08/jack_evans_maybe_got_blocked_from_w.php>. Someone should perhaps e-mail ComCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of Comcom. If anyone there is reading this, FYI, I just responded to a query at OTRS, from what appears to be a member of the press. ticket:2018082710010828--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC close review

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 RfC Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance? was recently closed by Winged Blades of Godric (WBG). Given the controversial nature of the topic, and the "close call" in opinions expressed by editors, I had requested a closure by an uninvolved admin.[177] Accordingly, I asked WBG to revert and let an admin process the close. (See User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Admin close?) However, shortly after our dialogue started, WBG failed to reply further, probably busy in real life. Meanwhile, the closure asserted by WBG has been implemented in the article, but editors are already disputing it the wording in a new section. For all these reasons, I believe that fresh eyes on the RfC are needed. I'm not sure of the procedural details, but I was advised to post here. — JFG ^talk 20:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: There was prior consensus, established in February 2018, to omit accusations of racism from the lead section. Obviously, we all know that WP:CCC, but the question becomes: is there enough new information about Trump's "racially charged comments" since February, and does this new RfC express sufficient support to override the consensus from six months ago? — JFG ^talk 21:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve just read through the RFC and I’m finding it difficult to understand how the closer found consensus. This needs to be revisited. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of academic, because the RfC has effectively been superseded by a more recent discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That discussion was predicated on the disputed close and was started 21 minutes before the close was disputed on the closer's TP. Few if any editors knew it was disputed, including me. Perhaps JFG should have posted a comment to the effect that the "specific-wording" discussions were premature until the dispute about the more general question was resolved; I'm guessing he failed to anticipate an argument like yours above. But the shortest path to article content, if any, was, rather than suspend the issue for a week or two while the close dispute was processed, to allow the "specific-wording" discussions to proceed with the understanding that they were contingent on the close holding. That reasoning is just as valid without a "premature" comment from JFG. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was puzzled to see this "weak consensus" quickly added to the current consensus list, which traditionally has been reserved for strong and undisputed consensus adjudications. Then, reading the reasoning of the closer, I was even more puzzled. In particular, I wonder how he could assess consensus from "a rough weight-based re-count of heads" (his words), which, not knowing how he did his weighting, and seeing 8 support and 10 oppose unweighted !votes, brought me to doubt the outcome and request fresh eyes here. If we don't count heads and just look at the closer's reasoning about discussants' arguments, he seemed to dismiss the voices of opposing people because he was "not much impressed" with their arguments, but he did not comment on the voices of supporters, except for one person who wrote what he called an "excellent rebuttal". The conclusion of consensus to include looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE to me. — JFG ^talk 23:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: As I understand it, a supervote is where the closer expresses a position on the issue and allows their position to affect their close. Consensus is about strength of arguments, and who should judge strength of arguments if not the uninvolved closer? I grant you that this is susceptible to the closer's natural bias, but this is the best we can do until we eliminate humans from the close process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I can't read the closer's mind, and I wish he could clarify his reasoning if he comes back online. I am only disputing his reading of the discussion. Some experience at WP:Move review has rendered me sensitive to the possibility of supervoting, even unconsciously. We are all humans, equipped with an intuitive pattern-recognition engine that we must actively silence when processing contentious discussions. — JFG ^talk 00:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I support any call for admin review from an established editor in good standing who lacks a reputation for wikilawyering abuse of process. This qualifies. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Blush) (There must be an emoji for that but I'm on an old-skool physical keyboard.) — JFG ^talk 00:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

{{blush}} › Mortee _talk 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It's not exactly "academic" because the topics are different. The new discussion is about using the "racially charged" euphemism or directly reporting allegations of "racism". The main topic of the RfC was whether to include something about "racially-charged comments and actions" in the lede section at all. Prior consensus was a clear "no", but the recent RfC was more evenly divided. The new discussion started developing while the RfC closer was off-wiki, hence the overlap now. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

JFG, this statement of yours is inaccurate: the closure asserted by WBG has been implemented in the article, but editors are already disputing it in a new section. That “new section” you linked is not a dispute of the close. It is a discussion of the exact wording to be used, implying an acceptance of the close. Exactly as anticipated by the closer, who said But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. I honestly don’t see any dispute of the close on that talk page. (Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED at that page.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree; I have amended my statement accordingly. It does not change the fact that this RfC was a very close call on a sensitive topic, so that a review of this NAC is warranted. I have not participated in the discussion about wording because I think the close should be revisited first. The fact that the same arguments are coming back in the discussion indicates that consensus is hard to find. Note that even though I opposed the inclusion in the RfC, at the end of my long discussion with Snow Rise, I suggested that perhaps there was a way forward with writing the text from a different angle. — JFG ^talk 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree it was a "close call" at all. The weight of argument was clearly on one side, even if the number of !votes was less persuasive. I didn't even bother !voting, since it seemed so clear cut. Frankly, I'm weary of the number of RfCs at that talk page. In the good old days, RfCs were only necessary when there was some kind of a deadlock that needed to attract more editors, but now their only real purpose is to get an uninvolved editor to perform a close and stop the squabbling. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure why Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) hasn't submitted to the RfA gauntlet yet ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You're seeing the reason right here. ansh666 03:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Isnt it expected that a closing editor (admin or non admin whatever) is expected to explain in detail (if asked) his judgement for the closing statement ? There has been a request at [178] Winged Blades of Godric could have explained his closure but I dont find that explanation anywhere. While we are debating it here, can someone point me to it, if I missed that explanation from Winged Blades of Godric. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of explanation:

I am not much impressed by the arguments from some of the opposers (MONGO, JFG, GW) all of whom has been excellently rebutted by Snow.I similarly fail to parse PackMeceng's last line, in light of the abundance of reliable sourcing on the issue and some arguments by the last !voter, which can be assigned as OR. That leaves us with WP:LABEL (which does make an exception in cases of abundance of reporting by reliable sources) and WP:WEIGHT. A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion. But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. ∯WBG^converse 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

-- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi  Scjessey You have simply copy pasted the Closing statement from the RFC. Clearly this statement was not sufficient for the folks invovled in the RfC which is why they approached WBG on his talk page here [179]. And since then I have not seen any statement from WBG explaining the consensus. What I am trying to say here is that the Closing editor should be ready to explain his closure to the people who ask for it. If the Closing editor is unable or unwilling to further discuss his closure with the involved editors, then I believe he should not proceed with the closure in the first place. All this debating/drama/time on this thread at AN above could have been prevented if WBG could provide a suitable answer for his actions. That is missing and that is all I am trying to point here. cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Godric has been offline for the last four days. He made a couple of edits today so maybe he is back, but he can't be blamed for not replying when he hasn't been here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

May be, but WBG did reply to the involved editor here and he chose to ignore the Elephant in the room, which is the "further discussion" of his closure statement. WP:AN/RFC clearly states that Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. The whole point of writing these policy lines on the RFC page, was to avoid threads such as this one on the AN pages. hope WBG returns back soon and explains his closure. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WBG made two edits today and not a peep from them about this, despite the multiple pings here. Not even a "hey real busy IRL but I'll get to this soon". This thread amounts to a non-admin review of the close, by editors including three involved. There is no such process in policy. We are not here to debate the close, we are here to debate the legitimacy of the request for admin review of the close. That's the process. There is zero evidence that the request was brought in incompetence or bad faith, nothing more should be required, and I suggest an admin accept the request for review. If Scjessey is correct, it will be an easy review and JFG will no doubt accept the result. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been quite busy in IRL and have not received any ping or notification, as to the existence of this thread aprior to Pac's t/p message.I'll try to address the issues, sometime later in the day.Best,∯WBG^converse 03:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected to post this notice. Glad you're back. — JFG ^talk 03:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviews at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE are undertaken by the community, not by a single admin; if a consensus exists here to overturn the close it will be overturned. There is no especial process for reviews of non-admin RfC closures whereby one admin can review it (and overturn it if it is bad) that I know of Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

and this makes sense, because involved parties whose opinion did not match with the (non-admin closure) will follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and misuse this option to request an Admin as a new closer with some possibility of a favourable close. It is ok to ask for a review but lets first wait for WBG to explain his closure. the community can then comment if it is supported or needs to be overturned. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

and this makes sense, because involved parties whose opinion did not match with the (non-admin closure) will follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and misuse this option to request an Admin as a new closer with some possibility of a favourable close. Not so much. The same potential for abuse exists whether it's one admin or multiple non-admins. Either way is another roll of the dice.
I stand corrected then, Galobtter. I got it wrong partly because a single-admin review would make more sense to me than a "consensus about a consensus" discussion—who assesses that consensus? (I have to keep reminding myself that the words "logical reasoning" do not occur at WP:5P.) At the very least involved editors should be excluded from the review for obvious reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is basically like a WP:DRV or WP:MRV Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I know it was a copy/paste. My point is that the rationale provided at closing was more than sufficient explanation. I'm uncomfortable with close reviews being sought by editors who aren't happy with the result of a close, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A "close challenge" is meant to be made when there is some sort of obvious problem with the closer's reading of consensus that should invalidate it, not simply because you disagreed with the closer's reading or because another person might have closed differently. You are correct that WP:NACD advises that "close" or "controversial" discussions are "better left to admins", though as a general rule, WP:CLOSE is clear that being an admin isn't a prerequisite. The non-admin close was, procedurally, poor form, but not necessarily a breach of policy. That aside, it looks like a valid close to me. I'm not sure how anyone can claim there was no explanation, there was a clear explanation of how weight was assigned in determining the consensus, with specific arguments and rebuttals specified. A non-admin doing the closure is not a sufficient reason to overturn, given that the closer is a highly established editor in good standing, and the only other reason I'm seeing for even disputing the close is this comment, which directly prompted this close review and was essentially echoed above with the SUPERVOTE allegation. Let me be extremely clear: accusing a closer of making a bad faith close based on personal bias, without evidence, is a personal attack and an aspersion. It needs to be directly substantiated with evidence, or it is in itself an offense. So, if the concern is strictly an NAC, I will endorse the closure, problem solved. If the concern is bias, evidence is required, or the claims need to not be repeated again. If there are other valid reasons for overturning this close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, let's hear them. Swarm ♠ 22:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm The !votes were 8 support and 10 oppose, with the closer somehow finding consensus in the clear minority. That is not consensus. If RFAs are closed no consensus at 70% then I’m simply baffled how an RFC finds consensus at 44%. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Surely this is a textbook example of WP:!VOTE at work, is it not? The closer found the "majority" did not present a solid enough argument, despite accumulating more !votes. What's more, the discussion about the specific wording in the more recent discussion, and the strong consensus it appears to be achieving, backs up the closer's reasoning (albeit after the fact). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly right. It is entirely possible to have a minority consensus. It's unusual, but fundamental. The theory behind this is that when a minority viewpoint demonstrates that it's more in line with overarching consensus (i.e. policies and guidelines) than a majority viewpoint, the overriding community consensuses supporting that minority view are factored in. Not only is that allowed, but it's the fundamental principal behind the system by which this whole project is governed. Consensus is judged by adherence to policy above all else. If the closer felt that multiple !voters were refuted with policy-based counterarguments, then that very realistically tilts the reading of consensus away from the typical "majority rule" we're used to. The key here is that such readings are not meant to be arbitrary. They need to be rooted in hard policy. That's why the first thing I checked when I saw "excellent refutations" was whether these refutations were rooted in policy or whether the closer simply "liked" them better. They were indeed rooted in policy, so it seems procedurally valid to do what the closer did here. Swarm ♠ 01:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, I hear you saying that, while "'close' or 'controversial' discussions are 'better left to admins'" per NACD, a non-admin closer is free to ignore that guidance—even if an admin has previously been requested per that guidance. Per Wikipedia tradition, it's guidance that means nothing in the end, is unnecessarily complicated, and serves only to send even experienced editors in several different directions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, it's guidance that's there for a reason, of course. But that's not a firm rule, even relative to the rest of Wikipedia rules, which are supposed to be considered flexible and ignored when needed. I understand the frustration, and certainly think WBG should learn from this (it's usually best to avoid actions that result in avoidable drama). However, it's not a valid objection to overrule an otherwise-valid close. Swarm ♠ 01:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The lack of inclusion of recent consensus into the close makes this a bad close and one that should be overturned. Consensus can change, but a minority vote should not be able to change a firmly held decision made by previous consensus. It reeks of a "you quoted policy but I interpret it differently" supervote. I personally think the line should be included, but there is no way I would ever try to pull a support consensus out of that discussion, especially with something similar reaching a different consensus just six months prior. Nihlus 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The guidance from consensus policy appears to be the opposite of what you're saying. See WP:CONLEVEL. The previous discussion was a local consensus, whereas this was a formal RfC, which is a higher level of consensus that inherently overrides any previous local consensuses. And there's WP:CCC, but I think that point is moot, because the two discussions didn't ask the same question. The "previous discussion" was a direct proposal to include the phrase "criticized as racist". The RfC was a general question to include a sentence about Trump's racial stance, with a tentative proposed wording that was entirely different than the previous discussion. No, I think you're grasping at straws here. You were the one who actually prompted this challenge, and in the same comment you directly claimed that the close was influenced by personal bias. Do you have any evidence of that? Swarm ♠ 03:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Where did you read that it is a "higher level" of consensus because I don't see that on that page anywhere? There is no global consensus on it so your point is irrelevant. And obviously consensus can change, that was very clearly not the point I was trying to make. The topics are so close to being the same that the small difference doesn't matter at all. Even without the prior discussion, I would not have closed it the same as it is obvious there is no consensus there. Further, please point me to where I said that the close was influenced by "personal bias," because I assure you I have made no such comment. I'll actually ask you to retract that statement. Thanks. Nihlus 04:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, I think Swarm is talking about this quote from User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Admin close?: No, it's a terrible close by WBG and one in which your perception is biased. I think it's reasonable to interpret your comment that way, although I suppose you may try to distinguish between "perception" and "personal"; in either case, it would be helpful to have evidence of perception bias to move things along. Alex Shih (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL is a very fundamental aspect of consensus, and it's not complicated. A community consensus is a higher level of consensus than a local consensus. An RfC is a community consensus, as opposed to a local consensus. I find it hard to believe you're not yet familiar with this concept. And, yes, I don't see any other way of interpreting the phrase "your perception is biased". That's an allegation of bias. Now, I'm not going to pedantically argue about what you intended to say, I will gladly retract my comment as soon as you clarify what you meant by "bias". Swarm ♠ 04:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You both realize that my comment was directed towards MrX and his bias in saying that the close was appropriate as he had participated in the discussion, right? Further, there is no local consensus trying to override an RfC, which is why I was confused by your seemingly misplaced comments. The “local” discussion came first where there was strong opposition to include. The RfC followed and reached a no consensus but was closed incorrectly. Your train of thought is hard to follow as I am struggling to see the relevance to the discussion at hand. Nihlus 05:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no, I misunderstood your comment as being directed at WBG. Sorry, that's my mistake. I've struck that out. I'm sorry you find my "train of thought" hard to follow, I'm just trying to cite the relevant policies in the most simple way possible; if you need clarification on anything, I'm happy to provide it. The point of contention here is obviously that you think WBG misread a "no consensus" as a "weak consensus". That's simply not sufficient reason to overturn, or even challenge, a closure. The prior "local" discussion that you're claiming should have influenced the reading of consensus in the RfC, in short, would have no bearing on the RfC, even if it was the same discussion, which it wasn't. Swarm ♠ 05:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling a sitting president a racist in the lead, whether or not it is true, is something that needs to be done carefully and a "weak consensus" to do so is problematic. Failing to take into consideration a pattern of consensus, regardless of whether or not you think it is local or not, is problematic. As it is the basis of almost everyone's argument here, I'll ask that everyone read the second line of their WP:CCC argument: On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. What may be recent to some may not be recent to others, so your mileage may vary. With that being said, I don't need clarification on your interpretation of a policy; we'll just agree to disagree, as we are wont to do. Nihlus 12:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Holding a political office does not afford a subject any special treatment on Wikipedia, for very good reason. I honestly don't know what a pattern of consensus is supposed to be.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep citing WP:NACD. That is a shortcut to the deletion process. We're not talking about a deletion discussion, so it's not really fair to say that it was e.g. "poor form" for a non-admin to make this close as WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE (which has separate sections for challenging deletion discussions and "other closures" like RfC) are clear that any uninvolved editor can do the close. Might as well say it was improper because WP:RFA says discussions should be closed by bureaucrats. I also don't get emphasizing numeric majority. If we're going by numbers then it's a vote, not a !vote. The reason we call it the latter is because consensus isn't necessarily reflected in the numbers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I only brought it up because JFG cited a WP:BADNAC criterion as being the original reason for his complaint, and I remembered NACD it to be the actual policy behind WP:NAC, which is merely an information page. As both redirect to specific sections, I completely overlooked the fact that neither of them are even applicable as they refer to deletion policy. Thank you for pointing this out. Winged Blades of Godric, I apologize for saying your closure was in poor form—that was purely an oversight on my part. Agree with the rest of the above sentiments. Swarm ♠ 03:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: An apology is non-necessary and I agree with your comments, in the entirety except as to the point of non-admins not closing controversial RFCs.Thanks,∯WBG^converse 05:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Closer's rationale

• Comment--
  • I will start off by apologizing to to JFG for not tending to the t/p thread due to RL issues.
  • I will largely border on an overall analysis of the !vote(s), (along with their corresponding rebuttals) and how I weighed them.
  • Thus,
    • To start off, it is beyond dispute that the host of sources do mention Trump to be indulging in some form of racism with varying words and forms.
      • Caspring's argument
        • OK
      • Snow Rise's argument has been excellent (Vide something of this sort is WP:DUE for the lead).
      • GW
        • Snow's rebuttal has been again superb, in my eyes. (Vide and thus has no weight when measured against an inclusion issue that needs be judged under WP:V and WP:NPOV......we evaluate the sources on their face value without filtering them through our own meaning making and assumptions about what the sources "really meant"....)
        • I will say that I was convinced that given the volume of reliable-sourcing, the inclusion can't be countered on grounds of word-style, alone.But, I will also concede that there were scopes for improvement which led to my scopes for tweaking.
      • MrX.
        • Initiator.Brought a host of sources.Good enough:-)
      • MONGO's argument, is in my opinion, worthless.
        • Read Snow Rise's rebuttal, for my classification.
      • MarkBasset's argument was good.Also, goes for PacEng's arguments
        • Except that I'm hazy about how it violates WP:LEAD (Please point to specific lines, when you are pointing to page-long guidelines....) and also that WP:RACIST does not offer a blanket prohibition on the usage of racist et al.
      • HunterM267's argument might have been been far more valuable if the sources did not pertain to Fox News.Umm........But, it was good, as a direct rebuttal.
      • JFG's argument
        • It was a pleasure to read his discourse with SnowRise.But, once again Snow's arguments have been superb.I also do not like JFG's last reply which sought to indulge in original research to discover about Trump's racist stances.What matters and what solely matters is how reliable sources perceive Trump's actions/statements/policies.We don't have to rake our brains to double-check the media.
      • Wumbolo's argument was Okay-ish.
      • OID
        • Hyperbolic but well-grounded enough in light of previous arguments and evidence.
      • MarieParadox
        • Was seemingly just a vote but ought be counted in light of Caspring's reasoning.
      • Fleischman
        • Quite potent argumentation. (Vide tremendous amount of RS coverage)
      • Fyunck
        • Supports the theme but not the wording.
      • Coretheapple
        • Logical and good enough.Placement's a matter of editorial discretion and no weighintg can be done.
      • Aquillion
        • A very-well-crafted succinctly-put argument.Agree in entirety.
      • Dankster
        • Good enough.Thinks the statement to be prudent enough to deserve a lead mention, unlike Coretheapple.
      • LiteratureGeek
        • A host of original research.Media might be sensationalist but when a host of highly reputed media sources choose that path, umm.......we have to go down that line.Also, read Snow Rise's reply to MONGO.

In my opinion, the above discussion leads to a policy-based consensus for inclusion of the broader theme of perceivement of trump's comments and actions as racist/racially charged, though there is a bone of contention as to the precise wording of the sentence.

Further discussions at a subsequent thread for fine-tuning the wording seems to be moving quite productively.

I will also like to invoke the fact that closing discussions aren't executed by a count of heads and that an argument which has been countered well-enough is quite less weigh-able, in the eyes of the closer.

I also agree with Mandruss that whilst I try to evaluate arguments, as neutrally as possible (and I am not editorially involved, either in APOL in any form or manner), this (the closure) is susceptible to the closer's natural bias, but this is the best we can do until we eliminate humans from the close process.

Nihlus, consensus can change and the poser(s) are not same.

Thank you.∯WBG^converse 05:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for that full explanation, which I think fully backs up your close rationale, and will surely satisfy JFG. As I mentioned before, I did not participate in this discussion but I would've supported the inclusion of the material, of which the wording is now being discussed in the subsequent thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WBG for bringing the dish everyone was killing over. Courtesy ping to JFG,User:Mandruss, User:Nihlus to confirm if they have anything more to add to this discussion. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If the only requirement is that the closer lay out some detailed reasoning, with no need for highly-qualified, uninvolved, thorough evaluation of that reasoning, then that requirement has been satisfied. It may be the best we can expect with limited resources. Nothing further to add. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal: no consensus

First, I thank Winged Blades of Godric for taking the time to provide a more detailed rationale for his close. Unfortunately those details only highlight a contradiction between the closer's reading of the discussion and his own conclusion. In WBG's closing message, he stated: A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion. Now we can read his clarification of the weighting he applied to each participant's arguments:

• Supporting arguments accepted: Casprings, SnowRise, MrX, Only in death does duty end, Marie Paradox, Dr. Fleischman, Aquillion, Dankster
• Opposing arguments accepted: Markbassett, PackMecEng, HunterM267, Wumbolo, Coretheapple
• Supporting arguments rejected: none
• Opposing arguments rejected: GorillaWarfare ("Snow's rebuttal has been again superb"), MONGO ("worthless, read Snow Rise's rebuttal"), JFG ("once again Snow's arguments have been superb"), Literaturegeek ("A host of original research. Also, read Snow Rise's reply to MONGO.")
• Unclear assessment: Fyunck (opposed the RfC text but said he would support an alternate wording)

This gives a "weight-based re-count" of 8 supporting voices (all accepted), 5 opposing voices accepted, 4 opposing editors whose arguments were rejected, and 1 opposing who was not counted because he might support an alternate wording. Even if we entirely discard the opinions of 5 people that WBG rejected (almost all on the basis of SnowRise's comments), that leaves us with 8 supporting voices and 5 opposing ones, so that it's very hard to infer even a "weak consensus" from such an assessment; the prudent path would have been to conclude "no consensus". WBG also had the option to contribute his voice to the discussion and let somebody else close it.

There is indeed no dispute that many sources have reported on Trump's "racially-charged comments and actions", and those are appropriately reflected in the article, in a "Racial views" section. The question under examination was whether this issue should be mentioned in the lede section, and how. WBG concluded that it should be mentioned, and left the wording to be discussed further; however the wording was a key element of the question. Other RfCs had been launched in parallel with different wording proposals, and they failed. Contrary to WBG's assertion, the post-RfC discussion about wording is not "moving quite productively", it has plunged into a quagmire of opinions arguing whether we should qualify Trump's deeds as racist directly or using various euphemisms including the one proposed in the RfC text. The very fact that it is so hard to agree on wording should have weighted the closer's conclusion to a "no consensus" reading.

WBG also failed to address a key argument in the discussion: how to take prior consensus into account. In my introduction to the close review, I wrote: There was prior consensus, established in February 2018, to omit accusations of racism from the lead section. […] Does this new RfC express sufficient support to override the consensus from six months ago? I have not seen a reply to this question. It is interesting to note that the proposed wording in February sounded milder ("Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied."), and was nevertheless rejected by a wide margin of editors (5 support to 13 oppose 1 neutral). Some commenters argued that the question was different, but others have assessed the questions to be essentially the same; again, it all depends on the wording.

For the last two years, disputed statements in the Donald Trump article have been closely monitored with a list of accepted consensus, including formal RfC outcomes and informal discussions that showed clear-cut agreement among a large sample of editors. This mechanism has promoted article stability, and has avoided repeat discussions of similar issues. When new information arises, consensus is amended. This latest RfC has too weak a consensus (according to WBG) to be elevated to a binding item on this list.

In summary, I urge the community to revert to a finding of "no consensus" for this particular RfC. Editors could then propose other variants to address the racism theme in the lede section. There are many ways to skin this cat, but the one proposed here did not gather sufficient agreement. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Anything around 60% is indeed weak consensus, unless we are setting up new policies/guidelines.As to why I derived from Snow's rebuttals, was that they were too well based in policy. The prior discussion was with an entirely different poser and quite much ago.Consensus can change.∯WBG^converse 06:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish people in this discussion would stop spouting "consensus can change" as if that will make people's concerns immediately invalidated or something. Of course it can change, no one has said that it couldn't. People are merely saying that such a "weak consensus" (your words, not mine) should not be enough to overturn a previously established and "strong consensus" for the opposite. The best route is to either let the conversation continue until a stronger consensus can be reached or default to the previous consensus (or no consensus). Dismissing individuals' arguments that you don't agree with is a supervote and another reason this should be overturned immediately. Nihlus 07:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nihlus here, this is not a consensus can change situation. Especially after such a short time with nothing new added. It is a rehash of the essentially the same RFC. Also they are correct again that a weak consensus like that should not overturn a recent strong consensus. Finally, setting aside if this is actually weak consensus, is weak consensus really the bar for inclusion of a contentious label to the lead in one of the most viewed BLP articles these days? PackMecEng (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Why are you continuing to question this? A large proportion of the "regular" Trump article editors have clearly moved on and are working constructively on appropriate language. Does this serve any useful purpose whatsoever? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering our feelings about Trump, I think ethics would suggest that we let uninvolved others decide when to shut down a review of a close that adds Trump-unfavorable content to his bio. Don't you? And this is not a WP:STICK situation when there are three experienced editors opposing the close. As for other editors moving on, see my first comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, what I'm waiting for, is the opinion of un-involved editors (JFG and PackMec are both involved, Nihlus, you and Scjessey ain't) .Once, I see three-four un-involved long-standing editors, disagreeing with my closure with no one in support, I'll gladly (and ought to) revert.∯WBG^converse 13:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for comments by uninvolved editors, that's what the close review is for. Will try and draw attention to this thread with a reminder below. — JFG ^talk 13:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, how am I involved? Nihlus 13:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

He didn't say you were involved, quite the opposite: "Nihlus, you and Scjessey ain't". Although I would consider Scjessey involved, given his regular participation at the target article, even if he did not !vote in this particular AfD (but stated above how he would have !voted). — JFG ^talk 13:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an obvious misread on my part. Nihlus 13:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having gone over this thread, read the RfC and the close, I think I can endorse WBC's close. The thing is that even "accepted" arguments can be accepted with different weight. Reading what WBC said about the "include" arguments they accepted, and reading those arguments myself, it seems clear that they carry more weight.

With respect to a weak new consensus not overturning a strong old consensus, I find that notion nonsensical. The fact that there is no longer a strong consensus not to do something, but a weak consensus to do it proves beyond any doubt that the consensus has, in fact changed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• When I first looked at the RfC and the close before making a comment in the section above, it seemed like an instance of ~"within discretion" if not completely obvious (i.e. it could've also just as easily been closed as no consensus). Reading it more closely with WBG's explanation at hand makes me more convinced to Endorse. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there was a similar RfC recently. Consensus can change, yes, but repeating RfCs on the same subject is a hassle for everyone. That said, the other RfC looks to have been on a narrower proposal that could even be seen as a subset of what this proposed, even if some of the comments in the first talked about it in the broad sense. If the order were reversed I think it would be harder to justify the second RfC, but in a way that still wouldn't necessarily be the job of the closer to evaluate (i.e. address it when it comes up and/or with the editor opening the second RfC -- again, if they were reversed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• This has been quite the RfC review. And I am sensitive to a desire not to smear somebody as racist just on the grounds of sensational media coverage, regardless of my own (pretty publicly voiced) low opinion of the subject in other places. That being said, after looking over the rationale of Winged Blades of Godric it looks like an appropriate close. Consensus does change. It appears in this case it has and pretty substantially. Support the close with rationale provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• (involved, though I didn't !vote in the RfC since I definitely would've supported it and I started the previous RfC in support of inclusion) I endorse closure based upon WBG's analysis and the strength of the WEIGHT based arguments for support vs the weaker opposes. There is no strong consensus but a weak consensus is in my biased opinion a good reading of the !votes. As far as I know there is nothing in policy or guideline requiring a strong consensus to overturn a previous strong consensus against; and the previous RfC does not really establish a strong consensus against due to its specific wording including "racist" being much more likely to be opposed than the proposed wording of this RfC. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse the close. WBG's rationale above clearly indicates a thoughtful close. Much of the reasoning for overturning the close in this thread (vote counting, previous local consensus, article stability issues) are either weak or against policy. So what we have here is a close based on the analysis of oppose and support !votes and there is no reason to overturn it. --regentspark (comment) 17:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse the close. The closer clearly took into account all arguments, weighed the rationales, applied consensus properly. --Jayron32 17:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Procedural error in Wahaj Ali AfD?

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 article was first nominated for deletion on 25 August 2017. The discussion was closed as delete on 24 September 2017. However, it was never deleted. I discovered the article and the AfD a few days ago, so I therefore tagged it for G6 speedy deletion (XfD not yet deleted). Soon after, Slatersteven nominated the page for deletion a second time, and then someone else removed the CSD tag soon afterwards. The page is currently in it's second nomination. Obviously, this deletion process has not went according to proper procedures. I think the best thing to do is to just wait and see what the result of the 2nd AfD is. But I don't know for sure what to do about the procedural error. funplussmart (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted last September, and then recreated yesterday. See this. - Donald Albury 20:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I was too stupid to notice that. So it was indeed deleted, but someone recreated it. How similar is it to the original version? funplussmart (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Significantly different. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Then CSD G4 won't apply here. Let's just wait and see what the result of the AfD will be. funplussmart (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. - Donald Albury 21:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

TBAN request: User:Kbog and Machine Intelligence Research Institute

• Kbog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Machine Intelligence Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We've experienced aggressive advocacy from Kbog on this page. In general I have found Kbog to edit this way on things related to Exciting Possibilities About the Future (transhumanist, effective altruism stuff) but this has gone over the top. There is a combination of a) not understanding the mission of WP and the basic P&G through which we realize it; and b) aggressive editing and responses, instead of learning what we do, and how we do it.

This is not helped by

• Kbog's overall fierce inclusionism and sense of WP:OWN with respect to their own edits, as they state by the words and images on their userpage. The machine gun imagery disturbs me every time I look at it; they view this as "satire".
• their view of what we do here as something like what goes on in social media like vbulletin boards, on Reddit boards, on Facebook, and so on, as they wrote here.

Keep your dirty liberal hands off of my content!

Anyway, to the MIRI page.

It has been fancruft since the day it was created in 2004. User:Zubin12 came along in July and started cleaning it up and got it to this point, and clearly pointed out the PROMO aspects of the page on the talk page.

This opened some fierce engagement to clean it up further. Kbog and I overlapped, and I yielded to them; they brought it to this state, and came to the talk page and wrote: I finished the article to my current satisfaction. That is quite a strong statement, on a page that is being contested. It invites scrutiny of their work, and that scrutiny finds their work deficient in the basics of scholarship as well as our policies and guidelines.

In response, for starters I pointed out the overwhelming reliance on primary or SPS sources when they were done. In response they trimmed some, and made a dog's breakfast of a response on Talk, completely confusing the concepts of "independent source" and "primary sources" and "SPS" and failing to understand that having big swaths of content driven by SPS or primary sources is not good. Indeed they wrote: If an article can be made longer with appropriate use of primary sources, without being too long, then it's an improvement. Because more, accurate, information is simply a good thing.

This basic orientation that "more is better", even if it is driven by shitty sources that don't actually support the content, is just not what we do here. The combative attitude along with misunderstanding the mission and basic P&G makes it almost impossible to help them think clearly about sourcing and content, much less reach consensus.

I went on to look at just a couple of passages, and you can see the pile of errors in this section on Talk. They then replied, interspersing their comments with mine, which i fixed; you can see that discussion here. Their response to problems with the page as they left it - with unverified content, etc -- the content that was, again in their own words, to my current satisfaction -- was to blame other people, say "I didn't have the source", and just more or less knee-jerk rejection. (diff).

Something to point out in that small example paragraph was this sentence they had left in the content: "In early 2015, MIRI's research was cited in a research priorities document accompanying an open letter on AI that called for "expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial"(source)."

That passage typifies their editing -- MIRI is not mentioned in that important document. Some of their researchers are cited - maybe five citations out of the 70 or so references there. The content is pure commentary/OR. They actually believe that this is just fine - No, that is a straightforward statement of fact, which is different from commentary. (same diff as above) and not at all OR/commentary on a source that is not about MIRI, where the content gives outsize importance to MIRI's role in the document. Pretty typical advocacy-driven editing.

Elsewhere on the talk page and in the article, others have been addressing OFFTOPIC and SYN content added by Kbog. Kbog has responded by edit warring ( just yesterday, 1) two reverts in one diff series; 2) again; 3) again, and later 4) reverting the "primary" tag, and 5) again). They responded to my edit war warning with this: silly, removing it from their page.

On talk they have been writing things like:

• this favorite of machine-gun toting OWNers Anyway, you cannot remove material without building a talk page consensus first. Merely saying "let's take this to the talk page" doesn't give you a right to continue edit warring. The material stands until there is a decision to change it. and
• this What bizarre theatrics are these, where the very defenses that exist to ward off deletionist gadflies are used as a pretext for their further persistence. It seems that literally everything, to you, is a reason to be combative, and
• misrepresenting my stance as being somehow OK with the page three times, (diff, especially egregious diff, diff (bottommost)), even though as I noted above, I stopped working on the page and yielded to them. They have no idea what the page would like if I were to take my run through it.
• this - Sure, there are three editors who have axes to grind here, with thoroughly unconvincing objections. I haven't seen any level-headed, independent person to side against me.. The key words there are I haven't seen, and the sense is wrong -- this is really about not hearing.

The fan-driven, bad-quality editing related to MIRI extends to other pages and edits like this, removing content sourced from the New York Times about Vernor Vinge coining the phrase the "singularity" about AI catastrophe, with an edit note not really x-risk as part of this sweep through a section about AI, and leaving a description of the views of MIRI person Eliezer Yudkowsky very prominently displayed in its own paragraph, sourced only to a primary source by Yudkowsky. Classic advocacy editing, promoting MIRI or its people, using weak/primary sources.

This person is very clearly a committed advocate, both to MIRI and to their vision of Wikipedia as some sort of blog where the goal is to build as much content as possible, based more or less loosely (sometimes not at all) on seemingly any old source, with no discernment between high quality independent sources and a press release or blog, and no distinction between summarizing what a source says and commenting on that source, no sense of edits that are strongly grounded in P&G or extremely weak. What matters to them, apparently, is making the article longer.

Before filing this, I tried to reach out to them on their talk page, and we had the exchange that you can see here. I have tried as much as I am willing, but my patience is exhausted.

The strife on this page will be endless as long as they remain involved, since they are not aiming at the mission, don't follow basics of scholarship, ignore P&G except as it suits them, and are unteachable due to their aggressive hold on content they add. Again -- Keep your dirty liberal hands off of my content!

Please topic ban this person from editing about MIRI. Perhaps AI more broadly. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a hefty dose of material that most editors won't want to read above. Fortunately, I do have time. A brief summary:

• Kbog has editing in this content area (roughly, topics related to Eliezer Yudkowsky, including MIRI, Effective altruism, and LessWrong) since 2015.
• Most recently, he was edit-warring with Jytdog (the filer) at Machine Intelligence Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about whether to include the {{primary}} maintenance tag. Neither looks good in that.
• There has been extensive discussion at the talk page since mid-July. It seems unlikely that all editors will ever agree on the content of the article. There are extensive discussions of what references can be used. Kbog opened an RFC yesterday, it appears that David Gerard, Jytdog, Gbear605 and Zubin12 (the other editors active on the talk page since July) all disagree with him.

Overall, I think a TBAN would be pre-mature; if the RFC confirms that there is a consensus against Kbog's views of what the content on the page should be and he continues to disagree voluminously, a TBAN might be called for then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Power, when you say "That's a hefty dose of WP:IDHT", do you mean the acronym to be "I don't have time" (to read everything presented above), or do you mean (per the link) that I am guilty of "failure or refusal to 'get the point'"? In the context of your sentence, it's not clear. K.Bog 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant that most of the people reading this noticeboard will not have time to read Jytdog's entire post (and look at the relevant diffs/talk pages). I've removed the link as I thought it pointed elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think your summary is accurate, except I believe Gbear is neutral (we haven't substantially disagreed, just a bit about template etiquette). K.Bog 06:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki Thanks for the summary. My OP was too long. However the first three diffs of edit warring are not with me, but with Zubin12 related to the NPOV/SYN/OR issues. The last two are indeed me. Would you please correct your description above? Thx Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to your edits at 03:56, 26 August 2018 and 04:01, 26 August 2018. Kbog may have been engaged in multiple edit wars on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that I did those two. Your summary skews the facts. But whatever. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've certainly made some errors and oversights about content: human errors, which I did not press after being shown them. In addition, I reacted aggressively in some of the arguments about this page. I also edit warred once, one fourth-revert which I didn't realize was past the limit. This is because I was frustrated by Jytdog and others' behavior towards me. Things that I have written or kept in the article have been repeatedly characterized by Jytdog as "fan-driven", "bad quality", "fancruft with shitty, bloggy sources", and so on; whenever I attempt to dispute such labelings with reference to WikiPolicy, I am rebuffed with wholly authoritative assertions that I don't understand what we do here, that I never learn, that it's simply "too much" primary sourcing, that the sources are simply "bad"; reasons for these assertions are lacking, and they are supported not with specific Wiki Policies, but with the insistence that I'm not listening and therefore really am proving his point, with the insistence that I'm fan editing and therefore aiming at the wrong thing, and similar non-answers. I meet every proposed change with valid arguments, but I get evasion and stonewalling in response. Jytdog is right that he hasn't convinced me of many things regarding about how to write a Wikipedia article. But this isn't a matter of my willingness to learn, it's a consequence of the fact that I haven't been given good reasons or references to WikiPolicy. I can't be reasonably expected to learn from someone who doesn't do an adequate job of teaching. Therefore, to the extent that I'm wrong about anything, presumably the right thing to do here is for someone else to explain things in a more compelling fashion, instead of assuming that we have to TBAN me just because Jytdog here has failed to change my mind. Please don't accept Jytdog's spin that I am refusing to listen: if you look through the specific arguments, you'll see that I'm fundamentally, honestly disagreeing on the basis of regular reasons, and I don't believe that Jytdog's views are representative of the broader Wikipedia community. In some cases, you will also find, I have been okay with other people's changes.

Beyond adhering to what I believe to be WikiPolicy, my own idea of what a Wikipedia article should look like is driven by what I have seen counted as good examples of Wikipedia work, such as (I have used this example before, and not received any response) the "good article" Kantian ethics page, which has extensive detail from published primary sources (I'm not fighting for blogs, press releases and so on; I used to, but I think Jytdog will have to admit that I did learn better than that). In academic articles more broadly, you can find similar examples. I do not mean this as an "otherstuff" assertion, I am impressed by such articles and I mean to show how it is that I have arrived at this perception about how Wikipedia articles ought to be written, contra the insistence by Jytdog that it is fan editing and advocacy, and how it is that I am skeptical about Jytdog's assertions about how things are typically run around here.

I have focused on these topics, AI and EA (though not exclusively). They are of interest to me, and I care about having good articles for them. I am also focusing on them in reaction to the phenomenon displayed here, where I find that a select small group of editors is unfortunately prone to attempting to cut them apart. I think that they are more in need of being watched than many other articles, because I have not encountered this sort of behavior in other topics that I have worked on, and it seems to me that Jytdog is on a bit of a crusade against advocacy, which he is overly prone to suspecting. That is why I've been rather stubborn: I think that he's being overzealous, and that warrants some pushback. I would not be so stubborn if I were working with editors who I trusted to have no preexisting biases about me or the subject at hand. That's why I opened the rfc.

If you look through my edits on other articles you will find that I have also made reductions of unpublished primary sourcing, reduction in weight given to groups like MIRI, adding opposing viewpoints and secondary sources, as well as very ordinary improvements (style etc). Please judge on the basis of looking seriously through edits, rather than making up your mind on the basis of cherrypicked examples. I believe that Jytdog's assumption about the appropriateness of talking about the singularity in an AI catastrophe article constitutes WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but I think most people here would rather not see us bicker about such examples, so just look through my history and judge for yourself. I certainly have left up a lot of problematic content, but I don't have time to fix everything, and I believe that it's better to leave up over-weighted or imperfectly-sourced content until I or someone else adjusts it further, rather than taking a hatchet to it.

By the way, that is not a machine gun. It is an AR-15, a civilian semiauto rifle. From my background, I see it as a regular rifle that can be used for many things. This is just a convenient representation of the kind of problem here: Jytdog insists that his perspective is right, and he refuses to acknowledge the possibility that I may have an honestly different view, which is the primary cause of my stubbornness. Is this the right place to judge Jytdog? No, it's not. My point is simply that my behavior has not been demonstrated to be a sufficiently severe problem here to warrant a TBAN. K.Bog 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, answering a very long complaint with a very long response is not a terribly effective strategy. At least Jytdog gave us bullet points to latch onto.

On the issue of the photo and "Keep your liberal hands off my content" caption, I think that clearly violates WP:POLEMIC,

• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
• Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors [in this case "liberal" editors]

so I'd ask you to remove it before I nominate it for deletion at MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise into bullet points, and remove the picture. K.Bog 05:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

hanks for removing the AR-15 image & caption from your user page. I appreciate your doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing my long statement into bullet point form:

• I have made oversights and errors, but when I see these, I do not fight over keeping them in the article. I will try to make higher quality edits in the future.
• I have been too aggressive in the arguments about this page, but only as a reaction to the hostile way that these particular people have been consistently behaving on these articles; I don't treat true third parties (like people from rfc) the same way, and will generally try to do better in the future.
• Jytdog is misrepresenting me as refusing to listen, when in reality I fundamentally disagree with his interpretation of WikiPolicy and he is failing to make serious arguments about it.
• Jytdog is generally misrepresenting my edits and behavior as being worse than they are, largely on the basis of his overzealous suspicion that I'm an "advocate", when in reality I simply care and know more about a particular topic than I do about others. K.Bog 05:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• The issue -- as I have demonstrated with diffs - is that you do not understand our mission to provide readers with accepted knowledge or the essence of the P&G through which we (a community of no-name people) realize the mission; the way you use sources is driven by some misguided notion that articles that are longer are "better"; you have no understanding of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV - you give excessive WEIGHT to content based on weak sources and give content expressing your observations as much WEIGHT (or more) as content summarizing high quality sources. The result is badly sourced (often unsourced OR) excessively detailed fancruft; not Wikipedia articles solidly grounded on P&G. You resist learning with machine-gun-toting vehemence. What led me to ask for the TBAN is that trying to reach consensus with someone who operates this way is impossible at worst and a time suck at best. There is little to no common foundation upon which to reach agreement. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am aware of your views on how to interpret WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PRIMARY, and it is a valid viewpoint: the main point of dispute here (we really haven't had intractable arguments about any other decisions regarding the content of the article) is that you believe that externally published primary sources can only be used for a very small amount of an article's content, whereas I believe they can be used for perhaps half or less if the topic calls for it. I support those policies too, I just find that you have not made an honest attempt to reach a consensus about how to apply them: "we will never settle the MIRI page", "You are unteachable", "insisting on things that are dead wrong in policy ... Your response is breath-taking in how adamantly wrong it is," "your missing the mark on the mission, your editing and arguments that are pursuing the wrong mission and ignoring key P&G in your pursuit of the wrong mission, and your aggression and unteachability each of which mean that there will be no forseeable end to this", "You have been unteachable, with all this aggression. How can we teach you?", "please focus on the problem with your behavior", "someone who barely understands what we do here and how we do it", "You aren't listening", "Refusing. Fighting like hell every step of the way", "your complete refusal to engage with the mission and what the P&G call for", "It is just selfish", "more unrestrained, off-mission behavior from you... unrestrained advocacy, ignoring basic norms of communication and editing", "It is impossible to reach consensus when you are aiming at the wrong thing", "It is a blatant advertisement, full of sources by the organization and quotes that are not encyclopedic. This is not an encyclopedia article", "It is disgusting to see fancruft with shitty, bloggy sources on science topics. Video games, I understand more This is just gross", "This is editing driven by something other than the basic methods of scholarship we use here", and more of the same constitute perpetual insistence that I am wrong and you are right, not an attempt to persuade or reach consensus. I know that we're both stubborn, but you've been inadvertently hindering your own ability to build a consensus, and I think that you ought to try a more modest approach before calling it a lost cause. K.Bog 17:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I won't reply here further, but will wait for others to review this. I will say that yes, I have tried to explain that as long as you are aiming for the wrong thing, consensus is indeed impossible. Thank you for showing that. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI

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 apparent attempt to re-litigate the consensus achieved above on WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material now to be found at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The underlying question. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Good grief let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately several editors in that discussion have decided to ignore the consensus here and blank it anyway. – Joe (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think Michael Hardy should be community banned, and I'm one of those "re-litigating". This notice is decidedly non-neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Certainly, running off crying to Daddy when Mommy says "No" is not the kind of behavior that we expect from an admin and "one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally think Micheal Hardy should be site banned. Afootpluto (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of a ban, I think he needs to have the mop removed. ASAP. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The AfD is full protected in a blanked state after four admins edit warred on it (I realise consensus was to not blank but it doesn't mean everyone should lose their heads and angrily revert over it); obviously admins can physically override this and restore the material, to which I would say : do that and expect those calling for an arbcom case for a desysop to form an orderly queue over there. Since nothing on WP:JIMBOTALK is policy, I wouldn't pay any attention to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it was three admins and one random jackass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Beyond My Ken is absolutely bang on with their comment - If the answer is No than that should be the final answer .... It literally is no different to running from one parent to another ...., Not sure if site banning is OTT but I'd certainly support desysopping as their actions are unnbecoming of an admin. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You're "not sure" if site banning Michael Hardy is excessive? Is wikipedia slowly being taken over by idiots? @Bishonen: please don't ban me for this comment. Woscafrench (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Just put {{fbdb}} at the end of your comment, then you'll be fine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, over-riding community consensus and blanking the page should be considered inappropriate use of admin tools. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• The blanking should be undone. Consensus on Jimbo talk is worthless. There was consensus at AN, and going to a page that lost all relevance to the governance of this project years ago to appeal community consensus at the appropriate noticeboard is inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think what I take most away from the above discussion is "is this a hill worth dying on?" It certainly isn't worth risking your admin tools to override full protection and put the page in your favoured state, and it's not the end of the world that the AfD is courtesy blanked, in my view. (Or, what PackMecEng said). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure as hell not editing through the full protection. That is a desysop waiting to happen. I just think there is an issue when an admin goes from an actual community noticeboard to the madhouse that is WP:JIMBOTALK, where many of the regular watchers here don't ever frequent (I do my absolute best to never post there, and know many who also feel that way) and then people decide that a few random comments on Jimbo talk give reason to override a discussion at AN. That's bad for the project, especially after Jimbo's recent spate of ridiculous actions, which include using his admin tool to move through protection and then telling Cullen to keep off his talk page for calling a spade a spade. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am missing something in this whole debate, I was never part of it. But who the heck cares? So they want to blank the page 2 years later, it is still in the article history for anyone that wishes to read it. Maybe everyone should just move on and find better things to do. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The larger issue to me is admins acting against community consensus rather than just whether this page is blanked or not. Natureium (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• I just want to point out that we're all throwing shade on MH for pursuing a conflict over whether this page should be blanked or not. But when Sarek blanked the page, half of those people pursued a conflict over whether the page should be blanked or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify, are you faulting the people that restored the community consensus, or the people that decided that the community doesn't matter and did whatever they felt like? Natureium (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The people who continue to beat a drum about it instead of just shrugging and moving on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really think the blanking is that big of a deal. We should focus more on Michael Hardy, who has lost the confidence of the community and ought to be desysopped. Unfortunately, it is far from guaranteed that ArbCom would be willing to take his tools away, and an ArbCom case would be unnecessarily complicated regardless of the outcome. While we the community are not vested with the power of desysopping Hardy directly, I see no reason why we could not !vote to siteban him until such time as he resigns his tools. Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• So why doesn't someone start a community ban proposal? I'd do it myself, but I'm an IP...12.171.137.4 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I know four people who have "volunteered" to start that discussion. Including myself, to be fair. I can't speak for anyone else, but I won't start such a discussion until HM's current block is up. No matter what I think of his behavior, he has the right to respond and defend himself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

His block has already expired, fwiw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, within the hour or so preceding me posting that. I'd still like to make sure he's back by waiting for him to make an edit, or be sure that he's not making any edits for a day or to to indicate that he's not willing to defend himself before I get going. Others may, of course, disagree and beat me to the punch. I'm not really worried about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would leave it be for the minute. Michael did not disappear to avoid sanctions, he was booted off. If he doesn't come back, that's a shame as I think we can all agree he did do some good work, but it means no action should be taken at that point. If he comes back and goes back to gnoming on articles, that's fine - the block did the trick, and we escalate accordingly (next block 2 weeks? 1 month? indef?) just like any other editor. If he comes back and accuses the blocking administrator and who knows who else of all and sundry, then we can talk about sanctions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with you, I just would like to cut off any future drama that would result in those escalating blocks before it happens. MH has made it pretty clear over the last couple years that he can't handle conflict and disagreement. But I'm not going to sweat it too much, either way. If someone starts the thread down below, I'll !vote to indef with him giving up the bit as an unblock condition. But if everything dies down and no-one hears a peep from him for a while, then I may just think about how much I respect your opinion and forget that I said I'd start the discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• In my uninvolved opinion the blanking should be undone. If it was just a matter of disagreement I would say to leave it blanked, because what harm does it do? But there was clear consensus against blanking the AfD, and consensus should be upheld. Michael Hardy blanked it anyway, and has apparently only done so because of revisiting a two-year-old grudge against a user who hasn't edited since their first exchange, for which MH was reprimanded by Arbcom. Many editors have observed that the other user's comments were not libellous, yet he continues to hold that grudge. Ironic that MH behaves this way, yet calls everyone else a bully. And, an editor who runs to the founder to request shutdown of the project is clearly, by definition, not here to build an encyclopedia. Support site ban, and endorse WP:LEVEL2 desysop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually that AN discussion was closed a "no-consensus" (probably because the discussion was about "libel", which blanking neither requires nor claims, and then it became about Hardy, the 'heat not light' part of the close). And no, I don't think, Micheal Hardy did blank it after that closed discussion (other admins/editors did). As to the rest, take it to Arbcom, if it matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

He blanked it here, and went on the first of several tirades on the matter here. This followed his post a month earlier on that same user's talk page, who at that time had not edited in 18 months, coincidentally since their last run-in with Michael Hardy's odd passion for this issue. However you're correct that the thread at AN followed those posts, and that RickinBaltimore closed the AN discussion apparently as no consensus for blanking, but I note that nearly everyone who commented was opposed to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• As an apparent "what's in everyone's best interest" solution, I propose leaving the AfD courtesy blanked (not suppressed), and leaving Michael Hardy alone about it. If he wants to continue making a big deal about it, we can burn that bridge when we come to it. Can we agree on that and move on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

^This. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• He needs to lose his tools. And if he won't do the community the courtesy of resigning, we should ban him until he resigns. Leaving him alone is the easy thing to do, but it doesn't solve the problem. Lepricavark (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• While the community has the power to do this, it would almost certainly lead to an arb case anyway: appeal from bans is still within their remit if there is a large procedural question, and a ban enacted in place of a community based desysop process is definitely the type of community sanction that would be appealable to the committee (on grounds that the ban isn’t actually proportionate since the goal was just to force resignation.) I think I’ve said this before when this option has been suggested, but seriously, the quickest way to actually bring raise the question is just filing a case request and skipping the CBAN step that will likely result in the same case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The way I see it, the problem is that one administrator is obsessively passionate about blanking one two-year-old AfD, versus a whole bunch of people who don't give a fig one way or the other but are sort of annoyed by this admin's behaviour. If letting him have his way on this one thing that nobody really cares much about will make him stop with the campaigning, then yeah, it does solve the problem. He didn't misuse the tools here, and so it's very unlikely that Arbcom would take this on. Pursuing it is just needless dramah. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, that and blanking is an editor action (in that any editor can blank an AfD) not an admin action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• What Ivanvector says. Ideally, courtesy blanking is harmless enough that we shouldn't be chuffed about it but blanking against consensus is not something we should condone. But, "things Wales" have a logic of their own and are usually too much of a hassle to deal with so it's probably better to just let the whole thing go. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Update Off his block and he immediately went back to prosecuting his case at Jimmy Wales' talk page. So it looks like he didn't learn a lesson. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  It is not true that I insulted or personally attacked six other users.... I called them bullies. Aaaaaalrighty then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Do I propose he be community site banned here? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably. He's coming unhinged and not at all acting like someone who can be trusted with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Just file the case at WP:ARC and save the site ban process per my comments above. I highly doubt that CBAN in lieu of a desysop will save any time. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And is highly unlikely to suceed anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

But that's what happened last time, it was booted upstairs to Arbcom for rubberstamping, and here we are again. A Cban would show him the door directly. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've heard enough horror stories about the treatment of the editors who brought the previous case to ArbCom. If a Cban with a resignation proviso isn't the way to go, just go for a straight-up Cban and don't let him back even if he resigns. Lepricavark (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The last time that was attempted, most parties walked away with the distinct impression that ArbCom made a mess out of things and was too easy on Michael. See the various comments about it during this latest round of drama. I don't think anyone has mentioned that case without critizing ArbCom's handling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: a few things 1) this is a different committee and is in my view probably one of the more competent ones we've had in a while. 2) "CBAN until tools handed in" or "CBAN while still having the tools" is going to involve ArbCom either way because of either the appeal of option 1 (which I'm confident would happen) or in option 2 because the idea of having an admin who is CBAN'd is so ridiculous that they would have to take a desysop case to either desysop or review the ban. I was just getting back into Wikipedia in 2016, so I didn't follow that case, but the fact that there was a previous case and that it wasn't handled well if anything suggests that a new case would be approached with a heightened sense of wanting to get it right. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't a CBAN'd admin just be desysopped via an ArbCom motion? I don't believe a full case would be necessary. Lepricavark (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@TonyBallioni: I suppose we could try ArbCom first, with the CBan as a backup plan. I mean, the only thing that's obvious about all of this is that a lot of people want MH to lose that bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Just show him the door. I dont care if it is with or without his epaullettes, and if Arbcom need to sort out paperwork, then they'll have to because the community told them to. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank piña coladas. At sunset we made love like sea otters. That was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get that day over and over and over?" -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No misuse of tools. Why should a desysop be considered? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of tools is not the only thing one can be desysopped for. Conduct unbecoming, losing the trust of the community, etc. However, I agree, there is little possibility that the current circumstances would lead to consideration of a desysopping case by ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was first notified of the existence of this thread a few minutes ago, and that is improper.

The blanking of the AfD page was not done in disregard of consensus in a discussion on this page; rather it was done on other grounds than those raised in that discussion.

It is complained that I violated policy by "insulting" or "attacking" other users. In fact I accused them, just as some in this present discussion accuse me. There are no suitable forums to which to bring complaints of abuse. In particular, this present page is not suitable for anything; it is saturated in corruption. I don't deny that some honesty is tolerated here and long as it doesn't bother certain persons in de-facto power, but those who wish simply to push people around rather than do anything worthwhile are dominant.

Michael Hardy (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The notification you just received was not about this thread at all. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Then you need ot be specific. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• The nature of this noticeboard is this: It attracts people who want to push people around. One of the symptoms is that they do not argue or discuss. They assert their position, then by a collegiality of bullies, a few others who don't care about the issue express their agreement and claim that any disagreement about it is stupid or unjust or irrational, and they order everyone to obey. Crowdsourcing works when people are contributing content, but on boards like this, that's what it leads to. One strange thing about this phenomenon is that people who come here to engage in bullying, and then loudly complain that they are being personally attacked or gratuitously insulted, make honest contributions to editing actual articles. I actually suspect that some of them are being honest when they complain about their victims' behavior; they don't realize what they're doing. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank god we have Wikipedia's most respected editor here to call out nonspecific editors on their nonspecific—but sinister—agendas. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dude. Have you ever met anyone who was of the honest opinion that AN and ANI actually don't suck? I haven't. So I'm not sure why you feel it is so important to repeatedly attempt to impart to us this bit of knowledge that everyone pretty much already agrees on. I also don't understand why you want to repeatedly jump straight to the impending doom of Wikipedia over a two year old AfD. But you're not getting anywhere, and you're long getting past the point where you should just let people whom you feel are wrong simply be wrong, and go and do literally anything else instead. GMG^talk 18:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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