Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282

Can someone please replace the Talk page of ANI?

The ANI talk page is for whatever reasons a hard redirect to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but there is no visible edit history so no way for civilians to undo that. ANI has more extant watchers that AN, and thus needs its own talk page. I'd like to put the message about avoiding too-soon archiving on its talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just a redirect (Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) although it is fully protected. It was last edited in March 2008. I think it should be left as-is, but you might raise any WP:ANI archiving issue at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Please do not One-Click Archive threads until at least 24 hours after close with a ping to the editor. Thanks for your efforts: I agree with the idea of keeping a closed section for 24 hours, and there should not be a race among editors to see who can be first to archive sections. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a question: If someone has ANI on their watchlist, but not AN, do they see edits on the AN talkpage? Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Watchlist notifications would be for changes to the redirect not for changes to the redirect's target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain why ANI does not have a dedicated talk page, then? Softlavender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Almost certainly because there is or was a desire to centralise discussion about the noticeboards. See WP:TALKCENT. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel

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.

---

While browsing CAT:RFU as I often do, I came across this unblock appeal by Stadscykel. They have been given a 48hr block arbitration enforcement block, per WP:ARBBLP by Coffee, who I will notify shortly. Stadscykel has requested that their appeal be posted here. It bears noting that Stadscykel has not been given the discretionary sanctions warning at any time relating to WP:ARBBLP. Browsing their contributions, it also worth noting that they have not contributed to any talk page discussion and would not have noticed the warning posted there. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel notified

Coffee notified Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy unblock: Terrible, terrible, block - one of the worst I've ever seen. No warning given at all, no way of the editor to know what was expected. The editor in question made a single edit, was warned, but then got slapped with a block after not doing any more. User:Coffee has some serious explaining to do. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Sppedy unblock -with the exceptions of likely bots working at high speeds, sockpuppetry, legal threats, and blatantly bad usernames (none of which apply here), we absolutely never block an account over an edit without the user having been warned and having continued the bad edits after the warning. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: in fact, the wording in question was previously discussed on that page, and Stadscykel was, in fact, merely adding back the consensus wording. StAnselm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the blocked user's reasoning, I have now unblocked User:Stadscykel. Should further discussion here lead to the conclusion that User:Coffee's block was correct I have no objection to a reblock being carried out, but that seems unlikely. WaggersTALK 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Definetly a bad block After one non controversial edit he was blocked ? I also vote speedy unblock KoshVorlon 16:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Blocking administrator comment - I'm glad none of you have any experience with page restrictions (WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions), which this user had violated. Click edit at either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and see for yourself where the warning is. Waggers I suggest you reverse your unblock immediately. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And @Waggers: you also may want to familiarize yourself with the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal, specifically:

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

And:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. (emphasis added)

Either you didn't know there needed to be a "clear and substantial consensus", or you actually think 3 editors with no experience in enforcement actions constitute one... either way, those aren't acceptable answers and I don't think you should be making administrative decisions in this area. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The block can't be a DS block as the editor was not aware per awareness and alerts. Per Awareness and alerts

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

1.The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

2.The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or

3.The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."

--Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions, which is the relevant policy when dealing with page restrictions. Page restrictions have a different warning system than other DS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:, that page also says "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." Is there any reason why you failed to log this at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2? StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The page restrictions were logged, and one can easily see that in the section. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the page restriction, but about the sanction. But I think you're right - the sanctions don't have to go in the log. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

While you were allowed to block him under page restrictions, you were not allowed to make it a DS block without the editor being aware. Since it's not a DS block, any admin can unblock per normal unblock rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Waggers: You should voluntarily reinstate the block until there is consensus. I'm aware of at least two admins that were desysopped specifically for reversing an Arbitration Enforcement block out of process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it is necessary for Waggers to reverse the unblock at this time. I'm familiar with the rules about reversing AE blocks out of process, but I am not sure whether they have been applied to blocks that, while based on an arbitration ruling, were never the subject of any discussion at AE. In any event, while we can debate how much of a consensus for an unblock is required, I see support for an unblock here from at least two uninvolved administrators and I am going to be the third.

There is indeed a warning that comes up when an editor seeks to edit the Clinton or Trump articles, to the effect that: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." I can understand why this editor did not perceive this warning as relevant to the edits he was going to make, if indeed he noticed it at all. He did not make more than one revert (indeed, it is not alleged he made any revert). And, from the unblock request, and Stadscykel's limited editing history in this area, it is apparent that Stadscykel had no idea that he was making a "potentially contentious edit."

The purpose of requiring warnings before invoking discretionary sanctions against editors who have not been sanctioned before—which is a requirement that I personally wrote into the sanctions procedures when I was an arbitrator—is to avoid having good-faith editors entrapped by requirements they are unaware of. When an editor knowingly violates revert restrictions, edits against consensus, and the like, that is one thing and perhaps in clear cases of such things, a generic warning in an editnotice might possibly be sufficient.

In this case, though, we have a good-faith editor who thought he was making good-faith improvements to two prominent articles. If counseled that his edits were impermissible, I'm sure that he wouldn't have made or repeated them. This is not an editor who is trying to weasel out of a sanction by making a technical argument about warning levels. This is not an editor with some POV to push, about American politics or Trump or Clinton or religion or anything else. Rather, this is a good-faith editor who tried to make what he thought was a good-faith improvement to two high-profile articles, got caught up in the bureaucracy, and must now be wondering "WTF?" at all of us. The unblock should stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on. There's a reason why that wording was chosen in the page restriction, and I'm literally the only active enforcement admin I know of on these articles. Perhaps if you reviewed the many months long discussions that have gone into religions being, or not being, in the infoboxes you'd understand why such a seemingly trivial edit was block worthy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I know and you know of the long discussions about these candidates and about religion in infoboxes. The point is that Stadscykel clearly didn't. If you wanted to "discuss this with the editor," then as an uninvolved enforcement administrator (which I appreciate), you had every right to discuss it with the editor. You accomplish that by discussing it with the editor, that is, by posting a note on his talkpage explaining what the issue is and how he should edit differently. There is no reason to believe he would not have taken your guidance into account in future editing. Even in discretionary sanctions areas, blocking should very rarely, if ever, be the administrator tool of first choice in response to good-faith edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write the requirements for page restriction warnings, ArbCom did. If you feel that an editnotice is not sufficient, you need to take that up with ArbCom and get them to change the policy. But, right now, the policy states that an editnotice is all that is needed. Whether their edits were good-faith or not is something I refuse to presume, that's why the warning was made so absolutely clear. If the editor had shown that they intended to discuss such edits in the future, (which what the restrictions are intended to force on these articles), then yes I would have unblocked them myself. But, I didn't even get a chance to do that before logging in today to see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you and I disagree on what would have been the best approach to this situation. Rather than repeat myself or even amplify, I'd be interested what others may think, particular admins with experience in contentious areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:, I really you need to step back from things here. The fact that you can't see how your block was out of order is very disturbing. As I mentioned above, the edit was actually in accord with the specific consensus on that page. Even if Stadscykel had read and understood the warning, he might still have gone ahead. He did not make any reverts; he did not make a controversial edit contrary to consensus. He was not given a warning. Instead, he was slapped with a 48-hour block. As I said, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that you can't see this, won't apologise, and won't back down. And that makes me wonder whether you should be making any blocks at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh go find some other pot to stir StAnselm. You literally say this every time I have a block review, and it's getting old. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'd forgotten about previous interactions here, but now I see that I said in 2013, "I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy." Also in 2013 was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#User:Coffee, which was also about your misuse of the admin tools. I think they were the only ones, but they do suggest a pattern. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And if nothing, what should the community do about it? StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The honest answer, getting past your hyperbole, is that I need more admin support on these articles. This could have easily been avoided if I knew another admin would be online to enforce the page restriction when I logged off. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but it seems like this sort of thing could easily happen again, and that's not an acceptable outcome. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It won't happen again if more admins start volunteering to watch these articles (which have been subject to abhorrent violations, which caused the restrictions in the first place). It's really that simple of a solution. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that these and related articles have been subject to "abhorrent violations" does not, by any possible rationale, justify blocking for inadvertent minor violations (much less for edits that arguably are not violation at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on the how much of a consensus is required to reverse a DS block, I do agree with Newyorkbrad that Stadscykel probably didn't know that this was a contentious area. To anyone not familiar with this particular mire it would seem a very routine change. I do think that a more articulate back and forth of words could have prevented this block.

I also think Coffee should have been given time to respond here before action was taken. In my experience they are very receptive to the concerns of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have likely handled it without this even making it to AN, this block was for purely preventative purposes - nothing more. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The block was a monumentally bad one, as sanctions should not be applied to a good faith editor making one edit that it is reasonable to assume they might not have known was controversial. Speaking to the editor on their talk page to explain the problem should have been the first step here, not stomping straight in with a block to stain their untainted record. Also, I find Coffee's complete inability to hear what multiple experienced editors (including a number of admins and an ex-arb) are saying here - such intransigence reinforces the bad image of admins that so many people have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not that I don't hear them, it's that we disagree on our approaches. Like I've said above, if more admins volunteered to be enforcement admins on these articles I wouldn't worry about having to block for first offenses at all (outside of obvious libel or vandalism of course). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Trying to blame others for not being there doing the same work, and claiming that that forces you into blocking for good-faith first offences, is shameful - do you really have no sense of self-awareness here? Your block was wrong and your continuing arrogance in defence of it is wrong, it's as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not blaming anyone, just stating a fact. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • You're saying "If X, then I wouldn't have to do Y", where there's a very clear consensus among your peers that Y is wrong and you should not do it regardless of X. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus and accept your mistake. That is not how admins are supposed to behave. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Looking over Coffee's block log, a see a similar (but slightly different) situation happened a couple of weeks ago - User:Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. What makes it different to this situation was that Aaaaaabbbbb111 had introduced a (presumably) controversial edit here, it was reverted without comment or discussion here, and then Aaaaaabbbbb111 reinstated the edit with a reference. For this, Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. I realise that this comes out of an ArbCom decision, and the talk page warning is a strong one, but again there is no evidence that Aaaaaabbbbb111 even saw the talk page. This sort of blocking has got to stop. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Further comment: In any case, I really don't think Coffee is blocking "according to the rules". If these blocks are made per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, then the rule stated there must apply: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Now, does the warning that appears when you click "edit" count? Apparently not: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months... the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Wait? Isn't the article warning an alert? No, it is specifically defined as follows: these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message... is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. So there you have it - Stadscykel and Aaaaaabbbbb111 did not receive the necessary DS warning. Am I wikilawyering? Perhaps. But what Coffee is doing is against both the spirit and the letter of the rules. The only question that remains is whether we should ask ArbCom to rule on this. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel's comment

It's probably my turn to say something here. To answer all the questions here, let me go through the bullet points:

• No, I had no idea that there is some controversy regarding religion in infoboxes. All I've seen is a number of articles on politicians all across the political spectrum, from Newt Gingrich (by the way, how could I guess that his former religions were somehow more notable than Trump's or Clinton's current ones?) to Elizabeth Warren, and I presumed that the articles simply lack that information - well, Wikipedia is not complete yet, isn't it?
• Let me quote the warning: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." And let's go through it:
  • "not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" - obviously not applicable.
  • "must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits" - how does one exactly expected to know what "potentially contentious" means? Well, I would say that claiming that Trump is not a Presbyterian (I'm sure there's a lot of speculation about it out there) - now that's something contentious, and I would never write anything like that.
  • "are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" - alright, let's read Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions then:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

• The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
• The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
• The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

Obviously, neither of that applies to me. Which brings us to the following point:

• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware [...]". The application of "arbitration enforcement" to me was never allowed from the beginning, and User:Coffee's reference to the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal is therefore invalid - I was never allowed to be sanctioned from the beginning. Because of this, Coffee's idea to "reinstate the block until there is consensus" cannot be seriously considered.

Now, let me answer to some other comments made by Coffee.

• "I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on". Wow, thanks for the provided ability by blocking me e.g. from this discussion! After I've done my edits, User:Guy Macon has indeed left a comment on my talk page (User_talk:Stadscykel#Controversial_edits) so it became known to me that the content of the infoboxes is that controversial. By the way, I actually thank Guy Macon for the warning - I guess if I unknowingly proceeded with making similar edits I would have blocked by Coffee for a year - or probably indefinitely? You never know what punishment is sufficient for such a vandalizing editor like me.
• "this block was for purely preventative purposes" - and once again, I have received the warning and never continued to make similar edits. If we try to follow Coffee's logic, every editor should be blocked just in case they suddenly decide to break the rules of the project - that's probably not such a good idea? (Coffee should really read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals, by the way.)

Conclusion

I do not intend to provide my opinion in this discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be a part of the infoboxes (nor is it relevant to this discussion), but it is now known for me that there is a consensus against the religion field. Meanwhile, I have spent a lot of time finding out how to make an appeal to unblock, read the rules regarding blocking, unblocking, and arbitration enforcement originally written for obviously disturbing edits and not any good-faith edits like mine (Wikipedia:Assume good faith anyone?) - and I could have spent that time editing actual Wikipedia articles instead. Instead, I have seriously considered quitting the project altogether, because volunteering under such vague rules ("one can always expect an instant block following any edit") just did not seem right.

It is now clear for me that User:Coffee's actions can only be described as misuse of administrative tools, and I urge the community to seriously consider applying sanctions to Coffee. I have no opinion on what kind of sanctions can or should be applied to Coffee, and this is absolutely not some kind of personal revenge for me, but a necessity in order to protect other good-faith users from Coffee's unjustified rulings. Best regards, Stadscykel (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this long note, Stadscykel. These edge cases can be hard to deal with, and we sometimes screw up. I think everyone is sorry about the way this turned out. It seems that User:Coffee was technically following "the rules" as written, even though, in hindsight, everyone can see a better way to approach it. Rather than sanctioning Coffee for making the effort to work in a complex and dispute-prone area (and it is very hard, with people ready to scream at the slightest less-than-perfect outcome), I think it might make more sense to fix up our procedures. If we don't address the gap between "the rules" and "best practice", then this sort of thing will just happen again in the future, with the only difference being a different admin and a different article and a different editor being completely surprised by a block. With your recent frustrating experience, I would not be surprised if you better understand the importance of preventing a recurrence of this situation, than anyone else in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I agree that a clarification of the rules is needed in that case, for example it would be logical to assume that there should be a clear list of violations for which blocks without an initial warning can be issued, otherwise editing any article e.g. on Eastern Europe (another "area of conflict" according to the rules) turns into a minefield for new editors. My problem here though is Coffee's unwillingness to recognize their wrongly (as per opinions on this page) issued block, instead it has been suggested by them that my block should be reinstated. Stadscykel (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am entirely open to discussing anything about the merits of the block itself, but it is simply not correct to state that sanctions were not allowed. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions (the relevant piece to that ArbCom policy) clearly states: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. ... Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy page does not state anywhere that the "Page restrictions" section somehow invalidates the rest of the page. Besides, if there's an explicit consensus prohibiting the addition of the religion field, it should have been mentioned in the mentioned template, Template:ds/editnotice. The idea that stating "Religion: Presbyterian" in an article stating as a matter of fact (Donald_Trump#Religious_views) "Trump is a Presbyterian" should be seen by any editor not aware of the previous discussions as "potentially contentious" is ridiculous. The rest of the page says e.g.:

• "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion"
• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict"
  • I could comment at the same time that in this case the area of conflict most definitely is not American politics (since the statement that Donald Trump is Presbyterian has neither been added nor removed from the article) but the style guide for infoboxes in general (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes), so one could question whether any of these rules apply.
• "[...] administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum"
• "For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans"

As far as I understand from the page, the section you mention simply allows the administrators to choose to which pages the rules descripted in the rest of the policy would apply. I see no source confirming that the rest of the policy is invalid in this case. Stadscykel (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, that's just plain wrong. Stadscykel was not allowed to make uncontroversial edits without consensus. Quite apart from whether or not what he added was "controversial", and whether he not he was aware of various previous discussions, there was indeed explicit consensus to include the words, per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11# Donald Trump Religion. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware here. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of that page cannot override the total community consensus that was established at the village pump to depreciate the religion parameters. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, once again this raises the question as to how Stadscykel could possibly have known all that. But religion parameters are still, it seems, allowed in some infoboxes (under certain conditions), so there is no reason to believe that the local consensus is being used to override the total community consensus. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Just saying that perhaps the best course of action would be to actually enforce the community wide RfC and remove the parameter from the infobox options. That way, this "contentious" edit would be technically impossible in the future. --Majora (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, we have a parameter in the template with a capital punishment for use? A big red button with an obscure, hidden instruction, "Do not push!" ??? That sounds like an ANI waiting to happen. <Joke>Let's leave it in the template and see how many others we can catch! </joke> Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: The language you cite still leaves some room for interpretation. In my view, the key phrase is Editors ignoring page restrictions.... In my view, to ignore a restriction requires that you know of the restriction's existence, and violate it anyway, thus ignoring it. To me, this fits with the general design of discretionary sanctions, which require prior knowledge of the existence of the sanction. That said, I can also see how you could interpret it differently. In fact, the definition of ignore includes both interpretations, though according to Wiktionary, yours is obsolete. Perhaps Arbcom should clarify the language to avoid this type of issue. Monty₈₄₅ 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no serious ambiguity requiring clarification. An interpretation suggesting that an editor may be blocked for a first-time good-faith edit made with no knowledge that it was in violation of any policy or sanction would be so contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that no one can have intended such an interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NYB as you well know, this place has a lot of rules, and it is difficult to make broad pronouncements that don't have an exception here or there. For example, your broad pronouncement that we could never possibly intend to block an editor for a good faith edit without knowledge of a violation of policy sounds eminently reasoanble, except... it isn't true. If a brand-new editor creates the user name XYZ corp and edits XYZ corp, they get blocked. No notice, no warning no anything except a block. And it appears we intend to do this as it happens every day. I clean up after literally hundreds of these cases. They get an explanation which is often not understood. You and I both know why they are blocked, and know it is not a big deal but they don't know that until I do some hand-holding. My point is that we do impose rules that sound reasonable, then have actual cases that follow the rules and we realize we need to rethink the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Well, that's obviously a different situation from what I have in mind, but I take your point. (I happen to think that the way in which we interact with new editors in the circumstances you describe is very troublesome, and I've said so for years, but let's not divert this discussion in that direction.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The relevant part of the username policy is: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." I assume you are talking about the above section, however the policy does not provide for blanket blocks of promotion/corp usernames that edit the 'corp' article. Merely creating a username "DavesHardware" and editing "Dave's Hardware" absent problematic editing is not blockable by the policy as written. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to the admins, many of them will not agree that a user "DavesHardware" who is editing "Dave's Hardware" is engaged in non-problematic editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page restrictions are limited to "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." Coffee has at least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for random content restrictions, not less. Very disturbing that the interpretation was no notice about the list of "certain content" needs to be provided. --DHeyward (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on User:Coffee

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

---

In light of the bad block and Coffee's inability to see how it was bad, there seems to be competence issue here, as well a need to protect new and inexperienced editors from these sort of blocks. I therefore propose that User:Coffee be prohibited from blocking editors for a period of six months. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not We don't restrict admin tools. You have a problem with Coffee? Take it to ArbCom. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't think I've seen a blocking prohibition be requested against an admin! The issue has been discussed here, and I will echo Majora's comment above that if you would like to take this further, please contact ArbCom -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not realistic This is not how we handle things. If you think you have a case take it to arbcom. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• OK, I'll withdraw this proposal, and possibly take the issue to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • See now I thought (hell, hoped) we were finally getting past the need for hyperbole in our discussion above, and then I see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm totally uninvolved here, but I usually always follow discussions that I find interesting across the three noticeboards (AN, ANI, ANEW), and that what I've been doing here. Coffee was not acting in bad faith, so I don't believe any sanctions against them or even an Arbitration Committee case are warranted. Let's all just move on and go on about our business. If something like this ends up happening again, it can be dealt with then, but mistakes happen—though note I'm not saying anyone made mistakes here—to the best of us and bringing out the pitchforks over something like this is rather unproductive. If something of this nature, for anyone, becomes a pattern, then yes, start off with a discussion and go from there; however, if it's just little mistakes every now and then, it's really no big deal—though just to make it clear again, I'm not saying anyone here made any mistakes. Amaury (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the mistake, of course - it's the inability to see that it was a mistake that puts other new and inexperienced at risk. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose No way. It's either ArbCom or nothing. Blocking is a fundamental tool for admins. Coffee was acting in good faith, there is no reason. I'm not sure if it was a mistake at all, or the right thing to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (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.

Back to basics

The bottom-line issue here is that User:Stadscykel didn't know about the sanctions in place on those articles, so made good faith edits and was blocked for the privilege. From this conversation and others it's fair to surmise that Stadscykel is now aware of those restrictions and is very unlikely to repeat those edits - so a preventative block is no longer necessary. There are then discussions around whether or not User:Coffee was correct to block Stadscykel in the first place and, to a lesser extent, whether I was right to unblock the same user, and what sanctions either of us might face as a result if our actions were wrong. As mentioned above, those are matters for ArbCom, should anyone feel sufficiently strongly to raise a case there. My own view is that that would be a gross overreaction but the way is open should anyone wish to go down that route. Finally, Coffee mentions that these articles are under-patrolled from an admin perspective and that's something I'm sure we can all help out with. Unless I've missed anything in that summary, it seems there's nothing else to be said here. WaggersTALK 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to notice that User:StAnselm has asked the Arbitration Committee about the issue (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_American_politics_2), and I would welcome any comments on this matter from other editors. Stadscykel (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say, except that when you're wrong, Coffee, you need to put your hand up and say "sorry, I've made a mistake". I think the reason this has carried on a bit and is now at ArbCom clarification is because there was clear agreement here that the block was a poor one. Then, instead of accepting that and apologising, you first tried to wikilawyer your way out of it and then when people still disagreed with that you tried to pass the buck by saying that the area is understaffed by admins. That may be so and it may even be a reasonable answer for why you've made a mistake, but you are responsible for your decisions and to try and pass the buck without admitting fault is not on. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on these points. I dropped a statement at the Arbitration clarification request, but will reiterate part of it here. A page restriction should not replace an individualised DS notification. Even if it did, given their sporadic editing history which should have been taken into consideration, Stadscykel should have received a warning on their talk page to remind them that DS was in force. Stadscykel made one edit to Donald Trump and one more to Hillary Clinton. In neither case could any reasonable, or even strictest, interpretation of the page restriction could this be viewed as "ignoring page restrictions". Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (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.

New Tool to Help Transfer Files to Commons: MTC!

Hi all, I have created a new tool, MTC!, to help transfer files to Commons. I'm looking for some victims beta-testers to help test and/or provide feedback about the tool. Any help would be appreciated! :) Thanks in advance, FASTILY 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When I open it, it asks for username and password. Is it looking for my WP info, my Commons info, or something unique to the program? BMK (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's asking for your WP info. -FASTILY 22:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Danke. BMK (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Much easier to transfer than before and pleasantly surprised that it also automatically tagged the image as CSD F8. I'm curious what is the purpose of creating a transfer log. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you like it! The transfer log lists the files you most recently transferred using the tool. Useful for statistics, or if you would like to manually review each file you transferred -FASTILY 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you offer an option to disable this? Not everyone wants this feature. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll include this feature in the next release :) -FASTILY 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: I plan to give it a try, but before I do, can you clarify whether feeding a category into this will automatically transfer every page in the category without further review or whether I'll be able to manually give a yay/nay to each file as it comes up? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will transfer every eligible (the built-in filter skips over Commons-ineligible and files nominated for deletion) file in the category, because it assumes you have already completed a manual review (e.g. flagged copyvios for deletion, and fixed licenses for any file that may be ineligible for Commons). Think of MTC! as a dumb assistant that performs the grunt work after you've completed the paperwork :) -FASTILY 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. That's a bit tricky for large categories, especially since files could be added while you're working through the "paperwork". I'm more likely to use it file-by-file as a result. Not sure if that fits in with your intended use or not, but thought you might want to know. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I typically use it to transfer a user's uploads, which is pretty manageable given that most users don't have an insane number of uploads. I've included Category and Template selectors for those who like a challenge, and because it was easy to implement. -FASTILY 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comey recommends no prosecution

Heads up to anyone monitoring relevant articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy for non-Yanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

And for some of us Yanks, as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't delete pages

I'm attempting to delete Wikipedia:Ahmet Tan, Wikipedia:Admerasia, and Wikipedia:Adil Rasool, so I selected G6 from the dropdown and copy/pasted the same rationale into the "Other/additional reason" box: Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace (in all three cases, someone moved a page into the WP namespace by a misunderstanding or by picking the wrong option from a dropdown), but I can't delete anything: in all three cases, I clicked the "delete" link from the redirect's entry at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 4, modified the deletion reasons, and then hit the "Delete page" button as normal, and in all three caes, I got an HTTP 500 Internal Server Error message upon clicking that button. Any idea what's going on? I'm not having trouble performing normal edits, or I wouldn't have been able to leave you this message. If you're able to delete any of them, please leave a note at the relevant discussion section(s) at RFD. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: related to this error? Give it a moment and try again, as another admin has been able to delete a page they were struggling with. If it continues, may be worth a phab report? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been deleting pages for a hour or so and other than it being slow (then again, I've been admin for only a few hours now...) there have been no issues. Nyttend, does it still not work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed a database issue with a recent edit, so I'm guessing it was a short-term glitch.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Works for me - I'm guessing temporary database error as well - I deleted one of the referenced pages above, you should be able to do the rest. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You both were right, see my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&type=revision&diff=728587327&oldid=728542501 --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Chilcot & Premptive protection?

Chilcot is giving his statement now on the Iraq Inquiry and the full text will be released in about 30 mins. It is likely to cause disruption at a number of articles (Tony Blair, Bush Jr etc) so would it be worth an admin pre-emptively semi-protecting the relevant articles? Or wait and see? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait and see... how thick the whitewash runs ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the text is up here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have most of the potential hot spots watchlisted anyway. If it does get bad, yes we'd want to protect - but doing it preemptively shouldn't be option A. In the same vein - I'm also expecting shenanigans at Gretchen Carlson and Roger Ailes, on a totally unrelated matter - perhaps worse, given that it involves a sexual harassment lawsuit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source creation 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.

---

I would like to request creating source for the upcoming 2016 Paul Hunter Classic professional ranking snooker tournament, as it has been restricted to administrators. Vinitsky14 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems this is due to a title blacklist. I am not sure if this is the intended target or not. It will take some doing to figure out who added it. I can't find it in the blacklist talk page archive. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The same thing was with the article on the 2015 event, however it was created also after my request. Vinitsky14 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you start a draft then an admin will be more likely to move it for you than to create a blank page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The title blacklist entry appears to be the first entry in the "ATTACK TITLES AND/OR PAGE MOVE VANDALISM TARGETS" section. The only relevant discussion I can find is at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 3#David Beals which is from September 2013, but the filter predates that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I am thinking this is a false positive. We do have an article on the tournament in general: Paul Hunter Classic. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:45, 6 July 2016 (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 clarification regarding WP:INVOLVED

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 Draft talk:Main Page#Warning User:Edokter claimed that WP:INVOLVED does not prevent him from using the tools in an RfC that he is heavily involved in.[1][2] May I have some clarification as to what is and is not allowed in such a situation, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I reserve the right to remedy any incursion of policy that is intended to undermine, frustrate, sabotage or ohterwise derail any ongoing discussion. So pot, meet kettle. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we as a community do not trust you or any administrator to correctly identify "any incursion of policy that is intended to undermine, frustrate, sabotage or otherwise derail any ongoing discussion" in discussions -- including RfCs -- where you are heavily involved and have expressed strong feelings. That's why, as a general rule and a good practice, you should ask an uninvolved administrator to take action in such cases. If there really is a policy violation, the uninvolved admin will see it and deal with it. Doing it yourself gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Add the bizarre edit-warring here as well. Edokter, I get that you're feeling stressed but please calm down; Arbcom has desysopped for much less blatant admin abuse. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter is completely incorrect when he says "WP:INVOLVED governs content disputes, not RfCs." He needs to look at the first sentence. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." Comment in the RFC? Don't use the tools monitor it, shape it, or affect it in any way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, I don't think he's listening. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Edokter shows us the path forward, "Don't like it? Go to ArbCom." I see a couple people involved in the discussion who won't be shy in doing that. He really needs to take heed of, "...pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) If editors arbitrarily start moving the pages under discussion and breaking the the new main page gadget (over 2000 users!), then nominating it for deletion to make a point, I regard that as sabotage, nothing less. Tell me how I am supposed to handle this? Should I just come here and ask nicely for assistence and wait while the mob keeps derailing the entire discussion? I will, but only when anohter admin will take control and monitor all pages involved. Don't expect me to have to accept any further disruption while others are allowed to vandalize it; I will take any involved party to ArbCom myself. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Should I just come here and ask nicely for assistence Yes, that is exactly what a clearly INVOLVED admin is expected to do. Now that this matter has the attention of multiple un-INVOLVED admins, please step back and let them handle it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Law of holes applies here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired of arbcom being the only resort to putting a stop to adminsbehavingbadly(TM). I don't understand the issues involved here, so I can't do anything about it. Arkon (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter I think that INVOLVED very much applies here. Please allow other admins to make decisions on how tools should be used in this area. If you insist on handling this yourself it will end badly. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I am involved, but only because no one is backing me up. The is one simple solution: Stop sabotaging the the pages being discussed. Really folks, I will happily delete it all if that is the outcome. There is no reason to pre-empt any action. So, Which admin will step in to ensure that? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A key reason for not allowing INVOLVED admins to use the tools in situations like this is that you (generic and personally) are not able to objectively judge when something is or is not being sabotaged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED is very clear on this "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Suffice to say, the bold part is the important bit. There is no way Edokter is not involved, and threatening to block users to get his own way is clearly designed to chill discussion and intimidate others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Once again, I feel I am completely ignored. I JUST FUCKING ADMITTED I AM INVOLVED!!!!!. I askied for assistance, but again, no one is offering! SAY THE WORD and I AM OUT! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you know you are involved, why are you threatening to block other users? Perhaps no one is offering any assistance because they dont feel it is required. You have been throwing around the word 'sabotage' however there is little evidence of such. Also 'the word'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter other admins are looking at the situation, trust me you have gotten a lot of attention. Their goals may not be to further your cause or to prevent people from objecting to it. Surely you must have realized going in that changes to the main page have historically been an uphill battle. Without a consensus for your changes you may just have to accept that they may not be adopted. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

All I want is that everybody plays by the same rules. I am asking for assistance, but I get no affirmation of any kind, only the past being rehashed. All I need to hear is "OK, I keep an eye on it and make sure no further disruptions take place while the discussion is ongoing." Is that so much to ask? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It may be, if you expect others to strictly adopt your view of what is disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What is disruptive is pretty obvioushere; moving pages and breaking gadgets are the main examples here. Are you telling me those are not disruptive? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Did your own actions ensure something would break if these actions were reverted? Is the move undoing a prior undiscussed move? Is the move breaking anything or does it have support? Not always clear-cut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is disruptive to take any action after the discussion has been initiated. Had I not started it, I believe no one would even bother about it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is similarly disruptive to misuse administrative privileges in order to promote this to the gadgets page, and to create gadgets without proper discussion — luring innocent editors to enable the gadget for what is a one-man project. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If that was disruptive, why haven't I had one single complaint in the one year it has been up? No, that is a pathetic argument. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter, please give it to us straight. You have read the comments here and elsewhere. Realistically, is there a reasonable chance that you will voluntarily stop doing the things that others are complaining about, or do we have to (in your words) "take it to Arbcom"? I don't want to revisit the reasons why you think you are right and I think you are wrong; I just want to know whether I should suggest that this be closed as being unlikely to be resolved at ANI, thus saving everyone a bunch of time and effort. So what say you? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have stopped since this thread started; that should be enough. It is almost if you don't want me to stop. It will be resolved when someone tells me that I no longer need to be afraid of the few opposers that think they can get away with disrupting the discussion that I always had every intention of following through, and sworn to abide by its outcome. But that is apparently not enough. I would like to know why I am held to higher standards then other editors (and not necesssarily as an admin), and why it is OK for ohter to disrupt, and not for me to correct. In simple terms, I am MORE then happy to follow procedures; all I ask is that others show me the same respect. And by that, I mean to just let the discussion run its course wihtout any premature action of any kind. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter, you've made two threats in this thread alone[3], [4] and have yet to retract your threat on Talk:Main Page to abuse your admin bit to enforce whatever changes you want regardless of opposition. I concur with David below that unless and until you specifically retract all your threats, you shouldn't be trusted with the admin bit given that (regardless of whether you intend to follow them through) your threats and bluster are clearly intended to create a chilling effect. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Already rescinded below. All I expect in return is that you respect policy as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The actions about which Edokter is complaining were disruptive, but they stemmed largely from misunderstanding. Unless and until Edokter explicitly retracts his threat to block any user who "sabotages" his proposal, I no longer trust him with the admin bit. —David Levy 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

And I only made that thread because the rest of the admin core failed to step in. I will retract my blocking threat. I still ask for some confirmation that further disruptions are handled by someone else. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, did you just unconditionally agree to not use the admin tools in any RfC that you are involved in, or was that conditional, based upon some other admin agreeing to "step in"? I do apologize if it seems like I am giving you a hard time, but the distinction is important. If the answer is "unconditional" I am going to recommend that this and all related discussions be closed as "resolved, No admin action required". If the answer is "conditional", then I am going to start the process of opening an Arbcon case, starting at User:Guy Macon/Work In Progress#Draft Arbcom Case. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This report is misguided (IAR, NOTBURO). Edokter is one of the good guys who is working towards improving the main page, although some people think the main page is fine—a discussion for elsewhere. People started a move and a deletion discussion no doubt with wonderful intentions, but with a result that is 100% disruption. The subject is the main page—it's an important issue and should not be sidetracked with lame debates about the namespace or the letter-of-the-law at MfD. Now people have scented blood and are doubling down to force Edokter into submission—that is not helping anything at all. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I made some stupid mistakes which caused much of the above, so I'll not comment much beyond this post. I just want to ask someone uninvolved to undo Edokter's involved actions at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-NewMainPage and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage, and to make it clear to him that an edit summary like here is uncalled for (whatever errors I made otherwise, in that case I was turning a redlink I created into a correct bluelink again; blocking me (or threatening to block me) for that edit was totally out of line, as it was one of the few edits I made in this episode which were actually good). Fram (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But why should those edits be reverted? What purpose would be served other than to establish that rules are sacred? A fair guess would be that Edokter is the only person here with a good understanding of gadgets, and it would be reasonable to assume that his statement is correct. Of course in the heat of battle there was not an opportunity to ask him what he meant, but now that some reflection can occur, is there an urgent requirement that MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage be deleted? Is it so abhorrent that someone who has improved the use of CSS and JavaScript at Wikipedia for years should have a page to draft ideas relating to the main page? Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have undone both since no admin tools are required. WP:MFD explicitly states under what may be nominated here both Mediawiki and Gadget pages can be nominated there, so there is no procedural reason to not let the discussion run its course. Any discussion on the merits of the deletion needs to take place at the MFD nomination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This fallout has been a long time coming, and I doubt it will stop here without serious changes to Edokter's "my HTML & CSS way, or the highway!" approach (a much longer-term problem), especially now that he's using threats of administrative action against anyone who gets in his way. Repeated threats, with hostile, temper-tantrum screaming, and repeated dares to take him to ArbCom, are unbecoming. If something like this happens again, someone will likely take him up on it, and might now anyway. The stark obvious fact of the matter is that threats to abuse administrative power when WP:INVOLVED are themselves an abuse of administrative power when involved. If a cop pulls you over and says "give me all your money or I'll shoot you", they're still abusing their authority even if though they did not shoot you or even put the gun to your head. I have no doubt whatsoever that ArbCom will see it that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

After reflecting on this a bit, I have decided to retire. I will delete my user page, the gadget, and the new main page (they are private pet projects after al), and request on meta that my admin bit be removed.

This is not the first time an RfC has blown up in my face, each time by a few rogue editors who thought they could oprate outside process to derail the discussion, which after all is precicely what they intended. Both times I was left hanged to dry by the everyone else. So it is clear to my that volunteering is not possible because of those rogue forces, that claim to speak for the community, while the real community isn't allowed to fully participate by means of sabotage.

Congratulations to the rogue force: you won. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone should immediately de-sysop him before he goes on a deleting spree. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't grave dance. He asked to have his bit removed and hasn't done any deleting but his own creations. Rebbing 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not grave dancing at all. Read his promise here to delete not just his page but other things. There's no thing as "my creation" once I publish it on Wikipedia, it's Wikipedia's. Deleting a userpage is one thing, but other stuff should not be deleted. And once a person says "Retired" their sysop tools should be immediately revoked, there should even be a bot that does that at the first posting of the "retired" template. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. I felt like you painted his misconduct with a wide brush as though he might go deleting articles on all sides as he exited, bit I see your points. Also, I assume someone involved with his draft will ask to have it refunded: I thought it looked pretty nice myself. (post-close comment) Rebbing 19:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: I realize it's not my place, but I'll have my say anyway. This—all of this—was unnecessary: we have processes for calmly handling these things. Had your draft main page been deleted at MFD, you still had DRV, and, failing that, nothing kept you from working on it in your user space like any other user until it developed more interest. Still, it grieves me to see a valuable editor departing the project on these terms: I don't think you have to do this. I wish you the best. Rebbing 19:14, 6 July 2016 (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:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_should_galleries_use_mode.3Dpacked_by_default.3F

Think this has probably run long enough: Think this could be closed, and, if appropriate, the result sent to the developers to institute? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms closed

A heads-up to everyone that Nakon, Deor, and I have closed the above RFC. Great thanks to Coffee and The Wordsmith for shepherding this process through to the end with a minimum of disruption and angst. Katie^talk 20:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request from Wackslas

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 encountered this user via a UTRS request to make a standard offer request. I re-allowed talk page access so they could do that. They have asked that I post their request here[5]. At this point I will refrain from posting my opinion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my ban lifted. I was banned back in October 2015 and they said I can go for the standard offer which takes six months. It's been over eight months since I've been banned so that's why I want it lifted. Every time I've said this, I've been told I need to say more about it. Read carefully because I've said this every time I've asked for the block to be lifted. I also sent suggestions to edit Wikipedia while I've been BLOCKED (I said on my last UTRS appeal that it was while I was unblocked but that was a mistake on my part) and that shows my ongoing involvement in the community. Yes, I did have another account and that was why I was blocked but it was a minor mistake that happened late last year so I think it should be long forgotten now. Thank you. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Standard Offer request for Wackslas was only just archived. Does he get to keep asking everytime it's declined? Granted, there wasn't much discussion the last time.--Atlan (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This was just rejected a week ago, as seen in the edit above for among other things trolling on IRC. Is this going to be a weekly occurrance now? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• @HighInBC: Were you aware of the recent request?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• No I was not. Their e-mail said they had waited 8 months. If I had known they had asked so recently I would have declined it. Based on this I of course oppose. I also have no objection if someone wants to close this early. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:32, 7 July 2016 (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 Warnings

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:87.13.42.226 keeps reinstating block warnings on user:161.113.20.135;s talk page even though she clearly does not want them there. I told user:87.13.42.226 that user:161.113.20.135 has the right to delete warnings from her own talk page and that he needs to leave her alone. However, he is continuing to reinstate unwanted warnings on her talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I've imposed a short block to hopefully stop the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2016 (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 DYK 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 would like to request a topic ban for User:LavaBaron from Wikipedia:Did you know (shortened DYK) and all associated pages and processes. The problem is not that he or she introduces errors: this is a common occurrence at DYK, and most editors react constructively when real or perceived errors and problems with their hooks (the one-liners that appear on the Main Page) are pointed out and hooks get temporarily removed from the Main Page or the preparation areas to deal with the issues.

With LavaBaron though, the problems are not only too frequent (two articles he created were on the Main Page with an incorrect hook on 21 June 2016, and one article with an incorrect hook he had reviewed was set to go on the Main Page this week as well), but his reaction to the situation is very worrying. The discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Removed_staircase_hook_from_Main_Page (first article), Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Aplets & Cotlets (second article), and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_fourth_installment. He also commented on two other discussions I started, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_3:_the_many_awards_of_Roya_Sadat and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_village_of_Oxfordshire.

In the first discussion, it is best if you read it completely, no single diff will indicate the problem but in total it becomes very clear that LavaBaron is unwilling or unable to either admit that he made an error (which isn't a problem), or support his claims that he was right and why with precise sources. The only source he claimed as support was in this edit (which also contains the false claim that I demanded him to quit Wikipedia; a claim he repeated at User talk:Coffee): after I linked to that source and quoted the part that supported my reasoning and contradicted his claim[6], with a request to indicate which page or quote supported his position, he didn't: he didn't reply to that post directly, and when I asked again[7] and again[8], he only claimed that I was wrong and he was right without any explanation how or why, and finally gave some non-apology apology[9]. The article itself was of seriously below-par quality and should never have been proposed or accepted for DYK (my cleanup).

The exact same thing happened at the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, where I asked " which source supports the hook (perhaps give us the quote that does), and is it reliable?", and no reply as to what source actually supported the hook (and how) followed), despite LavaBaron repeatedly replying in defense of the hook.

Instead of leaving it at that, he decided to escalate the matter by applying his failed standards to other discussions about problematic hooks I started. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat, I indicated how the hook was not supported by the refs given for it, with explanation of why (per ref).[10]. LavaBaron clamied that the hook was sourced after all and shouldn't have been removed[11]; but again gave no indication of where he found that information. I again asked him "what sources?"[12] but got no reply.

When discussing a hook he reviewed and which contained an error, his reply[13]: "I see no problem whatsoever with it". Not because it wasn't an error, but because it wasn't the main point of the hook.

Someone who believes and defends that knowingly putting a hook with an error on the Main Page is "no problem whatsoever" is not acceptable as an editor in or around DYK. Someone who creates errors which are put on the Main Päge, and then continues to defend these errors against demonstrated facts, claiming to have evidence for his position but never producing it, is disruptive and a net negative at DYK. Other solutions are welcome, my preference would be to simply topic ban him from DYK. DYK is already often enough time-consuming for many editors, and too frequently introduces errors to the Main Page. But most editors agree that this is a problem and try to avoid it. Editors who actively try to defend errors with false claims (or even not seeing the problem with having an error on the Main Page) are not contributing to the process but create an additional timesink. An additional warning that disruptive edits like this (a rather transparent attempt to remove a note about his incorrect DYK on the article from the talk page, while leaving the DYK template in position) will not be tolerated is also welcome.

My apologies for the lengthy post, it is not easy to put problems like this in two sentences and three diffs, it's more something one needs to read completely to fully appreciate. Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• oppose suggest Ritchie333's idea of a two way IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron may be a better idea LavaBaron (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the only interactions we have is me pointing out DYK errors, and you defending them, I don't think such an interaction ban would be beneficial for WP. The only result would be that more DYK errors would get unnoticed. Fram (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since you've only raised an objection to two of my 148 DYKs and DYK reviews, it's statistically unlikely that would occur (if, indeed, it has occurred at all at this point something, as you know, about which you and I disagree). Ritchie333's suggestion that you "drop the stick" [14] and a two-way IBAN be applied seems in the best interest of the project and community. LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Also an interaction ban would be ludicrous since Fram is one of the very few people preventing the error-ridden crap being visible on the main page. An interaction ban would effectively allow LavaBaron to continue to degrade the front page at their leisure. Given they have shown very little indication that they are in error (despite the overwhelming evidence they have been), removing LavaBaron from DYK until such time as they can demonstrate competence is the fix that actually improves the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Away from DYK, LavaBaron can't learn how to do better. I suggest that for a certain period, every article by LB needs two reviews, and an approval by LB needs a confirmation from a second reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Let's see: as you note, LavaBaron introduced the idea that someone ran 1.3 miles of steps in 1:44 (Mile run world record progression says that the record for one mile, presumably on flat ground, is 3:43.13). As you note with the award-winning: if sources A, B, C, D, etc say that someone has won an award (different award for each source), it's is obvious mathematics (WP:CALC), not a problem, to say that the person has won several awards (not good for DYK, which demands that the claim come from a single source, but not dishonest), but introducing such a claim based on sources that don't say this at all is a hoax, because presenting those sources as citations is a claim that the information came from those sources. Together with the unsourced claim that you're trying to get LavaBaron to leave the project (per WP:WIAPA, unsourced claims about bad personal behavior are considered personal attacks), these are sufficient reason for a significant block; the rest of the stuff you bring up is relevant to the topic ban idea, but I'm not going to offer an opinion there. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment As Fram has noted that two of my 150 submissions and reviews (75 each) are, in his opinion (but not those of the promoting reviewer, apparently), lacking, it is probably germane and non-canvassing - since a TBAN is reflective of an editor's holistic contributions - to courtesy-ping editors who have reviewed my 147 other DYKs and DYK reviews to weigh-in for either the LB "Remain" or LB "Leave" campaigns. As per the note that's been on my user page for a week [15], I'm OOT ATM and am typing via phone, so can't ping everyone but will hit a few regulars, and leave it to Fram to ping the rest - @Wilhelmina Will:, @Notecardforfree:, @David Eppstein:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Epicgenius:, @Georgejdorner:, @Northamerica1000:, @Nvvchar:, @EEng:, @Coffee:. LavaBaron (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite. [16] 130.157.201.59 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an alternative to a block. Making factual errors is common and easily corrected - that's why hooks are reviewed. But repeatedly ignoring requests for the most basic verification? That's not acceptable. Honestly, I don't really care how many DYK's LavaBaron has had approved - we don't (or shouldn't) keep score. But the fact that it happened twice in rapid succession is troubling. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is hardly the first time LavaBaron has had issues with DYK reviews, including approving problematic hooks. A few examples are this one, where the originally approved hook as stated does not appear in the article, one of many incomplete yet passed reviews, and this lengthy one with a disagreement that is reminiscent of the current one. There are more, but I don't have time to look for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • To provide fuller background, BlueMoonset had previously engaged in what the esteemed Prhartcom described as an "unwarranted attack" in GAN [17]. When he was rebuffed by other editors he moved to DYK where he began characterizing my reviews as "incomplete," a characterization that was not endorsed by the community when he subsequently put it to them (thread linked by Maille, below). However, I look forward to the promised examples, when he has "time to look for them." [sic] LavaBaron (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Prhartcom, were you indeed saying I made an "unwarranted attack"? LavaBaron has made this charge twice here, and it seems most unlike you to have said any such thing. As for the rest of LavaBaron's post, since I have already listed three examples of problematic DYK reviews that LavaBaron is ignoring, I'm hardly going to spend further time finding more for him to ignore and give him further opportunities to recast past events in reply.

  Per Casliber below, I'm registering my opposition to any IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron while the latter participates at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  If I did, I must have meant it at the time, and there must have been a good reason for my statement. Don't worry, I support you, BlueMoonset. My !vote is below. —Prhartcom♥ 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. These issues date back to Oct 2015 this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and things have not gotten better. And his attitude is often snarky, which troubles me. When I flagged a number of reviews he did as inadequate, and listed them at WT:DYK as is standard practice, his response seemed to be that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of the much quicker route of just doing adequate reviews. He argued on those nomination templates about review details not being necessary. I ended up doing some of the reviews myself, out of sympathy to the nominators. When things weren't going his way, on the DYK talk page he tried to get RFCs going to do away with the very guidelines he didn't feel like following. And then there was a laughable (to me) "threat" from him regarding an issue that really had nothing to do with him. He just used the opportunity to try to bait me, I guess. I personally have stayed away from him since then, but being active in DYK, I have noticed the attitude problem with others that just never ends. And this is all very sad. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Support TBAN, but oppose IBAN between LB and Fram. Here's why:

1) Fram doesn't sugar-coat his messages, but his intent at DYK is to clean-up multiple issues. He has a zero tolerance for errors, and can be blunt in how he delivers that message. You can agree, disagree, or not get involved.

2) With LavaBaron, it's not just the errors, and not just Fram. It's a poor attitude that goes beyond DYK, but this is the one project we're dealing with here. I first noticed LavaBaron after his dust-up with another editor at GA that I was not involved with; and he has a practice of banning editors from his talk page which seemed kind of bizarre to me. The second thing I noticed about LavaBaron is that for someone whose account was, at that time, less than a year old, he certainly seemed to have figured out the mechanics of WP pretty well, including SPI and AN. LavaBaron as a new edittor was already lodging disputes with other editors. So, it isn't just Fram.

Therefore, my opposition to the IBAN. There are too many other editors who have been subjected to LB's attitude. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note LavaBaron has been blocked for reasons related to this thread. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's a 1-month block that is currently being appealed by LavaBaron on his talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Admin note - Reopened this thread, as the block is currently in question. Any requests for a topic ban may continue freely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Block has since been rescinded. Blackmane (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I attempted to review the editors entire talk page history. It is long, and in some cases, I scanned rather than read in-depth. I see some things we would expect - minor short-comings early, pointed out and apparently not repeated. However, while the history is not pristine (whose is?) there's a gulf between identifying some shortcomings that could use some advice from experienced editors... and a topic ban. I am troubled by the Howe Street situation. There were too many warning signs to shrug it off as an understandable mistake, though I think "hoax" is quite an over-reaction. (I'm also troubled that the DYK was approved, but that's a matter for another venue). I don't think a topic ban is close to warranted, although I would urge the editor to take a deep breath and take on board the fact that bad DYK's on our main page are a black eye, and strive to be part of the solution, not the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who originally approved the Howe Street Stairs hook. As a catalyst for these events and for advancing poorly sourced or downright wrong information, I'm sorry. While reviewing the article for approval, I had some of the questions that Sphilbrick raised at my talk page but figured that I just wasn't understanding information that was confusingly worded (what qualified as a staircase or a flight of stairs, for instance). Of course, I should've asked for clarification instead of assuming that I would be the only one who had trouble with the article. I'll step away from reviewing others' articles on DYK for a week to get a little perspective and take my mind away from the process. In future, I'll go by the rule of trusting my gut–if I'm confused about something, it's couth to ask the nominator for clarification. I'm sorry to have played a part in this and thank everyone for their continued vigilance and good faith. All my best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Edit: As of 4JUL2016 I've cut-short my wikibreak to address this. Request Suspension of Discussion until July 13 - I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated for the following reasons:

• (a) though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive [18]; I remain out of town and it has been extremely difficult for me to be pulled back into these issues ... it is virtually impossible for me to do a bulleted defense of a WP:WALLOFTEXT accusation. I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue.
• (b) this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk. So far, most of the editors who have opined here are those who !voted "support" in that one. The core issue here deals with interpretation of written reviewing criteria of DYK, and it is a long term issue involving a vocal minority and a less active majority, that latter including myself. In interest of balance, since this is a similar TBAN proposal to the recent failed one, editors who participated in the majority of the last one should be notified it is being re-run at ANI. It is beyond my bandwidth (figuratively and literally) to do that while out of town.
• (c) on top of all this, this TBAN has attracted the attention of the sockmaster of 11+ socks [19] tightly coordinated to a professional WP sanitizer operating on the Frank Gaffney article. For several months I have been the subject of a coordinated railroading effort by a professional sanitizer due to my singular efforts fixing and de-sanitizing the Gaffney article, which have been denounced by Gaffney himself on C-SPAN (the first in a flurry of socks and IP editors who will soon land here have already done so, in the form of IP editor 130..., above). Doug Weller can confirm the veracity of this situation if asked. I have, on holiday here, had to deal with such malicious and persistent vandalism at my Talk page since this TBAN was opened that my Talk page is now in lock-down and protected by action of Huon. To expect me to simultaneously defend myself against (1) a TBAN that has attracted (and will soon be attracting more) socks and IP editors to stuff the ballot box, (2) a (successfully retracted) bad block, and (3) Talk page vandalism from a professional full-time firm, is just far too much to process during a time period I was supposed to be "dark". As an occasional, part-time contributor to WP, I can usually avoid railroadings, but even I can't deal with three trains at once.
• (d) immediately after this TBAN was opened I was blocked for 30 days sans warning or caution (on the same charges leveled in the TBAN) - blocking someone immediately after opening a TBAN on the same topic castrates their ability to mount any defense or explanation. Even though a heroic outcry from fellow Wikipedians resulted in the lifting of the block after less than 24 hours, it burned through the short time I have free to deal with this; I will be unable to access the internet again after this post for at least several days

LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is IP 130.157.201.59. I encourage LavaBaron to provide the evidence he claims to have of a relationship between myself and any "sockmaster" or "professional sanitizer" or "professional full-time firm". There is none. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [20] LavaBaron (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• As a contributor, I'm reluctant to close this myself, but in view of LavaBaron's comment, I think it would be wise to close this for now, and revisit, if necessary after 13 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would first like someone to post a link to the discussion referenced by LavaBaron above, "this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk." I can't immediately find such a proposal (and can't remember being involved with one), and if it happened, then the fact that another editor (me) now also starts such a topic ban proposal points to a continuing problem and is an extre reason to have the ban, not a reason not to have it of course (as the current proposal is for current problems, not an attempt to get a different result for already discussed issues). We can suspend the discussion, but I'm always wary of people who have time to respond for days and many posts (even inserting themselves in other discussions with me, a strange thing to do if you don't even have the time to properly defend yourself in discussion about your own actions), but then no longer can reply the moment it becomes clear that a restriction seems to have support. Avoiding restrictions by being unavailable is too often misused. Impose a topic ban now, and let LavaBaron start an appeal when he has the time to do so properly. Fram (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Fram I think what he is referring to was not a TBAN, but two editors wanted him to be "warned". Click on this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and the wording is "I propose that LavaBaron should be given a final warning that further slapdash reviews will lead to a ban (of an initial month's duration?) from submitting or reviewing any further DYKs." proposed by Prioryman. LavaBaron opposed, and BlueMoonset supported it. But as far as I know, that's all it ever was. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • ErrantX and Jakec seemed 2 reject idea NE "slapdash" reviews were occurring but didn't !vote (presume on grounds that can't !vote to warn someone 4 something not happening?) - sry for brevity, typing from phone LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - in the above, an anonymous IP 130.157.201.59 wrote (in regards to LavaBaron) "A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite". I think this comment needs to be ignored and even considered biased. The off-site link the IP provides connects to a tirade on Reddit.com, which character assassinates LavaBaron. Clicking on the Frank Gaffney "Before" and "After" links and the same for "Center for Security Policy" links shows a previous status and the current status of both Wikipedia articles. It appears the "Before" in both instances was most likely POV editing by an Anon IP as discussed here: --> [21].

The Reddit.com tirade also links to this that discussion in an attempt to put LavaBaron in a bad light. However, providing this link does the opposite and shows a side of LavaBaron that is in agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. LavaBaron intiates a thread at a Wikipedia discussion board questioning the IP's POV editing and even takes a stand against the IP later in the discussion - that resonates with standing up for editing according to Wikipedia standards. It is very different from the LavaBaron who has engaged in problematic editing at DYK. Maybe someone can provide insight into this matter? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• What Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow us to call a defense analyst a "conspiracy theorist" and the think tank he heads an "Islamophobic hate group" and how does this possibly pass BLP? I see a slew of hit pieces that came out when Gaffney became Ted Cruz's national security advisor. They all crib from the Wikipedia page which is LavaBaron's opinion which is a curated selection of opposition opinion pieces. Wikipedia established BLP protections to prevent this from happening. Compare the handling of Frank Gaffney's BLP to that of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Is BLP a Wikipedia policy or not? The prior promotional state of the pages does not justify breaking BLP and NPOV as badly as is humanly possible. LavaBaron's work is like replacing the description of John Oliver as a "comedian" or "TV host" with whatever nasty names Ann Coulter decides to call him in her next column. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [22] LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support After reading the above commentary, and then the background information provided by User:Fram via the provided links, I think a DYK topic ban for LavaBaron is warranted. From Fram's comments and the DYK admin participating in the discussions that involved a number of DYK editors I can see that it is very important to have accuracy be the norm at DYK. User:LavaBaron seems unable to see the need for accuracy via sourcing or as a norm and so on. He also continually defends this position in discussion after discussion, and seemingly attempts to talk his way around the issues. I think LavaBaron needs to take a time out from DYK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Errors are fine. We are all human. Sticking by your errors when people point them out to you? That is not fine. Refusing to even reply when asked for proof? That is definitely not fine. At this point in time, I have no confidence in LavaBaron's ability to contrib to DYK in an error free manner. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban is the only alternative to protect the integrity of the main page. As a side note, I also oppose the suspension of this thread as LavaBaron has already broken his promise (I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13). --Majora (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated" - my simple request was rejected, so I will not cede my right to speak on my behalf - at great personal expense & inconv & no ability to mount an effective defense via mobile phone edits ... to recap: OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page, I was silenced by an (admitted) bad block [23] for first 24 hours of discussion doubly ensuring i couldn't speak on my behalf, & we have probable socks !voting in this thread - after all that my only simple req. was for a suspension of disc until i could get 2 a comp. & off my phone and it was rejected by OP - this monstrous pile-on is utterly shameful LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When you stated above " though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive " I let it pass because you added "I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue." because, while it sounded cynical, you could aalways claim that you meant what you wrote. It now turns out that you were indeed cynical: "OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page". No, OP (me) started a discussion on the 21st (about one DYK hook, not about a TBan) because that DYK was only promoted the 19th (a Sunday, and I very rarely edit on Sundays) and hit the mainpage the 21st, the day I noticed it and started the discussion. The second one was also on the main page the 21st, and the third one was only promoted the 23rd. Meanwhile, you still found time to incorrectly criticize the pulling of another hook, and responded freely and at length (but without much substance). The TBan discussion was started here the next day, the 24th. No special delays were made, no effort to catch you when you were unavailable. The actions I took wrt your DYK hooks are actions I take all the time when problematic hooks hit the preps, queue or mainpage, regardless of the editor. I don't first check their userpages to look for their availability. Fram (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved editor try to find a consensus in this and close it as such before it gets auto-archived? Discussion seems to have died down. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose DYK has a formal review process for each article plus additional layers of oversight as the article passes through preparation to the queue to the main page. There is therefore plenty of opportunity to detect and resolve errors in a collaborative way per WP:IMPERFECT. If LavaBaron's work is error-prone then he should be encouraged to put it through such peer-review as DYK. Banning him from such peer review would have the perverse effect of encouraging him to work in isolation where any errors would be less readily detected and corrected. As his work seems to be good faith and the errors seem minor, it would be best to leave matters as they are. The attention given to this matter should naturally cause LavaBaron to be more careful and that seems quite adequate in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Andrew D., the problem is not that LavaBaron makes errors, the problem is that he doesn't care or doesn't recognise them even after they have been pointed out to him. DYK is a collaborative effort, and it has become clear that LavaBaron is not really interested in such collaborations, only in getting his articles on the main page. DYK has trouble enough stopping errors from appearing on the main page, and letting known liabilities continue to contribute articles to it is just making things worse. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I know LavaBaron, he/she is a hardworking contributor, though his/her work appears to be error-prone at times. I do not feel a ban from DYK will do LavaBaron any good, and I agree with Gerda Arendt's suggestion above. The need is to be able to communicate with LavaBaron, who says he/she is away till mid-July. Better keep an eye on their work for a certain period of time and let them know their flaws, as Andrew opines above; I am sure someone who has good faith will not miss an opportunity to improve oneself. As for LavaBaron, he/she needs to understand that you can't ignore the demand for providing sources, and a defensive tone all the time does not do one good. All in all, a ban or a block definitely does not look a solution to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Has anything in this discussion given you the impression that he cares in any way about the errors or understands the problems with his edits and comments? This just seems like postponing the inevitable and forcing a second discussion in a few months, for little or no benefit. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Sainsf, there have been problems with LavaBaron since he or she first arrived at DYK, and unlike you I don't see that anything but a ban will stop the problems from happening, since there have been no signs of improvement over the months to a seemingly reflexive resistance to correction. Even now, he's misrepresenting the facts: "between 1 to 3 errors", which he keeps repeating like a mantra, is demonstrably untrue and significantly understating the problem: I noted three more in my original "oppose", and they aren't the only ones. If I thought LavaBaron was indeed voluntarily leaving DYK per this typically worded edit below with two subsequent emendations, I wouldn't have bothered writing this, but past experience renders me skeptical of such posts. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • BM, as we're good friends I don't wanna appear like I'm trying to Boomerang you, but IIRC you previously engaged in what the esteemed Prhartcom described as an "unwarranted attack" in GAN over a content disagreement [24]. When rebuffed by other editors you moved to DYK where you began characterizing my reviews as "incomplete," a characterization that was not endorsed by the community when you subsequently put it to them (thread linked by Maille, above). In light of that, it would be good if you could clarify if this is a genuine issue you're expressing or an instance of you going into the "attack mode" that has caused other editors concern? I hope all is well with you - best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
          • My goodness, LavaBaron, what on earth possessed you to add that belated false claim that we were good friends? You banned me from your talk page last August (it ended up being effectively permanent, as witness your false IBAN claim several weeks later), and then blatantly lied about me and my motives. To be clear, the issues in my posts here are genuine, just as Fram's have been. Your continuing actions speak far louder than any words could. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
            • • I consider all other WP editors friends, and try to deal with them all as I would deal with a friend, with honesty and pleasantness. If you choose not to reciprocate that's beyond my control. And no, I did not "lie" about you. As a friend I need to ask you to please police your accusations better; you've already been cautioned by another editor once for "unwarranted attack" [25]. LavaBaron (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                • OK, I looked carefully at the discussions once more. I see the point Fram and BM are trying to make. LavaBaron, I understand you are good at heart as a Wikipedian, but your reaction to the situation looks far from a collaborative approach. I find you too defensive and sometimes close to hostile, please don't get me wrong but I find it hard to believe that only you can be fully right and the others are mistaken in their allegations. Your response is worrying, not you. I'm sorry but if you continue with this attitude I will have to switch to "Support" on this proposal. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment While a certain "version of events" has been advanced in which I am unable to process WP:IMPERFECT collaboration without erupting into a Desmond-esque tirade, smashing the WP:TEAHOUSE's china and screaming for Bon Bons, the fact is I happily collaborate when suggestions for improvement are put to me in a polite and constructive way. Like many people, I do have a personal failing in sometimes having clouded judgment, or becoming defensive, when the first note directed toward me is in the form of attack or belittlement. On my userpage I've linked 15 GAs I've authored and have been passed. I certainly invite anyone to view the GANs those went through to see just how pleasant of an editor I am with whom to collaborate and the fact that 9 times out of 10, I accept suggestions from other editors without a moment of hesitation. However, I pledge in the future not to let personal feelings get in the way and to do a better job collaborating on occasions when suggestions for edits come in the form of a full broadside against my literacy. Moving forward, I will be the model Vulcan editor: emotionless, stoic, indefatigable. LavaBaron (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Translation: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT—nothing said by the people concerned about DYK issues has any merit, and LavaBaron has no intention of deviating from their chosen path. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed. For reference, this is that first note directed towards LavaBaron. Fram (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • So now I'm an enemy of "the people?" My wickedness knows no bounds. It's clear my one recent sourcing error and one failure to catch an error made by another editor has established me as one of the worst Wikipedians in history, and just a terrible human being generally. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's a few of my most recent DYK's where, like just about all my DYKs, I happily and unhesitatingly accept suggestions when offered with kindness and construction: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. But, of course, I understand it's more exciting to keep laser-focused on 1-2 minor errors in my 150 reviews/submissions. No biggie. Frankly, I honestly doubt I'll submit to DYK again after this shellacking. It'll be easier to just continue generating copious quantities of articles sans the self-confidence destroying nature of this particularly cruel form of quality control. LavaBaron (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban LavaBaron demonstrates the problem immediately above—the bull-in-a-china-shop approach may be great for derailing discussions and dismissing unwanted opinions, but it is very unhelpful for DYK on the main page. There is no need to spend a month of repentance if a mistake is made, but the blanket dismissal of those who do the work to reveal the problems shows that a DYK topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This TBAN originated from an editor whose fixation on an error by me prompted a warning by Ritchie333 that he should "drop the stick" [32]. So, just to keep this in perspective, as my gut feeling is that your !vote may have been because you were possibly feeling chuffed by my forthright reply to your previous missive as opposed to having studied the facts of this case, "the errors" referenced that have actually been diffed involved one (1) sourcing error I made (and accepted correction of without protest), and one (1) error by me in not catching another editor's error (for which I've apologized) - out of 150 DYK reviews and submissions I've made.
    

As for your rather surprising charge I have been "dismissing opinions", I think I'd like to try diverting the emotion and empowering you to take a diff-based, fact-oriented view of the situation. In that vein, I see your one (1) example (which, respectfully, I'm not sure most reasonable editors would consider an example at all - all I said was "whatever" and then stopped discussing / editing the article in question ... I was out of town and unable to accent my response with additional pleasantries, as exhaustively explained elsewhere), and raise you thirteen (13) recent examples of me pleasantly and promptly accepting others opinions in DYK and GAN: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43][44]. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

One sourcing error and one error in a review? Template:Did you know nominations/Howe Street Stairs was wrong and pulled (as endorsed by Ritchie333 and everyone else), Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets was wrong (and should not have been featured on the main page), Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro was wrong (and pulled), and your retaliatory comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat was also wrong and only helped to prolong the problems. In the Howe Street Stairs discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124#Removed staircase hook from Main Page you simply made up what the sources said (either you totally didn't understand them or you flatout lied), and refused to back up your claims. In the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, you again couldn't or wouldn't provide any source that supported your hook and position, but also couldn't accept that you were wrong. In the Aispuro hook, you claimed "As everything prior to the comma is a preamble, and the hook-proper comes post-comma, I see no problems whatsoever with it." So, you specifically admitted in seeing no problems in having factual errors in a hook a long as it wasn't the main focus of the hook. You then struck it with "In interest of avoiding the threatened TBAN, I hereby strike my previous opinion. I apologize to the community for expressing WrongThought. My opinion is hereby refactored to RightThought and I agree, in total, with Fram on this issue. I affirm that I agree with anything Fram has said now, or will say in the future, about this issue, and do so without hesitation or mental reservation." which obviously was not meant at all. Fram (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So now the TBAN is because I agreed with you when you pointed out an issue, but I wasn't "sincere" enough? I didn't bow low enough when I admitted my error? Is this discussion even really happening? I feel like I've just been sucked into an alternate Wikiverse. Good lord.

And why do you keep trying to puff up your case by blaming me for articles I didn't edit like you just did above with José Rosas Aispuro? As the article history shows I've never made a single edit to it [45]. This assertion by you has already landed one admin in hot water after they relied on your version of events to impose a block that had to be immediately yanked as a bad block. It's concerning you're willing to sell other editors down the river by continuing to peddle this. Your TBAN nom comes down to 2 errors in my 150 DYK contributions. Full stop.

Ritchie333 told you to "drop the stick" - I really think you should heed his, and other editors/admins, words to you. Your conduct is unbecoming. LavaBaron (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I linked to Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro, a DYK review you performed: "Apologies for my delay. ALT-1 hook is supported by references and is interesting. Thank you to Yoninah for adding it. All other factors have previously been cleared. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)" Alt-1 hook was not supported by the references, and should not have been approved. I did not link to the article, nor did I ever claim that you edited it. This DYK topic ban proposal, and your defense, is based on your DYK nominations and reviews, and this is a DYK review you did, on 22 June 2016 (so right in the middle of all this, and after your break started). One would expect you to get these basic things right by now. Fram (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can see that the hook said 'September 1" and that wasn't in the source, and in actual fact it is Sept 15. Ok got it. The situation at Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets is a bit of a grey area. Both blogs that Fram cited as problematic appear semireliable with listed authors and structure, and the facts they cite are pretty banal, so I am on the fence with that one. oops, forgot to not the tenuousness of the East/West Washington issue. So, yes is a problem. Agree LavaBaron's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_3:_the_many_awards_of_Roya_Sadat and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_village_of_Oxfordshire were not helpful. Ditto Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_fourth_installment, Lavabaron, the date was wrong pure and simple and needed changing - sarcasm there was not helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose an IBAN as Fram's corrections are important - I need to digest these diffs and will comment shortly. A little busy now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have noted this and am waiting for an answer on my talk page from LavaBaron. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I have read all of this and all the supporting documentation, it has been difficult, but I have reached my decision.

LavaBaron, I support topic banning you from DYK for 1 week. Fram, I support interaction-banning you from LavaBaron for 1 week.

LavaBaron, I've known you for for the past year. A year ago, I encouraged you to create GA quality articles, and you have done so repeatedly, proving to everyone that you are a valued content contributor. I wish to honor you for that. Not enough editors here are giving you the respect you deserve for your content contributions. Most of the time, you do not make the mistake of accidentally inserting inaccuracy or fact synthesis. However, when you do make such a mistake, you mostly just defend yourself. What you should do instead is immediately apologize, immediately make it right, and immediately assure your opponents that you are as horrified at your mistake as they are, and do so with a good attitude. Assure them that accuracy is as important to you as it is to them. You did some of this, but not enough. Mostly, you just defended yourself. It is difficult to admit a personal mistake without coming across as unworkably defensive, but I am telling you that you have done this and I am asking you to not make that mistake in the future. Don't worry, I understand that your mistake was not intentional. During your 1 week topic ban from DYK, I would like you to thoughtfully examine your actions of defensiveness and tell yourself that next time there will be no controversy; you will instead work with people in a way that makes them want to work with you. Then, after your 1 week ban, you may return to your worthwhile content contributions to DYK with a newfound attitude of accuracy. Do not be offended if anyone carefully watches what you do, and do not be offended if anyone points anything out to you. Thank them, reassure them that you agree with them, take it all in stride, and be diplomatic. Your opponents only want what you want: A better encyclopedia! Thank-you for your understanding.

Fram, I've known you for the past ten years. You are a long-time respected content contributor, with more contributions to the encyclopedia than most of us, and you are a diligent spotter of errors. I wish to honor you for that. Most of the time, you do not make the mistake of accusing editors to the point of causing them to be unlikely to want to work with you. However, when you do make such a mistake, you cause the controversy that we are all now experiencing. What you should do instead is work with editors diplomatically, and do so with a good attitude. Assure your opponents that you are not accusing them, you are helping them and the entire project. It is difficult to point out the mistakes of others without putting them in a position to be defensive, but I am telling you that you have done this and I am asking you to not make that mistake in the future. Don't worry, I understand that your mistake was not intentional. During your 1 week interaction ban from LavaBaron, I would like you to thoughtfully examine your actions of non-diplomacy and tell yourself that next time there will be no controversy; you will instead work with people in a way that makes them want to work with you. Then, after your 1 week ban, you may return to interactions with LavaBaron and your diligence of checking their contributions to the encyclopedia with a newfound attitude of diplomacy. Do not be offended if anyone makes another mistake. Help them, reassure them that you are otherwise happy with them, take it all in stride, and be diplomatic. Your opponents only want what you want: A better encyclopedia! Thank-you for your understanding.

—Prhartcom♥ 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps take a 1-week break from patronizing people instead? I have no problem with people making a mistake; I have a problem with people making things up to defend their mistakes, and adding new mistakes in an effort to retaliate. You claim that LavaBaron's mistake was not intentional, which may well be true, and has never been claimed in the first place: but his responses were intentional, his lack of care, his deliberate misstating of what sources said to defend his position. I have a problem with people not caring that they put errors on the main page (or in an article), not in the sense of "I tried my hardest but inevitably I will make some mistakes anyway", but in the sense of "oh yeah, that's wrong, who cares, that's no reason not to put it on the main page". I have no interest in diplomatically working together with such editors or in "reassuring them that I am otherwise happy with them". I want them to drastically change their attitude towards accuracy, or leave (DYK, in this case). Fram (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2016 (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.

Standard Offer request from Mar4d

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.

---

Mar4d is requesting standard offer here User talk:Mar4d. He is blocked as sock of Acejet. He has 60,000 edits.

Acejet made his first edit at Template:Indian music?????

Support his unblock. --Aaasmani Pharista (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• No comment on the request, but I am very impressed that an account with no edits at all knows how to use ping, and more impressively exactly who to ping. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• User:Aaasmani Pharista's very first edit immediately after creating an account was to post this section on ANI, and their second was to ping several admins at User talk:Mar4d (reverted minutes later by User:Mar4d). If that's a genuine new user, well, I'm prepared to try dining on headgear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Very likely linked to Altaf Raza samandar (talk · contribs · count). The sock infestation in this area is quite high. Bbb23 will no doubt correct me and say that this belongs to a different set. —SpacemanSpiff 12:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• No, no, you're right, SpacemanSpiff.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2016 (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.

Moderator proposal

• Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer : Drmicrocap

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.

---

Drmicrocap (talk · contribs) was blocked back in February 2013 for sockpuppetry, a conflict of interest on Daniel C. Ferguson, and making legal threats. He is considering the standard offer, and I have agreed to start a thread here on the condition he takes an indefinite topic ban from Daniel C. Ferguson, which he has agreed to. He has also dropped the legal threats. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Drmicrocap is a sock of Drofmicrocaps (talk · contribs) who was blocked for making legal threats. Shouldn't the original account be unblocked rather than this one? More importantly, his serious and persistent BLP violations on Daniel C. Ferguson under both user names mean that he should be officially topic banned indefinitely if unblocked. He should not be unblocked on the basis of agreeing to a voluntary topic ban. He seems to think that it would simply be lifted at any time in the future upon his request. I am the one who dealt with his edits (and was the recipient of his legal threat). In my opinion he should never be allowed near that article or associated subjects again. I note also that he doesn't seem to have any other subjects in mind which he plans to edit. So why does he want to be unblocked? Before he was blocked, his edits under both those accounts were entirely to Daniel C. Ferguson and related subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Appears to be an SPA in dispute with a living person, created an attack page about that person, appears to not understand the BLP policy, issued legal threats... - think we can safely decline his contributions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much my impression and why he must be officially topic banned if he is unblocked. Admins should look at the contents of the original attack page he created to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reading just a bit, I found this: different topic, but the same problems as noted above, - how would we know the attitude changed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's the same topic, Gerda. He was making the bizarre claims about Daniel C. Ferguson to the admin who had deleted the original attack page. I am also less than thrilled with this SPA with a pseudo-legal username who re-added a spurious net worth figure to the infobox last year and never returned. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did some heavy culling on Daniel C. Ferguson - a good half of the article was about Newell Rubbermaid and completely irrelevant to the biography. Not being familiar with the notability criteria for business people, no comment on his notability. I also un-orphaned it and removed the 'short lead' template as it accurately reflects the body of the article now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's editing history is disturbing. The entire editing history revolves around creating and editing one BLP of a marginally notable person in an obviously unacceptable way. (The sock allegation is less significant as he says it just reflects a lost password for a similarly named account and I find that credible.) Obviously the editor will not be allowed to edit about Mr. Ferguson and says he has accepted that. Therefore, it would be important to know what he is planning to edit, but in the unblock request on his talkpage that information is not provided; he just says that he is willing to provide it at some unspecified future date. I therefore oppose any unblock at least until the editor outlines useful, policy-compliant edits he intends to make unrelated to Mr. Ferguson or any related subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, the original account Drofmicrocaps was registered on 4 October 2012 and blocked on 28 November 2012. The second account Drmicrocap began editing on 7 February 2013, i.e. 3 months after the block, and went to quite a lot of trouble and deceit to do so. This was not "lost password". This was block evasion. Otherwise I agree with you. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Total agreement with NYB. BMK (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Until info relating to point 3 is provided as well as a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. This can only be appealed to the community and will not be lifted upon request. Any support, from me at least, requires both points to be fulfilled. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Reblocks are cheap. I agree that banning him from Mr. Ferguson will be necessary; if it's true that he's the real power behind the throne for the LDS Church, and capable of choosing apostles at will, other editors can always add sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reblocks are only cheap if admins are willing to apply them without making the community jump through hoops to justify them. The rule of thumb should be that even a hint of improper editing or behavior from an editor recently unblocked with the standard offer should be enough to send them back to the woodshed immediately. That's generally not the case, we usually have to have another one of these AN or ANI discussions to convince an admin to do what should have been done automatically right off the bat. Until that changes, reblocks are not "cheap", they're a drain on the community's time, energy and patience. BMK (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blackmane and my comments above. Any support for an unblock would require both a credible description of what he plans to contribute and a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocked per NLT - I don't see the threat rescinded, so we could stop here and say that they should remain blocked on this point alone. That is defacto is our policy. Socking, and honesty concerns per @Voceditenore:, and @Newyorkbrad: as well. And as per BMK, blocks aren't free. I see every reason to leave this user blocked / banned, and no net positive here. SQL^{Query me!} 06:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

SQL, in his amended unblock request, he states It was agreed that I would utilize Wikipedia.org forum and thus fore include this withdraw any further threat of legal action in order settle any differences. It's rather incoherent but I assume that's a withdrawal and that he won't be reporting me to the US Department of Justice after all. He was also fond of threatening to report editors to the press as he did to Calmer Waters here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That being said - I still don't see the potential for a net positive here. SQL^{Query me!} 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The "incoherence" is bothersome. All it takes to withdraw a legal threat is saying "I withdraw the legal threat", whereas what this editor has written looks more like making potential loopholes for later use. BMK (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Signing again to delay archiving. The user has still failed to provide any indication of what he plans to contribute if unblocked. Perhaps it's time to close this as unsuccessful? Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose because of NLT, socking and block evasion, disruptive BLP-violating SPA, and NOTHERE. Moreover, he wrote in his unblock request that "i request permission to have it [topic ban on Daniel C. Ferguson] lifted at any time in the future upon request". Plus has never rescinded his legal threat or indicated any sort of articles/topics he would be editing if unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC); edited 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as per Blackmane's rationale. LavaBaron (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK and Brad. Reblocks are cheap but the discussion that leads to them isn't. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Noting that Drmicrocap has not edited in more than a week and hence has not responded to the observations in this thread. Let's wait a little longer to see how he addresses the concerns raised, some of which are very serious. If he doesn't post anything else, we can consider the request dropped for now. If he does, we can resume the discussion at that time. Depending on the way things go, there is also an aspect of the situation I may want to refer to ArbCom, as I have become aware of some non-public information that may be relevant. Hence I ask that no one unblock without first consulting me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Drmicrocap has just posted an utterly incoherent response today in which he has pasted in the entire contents of the page Subject matter (twice), claiming that this is what he is limiting himself to, and concluding with "Upon Acceptance of this by the administrators I would ask for them to continue to adhere to the proper timeframe called for to make the decision." Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that doesn't help at all. Unless there is objection in the next day or so I will decline the unblock. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2016 (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 Committee motion amending the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case

By motion of the Arbitration Committee;

The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) are rescinded. For clarity this includes remedy 2 which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the June 2012 amendment.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.

It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee motion amending the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz

In August 2015, the administrator privileges of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were revoked under the Level I desysop procedure, which is intended as a temporary measure. The Arbitration Committee has satisfied itself that the account was not compromised and that any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time.

Support

Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis

Not voting

DeltaQuad, Guerillero, Keilana, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz

Cross-posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Displaying overlapping blocks

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.

---

When looking at Special:Contributions of a currently-blocked editor, there is a pink box with the logmessage for the current block and a link for the full block log. For IPs, this is true whether the IP is blocked individually or as part of a rangeblock. But if an IP is blocked both ways concurrently, the pink box and the full log of that individual only have one of the two blocks listed and even the full block log doesn't list both. I assume when one expires, the other one remains active. See for example the Special:Contributions/166.170.34.139, where the pink box lists only Widr's 31h block, but the neighboring IPs Special:Contributions/166.170.34.138 and Special:Contributions/166.170.34.140 indicate that the ...139 is covered by a /24 rangeblock as well. DMacks (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I heard the question properly, but you assume correctly. IPs can be under multiple range blocks, including the /32, and they will not be able to edit until the last one expires. All the blocks can be seen through Special:BlockList, that is the "Current blocks" links at the bottom of their contribs/talk page. I recommend WP:POPUPS which will also give you this information. There is no permanent record of range blocks for individual IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you read correctly. My main point was just a bug/confusion about the pink box, and to clarify that the longer-lasting block persists after shorter one expires. But secondarily, I do use popups, but I can't find a link to Special:BlockList:( DMacks (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant only that popups will tell you that an IP is "blocked, rangeblocked, rangeblocked", etc, when you hover over their talk page. I'm not sure whether the devs would want to display all the blocks, instead of the most recent log entry, but it's been this way for a while and any changes would have to go through WP:BUGS. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: thanks for filing. DMacks (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What do you mean with "blocked both ways?" According to the block log, 166.170.34.140 was blocked individually for a week in January 2015, so that block has long expired, and you wouldn't see a pink box for it today. But did it also have an active individual block today when you introduced the rangeblock? De728631 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not check .140's individual page before rangeblocking its /24. Currently .139 is the one with concurrent active blocks; the links for .138 and .140 were just to demonstrate that a rangeblock does appear in the pink box if that is the only active block. But .140 is a nice example too...why doesn't it have a "View full log" link in the pink box to see that history? DMacks (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (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.

This is what happens when experienced admins decline to close RfCs

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 yeah, the RfC re WP:FAMILY at WT:SOCK was closed by an editor editing since... 19 March 2016. The closure was inexpertly done; the time and thoughts and efforts of multiple editors were erased in one thoughtless swoop by a lackluster job closing. And no one wants to go through another RfC, so the crappy close will stand. And all of this is because experienced admins just, you know, couldn't be bothered. So yeah, thanks and keep up the good work! Cheers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the consensus is correctly judged, but the close probably ought to have established also whether there is a a consensus for or against rewording the policy. This is however also partly because the wording and contents of the rfC itself is unclear (and somewhat non-neutral). I think in any case a second RfC will be needed to establish which potential alternative wording to use. So the closure is in fact fine I think because it doesnt preclude an alternative wording to be established subsequently, it only establishes that there is no consensus to remove (which there clearly isnt).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The close lacked nuance, and it should have included an evaluation of whether there was consensus to revise the section with slightly softer wording. The exact wording would probably need another RfC anyway, though. What the closer did write is accurate, in my opinion. There was clearly not a clear enough consensus to remove the section entirely. Has anyone tried talking to this editor? I fully support non-admins being molded into proper closers and I'll reach out to this editor if no-one else has yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you consider berating them and then adding a mocking welcome template to their talk page to be "talking", then yes I suppose you could say that Lingzhi tried talking to them first. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Berated yes, then harsh remarks struck through. If any admins wanna make themselves useful, you can take this editor under your wing. I strongly support that idea for positive action. But this whole problem was caused by admins not doing their jobs, and fobbing the job off on newly-minted editors.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • The real problem is admins not fobbing more of their "job" off to experienced editors, in my opinion. Closing doesn't require the mop for RfCs, but plenty of people consider it admin work because that's how it's always been. Given the shortage of admins and increasingly shrinking numbers, it's time to aggressively expand the role of experienced non-admins. But I'm on my way to NYC (fingers crossed for Hamilton lotto tickets!), so I'll get off my soapbox for now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I would also like to point out, that the closers first day of editing included fairly advanced editing like creating new pages, using userboxes etc. The chances of them *not* being an experienced wikipedian (even if all their previous editing was as an IP) are slim-none. So relying on the user registration date as a method of discrediting them is a waste of time. Had I not commented, I would have closed it the same way. No consensus to remove. No consensus to change the wording (although it was stronger than the remove faction) etc. If you can think of a re-wording that people might find appropriate instead of the current, you are free to propose it on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Disclosure: Lingzhi performed this edit on WP:SOCK and I reverted it. Came here after this exchange on my talk page). I noticed that User:Music1201 closed this RfC and yes, Music1201 is a newish user. Overall, I agree with the closure, although this could be because my vote was aligned with the closing decision. Since we are here already, it would be good to hear the opinion of other editors about the close - if it was incorrectly closed or if it could have been better worded or if the decision should be overturned. Personally, I still think the close was generally OK, although Music1201 could have phrased and explained the result better (For example, "No consensus to remove WP:FAMILY. No consensus for any change to the existing wording. Any changes for existing wording, should be taken up in a new RfC". A bit more of a nuanced explanation would have helped. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Admins are janitors. You don't need a janitor to close an RFC, you need any capable editor. It would have been preferable for the editor in this case to have explained their reasoning to give some indication that they had considered all sides of the debate before calling the consensus. But the actual outcome (maintain status quo) is not outside the realm of credibility given the multiplicity of views put forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• I, like others, agree that, although the consensus was definitely not to remove the section, at least some attempt at addressing the possibility of changing should've been made in the closing rationale. Note that this isn't the first time that Music1201 has made a poor close, their talk page archives are full of complaints about their AFD and RM closes. However, I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, and so Lingzhi's comments were incredibly WP:BITEy, and giving them a sarcastic welcome template was inappropriate. I'm honestly surprised that they weren't blocked for personal attacks, as their behaviour here has been, to put it simply, well below the standard expected of editors here. I'm almost inclined to slap a {{uw-npa4im}} on their talk page. Omni Flames (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Just to comment on this, my talk page archives actually contain very few complaints about my closures if you consider the number of closures i've done. — Music1201 ^talk 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Also, has anyone even notified Music1201 of this discussion? As far as I can tell, no. Lingzhi, since you've failed to do so, I have left a notice for you. Omni Flames (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• If I can add my non-admin $.02 here, I'd like to share my thoughts on this. I'd consider myself an "experienced editor" being here over 10 years and having a good working knowledge of policies and procedures here. With that being said I would not feel appropriate as a non-admin to closing RfCs. Whether right or wrong, having a non-admin close an RfC does not give the closure the "legitimacy" as the closing by an admin would. Simply put, an admin's closure carries much more weight as editors would feel less likely to re-open a RfC that an admin closes versus one a non-admin experienced editor would. As stated above, it's become almost an "unwritten policy" that admins have to close RfCs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: Non-admin closures have, for some time now, applied to RFCs. See Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Closures_of_RfCs. Omni Flames (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh I'm quite aware of it, however having it in writing there and actually APPLIED in practice tend to be two different things. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @RickinBaltimore: RFC is a place where we desperately need more closers. Just take a look at WP:ANRFC, it's pretty backlogged. I do agree that the tough and large-scale discussions should be left to one or more admins, but the idea of not allowing non-admins to close RFCs at all is quite absurd considering the fact that most are very easy closes. The fact is that a large number of straightforward RFCs are done by non-admins, as there aren't enough admins to handle them all. Omni Flames (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Well I may have to dab my toe in the waters there and see what I can do to help out then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: This has been waiting for you, Billy Ray! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, talk about diving headfirst. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I read that a few times, and honestly do not feel like I can make an informed closure there, sorry! RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Omni Flames: That was a real welcome template. Striking through my previous comments should have given you a strong WP:CLUE. And, BTW, you seem just a little too eager .. realy eager.. to block. Is your block count higher than average? Just wondering. Cheers PS Oops, you're an admin wannabe, not an admin. Sorry for the misundersatnding. You sounded kinda authoritative there.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: A user who's got 6.5k edits and is closing RFCs doesn't need to be welcomed to Wikipedia. As for finding an admin mentor, honestly, I'm not sure what I would need one for. I've been closing discussions at RM for some time now, and I've even closed the occasional RFC. No one has ever brought up a problem with my closes. Omni Flames (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • In all honesty, with exactly zero-point-zero-zero sarcasm or snark, you need a mentor to help you with the fact that you think you don't need a mentor. You show all the signs of a high probability of being a gunslinger and an asshole admin instead of a reflective admin. I deeply, genuinely hope you fail your first RfA so that you can gain a sense of perspective. But in all honesty once again, I have something that just barely bounces the needle above zero-point-zero faith in the RfA process, so I see a higher probability of a bad outcome here than a good one. Best wishes all the same.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seriously now, does no one actually take NPA seriously anymore? "You show all the signs of a high probability of being a gunslinger and an asshole admin". Sigh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It appears layering feigned sincerity on top of mockery and personal attacks makes them taste like chocolate cheesecake. Rebbing 15:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a personal attack no doubt and a pretty bad faith one at that. That said, the relevant policy to follow now is WP:DENY/WP:DFT. I suggest a speedy close to this section. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I also agree this should be speedy closed. Lingzhi opened this section, started the complaint on my talk page, and opened the RfC in the first place (likely dissatisfied that it didn't pass). — Music1201 ^talk 18:13, 9 July 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Allow non-admin delete closures?

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 asking for a formal review of the closure of Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Allow non-admin delete closures? No matter how you read it, this seems to be an obvious no-consensus to me. Besides the fact that there were more people in opposition, the closer seemed to do silly things like give more weight to those who frequently comment at RfD. However, the regular RfD admins are split 2-2 on the matter, and other RfD regulars, like Godsy and Steel1943 are in the oppose category (as the closer isn't an RfD regular, I'm wondering how they determined this). The closer also gave (IMO) too much weight to , the opposes saying "why is this needed" appear to be countered by RfD regulars saying there are often no uninvolved admins willing to close to keep the page. I believe I countered that adequately in my oppose: frankly that rarely happens now that we've gotten more admins patrolling RfD. Therefore, I am requesting that this close be overturned to no consensus. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tavix: The "regular RfD" users was a browse through the logs to see who was actively contributing, both before and after the AfD. Of course, this isn't scientifically accurate, but it's a good starting point. As for the more admins patrolling RfD point, I did consider this - however, as with other cases, this is likely to drop back off after the discussion and attention from the RfC has dropped off again - I remember this happening before, I'll try and dig up the exact link at some point (if I can remember where I found it). I also at first read found it as a no-consensus, however on subsequent reads found just enough to push it towards support. I'll try and add more later on, as and when I get a chance. Mdann52 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been no extra admin attention at RfD due to the RfC. The extra admin attention I'm referring to is myself and Patar knight. I, because of my recent RFA and Patar knight joined RfD after declining a bunch of Neelix G6's and decided to stick around. The notion that this attention will diminish now is simply an unsupported opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose the NAC. This needed to be closed by at least an admin as it discussed deletion closures. Non-admins do not have authority to close discussions as delete. Also, there is clearly no consensus to implement this based on the discussion. Nakon 21:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• I was on the supporting side and even I think this was clearly no consensus. I don't agree with how votes were discounted here. I also feel the wrong standard was used. This amounts to a change in the WP:NACD guideline. This close might be defensible as "rough consensus", but it is indefensible when applying "reasonably strong consensus", which is required for adopting new guidelines or making substantial changes to existing ones per WP:PROPOSAL. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• In my view, the biggest problem with the close it is that it fails to address how admins are supposed to actually deal with NAC delete closes. In the absence of clear consensus to the contrary, admins are responsible for any deletions they make, and must therefor make a de-novo revue of of the discussion, and can only delete if they agree. But if they disagree, they now need to deal with the close... So the effort of the NAC closer is totally redundant, and there is actually more work for admins than before. This was explicitly raised by objectors, but was not addressed by the close. If you are going to discount opposes that are addressed by the proponents, you should also give extra weight to opponents who point out real problems with the RFC proposal. As the close didn't address a core issue that is required to actually implement, and based on the state of the discussion, I don't think the close can stand. Monty₈₄₅ 21:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn - I consider myself an "RfD regular", and as such, I have a good grasp on who frequents the forum. "Additionally, most of the users that regularly participate in RfD are in the support section (by my count)", their count just isn't accurate. I don't believe that there was consensus to allow nac closures in cases where there is consensus to delete at RfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Uphold the close. I didn't participate in the discussion and don't much have an opinion on the merits. But the closer had to choose some result. I think he wisely and boldly sussed that the headcount was about even, throwing him back on strength of argument -- and, if you're honest, the oppose side did not make strong arguments. (Maybe there are strong arguments, but they weren't made.) If this was a public debate, the support side would have won the debate handily. If strength of argument can ever be used to close a debate, I'd think it would be here, so if you overturn this you are really saying that strength of argument can never be a factor -- in which case, why argue? Just vote. Since most votes are more or less ties, that means we can never move forward. Don't hang that fatal millstone around the Wikipedia's neck, I implore you. Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn The main argument given by the opposes make perfect sense. I don't understand why someone would just discount them. Seems like a clear WP:SUPERVOTE to me. At the very least it appears to be no consensus to implement the change and it certainly doesn't look like support to implement it. --Majora (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn: The result should have been obvious. Consensus takes into account the concerns of editors. There are too many editors who oppose this proposal based on the extra weight it would add to the process (which may be good or bad) but with this amount of opposition, we do not have an optimal decision by implementing this. In order for this proposal to pass, the proposers must address the opposers' concerns, not rely on a supervote based on a literal understanding of consensus. — Esquivalience (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Reverse - It looks like the arguments were at least as good for Oppose as to Support, as per the argument of User:Monty845 that it actually creates work for admins. Either Opposing the RFC or No Consensus would have been a plausible result, but Support isn't justified from strength of arguments. (I would have the same opinion if the closer had been an admin.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• There is consensus that the discussion should be closed by an administrator. Thus I have reverted the closure and reopened it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 11 July 2016 (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.

Squeak, said the wheel

I'd like to request some administrative attention to the backlog at WP:ANRFC. It's really dragging out in some cases. I realize some of the RfCs and RfC-ish discussions listed there are tedious, but most of them could use an administrative close or they'll simply get archived without resolution and be re-raised as new RfCs recycling the same thing a month or 3 or 6 later. It's already been established that one listed there that has been archived can either be pulled out of the archive for closure (after which the archive bots will re-archive it again later), or closed in the archive page (though the latter tends to mean some interested parties will not notice the closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Have we started enforcing the provision that it's only for things that really need an admin's intervention to close? Have we banned Cunard from spamming it yet? If so, let me know and I'll be willing to help. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll ban Cunard for spamming the day we ban admins for being bone fucking idle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion on managing entries to the list of pending RfCs is being held. It should be on track to be added to the list in just over a week :-). isaacl (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone can give me a good explanation why Talk:Potato chip#RFC: Should the caption include "crisps" as well as "chips"?, Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"?, Talk:John Carter (film)#RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox? and the like are really intractable disputes which require admin intervention, I'll be glad to do so. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to go back to closing RFCs unless and until Cunard and George Ho are banned from using WP:ANRFC as their personal playpen. I'll point out that the last time I wasted a sizeable chunk of my life closing a contentious RFC (filed by a certain SMcCandlish, as it happens), as best I can tell not a single one of the participants took the slightest notice of the closure and everyone carried on as before. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Which one was that? I agree that alternative snack terms, when both are valid per ENGVAR, and which figure to use, when a basic source reliability examination answers the question for us, are kind of pointless to list at ANRFC. But some of these discussions are policy/guideline disputes that could affect large numbers of articles, and which no one will considered closed with a clear result unless it's an admin closure (i.e., editwarring will continue indefinitely). As an example, the move to try to effectively ban using disambiguation for anything but cases of direct article title collisions, despite the fact that even some of the naming convention guidelines prescribe use of disambiguation to resolve naturally unclear titles, as just one example. If I ever list what appears to be a frivolous request at ANRFC, please tell me. Anyway, just because something's on ANRFC doesn't mean a non-admin can't close it if the answer seems clear-cut. Maybe there should be something of a recruiting drive for NACs? Could even set up a section into which admins shunt ANRFC requests they're pretty certain do not need admin closure. This would even give admin hopefuls something to work on that's both productive and admin-training-like. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did link it—"Religion in biographical infoboxes", to which I gave a very clear "only if it's demonstrably relevant to the article subject" close, which is being resoundingly ignored. I do like your idea of a separate "this is unlikely to be too hard to close and is unlikely to trigger a swarm of abuse directed at the closer" holding pen—it would be very good training for admin wannabees, since it would give them hands-on experience in moderating conflict between people having vocal disagreements. (An even better proposal would be a throttle on listing RFCs; let's not beat around the bush, this backlog is almost entirely the product of a single editor who thinks it's funny to try to gum up Wikipedia's workings by dumping dozens of routine tasks which don't require any kind of admin intervention into the admin backlog.) ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion has has wide-reaching ramifications, stretching all the way up to arbcom. Saying it's being ignored seems like a bit of a stretch even if it hasn't been implemented perfectly. I think User:Cunard's work is valuable, but that is not for me to decide - there is currently an ongoing discussion about that topic here. If you don't think that a discussion merits a formal close, then you are, of course free to simply delist it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't work: remove stuff that doesn't need a closure, and Cunard simply reverts you by putting it back. I can't imagine a more blatant type of adminshopping. Until Cunard is banned from this board, I will not waste my time there. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While I support getting more non-admins involved with ANRFC, I think creating a separate bin for NAC will just serve to restrict non-admins from closing difficult discussions - even if they have the ability to make a good close and the technical ability to implement it. I do not think this is a good thing or your intention, but it seems virtually bound to happen if your idea is implemented. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I just closed two out of those three. The potato chips/crisps one was a contested discussion which was somewhat difficult to close. It also required someone to step up, and say I'm closing this, and actually making the article reflect the discussion's consensus. The John Carter one was a straightforward close, but it still required me as the closer to implement the consensus. I was more than comfortable closing both of these, but they still both needed someone to come in, and implement the results of the discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course the discussions (like almost all of them) required someone to implement the consensus, but I'm not convinced that it required "a closer" to do so, nor am I convinced that the participants in that discussion couldn't have figured it out on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you all to look at the RFC mentioned above. Cunard says that "This proposal will effectively ban me from WP:ANRFC", which I take as an indication that the proposal would actually change how that board is (or isn't) functioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, 1) it won't pass, and 2) I believe that if Cunard is to be banned from ANRFC it should be done through the front door, not sneaking in through the back door. I appreciated what Ricky81682 is trying to do there, and I believe it's entirely a good faith effort, but even I am skeptical about writing that proposal into "the rules" even if I believe it would generally be "best practices" to have direct RfC participants take RfCs to ANRFC... But if Admins want to reign in ANRFC, it needs to be taken head-on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what IJBall says. If a particular editor is problematic but the process is otherwise working, the appropriate course is a topic ban discussion regarding that editor, rather than reconfiguring the process in an effort to keep that editor out. (If you do want to go down the "RFC and policy change" route, a "nobody can add more than three items to WP:ANRFC in any given month" throttle would probably be the way to go, since it would still allow people to raise genuine cases while drastically cutting the frivolous nominations.) ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur with IJBall and Iridescent. If people think that Cunard should be banned from ANRFC, the appropriate question to be asking the community is "Should Cunard be banned from ANRFC?". We shouldn't be holding an RFC to require that only participants can list discussions there, when the only real reason for the idea is to stop a single editor from causing a massive backlog on that particular noticeboard. If we're going to do this, it should be done upfront. Omni Flames (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Or just limit them to 2 a day or something. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be equally neutering, I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

2 a day is still 10 a week at ANRFC – I think a limit of 4–5 per week would be a better idea for a "curb" on the spamming behavior. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng DEPROD redux

 No action necessary. Both User:Kvng and User:MSJapan are asked to reflect on their editing practices and endeavour to minimise disruption and wasted time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pursuant to the last time I was here at ANI regarding User:Kvng, I have been reviewing his DEPRODS and AfDing as I have seen necessary. Not everything gets deleted, and that's not the point; the point was to get a consensus on the material. Nevertheless, This was the latest keep rationale from Kvng, which is nothing more than a personal attack, and I'm not interested in being subject to that because Kvng doesn't like the fact that his actions as a PROD patroller are questionable at best. So here we are, and I've got some data to back up my earlier statements.

Of the approximately 576 articles Kvng has DEPRODDED over the last few months (of which he keeps a record), there have been:

3/3 subsequent deletions in February (on an incomplete list) 22/58 subsequent deletions in March (on an incomplete list) 50/183 subsequent deletions in April 40/233 subsequent deletions in May 13/90 (approx) in June - there are a number in process, and Kvng has stopped numbering the list at this point.

123/576 is just over 20% of the DEPRODs subsequently being deleted. That's a lot, and it's far too high. Not every AfD was started by me, either; quite a few were AfDed by others by the time I even saw them. However, who AfDed it is irrelevant; there was a community consensus saying that these articles should be deleted over 20% of the time.

Moreover, of those deletions, Treponema spirochetes was an obvious error (clear from the sourcing) that should not have had to go to AfD, and one of the radio stations was an obvious hoax that was a CSD via ANI (I can't recall which one, as there are about six that are problematic, most of which have been or will be deleted), but I do know I brought it to ANI because it was a sock creation of a banned user (some sock of Pinoybandwagon). If it's hugely important, I do remember Jenks24 deleted it, so he might be able to figure it out. Captiva iii was also a hoax, notably being cited to a WP page on GM of Uzbekistan and an owner's manual for a different car, and its existence wasn't even supported by the Chevrolet Captiva article we do have, and a basic look at the sources would have shown that. Due diligence should have shown all of this.

I will note that I am not dealing with redirect outcomes here, of which there are at least another 20-30% of the total, if not more. So we are talking about an error rate on PROD, insofar as "the article was not suitable to be kept in whatever state it was found in", of 40% or more. Part of the overall issue is that Kvng has a habit of reading policy in a vacuum, such as citing WP:BCASTOUTCOMES for every radio station AfD, even when RS do not exist, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planet_FM_94_Islamabad, and actually, most of the radio station articles. Kvng also constantly repeats his earlier prod arguments at AfD, such as "notability by X and Y" where X and Y are sources in the article already, often don't establish notability, and clearly were looked at by the original prodder. So he skews keep votes with no substantive content or policy-based reasoning, using material that was already deemed not substantial enough. He also called for a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newt Syrup because "Material doesn't have to be referenced to be eligible for merge." I'd also note I redirected Ben-Gay for lack of sources, and Kvng sent it to AfD instead claiming I wanted it deleted. Meanwhile, here, someone asked him to participate in something related to what he has been doing (in this case redirecting song prods to albums), and he refuses.

These are not appropriate statements or actions, and they're only examples of a larger issue. The basic fact of the matter is that over 123 articles have gone to AfD that did not have to go to AfD, and the deprodding continues to the tune of 6-10 articles a day. It literally looks like whatever he sees that is in the list gets removed, period. So this situation is neither going to change nor get better with time, and sending articles to a weeks-long process when they simply don't need to be is a problem. I'm simply not seeing the requisite level of understanding and ability being exercised here.

Therefore, I propose that Kvng be prohibited from PROD patrol. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The last ANI thread on this issue may be reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#User:Kvng, and I had to reread it twice to make sure that your report here wasn't just a copy of that one. The discussion was closed with no administrative action, and with the recommendation that you should go to WT:PROD to propose changes in policy. Instead, you posted a vague complaint about Kvng (at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#PA on AfD by PROD patroller Kvng), in which you proposed no new policy. I don't even see where you participated in the discussion - you seem to have posted the complaint and left it be. That was about a month ago. I don't see anything here to suggest that you will be any more successful now than you were a month ago. I strongly suggest you take the concerns raised last month on board and consider how PROD policy might be changed to address everyone's concerns. Or, alternatively, consider that consensus might not be in your favor on this issue. Either way, there is no administrator action warranted here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The PROD discussion went nowhere because apparently setting a limit on PROD creates "bureaucracy", and therefore the seven-day limit on PROD effectively doesn't exist because someone would have to ask an admin to get the article back. However, apparently sending hundreds of articles to AfD that didn't actually need to be there doesn't create any sort of bureaucracy whatsoever. MSJapan (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't make a proposal, your thread was specifically about Kvng and how awful he was. You didn't suggest that the policy should be changed in a particular way, you didn't start an RFC, you didn't draft any sort of amendment to the policy. And you didn't even bother to return and reply to other editors who took the time to comment. What this indicates, at least to me, is that your focus is on Kvng and not on the PROD policy. We're inching into WP:STICK territory here - you need to abide by the result of the last discussion and actually make a proposal, or accept that Kvng's edits appear to be within the bounds of policy as it currently stands. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone else made a foray into discussion, and it was shot down, basically saying "PROD is indefinite because of REFUND and if we have a time limit it violates NOTBUREAUCRACY." What was the point of proposing anything, or even having a discussion, at that point? That's why there was no proposal from me, because there wasn't any room to make one. MSJapan (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

When you say 20% of the articles I deprodded were subsequently deleted, you're also saying that 80% of the articles I deprodded were inappropriately prodded and I prevented good material in 453 articles from being deleted. I'd be satisfied with 50% and I'd call 80% a huge success. The number would be even better if you hadn't been systematically submitting my deprod lists to AfD. Why are you unable to see any value in this? P.S. I have added the numbers to my June records. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, because another 20-30% were redirected, which means they also weren't kept. I do not see benefit in the fact that at least 40% of the time someone else had to come and clean up something you left. The number would be better if we just left stuff you deprodded even though you shouldn't have? Of course it would, but that's my point - you're not interested in keeping good stuff, you want to keep everything, and that's not appropriate. When you start applying some actual discernment instead of "I found the name, so it's good" then maybe I'd have a lot more faith in your decision-making. Let me put it this way - in business, 40% of the customers complained because the business owner messed up and they had to go somewhere else to get the problem fixed. Does that sound like someone who you would trust with your business? 40% had to go somewhere else to get it fixed. Does that sound like somebody who'd be beneficial to you? Do you want a tech who messes up 40% of his jobs? This is essentially the same thing. Yeah, there's value in the 60%, but that doesn't change the fact that 40% of the time there is no value. MSJapan (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see what has changed. Policy still seems to allow Kvng to deprod articles they think should be deproded. If the deletion rate of what they are contesting is 20% then it sounds like their accuracy is reasonable. I am of course willing to be convinced otherwise. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering we can have admin recall for one mistake, I'm not sure why a 20% absolute failure rate would be acceptable, especially when it requires substantial community effort to fix. Add in the 20% redirects, and again, that's 40%, if not more, because I stopped counting redirects. In short, if one can guess and be right 50% of the time, I'd expect someone who knew what they were doing to be right substantially more of the time, and that's more than "10% more right." The fact of the matter is that just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean that they should if they can't exercise that right responsibly, and being wrong on the order of four times out of ten is pretty substantial. MSJapan (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If I wanted to keep everything, I would deprod everything; Current policy allows me to do that. If I wanted to keep everything, I would never !vote to delete stuff at AfD. If I wanted to keep everything I would not do any prodding myself. So now please we have covered all this stuff in the previous discussions. I would like to turn attention to you. I beleive you are harboring a personal grudge against me and/or are trying to advance an overzealous deletion agenda and I'd like to hear what you have to say about these accusations. ~Kvng (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would not support any topic ban. Instead you should be looking at those protrollers who put on CSD tags or prods that are subsequently declined. Deletion causes far more damage to Wikipedia and its editors than keeping content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I have to say that in my ten years here Kvng is the first mass deprodder I've seen who seems to be doing so in good faith. I do wish Kvng would extend the same courtesy to people like MSJapan, and also to develop a better eye for the really hopeless cases. Those actually do waste everyone's time. Reyk _YO! 22:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see something different than msjapan, I see 80%of the articles that are not deleted. Yes, there are more that are redirected but they are still not deleted. This is a very good statistic. There are hundreds of articles that are still around if kvng had not been around to save them. I do not see any reason to ban him from PROD patrol. -- GB fan 23:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Could Kvng do a little better? Sure. But 80% is pretty good, and he seems to be acting in good faith. If MSJapan wants to make a neutral proposal to reform PROD in some way, he should do that, but I see no reason for banning Kvng from deprodding articles. Katie^talk 23:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm annoyed at both sides. After this was turned down at AN/I we had rivaling proposal at WT:PROD to try to move the language towards one extreme or the other. I think there may be a middle ground, where we leave prod the way it is for most editors, while emphasizing that we expect regular patrollers on both sides (Those PRODing and De-PRODing regularly) to take more steps to ensure that we delete those that really should be deleted uncontroversial, and not those that shouldn't. In the first case, we should make sure patrollers are carefully following WP:BEFORE, and on the other, we could impose some obligation on regular dePRODers to fix the reason for the PROD in those articles that they deprod. (Assuming it was a proper reason for deletion) So if an article is poorly sourced, and has been PRODed because it fails WP:N, the de-PRODer should add at least enough sources to the article to arguably meet WP:N or let the prod continue. (Coming back later to fix the issue after de-PROD would be fine, as long as the pattern is that most get fixed in a reasonable amount of time after the challenge. Regardless, I see no point in further discussion on the Admin notice boards, unless we keep heading into WP:Boomerang territory. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If only 20% of the articles Kvng deprods are deleted, it seems to me he is acting well within community norms and is to be commended for helping to build the encyclopedia. As for redirects being tantamount to deletions see this. I note a far higher "absolute failure rate" for MSJapan's AFD involvement[46] Thincat (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

My word, MSJapan has not !voted Keep since May 2015, according to that listing. I've always dismissed "Deletionist" accusations as rhetorical garbage, but this certainly does give me pause. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And in that span, I didn't participate in AfD at all for about six months. Shall I wait for the snarky comment thatr maybe I should delete myself from the encyclopedia, too, or has your point been made? MSJapan (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Careful there. No one is suggesting anything of the sort. But when you bring something here, particularly an adversarial type thing as this one seems to be, your conduct gets examined too. Kvng's 80% is much better than your 56%, and your AFD history of !voting 'delete' 95% of the time is absolutely relevant. Katie^talk 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

MSJapan, I don't see anyone suggesting you should leave Wikipedia or much less suggesting you should be banned from deletion discussions or any other deletion process. I do believe you should back away from this. I do not see any way your preferred outcome will ever happen. -- GB fan 14:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

MSJapan, I did not mean to tell you that you should leave the project - and I don't think I even came close to implying that. But I don't think that your focus on deleting all the things is beneficial to the project. I'm not proposing any sort of topic ban or whatever - but there are better ways to spend your time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you also happen to see how many times I said "Delete just cuz"? This is the crux of the matter, because Kvng is keeping "just cuz" and it's not being supported when the articles are AfDed. to speak to the value of deletion or not, in what sense is keeping unsourced material and material that doesn't meet any of the various guidelines beneficial to the encyclopedia? This is the problem - Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate mass of information. Two mentions is not significant coverage. One article is not depth of coverage. These are the sort of policy-based issues that lead to deletions. However, I guess the status quo is "IAR and keep whatever is already here"? If that's the case, what is the point of having content policies, when in the end, they don't apparently matter if I personally want to keep an article with no basis to do so a fairly significant portion of the time? Just FYI, I happened to see one of my old AfD votes from way back in 2008 in that vote list, Peter Katsis. The last person to edit it substantially? Very likely Peter Katsis, since that was his user name, and his edit summaries claimed he was correcting details and adding recent activity. But see, we're going to keep that, even though there's no reason to do so, because any content is better than no content, right, even if it's fake? This is what it comes down to: why have content guidelines and policies when nobody wants to enforce them? The community's not following its own rules at this point. If that's how it's going to be, than aybe there are better things I can do with my time than contribute here. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The consensus, as multiple people have reiterated to you, is that anyone can object to a PROD for any reason. If you disagree with that, as you clearly do, then you need to make a proposal to change the policy. You haven't done so. If Kvng is wrong as often as you say, then those articles will likely be deleted at AFD. That is literally why we have AFD - to provide a forum for discussing and evaluating whether this content complies with policy. Why would we skip that process, if the result is clear consensus to delete the crap and improved articles that comply with policy for the remainder? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I can find no evidence that the current incarnation of Peter Katsis was deleted, or even nominated for deletion. It looks like it was recreated in 2010 after being deleted in 2008. It's certainly an open question as to whether Peter Katsis meets GNG or not with the sources there, plus deletion rules are a lot more formalized than they were in 2008. If you believe it should be deleted, go ahead and nom it. pbp 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• @MSJapan: People aren't saying leave the project, what they are saying is that it might be a good idea not to focus so much on getting Kvng punished. You talk about Kvng creating messes other people have to clean up. Well, pretty much across the board, Wikipedia's rules favor BOLD actions that other people might have to "clean up". Heck, there's an argument to be made (not by me, but a lot of other people) that AfDs themselves are messes other people have to "clean up" by voting on them and closing them. A declined PROD isn't usually the last word on this issue. Yes, some of Kvng's declined PRODs have been bad. Some of your AfD nominations of things Kvng has deprodded have been pretty bad as well. I've said this to you before, but you didn't listen the last time, so I'll say it again: the most productive thing for you to do would be to stay on the project, but disengage with Kvng. pbp 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose MSJapan's nomination of Flower Drum for deletion is heading for a snow fail. This indicates that it's MSJapan's judgement which is weak and so they should not be surprised if it is challenged. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• No Action and recommending this thread be closed with a reminder to MSJapan to first remove the plank from their own eye before judging others. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• PROD is problematic, in that it's a process with a provision that allows its own negation, and short of obvious semi-automated mass deprods there's not much of a mechanism for scrutiny into one's deprodding judgment. So I agree with most others here that there's probably no action to be taken here, and that it's a discussion for WT:PROD. I'm mainly commenting just to point out that this 20%/80% figure people on both "sides" are talking about is meaningless. It includes all those times when it was simply redirected, when it went to AfD and was redirected, went to AfD and was kept, or, crucially, when nobody bothered to do anything after the deprod. That's not Kvng's fault, but it's also far from an affirmation of his judgment. To me it's pretty clear Kvng has a lower-than-average bar for considering something notable or determining when a deletion might be "controversial", but while that can be frustrating, that's about all there is to be said here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Éder (Portuguese footballer)

Could an Admin please protect Éder (Portuguese footballer)... loads of vandalism JMHamo (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@JMHamo:  Done GiantSnowman 21:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

51.171.156.10

Copied to WP:VPT#51.171.156.10. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK is overdue - 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.

---

by a few hours. If an administrator could pop over to T:DYK/Q and do the requisite, it would be much appreciated! Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 DYK is not due to promote another set to the main page for about another 6 hours. To be precise, the next update will be Tuesday, 12 July 2016 00:19 (UTC). — Maile (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

— Maile : hmm, I cannot read my own calender, it would appear. My apologies to all concerned; that said, six hours ain't that long, and all the queues are empty; so some attention would not go amiss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, it's nice to know you are watching out for things like this. — Maile (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The prep can't be promoted, it's not complete. EdChem (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2016 (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 who is a combination of all: Vandalism, WP:NOTTHERE, Impolite etc.

The user in question is an IP user 70.27.162.84

• Vandalizing in an article. Removal of sourced content without any explained reason.
• Blaming people for making "propaganda".
• Calling someone an "absolute fool", "insufferable fool" and reffering to his edits as "frantic".
• Calling someone an "insufferable, fact-free, propagandistic fool"
• Calling someone "a hypocrite of the worst order".
• Vandalizing someone's userpage
• Promising to "shit-can" two users he refer as "Joe the Israeli and turds like Gregory"
• Blaming me for "un-insightful, unproductive, myopic, rambling apologia for the illegally occupying army"

I"ve kept an eye on this user since he made some edits in an article I follow and there is no sign this user will be a constructive and polite editor but rather the impolite one who mainly talks about removal of content he doesn't like.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't normally block without warning, but I'll make an exception here. One week for personal attacks and disruption. As always, open to review and discussion. Katie^talk 12:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd back that. The first diff is arguably just a content dispute, but the rest is disruptive nonsense. Also, [47] is a textbook violation of WP:SOCK, if true, and I think justifies a fishing expedition at WP:SPI. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet of The kyle 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki).

Is it possible to convert the IP block to a hard block? As he is known for creating throwaway socks to POV push and abuse Bolter21, E.M.Gregory and others. User Shah massoud (talk · contribs) is also clearly him, though a CU apparently declined to do a check back then. Pinging GeneralizationsAreBad who has also had dealings with this user, and might have more to add. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The last person I"ve expected to find is this Kyle guy. If it is a sock of Kyle it should be treated with the most harsh means. This user is here with his socks for over a year and doesn't show a sign of actually being here to construct an encyclopedia. He doesn't even the type of someone with good faith who try to push POV out of lack of understanding of the site, he is pure WP:NOTTHERE.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• This IP seemed to me to be an obvious Sockpuppet, although I wrongly suspected and accused a different editor already working on the page where we met. I certainly remember The Kyle 3 as an extremely aggressive, nasty editor much given to falsehoods and intemperate language. Unfortunately, so many angry, intemperate, aggressive sockpuppets, meatpuppets and IPs appear to attack editors who crate and support articles about Islamist terrorism with falsehoods and intemperate language, that I find it very difficult to tell one sock from another. Certainly this IP has earned a permanent block.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, AnotherNewAccount. I agree completely with the above - the POV-pushing sort of blends together and is hard to differentiate (though there are some similarities). Either way, a block was certainly the right solution. GAB^gab 02:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've converted it to a hard block. The duration is still just a week though, unless an extension is called for? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

SPI has been duly filed. As Bolter21, E.M.Gregory, and Sir Joseph all appear to be on this guy's "shit-can" list, if you people get any random IPs that geolocate to Toronto or any random new accounts turn up on whatever article you're working on and abuse you, WP:DENY and report, as it's probably this guy. In particular, E.M.Gregory, please don't lose your rag and accuse experienced editors of being sockpuppeteers in future, and it's probably even best to wait until the sockpuppet becomes abusive before levelling any accuations against new editors. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After a review, I'm convinced this is, indeed, The kyle 3. Good catch. GAB^gab 00:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert non admin closure

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.

---

Consensus is unanimous that the close was well within policy and a correct reading of consensus. Only the OP has argued that the discussion should be reopened. Just because you don't like the outcome of the discussion, doesn't mean it should be overturned. As Majora puts it, drop the stick and move on. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

---

This must be reviewed and overturned. It's nonsense from a non admin that is being used to ram down the deletion of thousands of drafts by one crazy nut. Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion has no basis in reality. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you consider discussing this with the closer and perhaps asking if they'd revert their close? clpo13_(talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the close or the arguments, but I agree an admin should close something that essentially amounts to creating a policy and procedure to be followed. Softlavender (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. RfCs and proposals that touch on contentious subjects/policy really should be closed by an admin unless there is a very clear consensus. I am assuming good faith on the part of the closer. But this needs to be reviewed. Ping Dionysodorus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello - yes. I was clearing the WP:AN/RFC backlog. I'm quite happy to answer any questions about my closing rationale. I'm also perfectly happy to revert my close, if there is a general feeling that I should never have closed it in the first place: is there a basis in policy for that view? I was under the impression, from the instructions at WP:AN/RFC and elsewhere, that a non-admin's closure of an RfC was just as admissible as an admin's, but I may have been excessively bold.

I see no need for Wikijuniorwarrior to be uncivil, either about me, or about the editor who opened the RfC. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, in closing things at WP:AN/RFC, I only closed items where the notice did not request that the closer should be an admin. Looking back, I see that the notice said "not necessarily an admin", but I may have been wrong to take that at face value, since the person posting the notice was the opener of the RfC. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As per this RfC, it is against consensus to overturn RfC closes based on the fact that the closer was a non-admin. If you believe the close was incorrect, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE applies, but this whole "only admins should close discussions, even when they don't require the tools to implement" is against project-wide consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wikijuniorwarrior: This thread was your very first edit. I see from your user page that you've been editing as an IP. If you're experienced enough to know about village pump, prod, non-admin closures, etc. you should also be experienced enough to know that a new account whose only edits are insulting and disruptive (the language used in this thread above, as well as this and this) is going to face an uphill battle to say the least. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the need for the attacks here. It's not a policy enactment. I treated it as a straw poll essentially to support a proposal to go forward. We had a small discussion at the village pump before it that supported it, an argument at WT:DRAFTS against it, this discussion, a more formalized Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion and a new discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed_draftspace_deletion. I don't see what more an admin can say that hasn't been discussed in a variety of RFCs and the like, namely that deletion can be done via MFD and whether this alternative mechanism is permitted. Like PROD, I suspect it'll take at least another six months of repeated RFCs and debates before it's resolved into a formal process. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been rejected every time. It should be rejected again. There is NO consensus to delete drafts just because of age. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The close appears to be in good faith - I do note that the votes are evenly split (7 to 7 ) and the support has two support sections. No opinion on the close itself, however, I agree with most of the comments to you Wikijuniorwarrior there's no reason for your attacks at all, also, I've reworded y our title to make it less of an attack . KoshVorlon 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In closing this, I believe I made it 10 supporters (including the proposer) to 8 opposers, on the basis of !votes before taking reasoning into account. I found that the reasoning further favoured adopting the proposal. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No one has provided a good reason to delete drafts. G13 will be eliminated before the deletionists get this nonsense through. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikijuniorwarrior please sign your posts. KoshVorlon 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And congratulations on your knowledge of Wikipedia administration from an account that is 3 hours old. Please feel free to log in under your normal user name. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

AGF and all, they do offer an explanation on their userpage. -- GB fan 18:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Given how contentious this issue has been, unless there is strong consensus for one side or the other, it should be closed as no consensus. Any administrator in their individual capacity may reopen a non-administrator close giving their reasons in full.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not policy. Demanding an admin do it is not a good reason. If you actually think the close was wrong and should be closed as no consensus, fine, this is the right place but the non-admin status of the closer is irrelevant. As such, should this treated as a close challenge? If so, I endorse the close which didn't actually enacted any policy anyways but summarized the positions the same as it's been in every prior discussion. A "no consensus" close would have been completely useless as we would (and are) just rehash it again and again with the same debate repeating itself. I'm now proposing a more concrete proposal than before and it's being hashed out and I expect a few more rounds until we have something that may form a consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• I would have closed it the same way. No admin tools are required so it doesnt fall under the 'admin only' close. The oppose votes boil down to 'Give me a reason why we should delete old drafts' (with the exception of Jclemens who provided an actual reason - he thinks it will scare away editors) which is just a weak non-vote when the support votes have both given reasons, and referred to policy (WP:NOTWEBHOST) and so the support votes are significantly stronger. With Jclemens exception - personally I would think any draft that has not been touched for 6 months, it doesnt really matter what you do to it, the original author no longer cares. Either way the close is perfectly valid *given the discussion and reasons that took place*. If someone wants to challenge it, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is the process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, we do delete old drafts so I'm not sure what is being argued about. I'm going back to posting pages at MFD where I'm sure I'll be yelled at for wasting time and at the same time anything proposed will be opposed to be argued to go to MFD. I'm suggesting an alternative process for deletion and I have yet to hear a single argument about how this process is worse other than the fact that it could make the deletions easier (excluding the "I oppose this because no one is yet monitoring this non-existent categories of pages" which is putting the cart before the horse). Well the RFC has one oppose because the person thinks it's policy creep which is something at least .Essentially these people would want to bar WP:MFD from hearing these discussions if they want to actually stop the deletions because they aren't moving to get the actual policies changed (or really even written). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently unsatisfied with the response here, the OP has started an MFD on the proposal page. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the proposal failed so why should someone get to retry it? No one has provided a good reason why deletion is necessary. The problem is people let these go at MFD. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How many people think that the close of that RfC was an incorrect reading of the consensus? So far only Wikijuniorfan has claimed such, and without much detail as to why the close should be incorrect.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the close is "sufficiently flawed" in its weighing of the values of opinions where there appear to be strong arguments on both sides, and the raw !vote totals are not indicative of any actual consensus thereon. I would also point out that many admins have disappeared for six months - and the belief that six months is an overlong absence should likely also be applied to admin positions. As I recall, no harm is caused to Wikipedia by allowing longer stagnancy than six months, and, absent an actual consensus to find such to be a problem, the status quo ante applies. On the RfC - there was one !vote supporting the "proposal as written", 9 supporting the general principle of having a time limit for drafts, and 8 actual and direct opposes. Rarely have I seen a 1 to 8 for a specific proposal being presented as support for such a proposal. Nor is 10 to 8 on "general principles" closed in general as a "consensus" for a change. Collect (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If the concern was and is the time period for this, then as discussed, that's not an outright objection to the idea, just the timeline suggested. The close was pretty clear that it was the general principle and thus I proposed a more specific outlined proposal which of course is being revised again with further suggestions. And yet, I'm aware that people take much time off and thus WP:REFUND applies. I'm not sure how that's much of a criticism since the same situation occurs today but in discussions at MFD and for which the same results occur. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As the closer of this, I don't believe this discussion is being conducted properly in line with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I should have had concrete concerns put to me before this was listed, so I could address them as appropriate. Also, Wikijuniorwarrior has not, in opening this discussion, stated any specific objections to my closure, beyond the fact that he disagrees with the consensus that (in my view) was established. In view of the above discussion, had some of these points been made to me before, I might well have slightly modified my close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but I don't feel I can do that while this discussion is going - since it sort of seems to be discussing whether to overturn my close entirely.

Regarding Collect's points, I'm not convinced. I don't exactly think there are "strong arguments on both sides" for the reasons I laid out there and which User:Only in death has concurred with above. Also, Collect seems to be debating the issue, rather than the correctness of my close. I have no strong opinion about the issue, and Collect's own opinions on the adequacy of a six-month period are irrelevant to whether my close should be overturned.

I do however see force in Collect's argument that it might be putting it too strongly, in view of the various modifications editors suggested, to say, as I did, that "Consensus seems to be that this proposal should be adopted..." I think it might be appropriate to replace it with "Consensus seems to be that this proposal might be adopted, depending on future discussion of the specifics, as editors have various concerns about different aspects of it..." (This is, however, in any case the more or less the spirit in which Ricky81682 is taking my close, as he has explained here.)

I therefore propose that it might be reasonable to bring this discussion here to an end - especially since it's not constituted in line with policy - and for me to alter the closing rationale in the way I have just suggested. Is that agreeable? Dionysodorus (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just looking for a consensus that "this proposal isn't a completely loony idea that should get you throw out of here" right now. I'd like it if there was at least some point where the same issues aren't being argued each step of the way. At least this new RFC is sticking (somewhat) on the actual issues of the timing, the length of review, how should the templates functions, wording within the proposal, stuff that needs more eyes anyways. Otherwise, I know that there's no consensus to make it into an explicit policy yet so I'm just working on that right now. I expect this to continue until maybe 2017 with probably the same objections each step of the way which is basically about 4-5 more RFCs to get it solidified. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose closure. This must be overturned, it was expressly **rejected** as a new policy and there is no reason why these drafts should be deleted and we should have go through rounds of the same debates when the answer is simple: these deletionists must stop this nonsense of deleting drafts. If there is a problem, fix it don't delete. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  Drop the stick. It wasn't rejected and it won't be overturned because you DONTLIKEIT. Those arguments don't work for a reason. That isn't how things work here. Drop it and move on. --Majora (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Post closure discussion

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

---

Just to note that I have carried out the change to my closing rationale that I suggested above. Thanks for closing this, User:Omni Flames. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion on a dodgy close was just quite dodgyly closed. User:Dionysodorus's original closing statement was not reflecting a consensus, and User:Omni Flames' closing statement doesn't either.

That said, User:Dionysodorus' modified close [48] to the archived pump discussion is considerably better and much welcomed by me.

The location of ongoing discussion seems confused. I think it is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed_draftspace_deletion, as opposed to Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion or its talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, ongoing discussion is at Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion's talk page; and presumably Ricky81862 intends to open a further RfC at that talk page in due course. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're right - I've put that link in the closing rationale instead. Dionysodorus (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with SmokeyJoe. There's clearly a sufficient minority who agrees that this was a dodgy close by an editor trying to pull a fast one on the encyclopedia to get mass deletions done without authority. Meanwhile he's now hosting TWO separate discussions on the talk page and at the village pump about the same thing to coordinate responses and to sneak this policy past us. This is going to the largest change to deletion policy here since the creation of AFD. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2016 (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.

Non admin closers (even accounts under one year old!) WP:Supervoting admin board closes is a huge problem in itself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Keeping this open was just feeding a banned troll. You have a problem with NAC? The village pump is that way. You have a problem with me? Use my talk page. But don't insinuate that I was supervoting or that I don't know what I am doing. How long does it take to be able to close a thread that was clearly devolving into being disruptive? 5 years? Don't kid yourself. --Majora (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Majora, are you alleging that the OP is the same person banned per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277#Ban_time.3F? If so, I would invite User:KrakatoaKatie to comment, and suggest that User:Huon consider modifying the block log.

I do not have a problem with NAC, but I observe that neither you nor User:Omni_Flames are abiding by the good advice at WP:NAC. In this thread, you have both supervoted in discussion closes. You are both quite new to this project. At stake is a large grab at deletionism, it is complex and controversial, and you should take the advice to be more conservative in closing.

To be clear: You supervoted. You closed a discussion that was not disruptive, was clearly in part productive, your opinion in your closing statement is immediately objectionable. The same with Omni_Flames' close - it obviously reflects an opinion, and the first sentence is demonstably false.

If new accounts are supervote-closing requests for review of objectionable NAC closes of RfCs, a fuss about it is demanded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment to that effect on the user talk page when I blocked them. Yes, Wikijuniorwarrior is the banned editor of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Ban time.3F. Huon (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Look, I closed it because I didn't feel that there was any consensus that the close was improper. The account is blocked now as a sockpuppet anyway, so the thread shouldn't be open regardless. Now please stop creating more drama than necessary.

Also, I'm not sure how you can classify Majora as "new", when they've been here for 11 months and obviously know their way around the place. Omni Flames (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, if this is another WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, isn't the prior close evidence that the challenge was basically denied? The "not an admin" argument doesn't fly and otherwise it's not like anyone has taken it as anything more than a straw poll that it's at least a presentable option. If that's so offensive that people must demand a close that says something else, then a better argument is needed than it's a mere supervote. We don't have a "re-challenge closes until you get what you want." I started that after a prior Village pump discussion supported it but it was opposed when I asked WT:PROD and WT:DRAFTS about even starting it. As I said, I expect to rehash the same arguments at least a few more rounds until a proposal gets enough support to become policy but I also expect the same arguments to be repeated each time and I hope that if things are supported, even marginally, those in opposition don't just blindly oppose it again and again in the demands for "consensus" in their favor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky, this is actually a different "CLOSECHALLENGE", to the WP:AN closes themselves. Protesting here is I think the most appropriate place, as this thread, when archived, may in future be cited for the closing statements boxed above.

"The "not an admin" argument doesn't fly", an opinion, slightly misses the point. Happy to discuss elsewhere, Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Minimum_experience_on_thread_closing would seen to be the relevant thread.

You seem over-defensive. I was slow to realise that your personal troll is confirmed as central to this section. Sorry. There is nothing inappropriate you have done, or are doing, and in fact your RfC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed_draftspace_deletion is quite good. Or at least I think so.

If we can just accept that the thread closes here have been protested, I am happy to let it go. Omni Flames has responded and I won't carry on arguing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone close this post-closure discussion? If this isn't an actual close challenge, I don't care about this. I don't even care who started it, Collect expressed the same issue at Village Pump and came here as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You sent him here! Although there is no criticism of you here, you are way too involved to be calling for a close, and I don't consider your challenge, that my AN thread close challenges are not actual close challenges, to be requiring me to respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2016 (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.

Protecting articles with woefully inadequate content in them

Hello,

A while back, I removed some text from an article that consisted mostly of text so badly translated as to be unintelligible with the remainder not even translated. For reasons that were never explained, an administrator reverted my change and protected the article. Months later, the unintelligible nonsense and the Portuguese remain in the article. Here is some sample text: In 1568, Brás Cubas, provider of Finance and Real captaincies of São Vicente and Santo Amaro received in donation from Sesmarias, 3,000 fathoms of land from the sea and tested to 9,000 fathoms of land from the river bottom to Meriti, or more properly "Miriti," cutting the piaçabal the village Jacotinga. Outro dos agraciados foi Cristóvão Monteiro que recebeu terras às margens do rio Iguaçu.

Does anyone think it can ever be justifiable to force text like this into this encyclopaedia? If so, I'm interested to know on what grounds. If not, then I would like to know how this situation arose and why an admin was permitted to behave in such a way.62.92.133.10 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What article is this referring to? clpo13_(talk) 16:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A Google search of the quoted text would yield Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro. --Izno (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be about Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro and the admin being discussed is Ponyo who I will notify next. -- GB fan 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wow! That is some crappy English and un-sourced as well. I would try to decipher/re-write it but since there are no sources the section should be WP:TNTed. This seems to me to be a case where nothing is better than something, I certianly would not continue reading the article looking for information after the first part looked like that. The edit summeries say the revert was for block evasion but come on, the content as it stands is useless - if you must revert at least do something to clean up or bring attention to the issue once you know about it. Jbh^Talk 17:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree that it was crap. However, I understand why whole deletions can be reverted without a thought. Nevertheless there's a reason I don't protect pages I'm involved in. The page was only semi-protected so the talk page is still available and the protection has been lifted. Still two years is long enough without a source so I removed it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin review the discussions at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals?

There are a couple of gadget proposals at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals that have been stale for months now. It would be good to have an admin close them. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A million times yes. Furthermore, whoever decides to take this on should also check the archives of that page; since so few people look at it, many deserving gadgets have been archived without proper discussion. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not know it existed. I have added it to my watchlist. You folks should have a bake sale or something to drum up attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with trying to resurrect some of that stuff, and promoting the page more. I had no idea it existed either, and I've been here 10+ years, and am a templateeditor. Its like I just discovered elves living in my garage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see this proposal to mark as historical. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 00:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Page move reversal?

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 last edits by the now blocked Soul of einstein (talk · contribs) were to move Yamaguchi先生 (talk · contribs) user and talk page to Fudu (talk · contribs). I think this needs to be reversed. I am about to log off so if this is in error my apologies. Also, if this is the wrong place to report this please feel free to move it to where it belongs. MarnetteD|Talk 05:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Move reverted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 13 July 2016 (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:NPOV issues at Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games related articles

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

---

Hello I went to the talk page for the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games where I propose an edit to part of the article to give it a more neutral wording. It currently says the following: "The series was financed via crowdfunding, and came to widespread attention when its Kickstarter campaign triggered a wave of sexist harassment against Sarkeesian." I proposed a change like ""The series was financed via crowdfunding, and came to widespread attention when its Kickstarter campaign triggered a wave of backlash that included harassment against Sarkeesian.

" or even 

"The series was financed via crowdfunding, and came to widespread attention when its Kickstarter campaign triggered a wave of backlash and sexist harassment against Sarkeesian.

" or something along those lines to stop it from appearing that all the backlash Sarkeesian received was harassment or sexist.

The source for this part is a blog, at www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/06/13/online_misogyny_reflects_women_s_realities_though_in_a_cruder_way_than_is_customary_offline_.html which is a bog. The people there state that because the blog is by a reputable feminist source, it's all good. This raises a red flag for me, because they often state on this page and this one that they can't include blogs because they are opinion based. users such as this one while meaning well ends up causing both the Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games articles and the Anita Sarkeesian articles to appear biassed towards the feminist side of things, and on the talk page for Sarkeesian's page, one of the regular patrollers of the page states that a point of view tag isn't needed. Would it be possible for an uninvolved admin to come along and take a look at these articles? It seems like the major editors there have a slight feminist bias twards the articles, and in spite of their good intentions, they're making the articles appear non-neutral. thanks.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the actual situation, only noting both articles fall under the GamerGate topic area to anyone that might get involved. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And that is especially why why NPOV should be enforced on those articles. Gamergate is a controvercial topic, but Neutrality can be found there. I think that with these two articles are a good place to start in neutralizing this subject, this way Wikipedia doesn't appwar to lean either twards the pro-feminist side or the anti-feminist side. We also have to make it clear that the regulars who enforce the status quo for both of those articles don't own those articles either, and thus it shouldn't be exclusively up to them what goes and what does not. Yes we should avoid false information and use reliable sources, but the wording of Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games should be more neutral than ultra-pro feminist, that's all.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, it does not belong at AN, and nothing appears to have happened so far to require such attention. Please continue to discuss on the relevant talkpage, bearing in mind that the topic is subject to arbitration sanctions. Just becuase you're being disagreed with or aren't getting your way does not indicate either bias or misconduct. Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm coming here to try to bring about an inforcement of wp:NPOV in order to make the articles more neutral when 3 users, who have patrolled the articles for years, Cuchullain, 0serenity and DonQuixote appear to have taken ownership of the article I'm also trying to avoid their feminist bias while also assuming good faith. so what I'm asking is that either you guys find an uninvolved party to get involved in those two pages, or to point me somewhere other than to the owner's domain a.k.a. the two article's talkpages where I can at least try to get oneof my consirns addressed by a non-biassed editor. I'm sure that Cuchullain, 0serenity and DonQuixote are amazing editors, but with this subject, they appear to be biassed in favor of the feminist side, and are thus inforcing that side on those articles, less so on the here than here

Eric Ramus 199.101.61.70 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that administrators adjudicate content: this is not the case. We do concern ourselves with conduct, and the accusations you're making about editors with "feminist bias" are concerning - but about you. Please stop making judgments about other editors and stick to content. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying, but it appears that their excepting of a blog post as reputable due to it being written by a regular feminist blogger is less than smart. and my point about the bias is it's always these three specific users. I'm pushing for an uninvolved person to be put on this case temperarily.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

update: one has confirmed that hey may or may not really have much of a feminist bias, but POV issues still need to be delt with both by involved and non-involved. again, if this isn't the place to say "hey is tere any uninvolved party that wants to weigh in?" then where do I go to put it there where it isn't just the little group of already involved people?

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (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.

Personal attack in article text

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

---

What should be done about this? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, and gave the editor a warning on personal attacks. Hopefully that's all there is to it, if the IP keeps it up, they may require a report to AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For some time, this person - who has several IPs, but AFAIK no registered user name - has been going against WP:NOR and WP:V, since when they do indicate their sources, these seem to mainly consist of unpublished documents held in the archives of Bolton Public Library. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2016 (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.

Page move cleanup for Derrick Rose

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 Derrick Rose article has been moved a couple times (to Aleksei Rose and then Derrick Meng, where the history now sits), and then copy/pasted back into the Derrick Rose title. Can an admin clean this mess up? Thanks in advance! -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 05:51, 15 July 2016 (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.

Pi Rho Sigma Military Society

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

---

Could an admin look at this article and take appropriate action?

@Pirhosigma2014: has been reverting my addition of a speedy deletion tag-rather than edit war to keep it I came here.

The speedy deletion nomination and the username need to be addressed. Also, from my perspective, was there a better way to handle this? It feels like my actions to this point could not have been optimal, but I don't see where I went wrong.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't see what you could have done better; coming here to request deletion was entirely appropriate, as was warning Pirhosigma2014 not to remove the tags. There's actually a template series for this, {{uw-speedy1}} through {{uw-speedy4}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

excellent. I don't think that there is any more to be done here.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2016 (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 requiring admin attention

I came across Qandeel Baloch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), an biography of a person who died recently. There are swarms of disruptive edits by multiple IP users from the past 1 hour which increased the pending changes backlog by 50 edits which caused a huge difficulty for the pending changes reviewer to determine whether to accept or revert the edits. There's already a report at WP:RFP but no admin seems to be present there at the moment. This article really need admin attention. Thanks Ayub407^talk 11:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done semi-protected for 3 days. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Was that really the best option? I say this (guiltily) as someone who hasn't been in actively involved in pending changes review, but it's hardly surprising that the death of a notable person would attract new editors. I would think the best approach would be the pending changes rather than just effectively telling them to go away. I realize it create some work for reviewers but isn't that the point — that such proposed edits should be reviewed before being accepted?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Normally yes, but in this case the volume of useless edits was overwhelming. I have no objection to the protection being reduced sooner than 3 days time if the need for it ends before then. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

RevDel advice

Split Enz is at this point tagged with {{Copyvio-revdel}} due to a long-standing copyright violation introduced over a decade ago that has been edited to the point of becoming a close paraphrase. There are 1000+ or so revisions affected and I'll have to perform one or two batches of RevDel to get rid of the issue. Can (technically) and should RevDel be applied here at all? Informing @Gadfium and Justlettersandnumbers: as they are involved.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd delete it and restore the good versions. RevDel is going to be too clunky to do this huge batch, and you get the same result. Katie^talk 18:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  I was also thinking of using this very large URL to tag all versions, then uncheck the good ones and perform the revdel on the remaining revisions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  That's not just large – that's gargantuan. I don't think that long a copyvio history should be revdel'd but simply deleted. But I could be wrong. Katie^talk 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I know nothing about the technical aspects of revdeletion, 'cos I'm not an admin. As to whether it's appropriate in this case, I think so, but obviously am open to correction on that. I almost always request revdeletion after removing copyvio (I'm a copyright clerk), especially in such egregious cases as this one. To date no-one has ever declined one of my requests, so I keep them coming. I've noticed that more than one bite at the cherry is often needed when the history is long. Diannaa has handled many, many revdeletions for me (thank you, Diannaa!), and may perhaps have some tricks to make it easier? KrakatoaKatie, I don't think it would be appropriate to perform a selective deletion instead, as attribution would not then be preserved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Justlettersandnumbers that it's important to preserve what we can of the page history so as to fulfill the attribution requirement of our CC license. I have done some really really big ones, such as Diana, Princess of Wales, where literally thousands of edits were revision deleted in January 2016. I do them in batches, modifying the history page so that 500 or even 5000 diffs appear on the screen at one time. It looks like the largest batch on Princess Diana had 383 diffs. — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Adding: It might not be obvious (it wasn't for me at first), so I'd like to add that you don't have to tick each individual diff to select them; you can tick one box and hold down the shift key and tick another, and all the intervening boxes will be ticked. — Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

See? Told ya I could be wrong! :-) Katie^talk 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: The policy page states that "the prior method (delete and partial undelete) should not be used except for history merges and occasional other cases where it is needed" so no, don't do it that way. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seems like the RevDel function cannot handle this many revisions at once. Thus, I'll have to do it batch-wise anyhow.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  And done. 5 batches for 1180 revisions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm not sure how necessary that was. See my comment on the Split Enz talk page. Graham87 06:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

D'oh! No idea why I didn't find that before. "Use on Wikipedia" may be too narrow a permission, though - Wikipedia text is aimed to be reused by everyone. I'll ask Dunks about this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what the next step is here. Jo-Jo Eumerus revdeleted 1000-plus revisions of the page (thank you, Jo-Jo!), MSGJ undeleted them again, I asked MSGJ to undo that, but no response. There's apparently no permission logged in OTRS for the copyright content (I've checked, and so has Moonriddengirl), and no-one's yet been able to tell me where permissions were logged before OTRS was set up; so, for the moment at least, I think the content has to be considered a copyvio, even if there are some talk-page assertions of ownership of the website. Please see Talk:Split Enz#Copyright problem removed for comment from users who know a lot more than I do about this stuff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The next step will have to be either MSGJ undoing their action or gaining clear consensus for revision deletion, as per WP:WHEEL. The only permission here is "use on Wikipedia", but that is clearly incompatible with Wikipedia's license, so this really does need revision deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete 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.

---

Hello, please revdel this edit by the racist piece of scum User:Jasonski 27. Pardon my French. Rgrds. --64.85.216.101 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@64.85.216.101:  Done. However, you shouldn't make a personal attack is response to another one. It only fuels the fire. Mike V • Talk 03:41, 18 July 2016 (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.

Removal of Topic Ban

I request here to remove the ban on me regarding religion related edits as I abided by this rule for a period of more than six months and didn't engage in any offence to this ban imposed on me. I assure that I will not become involved again in any activity that was responsible for this ban. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)}}.

• Note: This is a community ban, and the original 2014 discussion was here. See also recent discussion on User talk:Septate. Bishonen | talk 13:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose on Technicality without prejudice to refile at ANI as this should really be there as the TBAN was a community sanction. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Penwhale: The banning policy says Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so that appears to perfectly correct location. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm okay with what Sphilbrick said below; I just feel that if the original discussion took place at ANI, it at least should be mentioned there. That being said... Normally I would be okay with loosening restrictions, but Septate did not understand the TBAN was still in place until properly appealed. I feel resetting for a shorter clock on the TBAN might be the best solution (say, 3 months) before we revisit this issue. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Ban discussions are supposed to be here. I get that the initial ban was in the wrong place, but rather than attempt a "two wrongs make a right" solution, I'd prefer to simply add a notice there pointing to here, and continue the discussion here where it belongs.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I added a note and a link to ANI--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Question is Septate still under the topic ban? To me the wording made it look like it expired after six months but I may be reading it wrong. But if they are then Septate has recently edited articles such as Religion in Belarus, Islam in France, Worship in Hindusim, Religion in India, and Religion in the United Kingdom. These are just since June 15th, I see more going further back in Septate's user contributions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• The wording of the original restriction, Septate is topic banned from all articles, talk pages and subpages of both which are related to religion, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months, leads me to believe that it was indefinite with a minimum of 6 months. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, then he's broken his topic ban...142.105.159.60 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't break topic ban. It was a misunderstanding. If I knew that ban removal requires an ani discussion I would have had applied earlier. As I have already told that I thought ban was for 6 months therefore istrictly I abided by this rule & didn't make any edits. All those edits are after a period of six months as I thought ban was over!Septate (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's move away for a bit from the procedural discussion. Septate, if the topic-ban is now lifted, what would you do differently in the future when your editing about religion, to avoid the sort of problems that led to the topic-ban being imposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll admit I was intitially all for lifting this. You have a topic banned editor that went way beyond the point they thought they were TBed and stayed away from the area entirely. Then I read the ANI and just went through their recent contributions. For one, their use of edit summaries is non-existent or really not indicative of the changes they made. Two, most of the substantive edits seem to add negative material about Islam and positive material about Christianity. Don't really see what good would come to WP by removing this topic ban. Capeo (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think the confusion over the length of time on the Tban was inadvertent and I respect this user abiding by it once they were made aware that it was still in effect. I would support the ban being lifted if the user made assurances to 1. Sign all comments left on talk pages. 2. Leave edit summaries. and 3. Adhered to our neutral point of view standards.--Adam in MO Talk 02:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A spot-check of recent edits is not encouraging; eg this edit which is flatly contradicted by the source associated with it and has the edit summary, "Minor edit" (note that the source was already in the article, Septate did not add it). This is, um, interesting; pretty much the definition of WP:WEASEL. The focus on religions is unmissable and the underlying POV is gentle but palpable. While Septate did adhere to the TBan for nearly eleven months, this consisted of four days editing about various species of beetle (almost a text-book example of how a TBan ought to be served, it has to be said) then a break from editing of ten months 24 days (less good) and then jumping straight back into editing Religion in Georgia (country) (bad, really). Since then he has edited almost solely related to religion. I can understand that he thought the TBan expired after six months (that seems to have been the understanding of other editors in the ANI thread that imposed the ban, too) but even given that, this pattern is not what I'd like to see. GoldenRing (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for user:The ed17

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 a string of errors of judgement and careless editing the main page "In the news" template (details below) and the seeming inability to understand why these were errors of judgement or why everybody is treating them so much more seriously than he is, I am seeking the following topic ban of The ed17:

The ed17 is indefinitely banned from making any edits to Template:In the news.

Note that indefinite is not intended to be infinite.

The string of incidents referred to are below. The dates below are the UTC day on which he made the edit(s) to Template:In the news, nominations at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C or WP:ITNC) are organised into dated sections based on (usually) the date the nominated event occurred and are not necessarily the same, or even in the same order, as Ed's actions.

• 5 July: Beatrice de Cardi

  This recent deaths entry was posted by Ed[49] with just two supports after 12½ hours (although Ed though it had been open more than 48 hours, indicating at best lack of care in reading the discussion). Even the nomination had been open more than 48 hours that still wouldn't be agreed as consensus, there is no deadline to post as Ed seems to think. Archived discussion.

• 9 July: Abdul Sattar Edhi

  Five hours after the nomination was made, Ed posted the death of Abdul Sattar Edhi to Template:In the news as a blurb [50] despite the nomination being expicitly for recent deaths only, and there being no mention of a blurb in the discussion. All but one of the comments was "support on improvements" (and the one that wasn't was "Fix and update"). Ed decided that his single fix was sufficient to allow posting, desptite not even mentioning this until the comment noted he had posted. Archived discussion.

• 11 July: Euro 2016

  Ed posted this [51] despite there being no comments indicating that the article quality was sufficient - long-standing consensus is that sporting events need to have a referenced prose summary of the event as whole and at least the final match (ideally other matches too) before posting. permalink to discussion

• 12 July: Wimbledon

  Ed posted with a blurb that bolded the players' articles [52] despite there being no discussion of doing so and those articles also not being sufficiently updated with prose. The article about the event is what has consensus to be posted regularly (see WP:ITN/R) but that had not (and still has not) been updated with sufficient prose to post. permalink to discussion

• 14 July: Nice attack

  Ed posted "per IAR/SNOW" 18 minutes after he supported it, two of the 4 votes that came after his indicated the article wasn't ready yet.took two edits to post The blurb still needed discussion as well, and he took two edits to achieve change it.1st2nd for two minutes having atrocious grammar on the main page. permalink to discussion

• 15 July: Goran Hadžić

  The recent deaths nomination was posted by Ed[53] when the discussion had just one "weak support" in addition to the nominator permalink to discussion. This is after his posting of Beatrice de Cardi (see above), which was made with more support, was criticised and Ed was reminded of how ITN works.

• 15 July: Pokemon Go

  This "IAR posted" by Ed[54] to the "Ongoing". Although there was possibly consensus for including a blurb there was clearly no agreement on which one, the possibility of posting to ongoing had only been breifly mentioned once with no follow-up discussion. Ed had at this point been very active in the discussion making this a very WP:INVOLVED posting. permalink to present state of discussion

  For me, the posting to "Ongoing" would be the least serious of this events mentioned here if it wasn't for the the WP:INVOLVED nature of the posting and it not being an isolated error. I think some others regard the posting to ongoing itself more seriously than I do.

• 15 July: Turkish coup

  Ed posted this [55], and then took two edits over 2 minutes to correct his posting 1st 2nd, just 7 minutes after the nomination was made diff of nomination with 1 "support" vote and 1 "wait" vote (endorsed by the nominator). This was pulled (removed from the template) by The Rambling Man [56], but Ed reverted to his version and then four minutes later reverted his reversion. As Template:In the news is permanently fully protected (because it is transcluded on the main page) only admins can edit it, and Ed's reverts have been described as "edit warring" and "wheel warring" in the ensuing discussion. permalink to the current state of the discussion

All these actions by Ed generated some degree of comments on the relevant nomination at WP:ITN/C, but especially the most recent (Turkish coup). In none of these discussions has Ed shown or demonstrated that he understands why his actions are wrong or even attracting criticism at all, has shown no appreciation for the seriousness with which other ITN regulars are treating this, and has not (adequately?) educated himself about the purpose of ITN. He has been asked several times to refrain from posting until he does understand all this, but he has declined. See [57] for example).

Unfortunately I think the time has come for a formal topic ban from editing the ITN template as proposed at the start of this section. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the users who have been I think most involved with this at ITNC: @Muboshgu, Bender25, BabbaQ, The Rambling Man, W.carter, Lihaas, Cryptic, and Fuebaey:. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

{{subst:AN-notice}} _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I've placed that template on TheEd's page, and linked this discussion from ITNC. As it really only concerns the actions of The ed17 I think pings will suffice for the others who have just commented. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There's something of a winner's curse at WP:ITN/C in that the first admin to act and post an item, naturally risks criticism for being bolder than his fellows. Most of the items listed above were reasonable entries at WP:ITN and the one that was overturned – Wimbledon – was an absurd case because that's a major sporting event recognised by WP:ITN/R and it seems quite a significant failure for ITN to have omitted this. In such cases of disagreement, other admins can and do revert the first mover's action. As there are numerous admins who hang around WP:ITN the natural tension between boldness and caution should be left to work itself out on a case-by-case basis. Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Wimbledon wasn't "absurd" in the slightest. WP:ITN/R is clear that inclusion is subject to the article being updated and of sufficient quality, and this year the article was not (and still is not) an article containing sufficient prose of a suitable standard. The purpose of WP:ITN is to highlight encyclopaedia articles about subjects that are in the news, not to report the news. To this end every item that is posted requires a consensus that it (a) is in the news, (b) is significant, (c) has a relevant articled, and (d) that article is updated and of sufficient quality. The job of an admin at ITN is to assess whether there is consensus to post, and if there is to check whether there are any glaring errors or other problems with the article that would prevent posting, and if there are none to edit the ITN template. As edits to the template go live on the main page immediately it is important to get the edits right. Ed hasn't just been being bold, he has been flagrantly ignoring the requirement for a consensus, despite being told multiple times by multiple people that this is not acceptible. Occasional disagreements about whether something had consensus or not or was posted too soon are fine, but nowhere near the extent it's happening with Ed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Far from absurd, in fact defending it is absurd. The items targeted by the blurb were either not updated or were insufficiently referenced. Now I know that some users here are of the opinion that we should dump unreferenced garbage to the main page on even days and then review TFAs in their minutiae on odd days to complain about the slightest issues, but honestly. The recognition at ITN/R is entirely irrelevant other than to reinforce the fact that we needed to assess the posted articles for "quality" not just for blind consensus (which any poor admin can do). As for working out on a case-by-case basis, if someone is serially misinterpreting how to judge consensus, serially making erroneous posts to the main page, they should be asked to stop, and then, failing that, they should be made to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  The Wimbledon case was completely absurd, as I said at ITN myself at the time. We always post the Wimbledon results on the day of the men's final or a day later. People have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the way ITN has worked over the past 10+ years, and that's not The Ed's fault.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  As an ITN editor for the past 10+ years, I must respectfully note that you're mistaken in your impression. We post a Wimbledon item after the relevant Wikipedia article is updated appropriately. This is not a deviation from ITN's longstanding practices. —David Levy 17:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support for at least six months. Although ITN is obviously time-sensitive, the repeated carelessness, gun-jumping, edit-warring, and overriding/dismissal of consensus and opposition is not acceptable. The fact that critiques of his actions are not being received or understood is even more worrisome. Time for a break from this arena. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: in my view, this is incredibly wildly premature from Thryduulf, and I'm extremely disappointed that he chose to bring it here before more discussion with me (threatening to drag me here is not discussion). The impetus for this proposal from my rash revert of The Rambling Man on ITN yesterday; I reverted myself and have stated on multiple occasions that it was a mistake. If it wasn't already clear, that's not an action I'm going to repeat. Asking me to ensure that I get grammar right in the first edit is, of course, something that could be posted on my talk page rather than in a topic ban proposal. Please note that I am traveling today and will have only intermittent access to the Internet. (if that looks like an excuse, it's not—I'll be happy to confirm my travel plans with editors I know in real life) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  There is exactly one seriously controversial action up there, the Turkish coup. First, I misread timestamps on de Cardi; I strongly suspect that I'm not the first to do that on Wikipedia. Second, I missed the [RD] tag on Abdul Sattar Edhi. That was quickly fixed. Third, I fixed the Euro 2016 article myself. Fourth, on Wimbledon, there was support for that option in the discussion. More comments were made after I posted and it was pulled; that's a natural fact of life at ITN. Fifth, I'm not seeing any serious controversy around my posting of Nice and Pokemon Go. I'm really not sure why you included those here. And then there's the Turkish coup, the proximate cause of this discussion and one I've already said was a large mistake. Do we topic ban for that now? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  We topic ban for persistent cluelessness and incompetence; someone who does something harmful in good faith will get blocked and/or banned before long, regardless of the field. No comment on whether that describes your actions; this is purely a general statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Ed, Your actions yesterday (not TRM's) were just the final straw. We've been trying to communicate with you about your persistent errors for over a week and getting just WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It seems you still don't understand why it is being treated this seriously. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  David Levy very kindly came to my talk page to ensure that I was following image procedures correctly. No one else has attempted to raise a discussion with me, either on my talk page or on WT:ITN for wider input, before you prematurely brought this to AN. We have trouts for a reason, Chris. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  David Levy very kindly came to my talk page to ensure that I was following image procedures correctly.
  Among several other image-related errors, you transcluded an unprotected Commons image at ITN, despite the presence of the message "NOTE: Do not insert an image without first ensuring that it has been uploaded locally or protected at Commons. Our cascading protection does not extend to Commons images." directly adjacent to the filename and an edit notice containing a yellow box with a red "ATTENTION" heading and animated "stop" icon. I pointed you to Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection, which you then used either without bothering to read its brief instructions or after failing to comprehend the language "Please note that the protection will not take effect instantly. Do not transclude a file on the main page until confirming that KrinkleBot has transcluded it at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en."
  As I stressed at ITN/C, I'm not trying to belittle you or your contributions to the project. Each of us has strengths and weaknesses, and I'm pleading with you to recognize the latter in yourself and stop rushing to report the "news".
  No one else has attempted to raise a discussion with me, either on my talk page or on WT:ITN for wider input, before you prematurely brought this to AN.
  Good heavens, Ed. The underlying concerns have been brought to your attention over and over. Even if you don't understand why this has occurred, I don't understand how you could think that it hasn't. —David Levy 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Thryduulf, the pipelinking breaks if you don't substitute the brackets that were in the section headers (i.e. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2016#.5BPosted.5D_RD_Beatrice_de_Cardi for instance.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Should now be fixed. Your ping didn't work for some reason btw. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I was 'pinged' here, I think I should at least leave a comment. I was only seriously involved in the Pokemon Go debate and IMO that should be sticken from this list of alledged offences. That was bold, yes, but it was a good bold solution since not only were we getting nowhere with the blurbs (I wrote some of them) but editors were also befuddled by the fact that we had to deal with an ITN-worthy pop culture thing. Something the rules of ITN were clearly not prepared for. As for the other cases, I don't have enough knowledge of those to voice an oppinion. w.carter-Talk 13:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The question of a topic ban is by-the-by, as mistakes on the Main Page have been and invariably will be reverted in short order. What concerns me to a greater extent is that we appear to have an admin who does not understand what consensus is. I hope that my previous sentence is a skewed conclusion from a small pattern of behavior, but it's fair comment based on what I've seen at ITNC. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support but would have preferred The ed17 to have seen the various mistakes, typos, mistaken claims of consensus, poorly posted blurbs etc as errors for himself and resolve to leave it to others for a while, then this wouldn't have to have happened. We don't post stubs, we don't post unreferenced material, we don't assume consensus can be achieved in seven minutes, we don't post RD nominations as blurbs, I'm afraid the sheer scale of the errors made in such a short time with such reluctance to step back and take a break from it means enforcement of a ban is the only way to restore some kind of stability. As I said yesterday, there was greater to consensus in minutes to request The ed17 to stop making such posts than in two of the blurbs he posted, claiming consensus. Bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not seeing a substantial attempt to resolve this on talk pages before coming here; we have other ways of resolving disputes which should be attempted first. Indeed, unless I'm missing it, I can't see an attempt by Thryduulf to resolve it on ed17's talk page, which I would have expected before a noticeboard submission. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Hchc2009: The prior attempts to resolve this have been at WP:INTC, and Ed has indicated he is aware of those attempts (and replied to most of them). Opposing because the prior dispute resolution was on the wrong talk page is pointless bureaucracy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  (e/c) Are you suggesting the multiple notes left at ITN where The ed17 currently frequents, warning him to stop, asking him to revert, asking him to wait for consensus, asking him not to post erroneous hooks are not sufficient? I think it's a little "head in the clouds" to require a "talkpage" discussion when the matter at hand was discussed many times at the place in hand. Even The ed17 is completely aware of all the erroneous issues. That's why it would have been great if he'd have accepted the advice i.e. concede to a self-imposed moratorium on posting items. But I suppose if we achieve nothing else here, we are at least getting a few dozen more eyes on The ed17's behaviour, which will help in any subsequent actions we need to take should this behaviour continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  And even if additional discussion were needed, that wouldn't justify forcing the main page's readers to wait for Ed to be brought to speed. Wikipedia is not about us. No administrator should be editing main page content without first gaining a reasonable understanding of (and then adhering to) the relevant criteria and procedures. That's all that anyone is asking of Ed. —David Levy 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The 14 July Nice attack is the clincher for me. An admin should not support a posting on ITN and then add said article to the template having supported. By all means mark it as [ready], but if you've voted, then leave it to others to post, no matter how strong the consensus. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  It's easy to find examples of other admins acting in this involved way at ITN. From the current crop,

  Andria_train_collision – Support, Posted

  Tone posted after the nomination, his own support and five other supports, and after five hours and after a suitable update. Why are you trying to suggest something "involved" took place here? I'm bemused as to why you think a comprehensive and fulsome consensus after a number of hours and a check on article quality which resulted in a good posting is worth your digging and tacit accusations? Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder about your reason for editing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Wimbledon – Oppose, Pulled

  Actually, if you think a little bit harder, you'll realise I pulled the hook because the targets were inadequately referenced. And those weren't the targets I'd already opposed. So please, if you're going to try to stir the pot, do it properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  And for the current Turkish coup, lots of admins seem to have been editing the blurb through protection without much formality. My impression is that admins routinely ignore WP:INVOLVED at ITN and so Ed's behaviour is just more of the same. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Editing the blurb without formality is just fine, there's no such issue. We routinely update news stories when non-controversial. What was controversial was the posting of the hook. You know that Andy, I don't know why you have tried to reposition it so badly. I guess you're reacting to something, but I don't understand why you'd get this so wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  After reading this, I just happen to look at WP:ERROR where we again see TRM editing the main page through protection without consensus. Mjroots seems to think that such behaviour warrants a ban. He should please understand how common such behaviour is. Andrew D. (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Oh Andy, how do you think we are supposed to deal with errors on the main page? You can't have your cake and eat it. IF we trust admins to judge errors and fix the main page, then we do. This fix had no consensus attached to its original promotion incidentally, other than the DYK process of which you are a wholesale advocate. Honestly, please think twice before you continue to dig yourself deeper. And please credit Mjroots with some intelligence, he doesn't need your odd and incorrect diffs to form his own conclusions. And incidentally, if you wish to link a diff, please link a diff, rather than a permalink to a previous page status, it's most unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, wait. I've had an epiphany. What Andy is saying is that admins can no longer make changes per ERRORS unless there is a consensus. Let's indoctrinate that and really help to promote an active and responsive encylcopedia. "Editing the main page through protection without consensus" does not equal "fixing ERRORS on the main page" does not equal "posting without consensus" &c. &c. Please read up a little before further comment, if you'd like some pointers, don't hesitate to ask! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  I note the remarks above. What I would say is this: - Other administrators are not under discussion here. This is solely about whether or not The ed17 should be restricted from editing {{In the news}} for an unspecified period of time. It is not about banning an editor that does excellent work elsewhere. There is a problem in one very small area of his editing, which is what we are seeking to remedy. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Again, The Rambling Man, you reply to people with viewpoints other than your own with invective language. Please, tone it down. Regarding Andrew Davidson, I don't want to speak for him, but he may be trying to comment on when you've complained about postings on ITN that did not have a previously agreed-upon blurb, even though once one is up, admins can and do edit it with impunity. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not at all. But did you really make Prince's blurb purple? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Edit summary: "tweak" —David Levy 08:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose this solely because restricting an administrator from performing administrative tasks is almost never a good idea, and this doesn't look to be an exception. If you don't have sufficiently good judgment not to do something without there being a formal restriction that prevents you from doing it, then you don't have sufficiently good judgment to have the bit, and vice-versa. The only person who labelled the recent actions "edit warring" or "wheel warring", as mentioned above in Thryduulf's summary, was me; and to the extent those labels are justified at all, it's only just barely, so I don't think a desysop is remotely called for either. If the behavior continues after the dramaz on ITN/C and here, of course, that's a different matter. —Cryptic 20:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with the general sentiment expressed above, but not with its application to this particular situation. When it comes to upholding the main page's integrity, pragmatism outweighs principle. Irrespective of whether Ed has abused the community's trust, he's continually causing non-trivial harm to the site's most visible page. Ideally, Ed would realize this and voluntarily agree to stop editing ITN until he gains a better understanding thereof. (I remain hopeful that this will occur.) Otherwise, a non-permanent topic ban is the most practical and least contentious means of addressing the problem. —David Levy 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I think our positions differ more in semantics than anything else. My threshold for "behavior continues" is very low here, and I think - or at least hope - that the presence of this discussion itself is sufficient deterrent without the added insult of a formal topic ban. —Cryptic 02:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  To be clear, if Ed were to acknowledge that he's been insufficiently receptive to other users' constructive criticisms and agree to refrain from editing ITN until he understands what he needs to do differently, I would regard the proposal as moot. I sincerely hope that this occurs, but if it doesn't, a topic ban stands to preempt an otherwise-inevitable arbitration case (a far greater "insult", if one views these matters in that light). —David Levy 03:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support also note the speedy post of the china floods [58]. At the time, the article had improved [59], but the users comments "503 words is enough to post this important news" concerned me because it suggests a focus on expedience vs consensus. I was leaning towards neutral until the users comments here "The impetus for this proposal from my rash revert of The Rambling Man on ITN yesterday" which indicates the user has failed to acknowledge a pattern of questionable decisions around the ITN template. --107.77.236.91 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If the user is sincere about backing off template edits until get gets a better handle of the workings at ITN, then no administrative action is needed. --107.77.236.91 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have nothing personally against the user but his recent behaviour was over all ignorant to the community. The proposed measure should be disciplinary enough so that the user will finally understand that we work upon principles.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The problem extends well beyond Ed's tendency to commit serious errors when editing ITN. Alarmingly, he misunderstands the section's fundamental nature. This is not hyperbole; he literally regards ITN as something very different from what it actually is. He believes that its primary purpose is to report breaking news as quickly as possible, with this pursuit outweighing all other considerations. That's the rationale behind his rush to post items in the absence of consensus, concrete information, substantial prose, reliable sourcing, etc. This is flat-out unacceptable. Multiple editors have made repeated attempts to explain this to Ed, which he perceives as "attacks" stemming from "disagree[ment] on how to interpret the ITN criteria".
  Ed undoubtedly means well, but to quote Wikipedia:Competence is required: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Clearly, every editor is incompetent when doing some types of edits in certain subject areas, so it is important to know or discover your limitations." (As I noted at ITN/C, this why I avoid Wikipedia tasks that I struggle to perform efficiently and without messing up.) Like others, I've urged Ed to refrain from editing ITN until he gains a reasonable grasp thereof, but he refuses (apparently because he genuinely doesn't understand what most of the fuss is about). I wish that a topic ban (albeit a non-permanent one) were unnecessary, but I see no viable alternative (short of desysopping). Ed's main page disruptions must stop. —David Levy 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Ed has stated that he intends to "step back from the ITN template for a non-trivial time and limit [him]self to commenting". Assuming that he follows through, I consider the matter resolved for the time being. —David Levy 07:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Hey David, thanks for your thoughts here; they're quite helpful. I fear, however, that you're misrepresenting my views, especially when you're referring to the so-called "attacks" I referred to; TRM's posts are of an entirely different caliber, and that word was meant to apply to his comments and his alone. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Duly noted, but you seem to have felt that you were targeted unfairly by multiple editors (even if you didn't apply that specific label to their comments). I'm hopeful that you aspire to be more receptive in the future. —David Levy 07:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, the only other comment that irked me was the sudden threat to move this to AN, which I considered premature at the time. I do apologize if I implied that I felt unduly targeted; that's not the case at all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I stand by everything I said, even more so now I've been made aware of your little game when changing the Prince blurb to purple text, you really did treat the main page as your own playground. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support for the disruptive and incompetent behaviour shown above, and the incident when he edited the main page to colour Prince's death blurb purple entirely against consensus and with disrespect for the tools and process. Stephen 02:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Urk. I remember that. I hadn't remembered it was the same person who did it. —Cryptic 02:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment At the risk of being really controversial, I'm going to raise what I think is an elephant in the room here: the quality of ITN is generally not high. Blurbs are frequently poor grammatically, and the articles which are linked are rarely an example of Wikipedia's best work (it's not uncommon for them to contain biased material, copyright violations and/or misleading information, with there not even being a basic review procedure such as exists for DYK to guard against this). As such, this seems a rather large example of the pot calling the kettle black. I have to say that while I have the greatest respect for Ed, I agree that he should voluntarily take a break from ITN. However, many of the ITN regulars seeking to have him topic banned have led to all kinds of poor material appearing on the main page and should reflect on their own conduct before beating up on Ed further. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  If you see any biased matierial, copyright violations, misleading information in an article either fix it or note it. Before posting at WP:ITNC or after it at WP:ERRORS (along with any general copyvio, etc procedures if required). If you see grammatical errors in blurbs point them out. We don't and shouldn't require perfection, but we equally don't and shouldn't want those problems. Where we see them we call them out, but we are human and very rarely subject experts so we will miss some things. However, just commenting about it in discussions like this doesn't help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  The irony being that Nick-D introduced a grammatical error to an item yesterday, that had to be corrected. Stephen 03:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Quite the opposite really - plurals don't apply to "a group". Shortly after reverting me David Levy significantly tweaked the blurb, in a much better way - though not, as far as I'm aware, without any discussion first - despite Ed being accused of being a cowboy for doing pretty much the same thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, you're the only one to use the cowboy epithet, and in reality most of the issues here are to do with premature postings, erroneous postings, bad judgement etc, not adjusting blurbs post-posting, although that could use a look-at too, given the number of times mistakes were made while posting (although that happens from time to time, of course). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  This might be an English variety issue. In North American English, "group of servicemen" is treated as a singular group. Australian English may differ. (I know that British English does in some similar contexts, and Australian English has more in common with British English than it does with North American English.) Upon considering this possibility, I revised the blurb to work around it, per the logic behind WP:COMMONALITY. Similarly, we frequently use the construct "In [sport], [tournament] concludes with [team] defeating [team]", specifically to sidestep the matter of whether to treat a team as singular ("[team] defeats [team]") or plural ("[team] defeat [team]").
  I assume that you meant to write "as far as I'm aware, without any discussion first" or "not, as far as I'm aware, with any discussion first". Regarding "Ed being accused of being a cowboy for doing pretty much the same thing", who's complaining about Ed rewording posted blurbs? Is that what you meant, or are you lumping together all ITN edits not preceded by discussion (without regard for their specific nature and whether they're considered controversial)? —David Levy 07:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: My apologies for not responding to this discussion earlier; as I alluded to above, I was offline traveling and celebrating with an old friend in a long-planned trip. Having now had the chance to go through the discussion, and with advice from several people I trust (including Nick above), I do want to acknowledge the legitimate points being made above about not heeding other's comments. While I do think that I will often be among the first to find a consensus and pull the trigger at ITN, I have clearly been too quick to pull that trigger as of late, and I apologize for the disruption that has caused. I would like to encourage individuals here to actually use user talk pages (for example, concerns about multiple edits to ITN at one time, rather than ensuring grammar via preview, would have been much more suited to that page), and I would strongly ask The Rambling Man to tone down his overwrought rhetoric aimed at me, others, DYK, and everyone. But that does not absolve the blame on my end. I'll step back from the ITN template for a non-trivial time and limit myself to commenting, whether or not the topic ban here passes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Please note that I will be offline for much of tomorrow as well due to travel. If my opinion is desperately needed, please notify and message me off-wiki. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am glad that Ed has taken on board the concerns and indicated that he will take a break from posting ITN items. In light of that, I don't think it is necessary to proceed with the topic ban proposal. Neljack (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment just as an aside, why does The ed17 feel the need to change other people's posts here, even if they are typographical changes? I thought we knew that we shouldn't edit other people's comments, for any reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps raise this with him in private (or at least, on his talk page) rather than adding fuel to the fire. — foxj 11:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Sure. Just seems a bit odd, in the midst of this discussion over his behaviour as an admin, he starts changing my posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  He fixed two obvious, inadvertent typos in the course of the ongoing discussion, probably because he found them distracting. I might have done the same thing and your objection about this seems like a case of looking for something to complain about. This point should be totally disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well try to refrain from editing other people's comments just because you find it "distracting", the same could be said of a number of whole posts, but we simply do not allow people to modify each ofher's posts. Do not encourage it please, very poor form from an "admin". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  And stop reverting edits which relate to me restoring my own post to the way I wrote it. You, of all people, really should know better. Very disappointing, but these days not surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I ... okay then. Forgive me for noticing two typos and attempting to offer a small olive branch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how violating WP:TPO could be considered an olive branch, but I understand that you were trying. What's much worse is Brad's "input" which directly violates the very behavioral guideline that I asked you not to. To do so in such a deliberate and wilful manner is outstandingly bad behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  We're really hitting storm in teacup territory. How many words is this worthy of, TRM? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Once again you appear to be ignorant of guidelines, specifically in this case one which has had the precise effect the guideline intends to mitigate. The fun and games you had with ITN (purple?!) combined with a distinct lack of awareness on behavioural guidelines leads to one inevitable conculusion: You don't seem fit to be an admin I'm afraid. But that's for the next visit here I suspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  And once again, we see you using utterly unnecessarily invective language. I am intimately familiar with TPO and have cited it numerous times in the past, but I still did not expect you to interpret my edits in the way you did. Clearly I was mistaken in attempting to build a bridge and put this event behind us. Maybe in the future then. Cheers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not invective, conclusive. The barrel-load of issues here, added to TPO violations from you and jolly old Brad acting like the schoolmaster (a position he feels determined to occupy despite having no such credentials), led to the conclusion. If you knew about TPO and knew about the tone of this discussion, why would you violate it? As I said, we're done here, but I doubt this is the last time we'll see such matters discussed at AN. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Invective. Below, above, and elsewhere (looking at you, WT:DYK). Most people would have said "thank you" and moved on. Your mileage clearly varies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Incompetence: TPO is a behavioural guideline that you have sought to ignore at AN. That's pure incompetence I'm afraid, nothing to do with varying mileage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man's overreaction to the correction of two typos, and his twice reverting the corrections, is indescribably foolish, and his personal attacks on The ed17 do nothing more than distract attention from any legitimate concerns raised here. (To The ed17's credit, he has not let himself be distracted.) I wonder what would happen if I fixed the typos again, which I am seriously considering doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I'd revert your change, just to prevent TRM from having a 3RR vio, then probably open an RFC for your uncivil behavior for your pointed provocation of another editor in a thread in which you're not involved. I would expect nothing to come of it beyond some walls of text and wastes of time, but since you asked what might happen if you deliberately and unnecessarily antagonized TRM, I offered one scenario. --107.77.234.58 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  Time to reassess your ability to edit and use your tools Brad. Direct, deliberate and antagonistic violation of behavioural guidelines will see you at Arbcom if you're not much more careful if the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andrew Davidson. ITN used to be a place where items in the news were posted. Obvious items like Wimbledon (which is posted every year), and the coup in Turkey (which is a snow news item) can and should be posted even if the article isn't yet B class or GA standard. The Ed has simply been applying that WP:BOLD logic as it has always been applied down the years.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  In fairness to the ITN regulars, I was anticipating that the Turkey coup would be a snow post—I didn't wait for the snow to actually fall. This is a discussion that would probably be best on WT:ITN with a well-written request for comment. I'm on board with the sentiment and would love to participate in the RfC, but that's not how the guidelines there are written at the present time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well fair enough. I also don't want to denigrate ITN regulars too much, because obviously I don't put in the hours myself there day in and day out, and the regulars do a sterling job. Apologies to anyone offended by my tone. But my point is simply that if ITN isn't actually going to show the most hot news stories then it is wrongly named.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  The idea of renaming ITN (specifically to discourage the misunderstanding that its purpose is to report the top news stories) has been discussed on multiple occasions – over the past 10+ years, interestingly enough. Unfortunately, we've yet to find a consensus-backed alternative. —David Levy 17:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  The section's purpose is not to report news, let alone vague accounts of breaking news whose basic nature is unclear and unverified by reliable sources. Your perception of "WP:BOLD logic as it has always been applied down the years" is inaccurate. —David Levy 17:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  This is not the place to try to refactor how ITN works. We post quality, we have standards and we depend on consensus, not just rogue admins making unilateral decisions several times within a few days, claiming IAR etc, particularly when they make mistakes and edit war on the main page. If you don't get that, try taking a break for a while to catch up with how Wikipedia works. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: It's a very legitimate view, one that I sympathize with, it's just going to get awfully tangential to the purpose of this section. Hence my WT:ITN suggestion. :-) Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can only see that he has applied WP:BOLD. I see no clear reason for topic ban at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I'm unclear on why editors are attempting to defend actions that Ed has now acknowledged to have been inappropriate and ill-advised. I can only express my astonishment at your apparent belief that WP:BOLD is about ignoring consensus and the standards and procedures derived therefrom. —David Levy 17:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Unfortunately there's a level of WP:COMPETENCE to which a number of those who regularly contribute at ITN fail to meet. Some of the opinions voiced here are clear indicators of such shortcomings. It's not worth a breath discussing it with the because they can't hear you I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @David Levy: My edits were ill-advised, certainly—I reverted a revert on a protected page, and the edits as a whole caused people like yourself to devote time to this discussion. But on appropriateness, there are varying interpretations of WP:BOLD (as with most policies), so I'm not surprised to see this viewpoint.

  @The Rambling Man: Once again with the invectiveness, this time with a drive-by personal attack. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  (1) If the cap fits. (2) If you were competent, you'd know that ping copyedit doesn't work (3) it's hardly "drive by" since I've been commenting on this thread for a couple of days (4) just for a change, most of my comment was not directed at you, it was at those who frequent ITN yet have no clue about Wikipedia. Is there anything more wrong with your response? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  (1) a personal attack is a personal attack. (2) I really wasn't worried that you wouldn't see the post despite my typo. (3) Dictionary. (4) I'm not going further down this path with you. See m:Don't be a jerk and take the sentiments to heart. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Nothing attack about it. Pure objective commentary. If you don't like it, you should resign the mop, which would be a good thing for Wikipedia given you recent purple expedition. Do us all a favour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Guys, please cool it down. There is nothing constructive to be gained by taking this tone. — foxj 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed, this isn't helping Ed's cause at all. So please, can he just accept the issue at hand, accept that violating TPO in this very thread was another poor judgement, and then we can all move on. We will monitor the situation hereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm disengaging, Foxj, like I said. :-) If TRM wants to go to Arbcom about my administrator rights, he can—but I suspect he won't, and that means there's no further need for my input here. Getting back on the road now, will be offline for a bit. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I don't need to go to Arbcom (that's hardly an effective course of action in any situation), like I've said the other multiple failings are not necessarily related to this thread, but the revelation is clear, and your admin actions will be much more heavily scrutinised going forward and that should be sufficient. Safe journey. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

My current take on this thread is that a topic (or template-editing) ban, even if not that big a deal (I can't edit that template either, but, like Ed whatever the outcome here, can participate in discussions and mark as ready), is not necessary after having read Ed's statement at 06:49, 17 July 2016. I hope this thread can be closed soon, one way or the other, because it's becoming painful to read. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree, there isn't a consensus for action, and the user seems to have acknowledged the concerns raised by this AN. --107.77.236.91 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Suggested close:

1. Topic ban not necessary; User:The ed17 has agreed to stop editing T:ITN for a while ("I'll step back from the ITN template for a non-trivial time and limit myself to commenting, whether or not the topic ban here passes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)"). Personally, I don't think even that was necessary - all that was needed was an agreement not to act so boldly/rashly on the things that show up on the main page anymore - but that was what he said he was going to do, so that's what the close will say.
2. Enough people who Ed respects have told him what he did was wrong that I doubt we'll see a recurrance when/if he decides to edit ITN again.
3. Correcting typos of people you are in a conflict with is not trying to make peace; it is trying to get your own tiny little kick in, all the while having plausible deniability. Brad may not know this, but I do. Unimpressive.
4. For those who this applies to: 80% of the problem with ANI is people who come here not to solve problems, but who see someone they don't like participating, and see this as an opportunity to score points against them. You can claim whatever motivation you want, but whatever Diety you worship knows why you're really doing it, and she's not impressed. Bad Karma.
5. It must be terribly, terribly exhausting and lonely to absolutely have to win every single argument you're ever in. To always, always have to have the last word. And when all is said and done, it's just a lame website with quite a few lame people, so "winning" isn't even winning in the traditional sense. Being able to let stuff go is pretty liberating.
6. When you run into someone who absolutely must have the last word, your secret weapon is: just let them have the last word. It's OK, really, no one thinks you're agreeing or giving up.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested close as to points 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. And because I agree with 5 and 6, I suppose I shouldn't protest too loudly about #3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for closing this rather drawn out conversation that got increasingly painful to read. ITN has some rather counterintuitive norms given that it's about NEWS, and its reform requires thinking well beyond this case. Consider this a post-close Oppose to any type of topic ban for Ed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that ITN's conventions can be counterintuitive to someone who sees a section titled "In the news" and assumes that its purpose is to report news. As noted above, that's why there have been several attempts (all unsuccessful, unfortunately) to come up with a better name, with the first occurring a decade ago.

However, I'm confused as to how this excuses the actions of an administrator who's been informed of ITN's norms and continually deviated therefrom. It's reasonable to advocate changes to ITN's standards/procedures, but I hope that you aren't suggesting that disagreement therewith is grounds for disregarding them and imposing one's personal preferences – via the use of sysop tools, no less.

I also hope that you don't want Wikipedia to disseminate headlines about events for which it lacks encyclopedic content, including substantial prose and reliable sourcing. —David Levy 07:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The primary purpose of WP:ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." In satisfying this goal, it says, "a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." Ed's actions in cases such as the Turkish coup are quite consistent with this description of WP:ITN's nature. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of the page? You seem to be interpreting "sub-par" to mean "poor", which isn't the intent. Certain bare minimums – including the citation of reliable sources verifying that the event actually occurred, must be met. I emboldened that text because I remain gobsmacked by some editors' arguments in defense of Ed's posting about the Turkish coup attempt. In fact, I'm going to stress this again. Ed posted the item without confirmation from reliable sources that such an event was taking place.

He also disregarded the input of editors who noted the importance of waiting. Are you under the impression that ITN's criteria call for the abandonment of Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making? Do you believe that it's appropriate for an administrator to use sysop tools to force his/her personal preferences on the community, and then to wheel-war when another admin intervenes? I'm trying to find some other way to interpret your message, but you cited that specific incident as an example of Ed acting in accordance with ITN's conventions. I genuinely hope that I've somehow misunderstood you. —David Levy 10:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

At the time that Ed posted the entry on ITN, the developing article already had confirmation of the event from the Turkish Prime Minister as reported by sources like the BBC, Guardian and Wall Street Journal. The event was indeed real and, after a quick bit of back and forth, it was at ITN to stay. It still seems that Ed made the right call and that this action was consistent with what WP:ITN says about posting significant events. The OED says that "sub-par" means "Below average; worse than expected or required." Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Since we're playing "cheery pick the bits from WP:ITN which we like", consider scrolling down a bit and reading: "Whether or not a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance beyond two: - The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. - There is consensus to post the event.". WP:ITN/C can seem slow, inconsistent, and aggravated. The one thing that binds it all together is consensus to post. I've seen people come to WP:AN/I to defend admins who posted a blurb with which they disagreed because consensus favored posting. What Ed did was disregard consensus, go completely rogue, and disrupt the main page. Fortunately, as you continue to defend his reckless actions, the user has accepted that they were inappropriate and has volunteered appropriate steps. If you're curious about the process to correctly change ITN, check out this months long proposal to modernize ITN/DC, which is still languishing. --107.77.233.165 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

At the time that Ed posted the entry on ITN, the developing article already had confirmation of the event from the Turkish Prime Minister as reported by sources like the BBC, Guardian and Wall Street Journal.

Reliable sources had reported that Yıldırım claimed that a coup attempt was underway. Ed took said politician's claim at face value and posted it on the main page as a statement of fact, in spite of multiple editors' advice to wait until the situation was clearer.

In case you're unaware, significant concerns regarding the accuracy of Yıldırım's claims exist. As now noted in our article:

During and after the events, several politicians and commentators, including former leader of the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) Deniz Baykal, expressed doubt regarding whether the coup attempt was genuine or staged by the government. The facts that the coup attempt began in the early evening rather than at a more inconspicuous time, the events were largely confined to Ankara and İstanbul, no members of the government or MPs were taken hostage, and pro-government media outlets were not obstructed from broadcasting live during the events, all contributed to doubts about the authenticity of the coup attempt. Journalists and opposition politicians branded it a 'tragic comedy' and 'theatre play'. Advocates of such theories pointed to how Erdoğan stood to gain heavily from the coup attempt in terms of increasing his popularity and support for his calls for an executive presidency, while being able to legitimise further crackdowns on civil liberties, judicial independence and the opposition in general. Opponents of Erdoğan's regime claimed that very little stood in the way of his government eroding the founding principles of the Turkish Republic such as secularism, which the AKP has been accused of wanting to abolish, and pursuing a more authoritarian agenda.

And yet, you appear to be arguing that it was prudent to treat "[Yıldırım's] confirmation of the event" as unimpeachable.

The event was indeed real and, after a quick bit of back and forth, it was at ITN to stay.

I'll cruise past your description of a main-page wheel war as "a quick bit of back and forth" and note that from the very beginning, ITN/C editors stressed the item's premature nature at the time of its nomination. There was little doubt that something highly significant was unfolding, but it was too soon to know what. Please don't misrepresent the matter of contention as a question of notability.

It still seems that Ed made the right call and that this action was consistent with what WP:ITN says about posting significant events.

See above, including the part about consensus.

The OED says that "sub-par" means "Below average; worse than expected or required."

"Below average" is what's meant, as is abundantly obvious in context (i.e., when one doesn't conveniently ignore the rest of the page). —David Levy 14:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ed indicated good awareness that our coverage was provisional when he first posted the entry at WP:ITN, "Posted, with the knowledge that we will have to update the blurb as news unfolds". Even now, days later, the details of the coup are still unclear and uncertain. But throughout most of this time, we have had an entry at ITN and this indicates that Ed's call was correct. The guidelines at WP:ITN clearly indicate that such tentative postings are acceptable if the news is very significant and so we're good. There is not a problem here that needs fixing. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's become obvious that you have no intention of engaging in an intellectually honest discussion. Take care. —David Levy 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was not involved in this discussion, any particularly hard feelings if I close this in a manner that Floquenbeam suggested? --Tone 14:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• I think this can and should be closed in the manner suggested by Floquenbeam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2016 (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.

Hp printer support number

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 Sir/Mam,

I want to share the information related to HP printer service live support number. That's not on wikipedia.org. It's a huge place where everyone want to search their problem solution. As we know about HP (Hewlett Packard) and their services provided all over world with their products. So I want to share this information on our wikipedia.org so everyone can get it easily. I am working on it, If you think this will be helpful for the users of HP printers please let me know. I'll share all information.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yencyest (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) @Yencyest: I've just popped some information on your "talk page" which you may find useful. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:47, 18 July 2016 (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.

Backlog over at UAA

Hi all, it looks like there is a fairly long backlog over at WP:UAA. Some reports date back to the 13th of July. Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's been so for ages. My personal speculation here is that violations of the username policy that aren't handled as part of spam or vandal cleanup are usually so harmless that nobody really cares about UAA.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be minded to propose a rule that usernames cannot be reported to WP:UAA until they have made at least one edit - that would cut down the volume of reports considerably and allow focus on those that may actually be causing a problem. WJBscribe (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that basically what happens already? The instructions state not to report usernames until they make an edit and I see other admins routinely decline reports that haven't made edits. One incredibly useful change would be for the username bot not to report someone who has no edits (possibly by pulling usernames from recent changes instead of account creations?), but I think we already have this as a de facto "rule" when it comes to user-submitted reports. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, I'd be willing to help if mentored by someone more experienced in this area, but I know jack all about the username policy. I've read it, but that's no substitute for knowing the precedent and how admins typically approach the issues there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• That being said, I commonly block inappropriate account names (companies, trolling, "bots", whatever) regardless of whether they've edited or not. Just because they haven't edited yet doesn't mean policy doesn't apply to them, and I see no reason to turn a blind eye on edit-less accounts and allow them to eventually start editing with an account name I've already identified as non-policy-compliant. That's just shoveling the shit downriver and it's not somehow more helpful than blocking inappropriate usernames upstream. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Carbon0902/Chris t mentillo

Someone might want to take a look at this "article". Looks like it was deleted twice already, and recreated in user space. It's a practically unsourced BLP, for whatever the included "references" are worth, but I'm not sure if the rules are exactly the same for something out of main space.

Putting this here because I don't really know where is exactly appropriate. I could nom for speedy, maybe should, but since this is it's third recreation, I'm not sure it would do any good. TimothyJosephWood 20:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's substantially different than the 2009 versions, but the new one has no references while the old one did. I'm inclined to leave it for now regardless of its promotional tone. Until it's moved into the mainspace, let him work on it. No harm. Katie^talk 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure on ANI

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.

---

Section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_TH1980

The discussion has been ongoing for 9 days, and a consensus seems to have developed, but the discussion is labyrinthine and it seems that most administrators who've read through the discussion are too involved to close. Requesting help from AN so the discussion doesn't get archived. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

To add that's just a subsection of a thread that started on June 26. It's been almost a month and a ton of data at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Katie^talk 13:02, 19 July 2016 (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.

Revdel requested

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

---

Can someone please revdel this under the third criterion- "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks" Obvious attack against me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Next time, heed the red box right up in that there edit notice and ask on an active admin's talk page, so it doesn't receive unwarranted attention at one of the most-watched pages on the site. :-) Katie^talk 17:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2016 (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.

Reminder announcement about blocks based on private information

The committee would like to remind administrators of the following provision of the blocking policy:

If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.

If a situation arises in which private evidence (e.g. emails) is relevant, please refer the participants to arbcom (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) or to the functionaries list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) for review.

For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Reminder announcement about blocks based on private information

Create new tag

Hi! Some weeks ago I got a grant to enhance the ProveIt gadget. Part of the project involves tracking the number of edits done with the gadget. In order to do this, the best way would be to mark the edits with a ProveIt tag. I'm already working on a new version of the gadget that would add such a tag to the edits done with it. I would appreciate if an administrator could visit Special:Tags and create the tag for me. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Cheers! --Felipe (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've created the tag, technically, but I'm not sure what you need with regards to config for it to actually work. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Salvidrim, I think that what you did will be enough. It may still take me a few days until I get the new code live at the English Wikipedia, so don't expect any activity on the tag yet. I'll let you know if I need some further help. Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No problemo. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. I've got a lot to learn about Tags ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File cleanup

Some of Ds9426 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s files that they have uploaded have meaningless/random names. Can a file mover/admin fix this? Thanks, Feinoha ^Talk 01:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ok Sure i will stop.

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ds9426 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 July 2016

@Ds9426:Please edit these image description pages, and add a description of what they are, so that we can give them reasonable names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

4chan [s4s] troll copys english WP articles

Could someone keep an eye of 4chan's [s4s] board? Someone is copying random articles from the English Wikipedia without respecting the license condition (attribution of the contributers etc.) Thank you. Graf Ficus (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody could admonish them about this, including yourself, Graf Ficus. But expecting anonymous imageboard users to care about copyright and licensing seems to me to be a fool's errand.  Sandstein  09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocking role accounts

Do we have a user-block template specifically for role accounts that haven't done anything else obviously problematic? Something comparable to {{uw-ublock}} for bad usernames? I blocked an account for an entire school class whose edits were nothing to warrant sanctions, and I ended up going with the default {{tl|uw-block|indef=yes}} with an handwritten explanation after the template, explaining basically that ROLE was the only issue and suggesting that they create their own accounts. We have tons of block templates, including lots of indef-block templates, but if there's anything that would apply to non-disruptive ROLE violations, I couldn't find it. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that this is a different issue from {{uw-softerblock}}, which is for accounts that appear to represent a company, usernames that appear to be promotional. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This case (where there are no problems beyond the WP:SHARE thing) is not common. Myself I'd refrain from using a template entirely and just use a handwritten note to create separate accounts instead.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

He must be blocked, User talk:83.6.167.30

Wikipedia talk:Tutorial#HEY HEY RECENT CHANGES PATROLLERS, READ AND REPLY AND SPAM THIS AROUND!!! Talk spam. Thx, Charizardmewtwo (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Charizardmewtwo: I've reverted your addition of a block template to their talk page and notified them of this discussion. More importantly, this edit was made in 2014... -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Charizard is trolling at this point. Registers and straight away shows knowledge of process and makes edits like this Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're right.. shame, because their new article Trichodesmium erythraeum was a pretty decent start. We'd value your input here Charizardmewtwo -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very regretfully sorry, because his syllables looked so random, I immediately suspected they were vandalism. I promise I'll be more careful next time. Sorry, Charizardmewtwo (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm prepared to assume good faith here - if you're ever unsure or need any help with anything, please consider leaving me a message or dropping by The Teahouse. Please bear in mind Wikipedia's "five pillars" when editing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:JohnLloydScharf

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:JohnLloydScharf is currently blocked for one week for repeatedly posting an image from the anti-Muslim hate site TheReligionofPeace.com. He posted it multiple times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2016 Ramadan attacks. The image was deleted by unanimous consensus at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramadan-Bombathon-2016 Final Score Black.jpg. I can't find the original, but it was a version of this with a black background instead of the photograph.

He continued to use his talk page to promote the same web site, and I revoked talk page access because of it and I warned him here.

His latest was this delightful offering, posted logged out, and I have now semi-protected the page to stop any more of it.

At the very least I'd say the block should be escalated and I was tempted to just up it to indefinite, but I can't help feeling something stronger is needed. Community consensus would be a lot stronger than the judgment of just one admin, so I propose a full site ban.

Site ban proposal

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - not someone we need on the project, and with their latest edits it seems unlikely they're going to going to be anything other than a negative. Its looking likely they will attempt to evade though -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Seriously? Deleting an edit that violates Wikipedia's rules is now "supporting terrorism"? I'm trying to be civil here, but don't let the door hit you on the way out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• If we held a vote before site banning every bigot we run across, we'd become paralyzed. And give them more time and attention than they deserve. Just indef block with no talk page access, permanently semi the talk page, instablock any block-evading IP's, play whack-a-mole if necessary, close this thread as unnecessary, and move on. Don't let them become a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Only because I want to be on 'The Great List'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2016 (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.

Salt (some) IP address in the private network range?

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 22#User:192.168.1.1 there is a discussion about a user page for an IP address in the private network range. These IPs can never be valid IP users.

Just to avoid future mischief, I propose that we salt the following pages (and associated talk pages) as being the most commonly-used private IP addresses.

• User:10.0.0.0
• User:10.0.0.1
• User:10.1.1.1
• User:10.1.2.3
• User:10.10.10.10
• User:172.16.0.0
• User:172.16.0.1
• User:172.16.1.0
• User:172.16.1.1
• User:172.16.16.16
• User:192.168.0.0
• User:192.168.0.1
• User:192.168.1.1
• User:192.168.168.168

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to have an explanatory template applied to these IP addresses, rather than salting? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Something explanatory applied there, yes, and if it is only those listed above a template or similar is practical. If it is for all private network ranges then a page would not be practical (there several times more addresses than there are currently articles, and just one page for each would comprise ~30% of all pages on the English Wikipedia). Rather I think some MediaWiki space page that the software automatically shows on private network range addresses would be better, but that I presume would need a developer to write something. I oppose salting as completely unnecessary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides being impractical, anything involving all private network ranges would be ineffective. The above list covers well over 99% of the instances where a private IP address leaks unto the Internet (usually through some kind of misconfiguration, sometimes from a spammer attempting to hide his IP).

A reasonable alternative to salting would be to create a page with a short explanation about private IP addresses and then fully protect the page and associated talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it odd to delete content from other wiki by G5

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's odd to me that content that is created on other projects is treated as suspected because one admin has an isolationist view of the English project. This kind of admin conduct requires a review and a reminder that this is an international project not an English centric one. Any thoughts? We should have all the content restored and then people can suggest problem ones for deletion not the other way around. Alakazam Kalazam (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Despite Ricky's words, G5 is not a hard-and-fast thing; it's permission to delete stuff added by banned users, not a requirement, and refusing to delete good stuff is fine. WP:IAR always applies, as well. However, you need to consider the reason for the ban. If someone's been topic-banned from an area because he's always causing dissension, and then he goes and writes a fine article in that topic, deleting would be absurd, and the IAR policy would demand that we ignore the G5 rule if it were a rule, which it isn't. Conversely, when someone's been banned for persistent copyright infringements, such as here, deleting regardless of quality is the only safe thing to do: we can't AGF for "self-written" claims by copyright infringers. Minus solid proof that a piece of content is WP-compatible (basically, it's taken from a CC-BY(-SA) site, or it's demonstrably in the public domain), it needs to be deleted on legal grounds. Same thing with a hoaxer: if you're repeatedly introducing false content, deletion is the only safe course unless the content is solidly referenced from something easily online, something that can be checked immediately by other editors, since we can't AGF about print sources or password-protected sources. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Not sure what happened there but a sock of a banned user complaining about G5 probably doesn't deserve an explanation. I already deleted the thread once but your edit brought it back. --Majora (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, my response to this question is basically the same as the first. Someone searching the WP:AN archive for this issue may get guidance from my words, so unless you think I've reached the wrong conclusion, I don't think there's a good reason to object. It makes no sense without the question by the banned user's sock; it's not as if I just left a random piece of text somewhere, all by itself. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been conducted at [[WT:CSD}] repeatedly. I'm aware of when it's appropriate to IAR and not G5. Largely allegedly translated content from another language that has almost zero additional contributions other than formatting changes from other editors that are almost all orphaned and somewhat qusetionably notable have been deleted and if someone think these all deserve a second look, I will restore all of them to draftspace for review and return if someone else confirms their accuracy. Otherwise, anything more is just WP:BEANS for sockpuppeters in terms of avoiding G5 for their stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing odd here. User:Arcituno was blocked as sockpuppet of User:Slowking4 and the content was deleted under G5. The second block was for sockpuppetry so violating that block with another sockpuppet is a violation that can only be resolved with deletion. The slight wrinkle is the editor claimed that the content created was not new content but translations from other languages. On that basis, one could technically argue that the sockpuppet has zero content created here since the content was actually from another language but this was their allegedly accurate translation. Otherwise the vast majority (90% or more) of each page's contributions belonged to this editor translating pages from other places. As noted, there's no evidence that the translated text is in fact accurate and I see no zero reason we should take the word of a copyright-abusing, blocked user's sockpuppet that their text is accurate, in particular about the citations for obscure foreign-language sources about BLPs. It's been deleted under G5 and as I have expressed to an admin and two non-admin editors, if asked I will restore the content to draftspace akin to Draft:Rita Montero where someone else can review the translation and simply move the page back to mainspace if they confirm that this is an accurate translation. It seems like this is considered "isolationalist" or "impractical" but that's preferable than either (a) ignore the content that a copyright abusing editor just picked up and started again under the belief that they reformed on their own; (b) make this somehow the deleting admin's responsibility to police all this; or (c) conduct another copyright investigation and other discussion about whether a repeated sockpuppeting copyright violation in this account was also doing the same antics. As such, if people think that these pages are worth keeping, my talk page is open but one other admin has expressed interest as well. Otherwise I think people can see here why people have little interest in joining the admin corps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I said above, Ricky81682, I agree that we need to take a hard line on creations by folks who are banned on copyright grounds; it's radically different from ban-violating creations by someone who's been banned "just" because they can't get along with others editing in the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thus G5 is for content created in violation of their ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Majora was right to remove this. I would have but they beat me to it. The OP is  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. BTW, they've been on this noticeboard before ranting.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• The OP is not a sock of Slowking4.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've said it before (in last year's ArbCom election), but "being eligible for CSD" doesn't mean "has to be CSD'ed" (except for special cases, BLPvios, copyvios, etc.), and anybody who deletes a batch of otherwise acceptable content strictly per G5 is putting rules before content, which directly contradicts one of Wikipedia's five pillars, WP:IAR. If you're reverting/deleting quality content for the sole purpose of enforcing backstage rules, you're doing a disservice to readers and you're being destructive to Wikipedia's only goal and top priority: reader-facing article content. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have recreated a few of the higher-quality articles under my own name so (but because doing so without preserving history would be an attribution copyvio I've also restored article history); I've gone through maybe half of their creations and recreated maybe the top third. There are dozens others to review though if anyone feels like adding some women BLPs to our content pool. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: it truly is amazing how much you can pick at every single one of a person's edits and find something they are at fault with every day. Well, another day, another account and more questioning here. Hopefully someone takes the hint and finally shoves off. 107.77.229.10 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good for you. Should this be removed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2016 (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.

Mass Creation of UN Resolution Stubs

See-3 Pee-Oh (talk · contribs) has been mass creating stubs of United Nations Resolutions that only contain the following text "United Nations Security Council resolution xxxx was adopted in 2013." (xxxx indicates the resolution number) and no substantive content. I'm not sure if there is a policy being broken or if these qualify for deletion which is why I'm brining it here. Any advice?

A list of the articles is included bellow;

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: the user has been notified here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the comment at See-3 Pee-Oh's talkpage, by Darylgolden, that "...there is no reason to delete these stub articles. Although it would be much better if basic information about the resolutions could be added, such [as] that found at List of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2101 to 2200, I don't believe there is any reason to mass delete the stubs when they are going to be created sooner or later anyway..." It would, indeed, be preferable if See-3 Pee-Oh could incorporate a way to include at least the basic details into the workflow of creating these stubs, and I'd certainly encourage them to do so, if at all possible - but I don't see much need for any drastic action here. Begoon ^talk 10:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea to talk to the new editor instead of posting big threats about AN/ANI on their talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That too. Begoon ^talk 11:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598:Concerns about a specific user should always be discussed on the user's own talk page (or by email when there are privacy issues) before going to other forums, except when there are urgent issues (e.g a bot in active operation), suspected sockpuppetry, or a blatantly inappropriate user name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you noticed the reason I came here was " I'm not sure if there is a policy being broken or if these qualify for deletion which is why I'm brining it here. Any advice? ". I didn't want to mislead a new editor if I was indeed wrong. This was, to be honest, the place I thought I'd get the best advice and @Lugnuts: where is there a threat in the post? I certainly didn't mean to come off threatening. If I did then I apologize. And I was pointed to coming here when I asked an administrator on IRC, my apologies if coming here was inappropriate when I was referred this way. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Posting a big ANI warning looks like threatening, esp. to a new editor. The articles may be junk, they may be fine. Maybe something along the lines of "Hey, thanks for all the new articles, but can I bring your attention to the following: WP:V and WP:RS...," etc, etc. And then explain why things to be verified and sourced. And, of course, notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see how that could look that way, I hadn't considered that. I'll keep this in mind in the future. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• I can see keeping them but we may also consider moving them to draftspace as well. I'd suggest doing a requested move (either in mass or individually) to move them to drafts for now and discussing them further. I don't see a purpose in deleting them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Neelix redirects

I am tired of Neelix redirects. I have processed hundreds of the deletion requests, but I have stopped.

It is incredibly inefficient for one editor to review an entry, decide it ought to go, nominate for CSD or RfD, then have an admin review and decide. Even though each step takes seconds, there are many thousands left.

• List with almost 3000 remaining
• List with almost 5000 remaining
• List with over 5000 remaining
• List with over 5000 remaining

At a time when it is a struggle to keep the CSD nominations under 100, this is an absurd drain on resources.

I get that some of the redirects were useful. However, I suspect that most of the truly useful ones have been reviewed and removed from the lists.

I propose:

• That we allow a period of time (a week, 30 days?) for interested editors to go through the lists to see if any useful ones should be removed from the list. I think that is a monumental waste of time, but if editors want to do it, go for it.
• At the end of that time, mass delete the rest.

I think a week is long enough, but will defer to a longer time if someone really wants to waste their time this way.

Note that this will inevitably delete some useful redirect. My main point is that if you can think of a useful redirect, you can recreate it in far less time that it is taking to review these items. We aren't talking about deleting an article with even minimal content, we are talking about deletion of an article containing a single word.

Let's end this madness.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This situation is essentially mass vandalism that went unchecked. Instead of devoting hundreds of editor hours to solving this we should soft delete them, and allow recreation by any user in good standing. If anyone misses them then they can be returned. Worst case scenario is we end up in the situation we would have been in if Neelix never made a redirect. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I support the proposal. It is a waste of time to handle several thousands of thee redirects individually given that a chance any of them are useful is low.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There are useful ones in there but there are significantly more that are not. Is there a way for a bot to go through and remove from the lists any that are more likely than not to be useful. Specifically:

• redirects to other capitalisations
• redirects that differ only by the presence or absence of diacritics
• redirects where the title of redirect appears in bold in the lead of the target
• redirects that receive a significant number of page hits (defined as receiving at least 20 hits in the last 30 days).

If that (or at least the first three) is possible, I oppose this until after the bot has been run and we can see how many are left. Iff that is not possible, then I will reluctantly support this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose based on the comments below after looking again at some of the redirects that are left I was able to find 2 that were correct and one that required a simple retargetting in about 2 minutes. Yes the process is slow, but the vast majority of these are doing no harm at all so there is no rush. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no deadline and most of the redirects do no harm.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that two salvaged redirects, AAC (airport) and CID (airport), have some value. If someone starts typing AAC and follows with (airport) assuming they know our convention, they will arrive at the airport. But if they type in AAC, they will arrive at the DAB which includes the airport. Similarly, if you type in CID, you will see the DAB which also includes the airport. So if the redirect didn't exist, it is almost certain they will find the article they want. The AAC DAB had 3894 views in the last 90 days. The AAC (airport) had 8 views in the last 90 days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely support. There's enough backlogs on the project without allowing a single user to create a backlog that takes over 1000 editor hours to address. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. In response to Thryduulf, the diacritic ones are often not useful. I've seen plenty where he created a redirect where one letter had a diacritic but another had it removed. These mixed diacritic redirects aren't useful at all. Such a bot might be feasible, but again, it's dedicating extremely valuable editor time to save a very small number of useful redirects among a sea of dung. WP:Bot requests has a perpetual backlog. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Creating a bot to go through it might not be feasible. I'm going through these Neelix redirects, speedy nominating the ones I'm sure that should be deleted, nominating some that I'm not sure or that needs to be retargeted, and leaving a lot of them alone if I don't know what to do with them. The temporary speedy delete for this redirect was made to preventing people from wasting the RFDs time, but if it's not useful anymore, then I'm fine with having another alternative. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nuke them from orbit This should have been done at the outset because of the demonstrated, shall we call them... "poor choices", made by Neelix in creating redirects. While some may be good it is simply not worth the time or effort to sort the good, from the bad, from the puerile, from the just plain silly. If nuking them breaks something it is still far less time and resources to fix those individual instances, should they occur.

  This case has caused enough stress and conflict. It is time for it to be cauterized and done with. Jbh^Talk 17:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - The community already decided on a process to deal with these redirects. Some of the redirects are useful and valid.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment If these redirects are creating a backlog in CSD, perhaps create a separate speedy for these redirects. Creating a bot could be useful BUT only after all of these redirects are reviewed. Tag the ones that are to be deleted (or create a list) then have a bot delete them. I disagree with having a limited time to salvage redirects, because there are not a lot of people going through the lists, and it would be (in my opinion), impossible to review them all and agree which ones should be kept or deleted in that timeframe. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a simple solution for the timeframe issue - a copy can be made in a user subpage, or a WP page, and then, any editor who wishes can go through and recreate any they find useful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for a bot. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have great admiration for the editors who do the dirty work by going through these, but I think they should be filtered through the WP:RFD process to give the community an opportunity to discuss the merits of the redirects on an individual basis. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Question: If the redirects are mass-deleted, is it possible to list the deleted redirects in a central location in case someone wants to go through them latter looking for those few that are worth restoring? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Answer Yes, I noted this about the same time you asked - easy enough to copy the lists, or even leave them in Anomie's subpage (if they don't mind). They would simply be red instead of blue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Sphilbrick and Guy Macon: The fatal flaw with retaining just the lists, is that they contain only the title of the redirect, not the target.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Surely ^{(Stop calling me Shirley!)} we could create a page with the targets as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

off-topic

Comment: Those who drove Simon Trew away should be made to return and explain how their actions improved the encyclopedia. Muffled Pocketed 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Nobody "drove" SimonTrew away. He was blocked for making WP:Legal threats. He should know that he'll be unblocked if he renounces his threats. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC) @Tavix: MRDA Muffled Pocketed 18:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for teaching me about the Men's Roller Derby Association. I appreciate it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have to oppose because it has been 8 months since this temporary speedy has been made and only half of the list has been gone through. Creating a deadline to salvage redirects isn't the best idea, in my opinion. Also, @Sphilbrick:, your idea of mass deleting all of the redirects and going through and recreating the redirects that are acceptable seems wrong to me, because, either way, all of these redirects would have to be reviewed in order to be sure if the deletion of the redirect was correct or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This will create even more work. The worst offending redirects have already been deleted, most of the remainder are either useful ones or pointless ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) Who of the current and future opposes to this suggestion are willing to help do the work. I strongly suggest that those who have chosen to take on this Sisyphean nay Augean task are the ones best able to judge the effectiveness of how we initially chose to address this matter - they are saying it is not working, please listen to them or dig in. Jbh^Talk 17:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I bet I've deleted more of them than you. It's not a competition. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you have. But when someone deeply involved in the clean up comes here and says it is too much. I listen to them. The conflicts resulting from the clean up seem to have caused more problems than the "event". At this point those involved should either decide to keep them by default, and look only for the purile and offensive or nuke them. I would nuke them because, from what I have seen they seldome rise above useless but redirects are funny things and people seem to find the oddest things "plausible". Jbh^Talk 18:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am digging in and of the random selection I've reviewed so far, I'm seeing more good redirects than bad redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I am seeing there is nothing (once they are confirmed not to be articles per Thryduulf below) that the loss of, even in agregate, that would cause the same harm to the encyclopedia as the loss of editor hours reviewing them. It is a case of the best being the enemy of the good. Best=1000's more editor hours expended; Good less than a tenth of that. The made up word forms -ing -Ed -es, spaces, no spaces, hyphens etc. search engines can handle and who knows what Easter Eggs there may be. Jbh^Talk 18:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Note not all the links listed are still redirects so a bot must check this if tasked with deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? It purports to be a list of redirect. Is that in error, or did someone convert a redirect into an article title and fail to remove it from the list?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Taranta is an example. It was a redirect that Rigadoun converted to a dab page on 1 January this year, but which remained in the list until my edit of a few minutes ago. Whether Rigadoun was even aware of the list or of its purpose I have no idea. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good observation, but easily addressed. When doing a mass delete, this list identifies whether it is a redirect or not. Whomever does the delete has to watch and uncheck non redirects. (I just checked in my sandbox to confirm it would work).--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was not, and I imagine many others may have made similar edits to these pages, but that shouldn't matter if there is a final confirmation that they are redirects, as Sphilbrick says. (I'm neutral on the issue at hand.) Rigadoun (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose picking a few from one of the lists at random I'm seeing plenty that are perfectly valid redirects. For instance:

• A. J. Broomhall redirects to Alfred James Broomhall: the article says that he is sometimes known as A. J. Broomhall, so this is a perfectly good search term.
• John the theologian redirects to John of Patmos: again the article says that's one name the subject is known by, so it's a perfectly good search term
• Michael's Harbour redirects to Michael's Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador: I assume the article has to be at that title because of a naming convention but that's clearly the best target for this search term
• Five Lanes End redirects to Kensington, Prince Edward Island: that's an old name for the area, so it's a plausible search term

There are plenty of others I could list here. Deleting these ones would actually harm the encyclopedia, and that's what would happen under this proposal unless someone went through the list to remove them and all the other numerous ones like them. Even in the cases where the redirect is not a particularly helpful search term it's hard to make the case that the redirect is actually harmful rather than just useless. Given that I don't think summarily deleting thousands of redirects is a good idea here. Hut 8.5 18:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do everyone a huge favor and remove those from the lists. It's impossibly slow if we have to re-do the work again and again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Meh. As the editor who proposed the splitting and organization, I'm far from a fan of these but we could use more eyes, preferably from admins to cut down the CSDs. I think the problem is that these are in a incoherent order (a cause of it just being a list based on creation) but man was this a miserable mess created. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The ones I sampled seemed quite reasonable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support some kind of deadline, was thinking of proposing a year myself (this November). That way people would only have to remove redirects that are "good" and leave the questionable ones in place. CSD/RFD wouldn't be bogged down this way and the ones with value will still be removed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As an admin who's processed some of these, even the ones nominated for deletion are sometimes correct redirects and end up being saved. It would do more harm to the project to nuke good ones than to retain bad ones.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf (as revised) and Amakuru|. I also oppose stopping the present system, as sending them to RfD wouldn't help in terms of work. There are some that are OK as they stand, and some that can be retargeted to a more appropriate article. I have seen lot that are very unlikely search terms. but haven't seen many that were really harmful. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not going to be liked one iota for this but the amount of time being wasted on these is ridiculous, Neelix should've been indeffed and these should've been mass nuked regardless of their usefulness, If editors believe certain words are useful then they'll get recreated as Redirects over time ... As it stands there's thousands upon thousands of redirects to go through and quite frankly we all have better stuff to do with our lives than to sit infront of a computer sifting though 500 redirects a day!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thyrduulf. The most problematic have been dealt with, the rest are mostly useful or harmless and shouldn't be summarily deleted in this way. If we do want to have a way of more rapidly moving through them, a better plan is needed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• support deleting all. Why wasn't this done in the first place surprises me... It is plain simple vandalism. Suppose someone creates a "redirect creating bot" which simply picks every wikipedia page title and then makes semi-random dictionary replacements, word shuffling, case changing, turn words into initial, and so on. It creates a million redirects. I am sure that thousands of those would be perfectly good ones. I am also almost sure that the near unanimous solution would be to delete them all. Sure, some good redirects would be (and will be) lost, but the time spent saving them is best used re-creating them and creating something useful. - Nabla (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as most of these are harmless and the danger of deleting some useful things is far more damaging than keeping around some useless things. We'd still have to check them to see what should be re-created. Time is better spent elsewhere. — Earwig ^talk 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as we are at the point where most are harmless. I have deleted quite a few and declined to delete some as potentially useful. We should spend our time doing something productive now that the harmful stuff is gone already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Tentative support I'm fairly confident of two things about this plan: 1) it would eliminate many non-harmful redirects; but 2) it would do more good than harm. I would request that after deletion, the list pages stay up for a while—I'm thinking a year or so. As long as there's that trail that others can follow in case any are worth recreating, I think we can definitely come out ahead on this. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It is clear that my proposal is going down in flames. After review, I see I made some assumptions which were not warranted, so suggest the above section should be archived as failed, and I will propose an alternative, attempting to address the concerns of those opposed.

My unwarranted assumption was that editors have concentrated on salvaging the good redirects, so the quality of the remaining entries should be dropping. That doesn't appear to be the case. Instead, some of the more egregious, "inappropriate" redirects were nominated for deletion, and the remaining ones are more benign.

That still means many thousands of nominations for CSD, so I will suggest an alternative process which:

• Eliminates the timeframe problem - it will be done whenever it is done
• Eliminates the need to make a CSD nomination.
• It doesn't save the time needed to do an assessment, but the community message is that this should be done. (The community is right, even when wrong :)

In short, the proposal is to add a section to the bottom of each list, with a heading "Redirects to be deleted"

Any editor can look at any entry in the top list, decide it is worth saving, and remove from the list, or decide it should be considered for deletion, in which case it would be moved to the lower list.

Any editor who sees an entry in the lower list can either override it by removing it from the list (effectively, keeping it) or nominate it at Rfd and remove from the list

Eventually the top list will be empty and the only remaining entries are in the "Redirects to be deleted" section, and can be mass deleted.

I'll illustrate how this might happen with an initial list of four items, collapsed for readability.

Specific example of how this might work

Initial configuration (A list of all redirects for consideration, and a blank section for ones to be deleted ==Existing redirects for consideration== * Foo * Bar * Crappy crap * Good crap ==Redirects to be deleted== An editor looks at the "Foo" entry, decides it is a valid redirect, so simply removes it form the list Now the page looks like: ==Existing redirects for consideration== * Bar * Crappy crap * Good crap ==Redirects to be deleted== An editor looks at "Crappy crap" and "Good crap" and thinks they should both be deleted. The editor simply moves them to the bottom section. Now the page looks like: ==Existing redirects for consideration== * Bar ==Redirects to be deleted== * Crappy crap * Good crap Next, a different editor either decides that "Good crap" should be saved, in which case it is simply removed, or thinks it is worth discussing so writes up an RfD and removes it from the list. Now the page looks like: ==Existing redirects for consideration== * Bar ==Redirects to be deleted== * Crappy crap Next, an editor decides "bar" should be saved. Now the page looks like: ==Existing redirects for consideration== ==Redirects to be deleted== * Crappy crap Finally, the redirects to be deleted are mass deleted (taking care to make sure that they are all redirects, and none have become articles or DABs.

--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It might work, but there are a few problems. For instance, say someone removes a redirect from the consideration or deleted sections. I think they should provide an explanation why the redirect should be kept before it gets saved. Might look like

==Redirects to be deleted==
* Crappy crap
* Good crap - Singular name for good craps

If this proposal does work, then the temporary CSD for Neelix redirects should be closed then? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see why this is necessary. If you want, if there's a set you think should just be junked, copy that to the talk page and ping an admin working on it like me and I'll review it. Better yet, we can create a separate page for those if you'd like. From there, it'll be either delete, RFD if I'm a maybe or keep by admin review. Just be glad we still aren't stuck with that stupid single one page listing of them all that crashed every browser it was on. I have no idea why people insisted on that system for months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• I like this idea a lot. This would be so much more efficient than tagging and deleting all of these one by one. I'd actually take it a step further by saying that an admin can clear that section if (s)he wants. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That and if the redirect is being sent off to CSD, remove it from the list. It'll be deleted and removed or rejected by an admin so you'll either end up doing it again or just moving on. If it's off to RFD, remove it. It literally should just be a first cut, no one has checked list to clear this out quickly. There should be zero related changes on any of those pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• All of that is currently being done. The difference with this proposal is that non-admins wouldn't need to tag every single bad redirect. Instead, they'd put in the "to be deleted" section (although I'd prefer a separate page covering all 4 lists, to enable d-batch) so it bypasses the need to go through CSD. That way, the CSD admins no longer have to deal with these redirects. As far as RFD goes, borderline redirects would still go there (as what's being done currently). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• They can still go to CFD. The point is to clear them from pages 1-4. Either way, we can just make a new page right now and just use that as a clear-out ground for admins to review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Better still lets stop wasting time and having these stupid threads and just nuke the lot ..... There's been countless threads on these redirects and there's going to be countless more if someone doesn't grow a pair and just nuke the fucking lot, We're here to build an encyclopedia ..... and sifting through 20k worth of Neelix redirects is sure as shit not helping the project nor is it helping to build an encyclopedia ..... If they're useful someone will recreate it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Corollary: Better still lets stop wasting time and having these stupid threads and just accept that almost all of the redirects are harmless at worst and useful at best ..... There's been countless threads on these redirects and there's going to be countless more if someone doesn't grow a pair and just accept that they aren't doing any harm, We're here to build an encyclopedia ..... and sifting through 20k worth of Neelix redirects is sure as shit not helping the project nor is it helping to build an encyclopedia ..... If they're harmful someone will nominate them for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • But that's my point ... if some are completely harmless then can and will be recreated as redirects by many different editors ..... I don't mean this in a dickish way but it's a complete waste of editors time doing this task and they could better spend their time improving the site .... –Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I actually think that deleting harmless redirects is actively harmful to the project as it wastes time and requires duplication of effort down the line and who knows how many people wont benefit from them before the first person with the time, ability and knowledge to recreate them does so? Improving the project includes making it easier for readers to navigate to the content they want, and preventing the nuking of beneficial redirects from people who think that will someone improve the project. So far since the start of this discussion, I've speedied 2 redirects, nominated 2 more at RfD and kept about 60 that were good or harmless - that's not a very good advert for nuking being at all necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• A reminder to everyone but WP:G6 states explicitly that the temporary Neelix criteria "will be rescinded when the community concludes the problem has been brought down to a more reasonable level and can be handled by Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion." Now, it seems like we aren't at the stage where it can be handled by RFD. As such, I think any further discussion should be taken to WT:CSD for a revision to G6 rather than another system implementation via an ANI discussion. Policy wonkery and all but it's a resolution for now. Strike that, I forgot the inclusion was by ANI in the first place. I think the question is whether we have met the reasonable level criteria within these months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  I have put at least 100 Neelix redirects up for deletion using the Neelix G6 criterion within the past week. RFD would be unhappy with me if I dumped them all in their lap. We might be able to get rid of the criterion in 2-3 months, but it would disrupt RFD if we did it now. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Curious Case of SST Flyer

I think it's worth mentioning that SST Flyer was recently "tried" and "found guilty" by "the community" of inappropriate creation of thousands of redirects (May 2016). The net result was all the redirects were deleted. Lets end this embarrassment right now and just do the same with Neelix so we can draw a line under this mess and editors can move on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what SST Flyer's redirects were like, but the majority of the Neelix ones that are left are good redirects so I strongly oppose mass deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's super - now get cracking with the Neelix lists and clean them all up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE, but they are being worked on and the job would go a lot quicker if there weren't the need to repeatedly defend against people wanting to harm the project by nuking them all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice essay. Do you have any policy to save all this crap from deletion? No, didn't think so. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:DP. The guideline WP:POINT and essays WP:WIN, WP:DDH, WP:DLC and WP:FENCE are also very relevant here. I'd also like a citation that the redirects are all "crap" - based on what I've been seeing the past day or so there are at least 20 good redirects for every bad or potentially bad ones. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking just to WP:DF is WP:VAGUEWAVE. Anything a bit more solid? Chop, chop! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The deletion policy makes it clear that the person wanting to delete something is the person who needs to justify how it meets the deletion policy - i.e. you need to justify why these redirects should be deleted, I don't need to justify why they shouldn't. Also, I find the tone of your comment very uncivil. Would you please kindly and civilly respond to the points raised without implying that there is any kind of deadline upon me to do what you are failing to do. Anyway, I've got to go offline now, so you have plenty of time to figure out how policies and guidelines can be used to justify intentionally harming Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well when you come back online, no doubt the Neelix pile o'shite will not have decreased by many (if at all), so there's plenty of pointless busy work for you to fill your boots with. Shame that effort can't be used into building an encyclopedia, instead of cleaning up the shit of an admin who snaked away after creating a huge mess. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not a helpful comparison. SST Flyer's redirects were all of the form "List of people named X" redirecting to the disambiguation page on X. Since they were all basically the same situation it makes sense to delete them all once we determined that we shouldn't have a redirect in that situation. Neelix's redirects do not follow any kind of common pattern and were not created through an automated process. Again the vast majority of these redirects are either helpful or harmless and there's really no problem that requires such drastic measures as mass deletion. Hut 8.5 10:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I know! As SST was a civilian and not a former admin. How dare we destroy the "good" work of an admin! For shame. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

How about you address the actual arguments instead of making up sarcastic insinuations? Hut 8.5 13:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The argument is all of Neelix's redirects need deleting. The whole point of him being dragged through AN/ANI and being desyopped means they should be deleted, to save everyone time and effort clearing up his mess. Or do you condone his behaviour? Because it sounds like you do. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not true that all of his redirects need deleting. Plenty of them are fine and constitute useful search terms. I gave some examples above, there are plenty more and a large fraction of the remaining redirects fall into this category. The really silly ones which prompted this to flare up (Tubular titties, for instance) appear to have gone. The remaining ones which are problematic generally fall into the category of unlikely search terms rather than things which are actually harmful or misleading. Wikipedia doesn't gain anything in particular from having a redirect from Consecrationally to Consecration, but I don't see how it's actually harming anything to have it there either. Do I condone Neelix's behaviour? No, but that's beside the point. The issue is whether at this stage deleting all the redirects which he created would be a net positive to the encyclopedia, and I don't think it would be. On the contrary deleting a load of useful redirects to get rid of a load that are merely a bit pointless would be counterproductive. Nor do I agree with the unspoken assumption that we have to get rid of all the useless redirects. I don't think it's worth experienced editors spending time working through them. Hut 8.5 18:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Offtopic bickering - Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I don't think it's worth experienced editors spending time working through them" - Doesn't that just contradict everything you've just said? You don't think it's worth time working through them? Maybe not your time, but seeing as you only make 2 or 3 edits per day, that's not exactly end of the world stuff. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Well gee, if you only care about input from editors who have hundreds of edits per day, then you should have gone to Wikipedia:Administrators who make lots of daily edits noticeboard. You might have a point about the redirects, Lugnuts - but when you start criticizing editors who disagree with you, it really makes me not care what you think we should or should not be doing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see you're another "admin" who crawls out every couple of days, takes a look at the sun, then crawls back inside, and does nothing to address issues on this board, or indeed, add any meaningful content. Correct me if I'm wrong. Oh yes, I'm not. Your RFA states - "I'm willing to assist with any backlogged area of the project, and I know that there are several areas more backlogged than others." - Just give a rough number of how many Neelix redirects you've looked in to? Is it zero, per chance? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) You looked up my RFA (from 8 years ago) just to find something to beat me over the head with? Jesus Christ, is this Reddit? If you want me to resign as an admin because I don't edit all that often, say so. No one is keeping score, except you perhaps. I did, however, go over to the list and look at half a dozen redirects or so, finding only one that needed to be deleted. I get the impression that you're not finding more editors willing to help because, honestly, you're kinda being a dick about it. And I don't want to take edits away from your score. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Also - Lugnuts, you seem to have 0 edits to any of the six lists of Neelix Redirects (4 linked above and 2 complete). So honestly I don't really understand what you're on about, since you appear to have done less than nothing to improve the project in this area. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Far from it - I've already explained my solution, but I guess you were to busy to read it. So I'll say it again for your benefit - delete all of them. There. Job done. Now your precious time can be devoted to whatever it is you do. Which isn't a lot from your contributions here. Just another admin who doesn't want to help out. Shame on you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC) I read it. Since it has repeatedly been rejected as a viable option, I correctly assumed it was not worth further consideration. Just like this discussion, which seems to be going nowhere. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for that. You've done your four "contributions" for the day, so have a well earned lie down and see you same time tomorrow. Maybe you could delete a Neelix redirect then. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Boy, you just don't get it at all do you? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC) That you essentially lied to become an admin and don't actually fix problems? No, I get it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Well, that's a bold statement - and says more about you than me, I think. Should I step down as an admin because I disagree with you? Any other admins not active enough for you? Going to go crack the whip? Where's your proposal to desysop admins without x actions per day? This is a volunteer project, run by volunteers. If you really think that I shouldn't be an admin because the little number under my name isn't as high as you think it should be, I don't know what to tell you. You've certainly got a lot to say about other editors, but you're so concerned about the Neelix redirects that you've done absolute sweet fuck-all to address them. So head over to VPP and get a consensus to desysop less active admins, and we'll talk. Otherwise, try being constructive instead of whatever it is you think you're doing here. If I offended your delicate sensibilities, I apologize - but I don't think such an apology is necessary in this case, because you're out of line. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC) May be a good time for all involved to take a nice break and calm down. TimothyJosephWood 17:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that the deleted redirects were later mass recreated via bot, along with others. Omni Flames (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not quite, you're thinking of a different set. The redirects being discussed here were deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 10#List of people named Henry Lopes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My bad. Omni Flames (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would be good is to find some way of groping the almost identical ones at a single AfD. Beyond that, if here remain 16,000, at 50 a day it would take us about a year; at 25 a day, two years. CsD can deal with that, and the time frame is realistic. In part years there were routinely 150-200 CSDs at a day, and we managed it. 'What we really need to think about , is how to deal with future problems of that sort before the reach a scale like this one. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect someone will say you can't send redirects to AfD and the whole thing falls down, but I agree with the solution in principal. Two years to fix this mess. And some people don't want them all nuked now. Baffling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I also see people keep quoting WP:NODEADLINE, which is, of course, an essay. It was November last year when this was first addressed, and editors are still wasting their time on this. Keep the clock ticking on the man-hours. To hell with adding content. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Streamline the process?

Could we make the lists more accessible and the process of dealing with them less labour intensive? It would help if the lists included the target for each redirect, allowing it to be considered without having to click through to the actual page. Also, could a script be used to automate the process, so that there are options for each redirect to: Delete/RfD/Keep? WJBscribe (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get any objection to that, but the problem is implementation. I'll ping Anomie to see if that's something he'd be interested in. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Running a script over it to add indications of the link targets wouldn't be hard. Adding links for action=delete too wouldn't be hard, but I don't know whether a prefill for RfD would work (anyone have an example?) and a "keep" link would need a custom userscript of some sort which is more work than I want to put into it. Anomie⚔ 02:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to link to the RfD Twinkle dialog box? I don't think a "keep" link is necessary, just remove the line. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some version of {{la}} that includes what, History, Links, and the Delete command? Seems like it'd be simple for a bot to go through and add such a template to the lists. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Please! Even seeing the redirects as Honest Abe --> Abraham Lincoln would be a vast improvement. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, I already made a template like this - {{lan}} - when the Neelix thing first came up. Let me see if I can add a target to the template. I know {{rfd2}} fills in a target, but there it's user-specified, and if we're manually adding this template to the lists we might as well just review them outright. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, if we use it with one of the redirects, we get Acee → Acee (history | delete), where the delete action auto-fills "G6-Neelix" into the rationale for deletion. Does anyone know how to transclude the first link from a specified article (which would be the target, here)? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've managed to find a Lua module that extracts this information: Taking the first entry in list one:

# [[:Teip Council of Elders]] -->{{#invoke:redirect|main|Teip Council of Elders}}

Produces:

1. Teip Council of Elders -->Teip

I'm sure you could wrap this in whatever you need to to get this done. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That works beautifully - the template now gives us Teip Council of Elders → Teip (history | delete). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, now we just need to add it in everywhere. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4 is done. Let us know if anyone wants a change, I'm planning on doing the rest in an hour or so. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Self reverted on the last two lists (3 and 4), didn't add to the first two. Error was that I was making too many expensive lua calls. It worked fine for about 10 sections, so splitting the pages might be an option. I could also leave it, and have people just work from the top of the lists. Either way, I'm not going to futz further for now. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Didn't think about those. But this seems like a good start, and it really does speed the work. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 05:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave it up to everyone else to decide what exactly you want me to do with these. I could split it into on the order of 15 subpages instead of the current 4, which would solve the problem, or I could just add in the templates and have people work from the top, or I can get rid of them. If anyone wants to implement this, the easy way I found was to copy and paste the wikitext into notepad, and then do two find and replace operations to insert the template instead of the link. It also looks like the way I found to do the Lua has been depricated, see here. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right - that code seems to have ended up at Module:Redirect and target, which I added to the template to get Teip Council of Elders → Teip (history | delete). If I'm reading the changelogs correctly, this should be much less expensive, function wise. Also, now my head hurts. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's still throwing errors. Let me play with it later. For now, lets work that list from the top. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You can also edit a later section and preview that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the first list to resolve the LUA call and page load time issues. The only issue that I introduced was that the list of redirect targets is now static. This is OK, because if we are retargeting a redirect, it has more or less always been resolved. Let me know if you want me to do the other lists. If you want to know exactly what I did, check my contributions, or else talk to me on my talk page (Warning:template gore) Tazerdadog (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pengo issues block on bot, no reason given or warning.

My bot, BG19bot has been blocked by Pengo saying the bot has malfunctioned. They added {{nobots}} tag onto their articles without following the instructions, one of which is to contact the bot owner. I and Magioladitis have left a message on Pengo's talk page before they blocked the bot. Instructions say on the bot's page to leave a message on the talk page to stop the bot. The bot has not edited in 2 hours and won't again till ~4z tomorrow.

Pengo has just written on their talk page, I've asked you to stop making edits to these pages before. Bots are meant to be useful, not waste everyone's time. Pengo has never left a message on my talk page. Pengo is now adding {{nobots}} to pages again. I still haven't a clue what they are objecting to.

Summary:

1. Pengo abused admin privileges by blocking the bot... no warning and no discussion and bot hasn't edited in awhile.
2. Pengo applied {{nobots}} without discussion
3. Pengo has never left a message on my talk page before and I've never contacted them before.
4. Pengo is refusing to discuss what in the world is going on.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well your bot made this edit which is what I assume kicked it off - and on the face of it, appears to do nothing. Likewise the recent edits of the bot on other articles can be described at best, as having zero negative effect on the article. But no positive either. The relevant part of NOBOTS is "These templates should be used carefully outside userspace to avoid blocking useful bot edits." As far as Pengo is concerned its not making useful edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's Checkwiki error #16, remove invisible Unicode characters. It is an approved task. Still does not excuse the bot being blocked, absolutely no discussion and addition of template without discuss. Not sure if that is the problem Pengo is having. Bgwhite (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll unblock the bot in a short while, unless I hear some good reason not to do so here. On the face of it, the block reason given by Pengo, "Bot malfunctioning", is patently wrong: the bot was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing, and approved to do. Pengo's claim that he had previously "asked [Bgwhite] to stop making edits to these pages" (besides displaying a form of "ownership" attitude in its wording) seems to refer to an exchange with a different bot owner, about a different bot task [60]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Pengo is running his own bot as well. Interestingly enough he states here that he's waiting for a bot flag and | over in this report his bot appears to have not been approved. Further, there appears to be no interaction between Peno and Bgwhite until he blocked him. He appears to have had issues | with Yobot | a few times in the recent past . I'd say he has a bit of explaining to do. KoshVorlon 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That bot was active circa 2006, and has only made one edit since. I think we can safely say that whatever else is going on, Pengo is not currently running that bot. Dragons flight (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What an incredible waste of my time this bot is. But now I have to present my point of view, so I will do so.

I've created and have been maintaining around 57 pages of IUCN Red Listed species. Most of the pages are listed here: User:Beastie Bot/table. The IUCN recently updated their listings for the first time this year, and I've been working to update the pages, which is tedious partly because there any many issues to fix around how they are presented and how to select common names, and partly because I attempt not to clobber edits from other users. This can be a time consuming process. (Beastie Bot does not do any edits because I paste them in myself to check over the changes) Many of the user edits to the pages have been helpful, such as finding typos and mistakes in the data, some of which I've relayed back to the IUCN, sometimes it's been neutral such as choosing a different common name for species (e.g. an IP editor changed African wild ass to African wild donkey, which I've kept when regenerating the pages). And sometimes I'm bombarded with utterly useless or deleterious edits from WCW bots, especially BG19bot and Yobot. At one point Yobot started breaking the pie chart graphic [61]. I reverted its changes and it did it again. Honestly? At this point I am literally having a revert war with a bot which is repeatedly re-breaking a page. I cannot go and update any other pages which I was about to update because the bot will go and break those pages too as they have similar wikicode. So now I'm stuck and I have to confront the bot owner, Magioladitis, whose broken bot is messing up. Literally, it's an automated tool to mess up a page in an attempt to something that has absolutely no purpose other than to rack up edits and bloat the Wikipedia database. If you haven't guessed, by now my opinion of these WCW bots is not high. Magioladitis claims his bot is "not malfunctioning" and refuses to fix it. He does not stop its edit warring behaviour, and does not fix its behaviour with the template it breaks, but he instead works around the problem by moving the wikicode that his bot can't deal with to a separate template where his bot will leave it alone. Ok, fine, whatever. He also says "Pengo please read the instructions. You could add a tag on the pages to avoid Yobot revisiting till the issue is handled." Read the instructions, he says. "till the issue is handled" he says. It's not being handled. He is not handling it. There's no link to any instructions. I don't care for this bot. I just don't want this bot to go around messing up pages. But I file away in the back of my head for later that there are "instructions". So he graciously applied a work around to a number of pages, but there are many more pages that I haven't updated yet that I will have to do the same workaround for or else his bot—which he apparently cannot control—will mess up those pages too, repeatedly, even if its edits are reverted. So I spend my time making these changes, making a bunch of separate templates for these charts, which I did admittedly plan to do eventually but not just because PointlessBot is broken and is threatening to break any page that I don't fix in this way. I did have a lot of higher priorities for things to fix with the lists (e.g. there are none for threatened plant species yet). While I'm making edits, I decide to change non-breaking spaces on the pages to use a Unicode non-breaking space instead of the &nbsp; code, as as to make it more readable in the wikicode. And now BG19bot decides it doesn't like this and starts replacing them with ordinary spaces. I don't know if there's a preferred way of including nonbreaking spaces on Wikipedia, and I really don't care, but this bot is not doing it, it's just stripping them. So, given my previous experience with WCW bots, I started adding the code to stop BG19bot. Sorry, I do admit I did get the two bots mixed up, as they both make many completely useless edits and are both part of the same project. I would have included both bots in the bot-deny tag if I had realized sooner. But anyway, the next thing I know Bgwhite removes the bot-deny tag from the page. Now, not only is his useless bot going to fuck up every page I upload, he's personally going to make sure of it by removing the tag to stop his bot from doing so. His edit comment was "Follow the instructions". Well I'd already spent quite some time looking for those instructions previously to work out how to format this bot-denial tag as there isn't an obvious link to it on his bot's page (And I'm not sure even has any effect as his bot is listed as ignoring it) but I immediately went back to User:BG19bot again to look for any "instructions" to follow, and the only instructions were for how to shut it off so I followed them as requested. Can I ask you and your WCW friends to kindly refrain from editing or vandalizing any of the pages listed currently or in future on User:Beastie_Bot/table. I have zero interest in helping you fix your bots. You cannot simply demand editors help you with your malfunctioning garbage, as you have demanded from me. Please stop your bots from continuing to vandalize these pages. I don't like having to write your dumb bot's name on pages to stop it messing things up but it's the only automated way I know how. Apologies again for getting the two of you, and your bots which do identical things, confused. I'll leave it to someone else to reinstate your automated user harassment tool if it hasn't been already. —Pengo 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Look, is this an approved bot task? If not, then support it being blocked and getting approved. If not, then I'm fine with Pengo going to the approval page and making an objection that this is useless or to ask for it to stick to mainspace or better yet to ask that it only do when there are other tasks to do. Given that there is some opposition, then the bot should stop and we can further discuss what it can or should not be doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe the relevant request would be this one. So yes it is approved. I think Pengo can be forgiven for mixing up the two bots as they do actually perform the same functions and the bot requests for BG's bot does say it is meant to be a backup/additional to Yobot. However being approved for a bot-task just means that task is approved for completion by automation. It doesnt mean it necessarily should be done, or override editing consensus at an article. Saying that, bot is working as expected according to that BFRA. As Pengo has posted a lengthy explanation above as to why he doesnt want it editing that particular group of articles, apart from excluding the bots from the pages, or blocking the bots (which Pengo did sequentially) is there a realistic way to prevent them from editing an article when you do not want them to? In a quick and easy manner that doesnt take days of talking? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• I will say the bot policy does have a bit of a blind spot on this, it deals with approval of bots, what bots should and shouldnt do, but doesnt really address what happens if you as an editor disagree with a bot-task. The key parts relevant to this situation I feel are 'bots should only do tasks for which there is consensus', '(bot operators may wish to include) Providing some mechanism which allows contributors other than the bot's operator to control the bot's operation is useful in some circumstances', and possibly the bit on cosmetic changes. The bot is 'exclusion compliant' which means it is set up to specifically respond to the exclude template. If the bot operator then goes and removes the exclude template, whats the point in making it exclusion compliant in the first place? I can see *why* pengo took the route he did, once the template was removed there was nothing protecting the article from what they perceived as disruptive editing, as an editor that would be amazingly frustrating, as an admin there is always the option of blocking the bot. There really should be something in policy somewhere that means bot-exclusion templates shouldnt be removed without discussion first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • • • It is an approved task to fix Checkwiki problems. I'm highly offended that I'm labeled being a vandal and being useless, especially since Pengo levels the charge without ever asking what I'm doing.
        1. Pengo abused his admin privileges by blocking, never contacting, no warning and not following instructions. Messages were left on Pengo's talk page before they blocked. Never once did Pengo talk, discuss or saying anything else.
        2. Instructions on {{nobots}} clearly state one must contact the bot owner first and not use the template as a blunt instrument. Pengo has added it again without discussion.
        3. Invisible characters is listed at MOS:RTL. The correct way to produce nonbreaking spaces is either  , {{nowrap}} or {{spaces}}. Having invisible Unicode characters makes it is impossible for one to see and causes other problems. Pengo owns their pages and does not see other people editing. Removing invisible characters is also done by AutoEd. Examples of the problems they cause. Invisible Unicode on Pengo's articles are not limited to text. The nobot templates was added twice for making this edit. This has nothing to do non-breaking spaces.
        4. Previous problem Pengo had with Magioladitis was the article had a wikilink to itself. The discussion that Future Perfect mentioned says Pengo is not following the examples given in the module page. I changed the article to reflect the example and the page was identical to the reader. I was reverted. Magioladitis did it another way and Pengo hasn't reverted.n
        5. There is a whitelist feature of Checkwiki. Checkwiki will not detect an error for the article and page number listed. Offer was refused
        6. Pengo is going to add (fifth item down) {{nobots}} to every one of his pages. Other bots besides BG19bot and non-AWB bots do the same thing. That means Pengo is going to exclude all bots from every page they own. Offer refused.
        7. The bot is not broken. It is following MOS. Pengo wants to go their own route, everybody else is a vandal. We've shown how to avoid wikilinking to itself.
      • Summary: It is an approved task. It is following MOS. Pengo is reverting, adding nobots without discussion to articles in which there is non-breaking or any other invisible character in the article's text. Pengo is not following examples to work around a wikilink to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Again BRFA only states that a task can be done by a bot, it doesnt address if it *should* be done. Just because an editing task is approved for a bot - it does not therefore make it supersede or avoid consensus discussion when someone disagrees on an article. And the entire MOS is a guideline and not policy - if the bot is making edits to comply with the MOS rather than fixing an outright error, thats a cosmetic change and should only be done in conjunction with substantial edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Again, we told Pengo how to fix one issue, one answer was to follow the examples. Offer refused. I've gotten no messages or anything else. How in the world do we do anything when Pengo refuses to communicate. MOS should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. No reason was ever given. There isn't any reason to have an invisible character in a category, but it was reverted anyway. Bots are allowed to make some non-cosmetic changes. They are used to remove obsolete infobox parameters, fix defaultsort parameters and remove duplicate parameter is in templates. As stated above, invisible Unicode characters do cause problems. Great I get blocked, I communicated, I'm not showing ownership, I followed BRFA and followed MOS... I'm the one in trouble. Bgwhite (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Fix one issue? What issue? The issue was with the bot. The page was fine. It loaded fine. It displayed fine. The issue was that Yobot was unable to deal with it. The bot made a mess of the page so it displayed an error message in place of a pie chart. Your "fix" involved removing information content from the chart and making it inconsistent. Why? Because the dumb bot would automatically fuck it up again and again otherwise. You seem to think each page is an individual case, but they all use the same underlying script, which I cannot use if your bots keep fucking everything up. And you wonder why I have to put {{bots|deny=BG19bot,Yobot}} on every page I generate? —Pengo 03:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
              • Pengo The bot is following MOS. You are not. You are not following examples given in module. You didn't follow instructions on a template. You abused you admin powers. For four years nobody complained about this issue to any bot owner that I'm aware of. You are the only one doing it your way. Bot is behaving fine, you are the one perverting things. You need to change it to {{nobots}} and deny all bots. There are atleast 20 different bots that does the same thing. Bgwhite (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) No one is "in trouble" or at least that's the best possible outcome. I'm a generalist and not a bot or subject-matter expert but let me see if I can at least frame the issue. It seems we have a bot, doing an approved task in cleaning up unhelpful hidden coding. The allegation is that in making these constructive but invisible-to-the-naked-eye edits, the bot-edits are messing up the visible formatting of a class of articles. If I've correctly described the situation, then the questions worth discussing are (1) is there some change that could be made so that the bot will fix the formatting without harming the articles; (2) if yes, what; and (3) if not, what should we do? If I've incorrectly described the situation, someone please correct me. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• It is not messing up the visible formatting in some instances. For example, there is no change of visible formatting in this, which Pengo has added nobots twice to. Last edit made by a bot was February 22, nobots was added on July 11.
• In this discussion, bot is removing a wikilink to itself. As coded by Pengo, this did cause a visible problem. Following the module's example or use fix given my Magioladitis solves the issue.
• In this case, bot is removing invisible non-breaking spaces. Following normal standards of &nbsp; or {{nowrap}} solves the problem and tells the editor of their presence. The bot removes the invisible character and replaces it with a standard space. Bot cannot add &nbsp; because non-breaking spaces are found in categories, defaultsort and other spots where adding in a &nbsp can cause problems. Bgwhite (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• • As your bot cannot understand whether the non-breaking space should be removed or replaced then it should not be automatically making the edits. Please, leave it alone. —Pengo 03:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And all the other articles that don't have non-breaking spaces that you have or will apply nobots? The articles that have wikilinks to itself and the all other reason reasons? Simple fact is you don't want people touching your articles. You have abused your admin powers and the nobots template. You have said a total of four sentences in two discussion to Magioladitis and me. I hadn't a clue what you objected to until your message above... after the block and addition of nobots. All of this didn't need to happen if you would actually communicate, not bark orders and use standards. Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A general rule of thumb is that, if a particular kind of cleanup requires manual review, that cleanup should not be attempted by bot. Bots are limited to situations where the correct fix can be determined without manual review. Deciding which white spaces should be non-breaking does require manual review, so bots should not try to perform that kind of cleanup. --- Because bot owners can be slow to make changes that only affect a few pages, there is no reason I can see to prevent users from putting the nobots template on particular pages to prevent particular bots from editing them. In particular, the MOS is intended to guide editors, not to be enforced as a set of hard-and-fast rules automatically implemented without human review. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wondering when you would show up. Pengo has applied nobots to pages with no problems and which the bot hasn't edited in months. Pengo has applied nobots without discussion. Pengo has blocked the bot without discussion. Pengo has refused offers of whitelisting and doing a module per examples or other means. Pengo has refused all discussion. One side blocking, applying nobots and not saying anything is the problem. This is a two-way street here and one side is refusing to talk. We are "slow" to make changes, but how do we know what changes? Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • From Pengo's explanation above he applied nobots as a preventative measure. Arguing the bot hasnt edited a particular article in months doesnt really scan unless you can also gurantee it wont edit that article again in the future. Generally editors should not have to jump through excessive hoops to prevent automated bots from interfering with their work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Only in death Of course you *only* listen to Pengo. You don't add nobots as a preventive measure, period. You don't use the template as a blunt instrument. You remove the template when there is no problem. These are in the instructions for the template. The added template to the article that hasn't been visited by a bot in months and no objection or revert was done. I manually looked at the article via the bot and there is no errors. Therefore the template has no place. BTW... the template was later removed by someone else saying no reason was given and Pengo reverted again. I followed the rules, therefore I'm being punished and ignored. Pengo doesn't communicate, didn't tell use what is wrong, didn't follow our advice, abused admin privileges and is being praised. What a fucking joke this has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite If you didn't have a clue what I objected to, then why did you remove the tag which specifically requested your bot cease? That was my communication to you and your bot. You still don't understand that is the reason your bot was blocked. That should have been a tip off to you that something was wrong but you deliberately chose not just to ignore it, but to deleted it. This was your communication to me that you didn't give a fuck. That you wanted your bot to continue its rampage of edits that needed to be reverted. Changes made after your bot's messed-up edits needed to be checked for and re-merged in. You acted as if I had not attempted to communicate to your stupid bot in its stupid bot-specific language that it was unwanted and doing harm. You deleted the message that was specific to your bot, telling you that something is wrong, and your bot continued to make useless and erroneous edits. Why do you think your bot is so important that it should ignore editors who specifically request that it cease? Do you have any idea how much time your bot, which does nothing useful at the best of times, has wasted? I have 50+ pages to update. I cannot spend a lifetime reverting changes that your bot erroneously makes each time I update one of those pages, nor am I duty bound to explain to each bot owners want is wrong with their specific bot and why it should not be editing, especially as both you and Magioladitis have been disinterested in fixing your bots, but instead defend their actions which are clearly in error in these cases, and have offered me no apology for wasting my time in having to revert your bots' changes, make numerous time consuming changes to prevent your bots further breaking my otherwise functional pages, and spending time checking for and re-merge changes that were made after your bots messed up, not to mention the time wasted defending against your braindead attacks. If someone indicates in any way that your bot is doing the wrong thing, do not ignore them. Do not delete their message, or obviously your bot will be blocked again in future. I'm still waiting for your apology. —Pengo 05:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Pengo I noticed BG19bot making an edit to an article I had created recently. I looked at what it was doing and observed that it was fiddling with the white space in a category tag. This annoyed me so I looked to see how to prevent this and found that the bot was not exclusion compliant. My understanding is that it was this sort of vexatious content-free edit which got Rich Farmborough sanctioned – a penalty which has only just been relaxed – see above. Perhaps those sanctions should now be considered for this bot. Anyway, if it's causing disruption then I endorse Pengo's action in shutting it down. Andrew D. (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the bot runs with AWB, it may actually support the nobots template even though it is not documented as doing so. In fact, I suspect it does, because otherwise the operator wouldn't care if Pengo added a nobots template... — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Pengo block of Bgwhite

Pengo appears now to have blocked Bgwhite for disruptive editing. Is that acceptable, given the initiation of this thread and INVOLVED? - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's an abuse of the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically yes, but since Bgwhite was messing around over the nobots template *while this discussion is going on here* it was certainly a disruptive and pointy edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only is this a violation of WP:INVOLVED, it's abuse of the blocking policy. It's scary how someone who thinks that they can go around blocking anyone they get into a content dispute with has access to the admin toolset. Omni Flames (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no content involved as Bgwhite has made no edits to visible content. He continues to make disruptive edits to the pages he's specifically been asked to stop editing, seemingly just to make a WP:POINT in edit comments. How else am I meant to get him and his bot to stop editing these pages with useless, disruptive and deleterious edits? —Pengo 08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not remotely okay. Pengo cited this edit as a violation of WP:POINT, in his block message. I get how that edit could be seen as pointy given the above dispute and the less than gracious edit summary, but I doubt it justifies a block. More importantly, given the ongoing dispute, Pengo certainly shouldn't be the one deciding whether or not an edit like that deserves a block. Dragons flight (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen this thread, I just saw the block. It was a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED and I have unblocked. I'm seriously concerned by Pengo's fitness for adminship by the horribly dictatorial approach I'm seeing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: @Pengo: If you do anything like that again, I will be blocking you and then seeking an emergency desysop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He made nine edits in total to the pages which I've asked him specifically to stop editing in an attempt to make some kind of WP:POINT and harass me: List of data deficient birds‎‎, List of data deficient fishes‎‎, List of endangered amphibians‎‎, List of critically endangered mammals‎‎, List of least concern fishes‎‎, List of critically endangered fishes‎‎, List of vulnerable fishes‎‎. No one can spend all day reverting his childish nonsense. 24 hour ban is appropriate. —Pengo 08:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if he made nine hundred edits - it is a dispute between you and him, and your blocking of him to try to win the dispute was a gross abuse of your admin tools. The fact that you cannot see this is seriously making me consider requesting an ArbCom case for your desysop, even with no further violations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pengo: Harassing you? That's ridiculous. In no way did he ever harass you. Blocking him when the two of you were in the middle of a dispute was totally uncalled for and you have still made no effort whatsoever to explain why you decided to use the block button despite quite obviously being involved. Omni Flames (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pengo: Not to restate the obvious, but you cannot block someone when you are WP:INVOLVED. Report and let someone else make that call. If you cannot understand this principle, then it's time for you to hand in the bit. And it's not a "ban", it's a block. If you don't know the difference, why are you even an admin? Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, there are more bots than BG19bot and Magioladitis doing the exact same edits. For example, any AWB or WPCleaner bot will make the edits Pengo does not like. There are other bots fixing checkwiki errors including Josvebot, Menobot and Frescobot. I changed it to nobots to stop any bot from making the same edit. I was being proactive. Pengo, do you want other bots making the same edits or to stop them? FYI... I'm not a bot, so adding my name into nobots does no good.

This is now the 2nd block by Pengo I've gotten this week that has been quickly overturned. What happens when I edit one of Pengo's article's that I'm not aware of? Bgwhite (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't just simply throw {{nobots}} onto a page without explicitly listing which bots you want to block because you effectively blocked my bot which combats WP:LINKROT on articles, and ClueBot NG, which we all know what that does, and numerous others. Pengo may be currently abusing the block button, but you're abusing an exclusion template. I would hate to have to remove compliance from my bots as a result of nobots being spammed on pages needlessly and abusively.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 11:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Declaration: I'm not at home with bots, and don't understand the conflict very well. Regardless, Pengo's block of BGWhite was atrocious and policy-violating. Checking out the logs, I see Pengo has been an admin since 2003, a pretty inactive one, especially as regards blocks. Their block log for those 13 years contains only ten blocks in 13 years. That's less than one block per year, and this is the first time ever that they have blocked anybody other than IP vandals and bots. It reminds me of other cases where oldtime inactive admins who haven't kept up with the blocking policy or the blocking culture suddenly appear and place one block — an inappropriate one. I wouldn't normally have thought one such foray was cause for desysop, but Pengo's response in this discussion — "No one can spend all day reverting his childish nonsense. 24 hour ban is appropriate" — makes it worse. I would urgently like to hear from Pengo that he has now familiarized himself with WP:INVOLVED. That's really all we need here, IMO. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

• Adding: Pengo has continued to edit without addressing my request above. @Pengo: please take the time to respond here about WP:INVOLVED as a matter of priority. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

• I'd add reading WP:OWN and fixing the non-standard coding in the pages he created to the list... MLauba ^(Talk) 09:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I will familiarise myself with the policies before placing any more blocks. —Pengo 10:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. With that, I think we're done. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

@MLauba:. I have gone to lengths to explain that I have not taken ownership of content. There are only two bots which have repeatedly and persistently made detrimental edits to pages which I have created and I've been very specific in preventing only those two bots from editing, or from their owners removing the tags so they can continue making detrimental edits which are incredibly time consuming to revert over 50+ pages. I have welcomed edits from all other users and bots, and have gone to lengths to incorporate their changes into the script which generates the pages in question (including the less detrimental edits made by said bots) so their changes will not be lost when the data or formatting is updated. I find it awful that you would suggest WP:OWN. —Pengo 10:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And... INVOLVED? Other administrators have also accused you of that. Is that "awful" as well? Doc talk 10:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not mention INVOLVED in my response to MLauba. —Pengo 10:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the charge of INVOLVED is more serious than the charge of OWN. I could be completely mistaken about that, of course. Doc talk 11:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Doc9871 was comparing the 'awfulness' of WP:OWN with the ¿awfulness? of WP:INVOLVED... _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not the first time (and won't be the last time) that Bgwhite makes all these pointless disruptive edits with their account and/or bot account. About time someone seriously looks into this. When it's brought up on his talkpage, he thinks the person raising it is in the wrong. The sheer arrogance is appalling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I think there was far too much shouting and talking past each other here from both sides, and nowhere near enough listening. (I don't know enough to comment on who is right or wrong about the actual bot dispute.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocking without issuing a warning and while involved is a serious act. Moreover, Pengo seems to be in confusion to whom thy have talked with. I would expect more responsibility when using the admin tools. The dispute itself is not as important as this. The admin tools can't be used as a weapon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

xeno Bgwhite's account was NOT blocked for doing bot edits. It was blocked by an admin who had a conflict with them. The big problem here is NOT the bot block (which IS a problem) but the block on Bgwhite's account. Any other discussion is misleading. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the previous issue was a block of the bot account... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus true. I try to understand that. An admin gets upset with bots messing with some articles they created, blocks a bot thinking it's another and the hell gets loose. This is serious already because the block is a serious action and should be well justified. Still, some people like to block bots till the issues are resolved one way or another. I get that somehow. The greatest problem is the second block. It was not stop a bot. It was against an editor of doing an action the admin did not like. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just glanced on this conversation. I don't mind the sort of gnomish edits Bgwhite makes, I might find them annoying, but that's my problem not theirs. I certainly think the one that puts punctuation and references the right way round is incredibly helpful when you have a large list of items in prose, all with individual citations, where seeing the wood for the trees is hard for a human editor. In any case, Pengo should absolutely not be calling good faith edits "vandalism" (and that was an hour ago, after all the above discussion), especially over something that so utterly trivial and pointless. That should be obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points, Ritchie333. I am seriously doubting Pengo's competence to retain admin status now. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• It appears the block in question in this section was both inappropriate in general and because the blocking admin was involved.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot edits

In general, many editors are aware that bots should not make trivial edits such as [62] unless there is some more significant edit to be made at the same time. Yet we have bot operators who claim to have bot approval to make such edits. It may not be clear to casual observers here how or why the bot approval group could have approved a task like that.

Here is the history of this situation as I understand it. There is a project, "Check Wikipedia", which scans for various "errors" (even though the space removed in the linked edit was not actually a syntax error, they consider it as such). A handful of bot operators obtained relatively vague bot approvals, such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BG19bot 7, which don't specify in any detail the changes that will be made, but just refer to the Check Wikipedia project in a general way. This has the effect of making an end-run around the usual bot approval process, because the actual, specific tasks the bot will make are dictated by the whims of the Check Wikipedia project and the bot operator, and can change over time without any additional bot approval. This is how the situation of bots approved to make white-space-only edits came about.

The vague bot approvals also had the effect of authorizing AWB bots to do something the AWB rules disallow specifically for human editors: making inconsequential edits such as [63]. This is something that the bot approvals group really should revisit, to bring these bots back into line with general Wikipedia practices about bots not making trivial edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

MBisanz could you comment on the bot approval in question? It does appear that it would grant somewhat unlimited scope to expand the bot's tasks without BAG oversight. –xeno^talk 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's from 4 years ago (referencing something from 6 years ago), so I don't have perfect recall. I believe it was my understanding that BG19bot 7 was a transfer of the task granted in Yobot 16. The BotOp in the Yobot 16 approval said he would set it so that it would ""Skip if only minor genfixes" and "skip if only whitespace changed" will be activated. I don't think there will be any insignificant changes." There was some discussion of whether all of the changes made were significant, but he explained why they were (e.g., DEFAULTSORT) and no one objected to the list he added. There's always been a tension regarding how much a BotOp can change their code before a new approval is needed. I believe I would have read the link to the CheckWiki page in the context of the BotOp's statement that "I'd rather not do any CheckWiki errors that may be controversial." to mean that he would only make significant changes that had been tested and implemented by the AWB coding team. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you expect the bot to conform to the AWB rules? (No inconsequential edits without substantial etc etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would expect the bot to comply with WP:COSMETICBOT, which is a current policy (I'm not opining on what the policy said in the past or what which of the AWB general fixes are inconsequential v. substantial). MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I may have been unclear, I meant from that BRFA it appears the bot is effectively running off/incorporating AWB code - so its edits are for all intents and purposes AWB edits - regardless if its the Bot doing it rather than (a user manually using) AWB. So would you expect all the specific AWB stuff to apply to a bot that is running/composed of AWB code? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily expect an AWB Bot to mirror AWB 100%, if only because a BotOp might have a good reason for modifying the AWB code to produce the same results as AWB. I haven't followed this entire discussion, but if could you flag for me the place where a BotOp is running an AWB Bot and is deviating from AWB code, I could comment on a concrete example. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing much wrong with that BRFA as it stands, it did exactly what it is supposed to do. The problem is editor perception. Some people seem to think because something has been BAG approved, this means it has 'authorisation' to do whatever its task is. All bot approval does is say 'yes this task can be done by a bot and is unlikely to break anything'. The rules of consensus editing and (as Carl has noted above) making trivial edits apply. If a bot encounters resistance to its task, it is up to the bot-operator to demonstrate consensus to make the changes before resuming the task. This may sometimes mean stopping the task/run entirely, or just excluding articles from the Bots run. It is *not* up to other editors to conform to the bot-operator. It is the bot that must conform to editors. In the above situation (which escalated far too quickly frankly by everyone involved) once the bot was prevented from editing an article, the bot operator should not have removed the template that was excluding the articles from the BOT. Firstly the reason why there is an exclusion compliant field on the BRFA is to ensure that bots can be prevented from editing specific articles. Thats why it exists. If the bot operator is just going to ignore when someone has excluded the bot, it is a completely worthless part of the process. Secondly - if you are removing the template that prevents your bot from editing, you are defacto stating your bot will continue to do its tasks on that article, essentially announcing your bot is going to edit war. Had Bgwhite not removed the nobots template, we wouldnt be in this mess.

Regarding the scope of the bot, at the moment it (and other bots, yobot etc) essentially has authorisation to 'fix' anything logged at WikiProject Check Wikipedia I dont think its entirely great that a single wikiproject can essentially operate multiple bots to 'fix' anything the wikiproject logs there regardless of how trivial or un-needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And the BRFA is pretty much a monopoly run by Bgwhite and Magioladitis. The latter who has had more warnings and blocks about his bot that anyone can count. Some people just don't like playing by the clear rules of AWB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Remark: The edit in question was not done by AWB but by WPCleaner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Exclusion compliance isn't enough. There also needs to be anti-edit-war measures, and awareness of edits from other bots. An editor must already be frustrated to go to the lengths to include a nobot tag (which is inelegant, difficult to find the documentation for if you haven't used it before, apparently makes you the target of further harassment by bot owners, and is clearly ineffective if you wish to just continue editing in peace). Bots which make a large number of edits, especially ones which are mostly trivial (purely trivial edits should never be made automatically), should be required to detect when they have been reverted. i.e. They must be proactive in not edit warring and be aware of each instance that their edit is rejected. Perhaps even compiling a public report of such instances. They should cease editing a page until the reverted edits are manually reviewed by the bot owner or several years has elapsed. If they feel it necessary, the bot owner can ask the editor why they reverted the edits. This is the reverse situation to what BGWhite expects: he expects editors to be responsible for engaging in lengthy debate with multiple bot owners who are all in denial about their bots objectively degrading a page, which is clearly not workable. It's like writing an essay each time you want to opt-out of spam. Simply reverting a bot's edit should be the end of the story from the editor's perspective unless the bot owner wishes to spend time actively looking into it. In fact, the bot should be automatically giving the user who reverted their edits a list of ways to "opt-out" of its edits in future. Although I've only had to deal with two malfunctioning bots (which both could successfully detect a problem but overestimated its importance and their capacity to solve it), BGWhite repeatedly claims there are over 20 other bots which would also do the same thing (seemingly this is an excuse for his actions, although I have not seen evidence of these other bots on the 50+ pages he defiled). If there are a large number of bots with overlapping purpose, especially if they are part of the same project (WCW) then they need to be aware of each other, and not edit-war-by-proxy (i.e. editing a page which recently had another bot's edit reverted). There should also be a wiki-wide bot report which shows how many edits of what kind each bot is making, and give metrics such as how often the bot was reverted, stopped by users, etc, so a larger perspective can be gained, and more heavily reverted bots reviewed. If all this seems like too much of a burden for bot owners, then they shouldn't be running bots. A bot goes very quickly from being marginally helpful to extremely frustrating.

—Pengo 01:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally someone who can see what a massive pain and detriment to the project this really is. Bgwhite is the classic example of someone who is seemed to be untouchable with their admin role, but isn't actually doing any good, and blames everyone else when his bot continues doing this shit time and time again. If a non-admin was doing this crap, they would have been blocked long ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what the problem is. I'll take this edit as an example - can somebody explain to me in very simple terms how that is worse to the reader of the encyclopedia than the version immediately before it? All I see is "I hate Bgwhite - he's extremely annoying!" which just isn't enough to pull sanctions on an editor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's his edits that are annoying. He might be perfectly sound. However, his complete lack of understanding of what he is doing and failure to admit he has a problem is the crux of this. Multiple editors have flagged this up, but he dismisses them and makes that editor feel that they are the problem! His complete lack of grasping the basics of what the rules of AWB say and the failure to implement them need to be addressed. Thankfully, there are lots more people now watching what he's up to. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not a question of 'worse' it is that it is trivial/unnecessary. AWB rules (#4 at WP:AWB) and the Bot policy (see 'cosmetic changes') basically prohibit that sort of stand-alone edit (indeed users access to AWB has been revoked in the past for it), trivial/unnecessary edits clog up the history logs, watchlist changes etc, large amounts of trivial edits *do* use up server resources (although I dont think thats a problem in this case) and so on. Its why all the rules/guidance say trivial edits of that sort have to be made in conjunction with substantial edits. Although I am not sure that is what Lugnuts problem is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clog up the history logs"? If anything dominates the history logs, it is the determined effort of multiple editors to improve an article to GA / FA standard (example), and the typical bot edit stands out like a stripogram at a vicarage tea party. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats not a reason that bothers me personally, I was just providing you with some of the reasons people object to it. I also gave you some of the others. But it is largely irrelevant as policy (linked above) mandates that sort of edit is not to be performed by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well my immediate response to "rules" is the obvious - unless somebody can provide me with an absolute and concrete example of how the bot edits harm or degrade the encyclopedia that isn't "it's annoying", perhaps the rules should be changed. All I see, I'm afraid, is people getting upset over things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

At least when I see nuclear warfare arguments about infoboxes, there are clear and obvious merits for or against them depending on specifics. FWIW, I don't even know how to use AWB and aside from making AfD nominations a little simplier, I give Twinkle a wide berth. The only time I can remember kicking back against automated edits was when a bot kept adding a full stop at the end of a {{sfn}} tag without me noticing, and I kept accidentally introducing harv errors into articles until I figured out what was happening. I end up changing the footnote to something different, and the problem went away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe one should discuss whether the policy needs to be loosened or repealed, it isn't the first time that drama has erupted at AN over that provision and I wonder if its benefits are worth these troubles. I thought that the bot userright existed precisely to avoid the swamping of RecentChanges with automatic edits.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I again repeat that the edit was not done by AWB. In order to optimise our work we now use a mixed tactic: We run AWB using the rules agreed and then WPCleaner which has the ability to remove pages fixes from the lists. This helps so the page is not revisited after being fixed. A year ago I was revisiting the page twice using AWB. Now the second pass is done by WPCleaner and this has helped in having less "trivial edits". Still we are missing the point in this discussion... again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an open issue. The community has long decided on WP:COSMETICBOT.

Before and after of bot messing up, which was then repeated by the same bot on the same page after being reverted.

Ritchie333 I've also pointed out multiple places where these bots have repeatedly made harmful edits to the same page or to a group of pages, such as this one by yobot which prevented another 40+ pages from being updated under threat of the same thing. I've already spoken at length on it so I fear I'm repeating myself. You can find references to it above. I also already gave the example of BGWhite's bot removing nonbreaking spaces instead of replacing them with a different code, as it has no way of telling the difference between wanted and unwanted non-breaking spaces, a job which generally requires a human. While Magioladitis (yobot's owner) did make efforts to work around the issue himself, the underlying issue was not fixed so other pages were threatened with the same treatment unless they also applied a work-around to a non-existent problem. In BGWhite's case he has yet to admit there was even an issue, let alone attempt to make amends. I've now wasted many hours because of these bots. —Pengo 04:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pengo... and then you blocked a person, not just a bot, while edit warring with them. Do you understand that this was not OK? The bot issue can/could be fixed/handled/discussed. I am not worried about it that much. Your use of the block button was not OK though. Let's be clear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop changing the topic. I've addressed that already. —Pengo 05:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"The bot issue can/could be fixed/handled/discussed." - Not with Bgwhite - he seems incappable/unwilling to do so. I see very little from him in this very thread, for example, which speaks volumes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the pie chart

Now the heat has died down, I have picked through the above discussion and isolated the one obvious problem that we have. In summary:

• List of least concern reptiles uses Module:Chart to draw a pie chart
• According to the documentation at Module:Chart#Drawing Pie charts: "pie chart", each slice has the syntax ( Value1 : Name1 : Color1 : Link1 ). The final parameter, Link1 must be a link
• However, Yobot removes these links as part of an agreed series of CheckWiki codes. I cannot see the code in question (12020) on that list. What is code 12020 on that list and where is it documented?
• Although it is not clear, I understand that Bgwhite has a diff that can be applied to the Lua code in Module:Chart that will enable it to function properly without mandating a link. I'm not au fait with the mw.text namespace in Lua, so I couldn't hazard an immediate guess why the code fails without a link just by looking at it. In any case, this does not look like a terminally difficult problem to solve.

I believe that's the state of play at the moment - have I missed anything? I am happy to go forward and see if we can fix it, but I'll warn you now - if I see any more name calling or aggression from anybody I will drop this like a stone and walk off to do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: 12020 is the SVN revision of AWB the bot was running when it made the edit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I put a simulation of the problem and the only solution I can think of at my sandbox (permalink). The error message in the chart is coming from <imagemap> and fixing it by removing the imagemap item with no link has a problem, as shown in the sandbox. It looks like having a link would be best, despite the problem that it would be a "self-link", that is, a link to the page which displays the chart. The fact that the chart is now at {{IUCN reptile chart}} has probably solved the bot problem because there are no self-links on the template page. Perhaps it's all over, until next time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. But if you really want to fix the pie chart, you might want to look at it on Wikipedia's iOS mobile app where it's completely broken regardless. A proper fix might be to make a way to export it to an SVG image map. —Pengo 05:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Brave volunteers needed

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

---

A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city's article, the disambiguation page, or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. We need three intrepid souls (at least two administrators and up to one page mover) to participate in a closing panel so we can close this dispute that has been going on for 15 years. Anyone who's interested should please apply at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Closing panel.

For context, the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input.

Thanks! Kylo Ren (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (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.

Protected template 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.

---

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 23 "The result of the discussion was "merge {{Nfurd}} into {{nrd}} for the various reasons stated below. Leave nfurd as a redir." nfurd is protected. Related: the same reasoning why nfurd was protected (high-risk template) would seem to apply to nrd, so please consider adding protection after the merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2016 (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.

Admin attention please

Could an admin please have a look at this thread, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huma_Abedin#Lesbian_rumors which perhaps needs to be revdel'ed and considered in light of Arbcom American Politics sanctions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the section per WP:BLP. Whether the edits should be deleted and whether the OP of the topic should be sanctioned I'll leave to others.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if this fellow JoeM is cruising for some kind of topic ban - they were rather generically advised about not airing their political POVs and the existence of discretionary sanctions in US politics, which this article seems to pertain to, two days before this incident.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And successfully persuaded Jimbo to un-ban him, with a promise to follow NPOV.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just asking a question on Huma Abedin. I apologize about the fact that it was off base, and offense was taken. Noticed that I dropped the issue before this report was posted. It won't happen again. Thank you, JoeM (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The message from Jimbo is dated 2005, so is likely not relevant to the current issues. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have topic banned JoeM from all articles and pages related to Hilary Clinton, broadly construed, for six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice attack AfDs

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 could someone look at the two open AfDs and look to close? Both have gone past their seven days, with not really much more input happening in the last 24/36 hours? Note I voted in one, but not the other. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Doing.... Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 24 July 2016 (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.

Longterm BLP, sockpuppetry, vandalism in edit-warring at Juha Sipilä

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 hope AN can deal with this multi-faceted issue rather than having to spread it out over several boards. In a nutshell, the problem is this: somebody has been violating WP:BLP for months at the article Juha Sipilä. As Sipilä is the prime minister of Finland, it is an article of some medium importance. Today, several non-constructive edits have been done by the WP:SPA Electric Lars Levi, an obvious sock of the spa Lars Levi Wealhgathering, and other spas turning up to do the same thing are Hypocrisy Crisis Minister, Spawned Greedy Bunch and Friedmanite Handshakemachine. All of these five accounts perform identical edits, consisting of inserting inflammatory material and personal speculations. As this has been going on for months already and parts of it is obvious slander in violation of WP:BLP, I propose that:

• The five accounts are indeffed. I don't think anyone disputes they are socks, and even if they weren't, they clearly are WP:NOTHERE to contribute.
• The article Juha Sipilä is semi-protected for six months. As this has gone on for more than three months already, there is little point in protecting it for just a few days. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've protected Juha Sipilä for a month. None of these accounts are auto-confirmed, so that should take care of the immediate issue. You can report the socks at WP:SPI if you care to or possibly someone will indef them here; I'll leave it to others to evaluate the behavioral evidence more thoroughly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've indeffed them. there has to be a limit to keeping such fly-by-nights around. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 24 July 2016 (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.

Appeal 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'm utterly shocked to see that I have been blocked from editing anything related to the 2016 Presidential election, after all of the work that I've done. Half of Donald Trump's page has been improved by me, and nobody ever seemed to complain. I've even gotten dozens of "Thank you's" for my edits there. Now I'm being told I'm banned for attempting to write the truth about him because ONE editor who seems to hate me (and has talked to me very rudely) disagrees with me?

Trump has repeatadly said that his proposed "Muslim ban" from December 2015 is scrapped, and that it is to be replaced with a ban based on territories. I have given ridiculous amounts of proof for this in the Talk page. A lot of editors have agreed with me that this "Muslim ban" needs to be taken away, as it is simply not correct anymore. But ONE editor, who based on her editing habits regurarly edited Hillary Clinton and Tim Kain's pages, seemed to consistenly want to keep the "Muslim ban" in the lead. She was pushing an insane amount of bias in the page, and I was trying to get rid of it.

Now I'm being punished for it? All the other editors agreed with me. Even Melanie who sent me a warning, which I respected, said to me in the Talk page she liked my new lead ideas to not include the Muslim ban phrase. The only person taking issue with it was ONE editor. Now, most editors were agreeing with me that the new lead without the Muslim ban thing was at least better to what we had now, so I was bold (which is encouraged by Wikipedia) and I obviously replaced that section. Than the ONE editor reverts it and tells me "we" hadn't reached consensus.

What? She was REFUSING to even discuss the new section, even AFTER I explicitely asked her to discuss it in Talk. I have worked so hard on that page, and I have NEVER tried to be inflicted in edit wars. But when people refuse to discuss things in Talk, a majority of people in Talk agree on something, I decide to change it, then that person REVERTS it and tells me there is somehow "no consensus", I change it back, so then I'm the "edit warmonger"? No... It is simply not fair.

And I'm asking you to through the surface and see that I've never tried but to HELP and IMPROVE the page, including with Talk consensus. This is devastating to me, as I've done nothing but be nice and try to follow the rules as much as possible, while other people are rude, don't follow the rules, and then attack me for wanting to help.

Please reconsider this. I did follow the advice. If you notice, I joined the Talk conversation. I asked peole about the change and people agreed with my decision to change the lead (except for one person). I followed the rules. And if you look at the revision history of Donald Trump right now, the person who was constantly against my change, has now been warned for a bold rewrite that had NO consensus. It's clear they are out to do whatever they want to change and not listen to Talk, which I actually did. Please uplift my temporary ban on the 2016 election, this is my passion, and I have followed the rules. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, can you please format this so that it isn't a block of text and remove the ALLCAPS, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• After posting this wall of text, the OP willfully violated his TBAN by editing Donald Trump several times, including one with the edit summary 'test'. Blocked one week, logged as required. He placed a crapton of unblock requests overnight while he wasn't even blocked, and I anticipate he'll do the same now. Sorry in advance about that part. Katie^talk 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

ThiefofBagdad, you were spoken to respectfully by admin MelanieN about your editing and it looks like you didn't stop because You were topic banned by another admin . I looked at the first edit Melanie | pointed out to be honest, that looked ok.I will point out, however, he does have consensus for his removal over here and I don't see that changed anywhere after that. He doesn't appear to be strident, nor is he arguing on and on for "his way", he appears to be enforcing consensus. Not so sure about this ban. KoshVorlon 16:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this with a cold eye, methinks ThiefOfBagdad ass-u-med that the system would block him from editing the Trump page hence the "test" edit and unblock notices. When admins come and decline unblock notices with "You are not blocked" without possibly understanding why they are posting the notices, it doesn't help matters. 71.10.48.186 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support appeal I think there's a risk of users getting singled out for sanction when their edits contract the prevailing ideology of the majority of editors. There seems to be a lot of hostility around here directed against independent and conservative minded contributors. JoeM (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I call bullshit. First of all, this is AN, where the opinion of administrators and also experienced editors is asked for. You have a few hundred edits, and just got slapped with a topic ban for some ridiculous Clinton conspiracy theories, not to mention a bunch of indigestible crap on your user page. Second, if there's an ideology at work here, it's yours, considering that this was your third edit ("It sounds like a lot of liberal leftist pseudointellectuals dominate this site, ensuring that the articles appease evil rhetorically"), and this was your fourth. (In fact, the more I look at your edits the more I wonder why you weren't blocked in 2003 already--really?.) So I don't think many folks here are likely to take your "independent" advice. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree, JoeM is appealing his own similar topic ban a few threads below: WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal. Perhaps he's expecting a quid pro quo from the OP. Or perhaps that's quacking I hear in the distance. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Might be time for an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  Which part of the NOTHERE essay? All of it? Or a policy-based reason contained within the essay? Doc talk 06:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I presume you are proposing JoeM and not TToB? Can you clarify who you are referring? --DHeyward (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn Topic Ban Edits appear to support talk page consensus and the user doesn't appear to be editing tendentiously or in any manner that disrupts the article or project. The topic ban appears punitive. So far, the criticism appears to be about the format of the appeal, the reaction to the topic ban (admittedly poor, but so was the topic ban) and criticism of support expressed by a third party. None of those arguments are related to a justification of the TBAN. His edits were restoring consensus so a more proper act would be a short block of the users that were disregarding consensus, not topic banning the editor restoring consensus. This edit [64] is much more controversial than the TToB/consensus version and the point of DS is to prevent controversial material, without consensus to be added or retained. The 1RR sanction exists to keep crap out, not as a blunt instrument to punish those that are keeping crap out. --DHeyward (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• There's too much fingerpointing in this unban request ("She was pushing an insane amount of bias"--who is the "she"?), and I think the user is taking too much credit--half the article? And dozens of thank-yous? (there's nine here). Anyway, I have the feeling this editor simply does not understand what's going on, with the block appeals, and editing after the topic ban; I think they also do not understand how their edits were found disruptive (breaking 1RR, clearly tendentious, etc.). For instance, that Trump doesn't mention the Muslim ban anymore (and probably regrets he ever did), that doesn't make it go away. So until I get the idea that the editor understands what's going on (ha, a Trumpian phrase) and why they got the topic ban, support the ban. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Too much WP:NOTTHEM and WP:OWN, and a failure to own up to tendentious editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • • Decline appeal I can't see a good reason to overturn the ban. I agree with Drmies that they don't get it yet, so lifting the ban wouldn't stop the behavior that led it it. I note that they believe the only reason they were banned was "for attemtping to write the truth" which of course is not the reason for the ban. I also agree with Ohnoitsjamie. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and the block for violating it. I and several other editors have tried to warn ThiefOfBagdad about reckless editing, but the warnings have had little effect. The reasoning for the topic ban was explained thoroughly by Awilley, and should not have induced utter shock.- MrX 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline appeal/support topic ban - I agree with Drmies, Doug & MrX. Neutrality^talk 18:10, 27 July 2016 (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.

Appeal

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

---

I would like to respectfully appeal yesterday's topic block, imposed on me by NeilN. I think that it was heavy-handed and premature.

NeilN cited several unacceptable edits as reasons (see [65]). However, I addressed each of them before the ban:

• NeilN pointed to two posts on my user page: [66] and [67]. Earlier he had even personally removed those comments from my user page. [68] Before the topic ban, as a conciliatory gesture to show my sign of willingness to work with the many editors who disagree with my conservative views, I went even further and removed even more material on my user page promoting my views. See [69].
• NeilN pointed to my comments on the AfD for 'Clinton crazies' here [70]. I wasn't aware that BLP also pertained to users stating their personal opinions on talk pages. I apologized for that and have not repeated those opinions.
• NeilN cited my quire on the talk page of Huma Abedin. Before his topic ban, I dropped the issue and stated, "I apologize about the fact that it was off base, and offense was taken." [71]
• Finally, NeilN pointed to my work on Clinton Body Count. I respected the outcome of the AfD process, and moved past the issue before his topic ban.

In short already before imposing the content ban, I have worked on avoiding conflict, politely conceding to other editors when I could not build consensus, and apologized when I was wrong.

Since I responded in good faith to his warning, I urge other un-involved admins to look into the matter and consider my appeal.

Respectfully,

JoeM (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Too many BLP violations all focused on the same subject. Unacceptable edit -> apologize, unacceptable edit -> apologize, etc. The topic ban will prevent you from making those unacceptable edits in the first place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I will not make unacceptable edits related to Hillary Clinton moving forward if the ban is lifted. I'd also like to note that the main issues were just me stating my opinions in user space, not pushing POV into articles. I understand now that BLP applies to all pages, just as NPOV applies in all articles. JoeM (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose You seem incapable of leaving your political bias at the door and continue to push your POV whenever you get near any article related to Clinton. Apologizing over and over again does not erase the fact that you can't edit those articles neutrally. Go edit something else for six months. --Majora (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It would help to have me edit articles related to Hillary Clinton. I now get BLP and will not violate it moving forward. By having me edit articles related to Hillary Clinton, it will help ensure balance, making sure the article isn't dominated by liberal users or conservative users, but that editors from different views work together to achieve balance. JoeM (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The above links suggest you have disclosed an axe-to-grind with respect to a living person - it's just not in Wikipedia's interest to let anyone who has made such disclosure in edits, anywhere near any living person's articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This completely solidifies the fact that you are incapable of editing neutrally. There is not a conspiracy against you. There is not hostilities against a certain political group. Continuing to harp on the issue in such a manner makes me think that six months is not long enough and that the topic ban should be indefinite. --Majora (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose If you now 'get BLP', go edit some of the thousands of BLPs that have nothing to do with politics and prove it to us. In six months, if you really do get it, come back here and we can talk about it. Katie^talk 23:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Continue editing for six months to demonstrate that you can keep your political, personal, and BLP opinions regarding and/or bias to yourself, then ask again for your T-ban to be reviewed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - making a mistake (even a major BLP one), being notified about it, apologizing, and being extra careful for a while to avoid making the same mistake is always acceptable and one should never be restricted over it. Making a mistake, being notified about it, apologizing, and making a similar mistake is already the sign of a deeper problem, where a ban may be necessary. Doing this several times is almost certainly a sign of such a deeper problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - it is apparent from the history that there have been repeated BLP violations after warning. Serial apologies for continued behaviour after warnings isn't good enough. Show you can edit constructively and within our policies for six months and you might convince enough admins to give you some more rope. You've had enough for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. As Katie and Kudpung suggest, keep away from politics for six months and then ask try again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Frankly, I don't think this person should be allowed near the biography of any living person, and would strongly suggest monitoring his future edits in that area, even if they are not to Clinton-related articles. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Given their self declared biases, I wouldn't be too surprised if the topic ban would need to be extended to cover topics related to American Politics broadly construed but that's another discussion for another time. Also, per Katie, Kudpung and NielN. Blackmane (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment For those of you who are unaware of this user's past, he was hardbanned in December 2003 by Jimmy Wales for precisely these issues. For example, see his 2003 edits to the BLPs Jean Chrétien [72] and Al Gore [73] which he editwarred to keep in the articles and then pasted on the article talk pages instead, editwarring there too. He then resorted to extensive socking between 2003 and 2005 [74]. Following his "apology" and promise to stop his previous behaviour [75], Wales had him unblocked him in July 2005. After he was unblocked, he mostly stayed away (at least under this account) until the US presidential elections loomed in 2015 [76]. He then continued pretty much where he had left off in 2003. Within 3 days of his return, he was at ANI. See JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?. He narrowly escaped a ban by making yet another "apology". This response which he calls an "apology" for his behaviour at Talk:Huma Abedin three days ago is utterly disingenuous. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - A six month topic ban is very mild considering the policy-violating contributions of this editor. The topic ban should be permanent, and possibly expanded per the section below.- MrX 17:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. This editor's very recent editing shows significant problems (see this on July 4): introduction of BLP-violating content that is in part uncensored and in another part sourced to an unreliable kook/fringe website. A six-month topic ban is very minor sanction for sustained, years-long inability or unwillingness to understand policy. Neutrality^talk 18:03, 27 July 2016 (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.

Call for expansion of topic ban

In addition to the existing topic ban, I think JoeM should be topic banned from all BLPs. He has, over the years, introduced BLP violations at Lyndon LaRouche,[77] Al Gore,[78] Talk:Jean Chrétien,[79][80] and Saddam Hussein,[81], regularly treats Wikipedia as a battleground,[82][83] and he clearly rejects any attempt by the community to convince him to moderate his behavior[84][85] JoeM needs to spend at least six months making productive edits on pages where his strong political views do not cause him to misbehave. On a personal note, there are a couple of topics on Wikipedia where I have such strong opinions that I do not trust myself to remain neutral, and because of this I have never edited those pages. I strongly suggest that JoeM should do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder: yesterday I was unsuccessful, for some technical reason, to revdelete a bunch of nonsense from their talk page; your link to Talk:Jean C contained the same material, and I removed all of it (this time successfully). Guy, the real question is why this editor wasn't indeffed before. There was a ban/block which was lifted, see User:JoeM/ban--but recent responses like this one, to someone who is arguably the friendlies admin on Wikipedia, demonstrate that in thirteen years the maturity tree has not taken root. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, see my comment immediately above this section. The material about Jean Chrétien, is still in the article history, even though it's now rev-deleted from the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, thanks--I think last night I had figured out about a third of what you usefully posted, and I appreciate knowing more of the story. The commentary at Talk:Huma Abedin, now revdeleted, is indicative of the extent to which they just totally don't get what we're doing here, what BLP means, what reliable sources are--it's at the level of a comment thread to a piece about a proposed mosque on the Facebook page of my local TV station. I am not worried about an extension or expansion of this or that: I am fully convinced that this editor will continue digging when they're already deep enough, and then they will be blocked indefinitely. I hope they prove me wrong. If there are any other BLP violations that need removing, please let me know; I stopped short of revdeleting the Gore edits, which were just POV and stupid but not, in my opinion, a serious violation of the BLP. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I would support an extension to all political biographies (broadly construed), but not to all BLPs unless there's evidence of problems there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please remove

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.

---

Need a quick rev del | over here . Someone's posted their phone number online on the BLP board. I've redacted it, but it really ought to be removed since we actually can't verify that the person in question is really who they say they are, and thus, this may be a sneaky way to post (perhaps) non-public info. KoshVorlon 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (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.

Wiki-PR => statuslabs =>GetYourWiki.com

Adapted from the earlier Status Labs extension

From [86] “Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders (bolding added) are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards. This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wiki-PR.com as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past sock and meatpuppet accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked if any uninvolved administrator honestly believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wiki-PR.”

According to the Signpost In Briefs section Wiki-PR changed its name to Status Labs [87]. Checking the new site it's clear that it's the same company, using the same software, same style, some of the same boilerplate text. You can still check the old site for comparison [88].

Today a press release came through my google news updates making it clear that GetYourWiki.com was offering the same services, with the contact being a Status Labs employee, which is easily verified at the Status Labs "Team"page along with Darius Fisher's (of Wiki-PR fame) ownership of Status Labs.

I think this should be a straight forward extension of the ban (as was done earlier with Status Labs), but just want to be sure.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It is. If they intend to keep rebranding to skirt the ban then we can extend the ban to cover any new alias they use. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely extend the ban per Smallbones and Jeske KoshVorlon 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought so, but just wanted to be sure. If nobody objects, I'll just post a very short note here the next time I see a rebranding like this and assume that the ban is extended. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As with community bans and indefinite blocks, the sanction is against the individual behind the account not the account name itself. By extension any sock account created by such an individual would also be subject to such a sanction. Furthermore, a collective of individuals all editing towards the same purpose are considered to be one entity and thus the sanctions against one equate to being sanctions against the collective. In this case, as the sanctions are active against not only Wiki PR as an organisation but also the individuals behind the various accounts, then by extension the community ban against Wiki PR should obviously be extended to Status Labs and GetYourWiki. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

2017 Formula One Season

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 page 2017 Formula One Season was cascading protected as well as pending changes protected by Miniapolis, but those should be removed because pending changes protection is pointless on fully protected pages and the removal of cascading protection will allow template editors to continue editing Template:R from move and Template:R from other capitalisation once the edit request on the talk page gets answered. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2016 (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:Awie Black and Fonte de regaz sockpuppets

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:Awie Black user page contains an (imaginary) list of Malaysian military equipment. This seems very similar to the behaviour of Fonte de regaz sockpuppets. MKFI (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@MKFI: Please, report it at WP:SPI (follow instructions in the box titled "How to open an investigation"). This is not a place to report sockpuppets. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked by User:Callanecc. MKFI (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2016 (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.

Kevin Gorman has passed away

Working on confirming this. I or someone else will update. Until then, let's not go off speculation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

From everything we can tell, it's true. Please leave your memories of Kevin on his talk page. Heavy heart today. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Could I get some more eyes to look at https://www.facebook.com/bombus.memoriam/ - a Facebook page that suggests Kevin Gorman has died. I know he had serious health issues, and while we didn't see eye to eye, I would be genuinely sad if he has indeed passed away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find anything on Google, for the record.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Appeal by Poodleboy of arbitration enforcement 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.

---

Statement by Poodleboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Isn't two weeks a bit excessive, there hasn't been a prior block in years. There has been practically no editing on the article pages, and how can the editing on the talk pages have been disruptive if progress is still being made. There have been persons who have refused to acknowledge what is actually in the sources, that eventually do, that is progress. Keep in mind that this is an article controlled by a WP:OWN collective and the past injustice that occurred 6 years ago, when I was blocked by an administrator Raul654 who was in an edit war with me. He received no sanctions because he was popular. Since admins are given passes for occassionally losing their temper or being overwelmed by zeal, shouldn't editors. I should think a 1 day or perhaps 3 day block would be more appropriate. Are there any admin guidelines for the lengths of these blocks?

Block notice and logging: [89], [90] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd have suggested a week given the very limited block log. I only reviewed about half of their relevant contributions and don't know the area well. Pretty strongly opinionated (which is fine), very argumentative (which is less optimal) and occasionally insulting (which is a problem). My sense is that they have a few good points, but argue them in a way that isn't ideal (basically foot dragging and unwilling to give an inch even when they should). Probably going to end up indeffed at some point, but as I said, some good points are made and I'd like to see if we can't get to a better place. Hobit (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block I'd have been tempted to go longer, but I'm sure that will follow. "Civil" POV pushing is one of the biggest problems we face, and tolerating it is one of the biggest mistakes we make. --Begoon ^talk 15:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Let's translate some of the euphemisms Poodleboy uses:

"WP:OWN collective" = consensus I refuse to see

"past injustice" = I haven't learned anything from my last block

"He received no sanctions" = I haven't read WP:NOTTHEM

Begoon already addresses the issue of whether or not talk page posts can be disruptive despite "progress." As for the argument that 'admins are given passes, so regular editors should to' shows a rather skewed view of how the site works. Useful editors are given occasional passes because they're useful. Getting through RFA involves proving that one is useful to the site (perhaps in ways that don't relate to being an admin, but anyway...). Civil POV-pushing, on the other hand, is a waste of time and bandwidth. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: "WP:OWN collective" = consensus I refuse to see

Yet, where is it more likely to exist, than where it was proven endemic before. WMC could always count on Stephen Schulz and look who is still around. The pattern now is that dweebs take the lead with instantanous reverts and wikilawyering and if they go too far astray of the party line, a couple of the better informed sweep in for necessary course corrections. They tolerate overstatements of the evidence that lower the quality of wikipedia because, "Well, at least they are wrong in the right direction".

"past injustice" = I haven't learned anything from my last block "He received no sanctions" = I haven't read WP:NOTTHEM

You don't recognize the cop culture's degenerative effect on a society? Eventually the community learns that if the police, prosecutors and judges have no respect for the law, why should they? The admins who violate should be punished worse, because their violations do more to undermine the system.

Do you recognize your attitude at all? Evidently, you don't think there is much point in being WP:CIVIL either, it just slows things down, makes you task a little harder. A little self reflection is in order. So no one has answered my question yet, are there guidelines for these sanctions, so far it seems totally subjective. "Editor's lives matter! I'll kiss your ass, don't shoot"Poodleboy (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There is general guidance on block lengths here. Admins are expected to use their judgment when setting lengths and the community will usually let them know if they're out of line. I will generally opt for longer lengths when disruption is occurring on a topic covered by discretionary sanctions and/or the disruption is continuing while the matter is being discussed on a noticeboard as the editor is unlikely to accept their behavior is disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block Hobit summed up how I feel quite nicely. We have a user who has had a couple of dozen edits in the past decade who is now active again. I think that we could be slightly more charitable, in the duration, in this situation. Although judging from their comments on their own talk page AGF might break down soon.--Adam in MO Talk 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block Well that response just sealed the deal for me. Frankly any additional comments by this user is just going to inflame the situation more (you hear that Poodleboy?). Can we close this farce now please? Two weeks is nothing considering the WP:NOTTHEM that has come out of this person's keyboard. --Majora (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion in response to your comment suggesting a close. There is probably enough to find a consensus against outright overturning the block. But as to how long the block should have been, there isn't a clear consensus. While it is unlikely there will be active consensus sufficient to change the duration given it was an AE block, allowing the discussion of the block length to stay open a bit longer may help provide guidance to admins for future blocks in this type of situation. Monty₈₄₅ 00:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: Fair enough. My views on the length are as follows. 2 weeks for an AE enforcement block, even a first time AE block, is fine. 2 weeks for a first time "normal" block would be more open to discussion. This person was warned about the restrictions and they continued their behavior. I'm of the mind that arbitration enforcement areas require harsher reactions in order to keep them from spiraling back to what caused the ArbCom case in the first place. Administrator discretion in these areas is something we afford to all those with the mop. I'm fine with the length of it. --Majora (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose block Should have been indef, especially in light of the most recent comments. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• It's absolutely true that "editor's [sic] lives matter". In fact, the Foundation regularly intervenes (and Wikipedia's volunteers generally respond swiftly) whenever an editor's life may be in danger.
  Oh. Wait. You didn't actually mean that any editors' lives were at stake. You were just complaining about being temporarily prevented for editing a website, after which the very admin who imposed that restriction swiftly, concisely, and neutrally presented your appeal request to his colleagues. Huh.
  Endorse block. 'Civil' POV-pushing is to be discouraged. A longer or indefinite block looks likely in the future, honestly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. "Past injustice"? The only injustice here is that you can't see how problematic your behaviour here is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:38, 1 August 2016 (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 blocking a user

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.

---

Dear Administrators: I have been harrassed with block by a User named NeilN who uses his position to abuse me with unnecessary blocks and refuses to mediate with me. Can you please block him or at least come to a fair ompromise? Thank you in advance! Sincerely, Foleo (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I've granted the request in a sense. Blocked Foleo for two weeks for continuing edit warring immediately after his block ran out as well as evading his original block when it was active and a new IP block now. See Special:Contributions/72.198.49.108. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

...and the issue with NeilN is being handled on Neil's talk page so nothing to see here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2016 (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.

CSD 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.

---

CAT:CSD has been containing between 180 and 220 pages throughout the past day. Bizzy Cannibal, for example, had a CSD tag for 21 hours before it was deleted. Would a few admins please be able to clear the category? →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The count is up because the community decided to keep handling Neelix redirects one at a time, both for review and at CSD. I proposed two different ways to keep them out of CSD, the first was rejected, the second ignored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's hardly the end of the world if an article on a 19-year-old rapper sits around for a day or so before it's deleted. CSD should really be renamed "summary deletion". It only needs to be speedy when there's potential harm involved, as with G10 for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 2 August 2016 (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.

Requiring admin attention

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.

---

Requiring administrator attention. Doctor Who (series 10) was moved to Draft:Doctor Who (series 10) without a discussion, then the former page was redirected. I need the first page deleted so that I can move the draft back to the article space, where a discussion can then take place. Another editor then created Doctor Who (series 10 ) by copying the content, violating copying policies, so that page also needs deleting; the user has also defended the page on its talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And the page moved back. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. Moving pages really ought to be a granted user right... Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Alex, it once was. Until a code tweak by Lee Daniel Crocker, only admins could move pages. It took a little more work, apparently, before non-admins could move pages over redirects: nowadays if you move A to B, you can just move B back to A, but when LDC's new code was implemented, you'd need to find an admin to delete A before you could move B back. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2016 (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 image 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.

---

This is a second request to lift my image-loading ban in EN/WP. My ban was lifted at the Commons quite a while ago, although images still usually need a review. After my last request was denied back in March 2015, I have tried to get User:Moonriddengirl to give me specific details about what needed to be done or changed to get the ban lifted. I never got a response. So I'll try again here.

In the meantime, it seems that requests for upload is backlogged more these days, running about a month and a half. I obviously am full aware of all copyright laws and guidelines and would continue to upload fully acceptable images in good faith. --Light show (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• See here for original ban and here for a related discussion from last October. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently no opinion on lifting the ban; i would point out, however, that in light of the two discussions linked to above, Light show must surely demonstrate some knowledge and changed behaviour/attitude. His comment that "obviously" he is aware of copyright laws seems to fly in the face of past behaviour; not only that, his statement that if allowed he "would continue to upload fully acceptable images in good faith" is, to my mind, somewhat disingenuous: It's the uploading he's done before that's put him where he is, so that's exactly what he should not be continuing. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Light show, looking at your recent uploads to Commons, I'm concerned that you are still not taking the care with your images that you should. You uploaded File:Ohio algal bloom.jpg on 24 July 2016 with a claim that it is PD as a federal US government work. It's not, and it's already nominated for deletion. That was five days ago. You uploaded File:Dead fish in algae.jpg with a claim that it is PD as a federal US government work, attributing it to the authorship of the NOAA. The site from which you took the image attributes it to Tom Archer. Cf. Michigan SeaGrant post. There's nothing to suggest Archer is a federal employee, and I've found indications that he was likely with SeaGrant Michigan, which is not a federal agency. Both of these incidents reflect carelessness in your image uploads - in the first, you mischaracterize the agency. In the second, you misattribute the image even though the site from which you took it names the author explicitly. Strictly speaking, your ban on Commons was not lifted, but modified - you set conditions yourself for lifting it that require extra oversight from the Commons community before images are uploaded. Those conditions remain. Your upload history on Commons since you returned to adding images there doesn't really reassure me that you will not require close review to avoid issues of the sort we have seen throughout your history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• As recently as June, you requested an upload of an image with the explanation Non-free image of Alfred Newman needed for article as none exists. That's not true, as you noted when challenged (I'm certain that there are countless free images available,...) I get that a newbie might make that error, but not someone who claims to be knowledgeable about copyright, and by now, ought to have knowledge of the rules regarding non-free images.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest actually that not only should the ban remain but a full ban from wikipedia should be enacted. You were warned about things last month but I see you've continued to cause trouble with Marilyn Monroe and uploading vios. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• My concern remains the same as it was prior to the ban being enacted, to wit: Light Show appears to have a decent grasp of copyright law in general, but doesn't seem to get that our policies on copyright and fair use only begin there and are intentionally more restrictive. This is only reinforce by the link Sphilbrick posted, where LS states that the upload of the non-free photo is consistent with fair-use provisions in the U.S. While this may be perfectly true, that does not automatically make it eligible for use here, especially when they concede that free versions exist. To me, this distinction is more significant than having knowledge of Copyright law in general, especially after being so told on several occasions. Crow^Caw 22:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would agree with this. I see nothing suggesting lifting the ban as long as their understanding of NFC policy is better. Copyright is not easy, but its not impossible to understand some of the basic checks, and LS doesn't appear to trying to understand. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, since the same example has been brought up twice, I'm now wondering if either of you actually read my reply there: By claiming that there are no free images available, I was referring to images on the Commons. I'm certain that there are countless free images available, but trying to get them accepted on Commons is close to impossible without absolute proof that someone, somewhere, at some time, had not possibly copyrighted it. In the meantime, it would be good to at least have a non-free one.

In other words, I've never been told that even when no free image was available in WP, if there was a chance that there might be one available somewhere, it was the person requesting an upload to go out and find one. Two issues come up: first, I've never had that fact come up for articles about deceased people; and second, even if I searched around and managed to find one, I need to have it reviewed at Commons first. And that's always been a major hassle. I've found many "original" publicity stills or press photos showing front and back w/o a copyright notice. A few finally get approved. But many are reviewed with comments explaining we still don't know if maybe, somewhere, in someone's possession, there is actually another one like with with a notice. At that point I just give up. Why bother?

A few weeks ago I noticed an ITN RD posted on the main page, where the person didn't have a photo. I found one, but with a month and half backlog, it didn't help the article as a RD. And yeah, I get that WP needs to be "more restrictive," and I assume being more conservative, won't risk posting a legally-sanctioned (U.S.) fair use photo of a notable person. Although readily accepting hundreds of photos of penises and vaginas is A-OK. We don't want to restrict everything.--Light show (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This note seems to bypass the cases above where you were inaccurate in your file descriptions, but perhaps you haven't gotten to those yet. Nevertheless, it seems to highlight the reasons why it is risky to permit you to upload content. "Major hassle" is appropriate. You don't seem to understand the precautionary principle. We have a duty of care to ascertain the copyright status of our uploads that just doesn't seem to be there in yours, with an error that extends to misattributing an image that is clearly and explicitly attributed at the source from which you acquired it. While we might have a plethora of free pictures of penises and vaginas, that is more within keeping of our mission values than taking without license a copyrighted photograph of a celebrity when a free photograph could (with due diligence) be obtained. Why bother? Because collecting and curating free content is why we're here. Non-free content is accordingly rare, only when free content cannot serve. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose lifting ban. Given that Light show has evinced a lack of care with images uploaded to Commons as recently as five days ago (see the two examples noted by Moonriddengirl, both less than a week old), I cannot support a lifting of the ban at this time. I applaud his enthusiasm, but that enthusiasm is not yet tempered by sufficient care and attention to Wikipedia's copyright and attribution policies for us to trust him with uploading privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose lifting ban We've been here three times now since it was imposed in 2014. In the last year, the editor has had two incidents of violation. In February 2015, it was explained to him that it takes the community to lift the ban. He's managed to find his way here to ask three times, yet he continues to believe that Moonriddengirl is not being cooperative in getting it lifted. The Commons unblock is less than a year old and comes with restrictions about not uploading without prior discussion under possible penalty of Commons reblock. There seems to have been no prior discussion about the two photos mentioned above which are currently up for deletion at Commons. And here we have the same editor who's asking for his ban to be lifted contemplating whether the WMF might be an accessory to copyfraud for the removal of questionable Commons images he uploaded. We hope (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose lifting ban The examples given clearly show that Light show is still not anywhere near careful enough with image uploads. That would be enough, in itself, but it is certainly reinforced by the mindset evidenced at the Copyfraud discussion, and the disruption at Marilyn Monroe. Begoon ^talk 10:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Light show's comments, here and elsewhere, demonstrate that they still do not accept fundamental elements of our copyright and image use policies. Lifting the ban would only enable further disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2016 (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.

doing a long time Wikipedia:Witchhunt and Vandalizing and speedy deletion of my edits by User:Pahlevun without any discussion

hello, dear administrators . im a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran and im improving article about that. but its a few day that one user called User:Pahlevun is after me, all the time, to hunt me and then he start to delete my edits article-by-article, edits-by-edits, without any mentioning . he will appears everywhere i was. for example see here and here and here and here and here and here . i can tell u everywhere i was he will be after me !! its really a Wikipedia:Witchhunt and not legal to delete all of the edits of a user without telling him and any discussion. its just a vandalism edit . some body said to him to find out why he is deleting and vandalizing a template that im editing . u can see it here . i didn't know him before, but i went to his talk page and i said in Persian ( because he said cant understand English enough with a userbox(here and i thought he's serious)). also he is destroying and especially about Iran project related template(here) and delete its subject article-by article without any discussion . for example he deleted national symbols of Iran Template from the article Nowruz . that is obviously an Iranian national(Iranian New year) symbol and celebration. everybody knows it. u can see his vandalizing about Nowruz here . please take right action about him cuz i cant do esaly edit like befor and i became so nervous with his vandalizing. for being good editor we need safe place. thank ya so much for hearing me . health n wealth. bye.Amir Muhammad 15:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

for additional information about his vandalizing u can refer to National symbols of Iran list . he just deleted all of this template:National symbols of Iran that considered all of the Iranian symbols that were on National symbols of Iran . for example Nowruz (Iranian New year) which is obviously an Iranian National symbol, cuz its Iranian New Year for over 6000 years, he delete that template from it and then he delete the term Nowruz from the template:National symbols of Iran without any discussion and legal reason!!! please help me .he vandalized all of Iranian symbols of that template and then he went to the those subject's article and deleted those article-by-article . then a day after, i went and add again those but he went again and did his vandalizing again without any reason and discussion . tnx anyway Amir Muhammad 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure but i guess he is a part of Iranian governments or military board and he is not "Neutral" (WP:Neutral) in some cases, because he is only editing and focusing on Iranian governmental and military related article that some of them even don't have any article in Persian! please refer to His contribution and for second reason: he said in a Userbox(here) he cant understand English, but he is making articles and its seems he is an advanced level and it means he have some extreme behavior about English language and maybe western (im saying this based on Ali Khamenei suggests to get rid of hegemony of the English language cuz its not a normal action anyway. for third reason he said on Template talk:National symbols of Iran that we must edit based on Iranian government rules (here)!!! please do a Right action . he is wasting our time. tnx anyway .Amir Muhammad 13:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

now im ensured, he dont have any respect for WP:Neutral, after seeing his last edit here. he said: «that's why you have linked Imperial Standards of Iran in the template?"» while i do not that and if i did its wasnt illegal. cuz cultural subjects are independent from governments and policy; for example governments is opposed to Chaharshanbe Suri (a Fire Festival) while people are celebrating in everywhere of Iran and the reason of governments is only extremely religious!!. govm can not change culture . but its seems he hates Iranian pre-Islamic-republic subjects for example Pahlavi dynasty. Amir Muhammad 13:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

also he added Disputed template to National symbols of Iran (here) that dont have any kind of dispute in its talk page (here). he is obviously not Neutral based on WP:Neutral . its obvious from his works. Amir Muhammad 14:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Pahlevun and numerous other editors have shown, frankly, in my opinion, more than enough resilience and patience regarding your edits and in order to make you understand why you should stop with your disruptive editorial conduct. While I don't think that you have any bad or malicious intentions, the verifiable fact that you're constantly ignoring calls to stop adding, for example, unrelated modern translations in Perso-Arabic script to historical Persian figures of 2,500 years ago (e.g.[91]-[92]) or adding unrelated templates to individual figures over and over, is disruptive to put it straight. Furthermore, this is going on like this quite some time. And then I haven't even mentioned your false accussations (e.g. "vandalism" and "witchunt"), when you unfortunately don't seem to have the slightest clue what WP:VANDAL actually means and stands for.

To the reading admins; perhaps assigning a mentor to said user could be something fruitful, as, once again, I don't think he has any bad intentions. I'd say it could help alot here. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(@LouisAragon:) . hello buddy . thanks for being here, but anyway you are defending him who one said we must edit Iranian symbols (Cultural subjects) based on Iranian government roles(here)!! didnt see that??, and did a Wikipedia:Witchhunt!! and he i think he is not WP:Neutral. then you are comparing my action with his but this is not a "comparison", this is my "complaint" . then if i did wrong it can not justify his action . if i did wrong can not be a point for goodness of my oppositions or something like that . for first i must say im a fresh user in this wiki with less than 900 edits and he is a veteran. it means if i do wrong you must teach as a veteran not do a long time Wikipedia:Witchhunt and Vandalizing and speedy deletion of my edits by without any discussion. by the way i said what i must and the fate of this problem is related to admins. and i do not want defend my action cuz im not a defender , im just an editor and dont want waste my time anymore. anyway you were not in Iran and you dont know what im saying . there is a lot of idiot extremers there and they dont have any respect for culture and WP:Neutral. health and wealth and happy editing. Amir Muhammad 14:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Amir, you seem to be involved in completely ordinary content disputes. You seem incapable of considering that Pahlevun simply disagrees with you. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project. If you can't handle disagreements, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. If you continue to make false accusations of vandalism, witch hunts, or that your opponents are working for the government, I will block you immediately. All of the evidence you have presented show nothing of the sort. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ignoring of Wikipedia:Three revert rule

User:Pahlevun reverted my edits more than three within a few minutes ... please do a right action based on Wikipedia:Three revert rule. tnx. Amir Muhammad 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: why you guys are defending him ?? im not involve with him , am i?? im just editing and creating my article and i dont know him .. he is resuming insulting me today and he restart the edit war with ignoring Wikipedia:Three revert rule. im not the starter. you must judge base on my behavior . he is insulting me look here then judge . he deleted his talk page to no one could see his insulting .. im so nervous nowAmir Muhammad 13:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

im undercover again today .. he appears on my edits and undid those without any discussion. and did Wikipedia:Witchhunt . look at this for today.. its my today's gift . Amir Muhammad 14:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no witchhunt, just more ordinary content disputes. Also, Pahlevun has not violated 3RR - I checked. I'll warn you again: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you cannot handle being disagreed with, this is the wrong website for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and talk page

MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist has unprocessed requests going back to January. I have to wonder if it may be a bit too obscure and too few administrators with understanding of regex seem to frequent it. Maybe people should be directed to WP:AN for addition requests, which is a somewhat broader venue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In need of admin attention

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions is backlogged. It'd be great if a few admins could clear out some of the older discussions. -FASTILY 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The heck happened to your bit, anyway? —Cryptic 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic, Fastily was desysopped four years ago because of a self-request. Nyttend (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I may work on some of the non-oldest discussions - I don't approve of FFD nominations that don't notify the uploader, which is what some of the oldest are.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That's purely your opinion. No policy compels users to leave courtesy notifications. Either way, this may be of interest to you. -FASTILY 01:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily:I looked for the closing process and see a suggestion to use this script. Is that the best option, or is there another way to do the archive?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There is also another script in the works, User:Evad37/FFDcloser.js.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I handled the April ones (which the nominator was notified of in early July; she responded confirming they weren't her works). I might look through more of these later. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick - AnomieBOT automatically adds {{Ffd top}} & {{Ffd bottom}} after you delete a file listed at FfD. No manual close is necessary, unless you're keeping/relisting the file. -FASTILY 01:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would helpful if everyone (even non-admins) went through and commented on these discussions. Most discussions are the nominator and maybe one other editor. It'd be easier to find admins who are willing to take this on if they also didn't have to do their own complete copyright analysis here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Outside copyright violation

I'm not sure we can do anything about it, but if anyone knows better, this article is ripped almost entirely from this article.--v/r - TP 19:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The editors who wrote that article could make a complaint - a license violation letter whose content and location here I don't remember, or a formal DMCA takedown request - for violating the BY part of the CC-BY-SA license. I don't know if one can do much more other than telling them - via email maybe? - that they need to attribute the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The article on Hawaii Reporter is credited to Robert Kay, and indicates he has written other similiar articles for the site. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/about says that "Rob Kay, who serves as travel and shooting sports editor, has worked in Silicon Valley as a publicist and published award winning travel guides on Fiji and Tahiti for the Lonely Planet series". Perhaps there is some misunderstanding somewhere that might be cleared up by writing to the publication and asking them about it. MPS1992 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor who added much of the disputed content to Wikipedia (and thus retains certain rights) is Pbeekman, whose first edits were to the article about Allan Beekman, who in turn wrote Beekman, Allan (1998) [1982]. The Niihau Incident. Honolulu, HI: Heritage Press of Pacific. ISBN 0-9609132-0-3 which is currently cited as a source in the disputed Wikipedia article. The identity of Pbeekman seems reasonably easy to deduce. MPS1992 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Anyone can send one of the "nicer" notices at WP:Takedown. If you want to send an official DMCA notice that has to come from a major contributor to that article though. --Majora (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I sent them a note that they need to attribute the article to Wikipedia contributors.--v/r - TP 20:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And I got an email back saying they will rectify. Haven't seen a change to the article yet, but I guess it's forthcoming.--v/r - TP 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ironically enough, the page credits the ostensible author with a doctoral thesis on ethics.—Odysseus1479 08:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC close review please

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, all. On Friday I closed a RfC concerning Isaac Barrow and implemented the consensus as I saw it. This morning, an IP user has reverted that edit, posted a colossal screed on my talk page, and added two extra votes to the RfC.

I would tend to understand these edits as a challenge to my close, and I would therefore be grateful if some experienced, uninvolved users could please review it. Did I make a mistake in my assessment of the consensus? If I did, please do overturn me and implement the correct result. However, on the off-chance that I got it right, then I would be grateful if a sysop could take this user in hand and offer some support and direction.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Those walls of text.... I agree with your close, barring that I would find there is only a rough consensus (rather than the absolute 'no' used) not to include the person in the "influences" section of the infobox (seeing as there were only 4 or so commenting on that piece of it). That yields the same result as your close of it regarding the article at this time. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

dear @Izno and S Marshall:, while you feel there was a consensus, as i had stated on the talk page: there was hardly any consensus. One opposed (biased editor), One approved, and two (three?) abstained out of clear distaste towards my style of discourse (which is their right); however to interpret the latter's abstinence as contributing to the opposition of the edit is disingenuous, User:Izno.

further, the opposition did not provide any evidence to counter my claims. i did not care to close the RfC after User:Hgilbert had gotten back to me, which is where i suspect the problem began, because those who peruse RfC don't seem to like my approach (again, that's cool).

when S Marshall decided to close the RfC, i had not "voted" (my fault). even so, i have found sufficient evidence in Gregorie's own words that would justify inclusion of Barrow as an influence on *him*. determining the sufficiency of evidence for the inclusion requires analysis of the six (!!!) sources i've used. i thought User:S Marshall was going to do that, but i guess not.

this is not about the RfC outcome, which was at best indeterminate and absent of evidence (except from me), but rather the contents of the argument and their respective merit. i have persistently stated that Gregorie was an influence on Barrow, and there seems to be a disingenuous reluctance to accept this fact because it's not as verbose as some would like.

however, if you guys want to play that game, Gregorie *is* verbose about the influence of Barrow on his work and such sources should be sufficient to include Barrow as an influence on him in the infobox.

so it's up to you guys if you want to take the scholarship of the fundamental theorem of calculus seriously. if you do not want to objectively analyse the evidence presented, which i had spent many hours gathering (where the opposition literally spent no time), you are going to lose good contributors (ahem).

hate to do this to you dr @David Eppstein:, but i figured if someone wants to involve administrators, i may as well try to recruit someone whose (rare, not enough of "us" out there imo) decision-making, experience, and expertise i can feel confident in deferring to 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content. The close looks ok to me — I might have taken the view that the consensus was less clear than what S Marshall wrote but what they wrote was reasonable. And whether they are an admin (I think not?) S Marshall is a highly experienced editor who was until closing this completely uninvolved. So at this point we have an established consensus on how to edit the article going forward: put sourced connections between the two in the article text but not in the infobox. That doesn't seem like a particularly difficult constraint to follow. The only issue for an ANI should be that we have an editor being unwilling to follow the result of an RfC and improperly reverting the close — for which you, 174.3.155.181, get a trout and an admonishment not to do that again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

i don't understand dr @David Eppstein:, why is the connection not strong enough for an infobox insertion? no one has really answered that. where does the provided evidence fall short of establishing the relationship that is infobox-worthy?

also, i never said User:S Marshall wasn't impartial. rather, what i said was that *he* said it was a consensus to remove from infobox, to which i (again) said only one person made that recommendation. he was impartially assessing the comments on the page where two others abstained, and Gilbert/Mawr yay/nay'd, respectively. may i ask how that is a consensus?

lastly, i do not understand why no one is acknowledging that the *entire* basis for the RfC was that mawr reverted on the basis of insufficient/inadequate sources. i provided ample sources to override that argument, and i feel enough information has been provided WARRANT the insertion. there was no constructive discussion on this matter in the RfC by Mawr; instead they gave vacuous one-liners. the RfC then went to a "vote" (because i didn't close it, and thought the issue was handled after User:Hgilbert chimed in) well-after my response and that was that. can we clear this up? thanks. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

like i am quite upset dr @David Eppstein:. people invest time on this site hoping they are contributing to the truth, but look at what has happened in this entire situation. seriously.

it's cool if you don't want to read wall of text; but to say that the original reversion was justified in light of the ALL the evidence provided, to which the REVERTER NEVER provided ANY proper counterclaim suggesting otherwise, is outrageous.

the whole reason i opened it to RfC was to get opinions from *experts*, and even though the vote was taken in my absence, the result was *inconclusive* (1 yay User:Hgilbert, 1 nay, 2 abstain, 1 stating a non-infobox insertion). it is hard to see how there is any semblance of a consensus on that RfC page when accounting for the fact that the initiator of the RfC (me) was absent and would have voted to "keep".

essentially what is being stated is "higher body count wins, regardless of how much EVIDENCE one person provides." is knowledge now void of facts? or just on wikipedia? i am glad this happened sooner rather than later. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: come on dude: TAKE CHANCES, MAKE MISTAKES - MS FRIZZLE

The grammar used by 174.3.155.181 is also concerning. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha okay @MPS1992: "upgradation" lol.

• {{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) 01:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support close and direct the IP to consider the fact that your inability to make your point without a giant wall of text is a failure on your part, not ours. The "everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant" routine is not going anywhere. And six weeks is more than enough time to consider a fairly benign issue in which the major point (was there an influence) was resolved favorably. The infobox is probably the most superficial thing to care about. Close, protect the article is need be and WP:RBI any more antics by now a {WP:SPA]]. If the editor can move on, then it's worth inviting to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support close, the RfC clearly did not reach a consensus to make the disputed change, and absent consensus in favor, the status quo ante remains in place. The close is certainly a reasonable one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 2 August 2016 (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 regain AWB 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've been recommended to move my discussion of regaining AWB rights here for more input and help. I had my AWB access revoked in April for making ten superficial edits to Hong Kong talk pages by accident, after a warning telling me not to leave edits to Hong Kong talk pages a week or two prior. I indeed kept my word and stopped making those edits, but I didn't clear my default settings (as evidenced by this screenshot) and as a result, I accidentally made ten edits in the midst of doing another AWB task. The next day, I had my access taken away. At the WP:PERM request I said everything that was wanted; I would be more careful in the future, I will edit at a slower rate, and furthermore I pointed out that I've been learning Python over the months and I feel like I'm ready to edit with my own scripts.

I decided not to go to WP:BRFA or continue the discussion at WP:PERM because I know that I will get no resolution there, and making a bot account would be more complicated than just simply regaining AWB for my account. As I said before, I'm willing to agree to some potential terms/sanctions in order to get my rights back, which is mostly why I've come here. I'm acting in good faith and I am open to agreeing to some "community enforced limitations" blah as a result. JAGUAR  10:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Given the couple of months gap you've given, and the understanding you have of the problem I don't personally see any issues in you starting to use AWB again. I'm not one for "community enforced limitations" but I would say that spending time to review every edit the tool is about to make is a must for AWB. As for Python (a good choice!), I would spend a little while testing them with your own account in your sandbox in a very controlled manner before considering WP:BRFA -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm with Samtar on this one. You've mentioned in a number of places that the only reason you lost your AWB access is because you accidentally let 10 insignificant edits slip. The fact that you don't seem to understand is that forgetting to clear your default settings isn't the problem here, what is a problem is the fact that if you had been checking every edit before you saved it, you wouldn't have made any of those talk page edits, so clearly you aren't checking the actually changes you're making before clicking the save button. That being said, you seem to have learnt from the experience, so I'd be willing to support regranting you AWB rights on the conditions that you check every edit before you save it, and that any administrator may revoke your access immediately if you make inconsequential edits with the tool. Omni Flames (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You say "I am open to agreeing to some "community enforced limitations" blah", which is generous, thanks. Do you agree to check every AWB edit before saving? It doesn't seem that was your prior practice, otherwise the unfortunate talk page edits could not have happened. Begoon ^talk 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, most of all, I will check every edit before saving. JAGUAR  11:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If other editors disagree with any AWB edits you make in future, what procedure will you follow? --Begoon ^talk 11:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will stop editing first and foremost, then I will further enquire what they disagreed with (if they weren't descriptive enough or if I didn't understand), and then lastly I would go back and undo all edits or make alterations, depending on the situation. JAGUAR  11:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds about right. Sorry to "quiz" you. Begoon ^talk 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

*Support reinstatement of AWB rights. In the event of future problems, removal again, if warranted, would be cheap, and there seems no need to prevent productive work in the meantime. Begoon ^talk 11:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm confirming my support, acknowledging the comments below, and having read the linked discussions. If someone can show me damage caused that someone else had to clean up, I might reconsider. Begoon ^talk 12:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to withdraw my support, since Fenix down provided the evidence I asked for. Sorry. Begoon ^talk 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support, on the understanding that it can be revoked again should there be any more issues. It appears the userr understands his/her mistake, and the only way to know for sure is to give him/her a second chance. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't an accidental 10 edits. This isn't some absent-mindedness while reviewing repetitious edits, which admittedly even happens to me at times. This is a pattern of failing to review edits before the user saves them, ever. See here (warning: 2,000 contribs, long load time), where Jaguar makes just under 2,000 edits in an hour, sometimes hitting near 40 edits per minute. Given the loading time between edits, that is quite literally spamming the save button. This isn't a new problem, as I mentioned at the permissions request. Jaguar was repeatedly warned before his AWB access was removed, and his response at one point went so far as to say that it "isn't [his] fault" when miscategorization leads to faulty edits because of a failure to review each edit before saving it.

I'm not saying Jaguar should never have AWB access. I provided a clear way in which I would support that at WP:PERM, stating that he should identify a specific task he'd like to do, file a BRFA for semi-automated use using AWB, and set up an alternative bot account to allow easy oversight (even if the edits are being manually reviewed). This provides oversight for each of the many problems that Jaguar has had in the past. The requirement for clear consensus for a task at bot approvals will ensure that cosmetic edits aren't routinely made. The trial will uncover any unexpected cosmetic edits. The separation of AWB edits from regular edits through the use of an alternate bot account allows easy community oversight of the edits. The fact that Jaguar has decided to forum shop at AN without notifying any of the participants of the previous discussion instead of submit to some basic community oversight is telling, in my opinion. Pinging the other participants of the previous discussion at PERM, since I suspect they weren't notified either. @Kusma, Kudpung, and MusikAnimal: ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging the other participant in the discussion, Rich Farmbrough. Omni Flames (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not forum shopping, as I said before, I was recommended in the PERM discussion that I should come here for more input and opinions. I brought the discussion here because nothing was happening at the previous discussion, and gaining my AWB rights for my account is much more straightforward than programming a bot. I got my AWB access removed for a very minor reason. I can't stress enough that I will look over every edit when I regain AWB. I said that here, and at the PERM discussion, but my good faith was ignored there, so I came here. JAGUAR  10:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Thanks for that, and sorry to exclude you from the ping Rich Farmbrough. I missed your name when glancing back at the discussion. @Jaguar: I'm not asking you to code a bot. I'm asking you to submit a BRFA for a specific semi-automated task. When I say "bot" account, I just mean an alternate account to make AWB edits in the normal semi-automated manner. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jaguar's attempt to paint his systematic lack of attention (to AWB edits and to other things, just read his talk page archives) as "10 accidental edits". I am not against second chances, but there have been already been plenty of second chances, and I have heard his promises to be better now too often already (and he has never done anything particularly urgent or convincingly useful with AWB anyway). Also, this discussion really belongs at WP:PERM/AWB, where everything has been said already. —Kusma (t·c) 09:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

*Conditional support. All I want is a clear understanding that he wil stay away from NPP with AWB and any other scripts and bots that are not specifically designed for that purpose. He avoidd answering that twice repeated request on the PERM page which gives me pause. The bottom line is if he gets his AWB bit back and goes anywhere near NPP with it, he'll loose more than his access to AWB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kudpung, but I still don't understand why you're so against people patrolling new pages with AWB. You do realize that by patrolling new pages we don't actually mean patrolling them, but rather doing general fixes and fixing typos with it? How is using a list of newly created pages any different from using a list of random pages? If anything, new pages are better because they generally have more problems with them. You've still failed to give any reason whatsoever why you want him to stay away with NPP using AutoWikiBrowser. Omni Flames (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per BU Rob13 and Kusma. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whatever the ultimate reasons for removal of AWB access, the problems created by this user in no way were limited to the issues noted above. At one point Jaguar very speedily removed WLs to over a thousand articles on Russian places, completely overriding established consensus, not bothering to inform WP:RUSSIA of his intentions to make mass changes, and completely misunderstanding WP:OVERLINK, which made a lot of work for me and fellow admin Ezhiki. I'm not convinced that we won't see a similar situation again and per Kusma, I'm not really sure what benefit to the project his use of AWB is having, the benefits to me historically don't seem to have outweighed the cost in terms of other peoples time reverting and discussing on his talk page, not sure access for general use is warranted here. I agree with Rob, if this is a request to regain access for specific tasks then the best way for this to be achieved is as he describes, not only to avoid cosmetic changes but also to avoid incorrect ones. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• You didn't mention that I went back and manually reverted all of my edits, as well as using AWB to re-add the links. JAGUAR  17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the concerns raised by others above. 40 edits a minute is a ridiculous rate; I couldn't edit nearly that quickly, even in AWB bot mode with zero delay. I don't see any evidence that Jaguar has changed either. He's been asked many times in the past to comply with AWB rules, and he failed to do so. Omni Flames (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not only have they had numerous second chances but I'm also extremely concerned with the fact they nearly smack 40 edits in a minute and I assume without reviewing any of the edits, The tool could be fucking up thousands of articles and you could be completely unaware, Quite frankly the editor will be better off doing manual editing like the rest of us. –Davey2010^Talk

I've just made User:JaguarBot, I don't know how to proceed next as I've never made an alternative account before but I'll go to WP:BRFA tomorrow and request that it be allowed AWB. I don't know how to enable AWB bot mode, but I'll look it up soon. JAGUAR  22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Once your bot is approved (or approved for trial) you can request for it to be added to the bots section of Wikipedia:AWB/CP. Once it's added there, you can login to your bot using AWB and click the "bot" tab, and from there there's an option to make the bot's editing automatic, so you won't have to check the edits at all if your bot is approved. Omni Flames (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make a start on that tomorrow. I just want to apologise to everyone for making this thread, and I know that my posts here and at PERM have been excessive. It's just that I thought I would have been given a second chance by coming here, but I should have known better by coming to any noticeboard. Anyway, I'll start making arrangements soon! JAGUAR  23:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that bot mode isn't necessary if this is intended to be a semi-automated bot. Depends on the task, really. It can just be marked as a user if it's semi-auto. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:37, 3 August 2016 (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.

New FFD and TFD closer scripts

Scripts provide one-click (or few-click) closing options on WP:FFD / WP:TFD and their daily subpages, as well as the ability to hide/show already-closed discussions. See documentation at User:Evad37/FFDcloser & User:Evad37/TFDcloser, and use User talk:Evad37/FFDcloser.js / User talk:Evad37/TFDcloser.js to report any unexpected occurrences or provide other feedback. - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Also CFD now: User:Evad37/CFDcloser - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate articles about school

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but Resource academia and Resource Academia appear to be duplicate articles about the same school. The former was April 2010 (last edited September 2013), while the latter was created in May 2010 (last edited January 2016). It seems that this should be a candidate for some kind of merge, just not sure how that needs to be done. FWIW, I came accross these while checking some non-free images; the latter article is using a non-free logo in its infobox. Anyway, thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Issue has been resolved by Kudpung as explained at WT:WPSCH#Pakistani schools. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK overdue

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 DYK update has been delayed by at least 6 hours now, I believe. If an admin can look in at T:DYK/Q and promote a set from the prep areas, it would be much appreciated. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Update performed by Graeme Bartlett. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2016 (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.

Proper CSD tag for {{OTRS received}} but not confirmed.

There has been a disagreement between administrators on how to properly handle these types of tags. I have been going through the old images at Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS, double checking the permissions ticket, and if the ticket has not been resolved I have been marking them for deletion. In my mind, these images are copyright violations as the permissions have been denied. So I tagged them F9. Previous tags were accepted by RHaworth and the images were deleted. The next batch of tags were declined by Diannaa citing that the proper CSD tag was F11. Stating that the person gets another week beyond what they have already been given (which for the images I have tagged as been months). Since there is a discrepancy in the decisions by two different admins I am posting here to get more input from additional administrators and the community alike. Which tag should be applied to these old images that have been {{OTRS received}} but not {{OTRS permission}}? --Majora (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say F11, without hesitation. F9 states, unambiguously, "This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." If the claim weren't credible, the image should have remained deleted pending OTRS; that the claim eventually turned out not to be valid doesn't change things. No need to wait an extra week after tagging F11, however; the clock starts from when the uploader becomes provably aware that OTRS permission is necessary, not when the image is templated db-f11. The situation you describe seems squarely to fall into the 30-day OTRS-pending timeout to me, and I don't think it material that it spent much or all of that 30 days tagged OTRS-received rather than specifically OTRS-pending.

That said, the specific letter-number combination used to delete a page is of relatively little importance, and you're usually better off using {{db}} with an explanation instead of a bare {{db-f11}} or whatever when explanation is actually necessary. An image tagged "{{db|insufficient documentation received by OTRS for more than 30 days}}" by a user in the OTRS-members group would probably get speedied with little question or fanfare. —Cryptic 01:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it should be tagged for {{OTRS received}} for 7 days, as that would be a 7-day period to respond after being notified their permission is inadequate. But yes, F11, but no waiting a week for the old ones. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with BU Rob] Cryptic has a solid response. This may not exactly fit any of the speedy-deletion tags, but when we have absolute certainty that permission does not exist for a free license (quite different from not knowing that permission exists), we shouldn't bother waiting for a delayed speedy tag, or bothering with an FFD for that matter. Perhaps the most comprehensive solution would be to go to WT:CSD and get consensus for expanding F9 with something like "This criterion may also be used to delete images for which an OTRS email has been received that actively does not grant permission", since of course this would resolve the "which criterion" issue, but since an image that definitely doesn't have permission has no chance of surviving FFD, we can go with the IAR route and use Cryptic's custom-written speedy tag. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rob, why wait? We know that permission doesn't exist; if the owner says something like "oops, okay, I grant permission for this image to be used under CC-BY-4.0", we can always undelete it when that email is received. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The WP:F11 criterion does state that it applies for this process. Which I didn't realize at the time I started going through these. For that, I apologize. However, it does not explicitly state that the F11 is immediate for these. Perhaps that would be a better thing to get clarified at WT:CSD. Or we can switch the criterion over to F9. In any case, it seemed odd to me to give these images and extra week when permissions have not been confirmed for months. --Majora (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Majora, as I read it, F11 is for cases of {{OTRS not received}} (yes, I know that doesn't exist), i.e. if the OTRS folks haven't gotten any emails at all, the criterion can be used. That's what I mean by "not knowing that permission exists", in contrast to an OTRS email that distinctly does not grant permission, which is what I mean by knowing "that permission does not exist". Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nyttend: Because around 75% of the time I get a response within 48 hours with an appropriate license. Commons uses a one week wait time before they get thrown (automatically) in speedy deletion categories, and they've had a lot more experience working out the kinks than enwiki has, so I think we should follow their lead. Keep in mind that many OTRS agents are not admins, and it is significantly more difficult to process permissions after a file has been deleted for them. I've seen both sides of the coin (sysop on enwiki, not on Commons), and I'm much faster on enwiki because I don't have to run to an admin every other ticket for information. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Also edit conflict, also re Nyttend: For all the same reasons mentioned on {{OTRS received}} - if the copyright holder may have sent what he thought was sufficient documentation, it's little draconian to immediately delete the image anyway if there hasn't been time for him to rectify any technical shortcomings. Does it need to be specifically cautioned against? Meh, I don't think so. Common sense applies, and most of the timeouts in image speedy deletion criteria are historical accidents anyway, since deleted images couldn't be restored before... mid-2006, I think? —Cryptic 02:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Cryptic, and BU Rob13: I started a RfC. Just to clear everything up on these images for everyone involved. See WT:CSD#Proper CSD tag for images that are OTRS received but not confirmed. --Majora (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but for a pretty long time I have been waiting for someone to rename the files at Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. It's now stacked with files and needs to be cleaned up. Could someone (or a file mover) please move the files? Thanks. -- The Pancakeof Heaven! 14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:File mover perhaps - there are almost 400 non-admin "file movers". — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 9 August 2016 (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.

Template move discussions

FYI, Template talk:Cfd#Requested move 8 August 2016 and Template talk:Tfm#Requested move 9 August 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on The Red Tour

IP vandalized the boxscore of the tour. I don't know how to edit the information quickly because IP changed information consecutively so the page's history like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Red_Tour&action=history. Can someone help the article??? Sorry because I don't know how "undo" work so I tried to do 2 times and now I am so worry about 3RR Phamthuathienvan (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. Katie^talk 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion amending the GoodDay arbitration case

By motion of the Arbitration Committee:

The Committee resolves that remedy 1.1 (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same.

In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee motion amending the GoodDay arbitration case

Review of LavaBaron's DYK restrictions

Hello AN crowd. You're invited to participate in the discussion at WT:DYK which concerns a proposed amendment to the restrictions on User:LavaBaron's participation at DYK. The discussion is cross-advertised here because the relevant restrictions were originally enacted as a result of this AN thread. Deryck C. 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that apart from an amendment, there is now also a proposal for a full lifting of the restrictions being discussed. Having the opinion of some people besides the DYK regulars would be helpful. Fram (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why not move (or transclude) the discussion over to here? Rgrds. --64.85.216.14 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Majora: and 64.85.216.14: I posted the amendment proposal on WT:DYK as the most relevant forum and cross-notified here instead of the other way round. I personally take responsibility for any false impression of circumventing AN that my course of action might have given. Deryck C. 11:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

    I've just figured out that enwp has installed mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion so I've transcluded the WT:DYK thread below. Deryck C. 11:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

A month ago, LavaBaron were given restrictions to help improve the quality of his DYK contributions. The terms of the restrictions are:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

Since then I've become aware that #4 does not "balance the maths". Gatoclass has elegantly paraphrased the situation: no matter how many extra reviews one might require LavaBaron to do, one still ends up with a deficit of one QPQ because of the requirement that an extra reviewer checks his reviews. So it seems the requirement that LavaBaron do two reviews for every one of his nominations doesn't actually achieve its stated purpose.

Recent discussions surrounding several DYK hooks have suggested that #4 is creating more problems than it would help LavaBaron or the DYK community improve upon the quality of contributions. On the other hand, some have opined that #2 (which was the actual source of the problem) should stay in place as a check on the quality of LavaBaron's contributions for the time being. So I'm proposing that restriction #4 be rescinded as soon as this suggestion gains consensus; the remaining restrictions shall remain in place until their scheduled review in early October. Deryck C. 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Edwardx, Worm That Turned, and Maile66: Tagging a few other editors whose recent comments on related discussions have prompted me to make this proposal. Deryck C. 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Also tagging @EdChem, Sphilbrick, Andrew Davidson, Sainsf, Casliber, Roxy the dog, Cwmhiraeth, and Gerda Arendt: who have made one or more comments regarding LavaGate. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per my previous comments on the topic. Thank you Deryck Chan for your reconsideration of this matter. Another issue has recently arisen however: LavaBaron recently added a second review to an existing review by another user and proposed it as a fulfilment of condition #2. I do not believe this was the intention of the condition, which was for LavaBaron's reviews to be checked by somebody else, not for LavaBaron to be seconding somebody's else's reviews, but I think a clarification on this point would also be useful Deryck. Gatoclass (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Gatoclass: See #Query on editing restrictions above. Anyway, rescinding #4 will eliminate this problem altogether. Deryck C. 17:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan:, I don't see how rescinding #4 eliminates the confusion, eliminating #4 means he is only required to do one QPQ, but #2 still doesn't say whether it's acceptable or not for LavaBaron to fulfill his QPQ requirement merely by checking somebody else's review, or whether the intention was to have LavaBaron's reviews checked by somebody else. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass - I appreciate your confusion. In one of the numerous addendums to these restrictions that, in good DYK fashion, have been scattered throughout the Wikispace in a variety of locations scavenger-hunt-style, it is explained that One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". But, obviously, adding more amendments - and amending the amendments or amending the amended amendments - will be great. We may also want to consider having the foundation retain a full-time archivist to keep track of all the addendums, corollaries, and amendments to this three-month restriction. Maybe someone can bring that up to the Trustees. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support 4# seems like unnecessary surplusage to me. It just seems it puts an additional burden on everybody involved and may well likely lead to a slippery slope whereby that may become the norm if we allow it to be a set precidence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and Support Extension of Restrictions to All Editors and Reviewers Who Have Had 3+ Hooks, or 2% of Lifetime Total Hooks, Pulled Three content errors in hooks or reviews, or 2% of lifetime total, being the cited threshold in the original ANI for which I was sanctioned, it seems reasonable these restrictions be extended to all equally serious transgressors to protect the integrity of DYK. In a back-of-napkin review of the volumes of hooks that, just in the last month, have been pulled, there are by my count at least 9 editors (including 2 admins) who are sanctionable under these standards. Obviously these are very good restrictions intended to protect DYK and were not targeted enforcement to mask a non-sanctionable dispute. But, if we don't extend them to all equal and worse transgressors - when we are easily able to identify who they are - then people will question if this is DYK's Southern Methodist University moment. LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, you ended up with a sanction not because a couple of your hooks were pulled, but because your dismissive responses to the administrator concerned raised questions about whether you were taking your responsibilities as a DYK reviewer seriously. You may not be worse than some other reviewers here, but when you stick your head above the parapet in a show of defiance, you make yourself a target. Take the right lesson from this experience and avoid a repeat of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's the real reason. So if that's the reason, how will three months of double reviews improve my deference to the majesty of said Admin? Sanctions are supposed to be imposed to protect the project, not as punishment. And yet here I essentially get dish washing duty for Contempt of Admin (an Admin who, BTW, has faced almost daily criticism from other editors of a more acute nature than anything I ever said). LavaBaron (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you got your restrictions because of contempt for the content rules, because your responses in those discussions showed that you didn't care ahout makng sure that DYK hooks were error-free (like Gatoclass said, "dismissive responses [...] raised questions about whether you were taking your responsibilities as a DYK reviewer seriously."). I have seen nothing recently that changes that impression, and many indications that the restrictions should be made permanent (or you booted from DYK altogether). Fram (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, it's not a matter of showing "deference" to administrators - it is, rather, a matter of showing respect for the rules that protect the encyclopedia. So long as you do that, you should have little to fear from any admin. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass with due respect (and I actually mean that, not as a snide aside as it's sometimes used) - in the case of the two errors cited, I already admitted they were both in error prior to these restrictions being applied. However, I also challenged Fram's way of conducting himself in dealing with errors, something that has become increasingly cited by other editors as here. The restrictions are not protecting WP since we've established my error rate is not higher than the average Wikipedian and I already admitted my mistakes. Let's call a horse a horse. This is busy work, dishwashing duty, "8 hours of peeling potatoes" - that's all. It's punishment, not a protective measure. LavaBaron (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support if only to stem the flow of sarcastic bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've treated these restrictions with the seriousness they deserve. (insofar as it concerns expressions of my opinion regarding them) LavaBaron (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

See above. I support just to curtail the ongoing crap-spouting. There are far more important issues here, like the ongoing piss-poor quality of promoted hooks from many different editors and admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Gatoclass made a good point and so I support Deryck's proposal to drop #4. Andrew D. (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but actually I would suggest removing all DYK restrictions on LavaBaron. The restrictions are punitive rather than rehabilitative, and result in a requirement for other editors to do extra reviews. At a time when there is an accumulation of 150 or so unreviewed nominations, this extra work is adding to the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • it is debatable whether this page is even the right one to discuss the removal of #4; but a full removal (or extension, broadening, whatever) of the restrictions should be discussed at WP:AN, not here. Fram (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • This discussion was cross-posted at AN from the start. Deryck C. 15:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks. The other way round would have been better, but so be it. Fram (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: I saw the point of #4 as being to improve Lava's skills, but there is no doubt that the present rationale is flawed for reasons already mentioned. In my opinion, there should be consequences for demonstrably poor reviews in the form of additional reviews and scrutiny, though I am not sure whether this is the right place for the discussion. "Demonstrably poor", however, needs careful consideration because some pulled hooks have serious flaws and should never have been promoted and some are cases where point-making is occurring, so it can't be based just on pulled hooks. There are cases where I have made comments on nominations that had a tick and so they were fixed before making it to prep, which is an example of the process working but also a case where the reviewed was just as flawed as if it had made into queues or the main page before being pulled. Bad reviews are a problem, and we need to do something about them. Not all reviewers are bad, however, and mistakes do happen. Unfortunately, a situation where DYK contributors feel hounded, unfairly disrespected, and attacked is not conducive to calm discussion of needed change, and the atmosphere here is provoking unhelpful but understandable defensiveness at present. By all means, remove restriction 4 if it is not helping anything, but recognise that the issues here are bigger than LavaBaron's restrictions. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just to point out, Fram is correct above - any modification or lifting of community imposed restrictions needs to be handled at the same venue as they were imposed. As this was imposed at AN, any relaxation or lifting in part/whole discussion needs to be handled there. I suggest someone move the conversation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting that Deryck C can't change a restriction he imposed based on a consensus discussion, according to Fram, but Fram asserts he can ignore anything he wants in doing what he wants at DYK irrespective of consensus discussions over the history of the project (paraphrasing)... EdChem (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Interesting, yes. The difference between local consensus and global consensus. Fram (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, the difference between admin-is-necessarily-superior-to-peon-editors attitude and collaboration. Maybe you could try the second once in a while? EdChem (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
        • No, not "admin-is-necessarily-superior-to-peon-editors attitude", I don't think you have followed me around enough if you believe that that would ever be my attitude. Facts and errors are not based on consensus (someone here at DYK once tried that approach, that I wasn't allowed to pull hooks because three or more people had approved the hook and I alone had found fault with it, and I thus had to wait for a stronger consensus against the hook before I could pull it; needless to say that that was not heeded) and a rule that would state that one can only pull a hook if one then does a DYK review (or somesuch, see above) would be counterproductive and rather ridiculous (as explained above, this would mean that the ones producing the incorrect review would be able to use it for QPQ, but the one doing the actual legwork to check the hook thoroughly wuold then be required to do another review as punishment). As for collaboration: all I see is someone else coming here to find fault with the editors preventing errors from reaching the main page and trying to do something about it, both at the level of the hooks and at the level of what causes these errors, not someone trying to find a workable solution to reduce the number of erroneous hooks that reach the prep areas or further. Fram (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions

As per EdChem's and Cwmhiraeth's suggestions, I move a counter-proposal for the full lifting of restrictions against LavaBaron. Edit: Adding sig and, to clarify, this is not a "vote" on lifting the restrictions, but a confidence test to see if the consensus by which the original restrictions were imposed still exists. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as per nom LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support if it curtails the endless sarcastic bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was the second reviewer on some LavaBaron reviews and found no problems. I am a bit more picky about hook wording, but that is no reason to keep the restrictions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. For starters, above he says " in the case of the two errors cited, I already admitted they were both in error prior to these restrictions being applied."; yes, you denied having made errors until it became clear that you would get sanctioned and then switched positions and admitted them, presumably in the hope that this admission would reduce the restrictions. There were also, as had been pointed out time and again, more than two errors in that episode. You now use that forced admission to reduce the restrictions even further. There has not been enough time to see if the restrictions have improved anything, we have Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Lachlan which you incorrectly approved, we now have Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor which you proposed and was swiftly rejected. The quality of your DYK work hasn't improved one bit. Perhaps (no, probably) other restrictions are necessary instead of these ones, but simply removing the ones we have would be counterproductive and send the message that he is doing a good job, when the opposite is true (that he isn't the only one with these problems is not a reason to lift the restrictions here of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just so we're clear on this, Deryck Chan did not make this counter proposal. It was added by LavaBaron — Maile (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was self-evident by my sig in the first !vote, but I've added it to the proposal line as well so that there's no ambiguity. LavaBaron (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It has been what? A little over a month since the restrictions were put in place? Anyone else would have this speedy closed as a too-soon request to lift restrictions put in place by the community. Also, requesting it here instead of at AN (where it belongs) seems like you are further trying to get around community sanctions by putting this appeal in a lower trafficked area. You literally have two more months before the restrictions are automatically reviewed and potentially lifted. Wait. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is up to ANI to designate an admin to perform the required reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The restrictions are punitive rather than rehabilitative, and result in a requirement for other editors to do extra reviews. At a time when there is an accumulation of 150 or so unreviewed nominations, this extra work is adding to the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is posted too soon and in the wrong forum, and that'd be enough to oppose. But on the merits, Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor is sufficient to give me pause. I just can't be confident that disruption and shenanigans would not continue if the ban is lifted. I have no objection to appointing an admin for the upcoming review, but that too is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, there is a general consensus the article Hillary Clinton brain damage hoax is a GF article, even among those !voting "Delete." No one has raised any suggestion this article constitutes "disruption" or "shenangians." Brianga, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree all went to the exceptional step of affirming this was a GF article in their "Delete" !votes while DrCruse has opined it is unquestionably notable. Everyone on WP who has been a substantial new article contributor has had articles deleted. Having an article AfD'ed is a routine part of the collaborative approach. The suggestion I have ever engaged in "shenanigans" was not even part of the original restrictions, it was a question of QPQ accuracy and my unfortunate tendency to be dismissive towards admins and refer to them using inflationary diminutive monikers. I entirely resent this out-of-the-blue and vicious accusation that is unsupported by anything in my vast history of contributions. I don't care if you !vote "Oppose" but retract your unrelated attack. You can question my QPQ accuracy and my attitude toward critiques, but my content contributions on this project are absolutely beyond reproach. LavaBaron (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your editing history or restrictions. My AFD nomination was based solely on WP:PROFRINGE. I take no position on this debate. Brianga (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but, as per your remarks [93], [94], you confirm your belief the article in question was a GF article? LavaBaron (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Lavabaron, I'm not saying you've been disruptive as such. I'm saying that I question the wisdom of submitting Hillary Clinton brain damage hoax to DYK, and based on that (and your responses here and elsewhere), and having never really interacted with you previously, I just don't have confidence that your work in this area will be drama-free if the restrictions are lifted. Perhaps I'm wrong - but that's not what this section is discussing. Is there support to remove the restrictions? I don't see, in your edits, anything that would lead me to support that. Perhaps it's a NOTYET thing, rather than a NOTEVER thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It was not my intent to suggest that a complete removal of restrictions should occur. I think that a process for requiring error-prone editors to have their reviews checked is reasonable in principle, as part of a set of approaches for dealing with repeatedly sub-par reviews. Contrary to the claims of some, there are DYK editors who recognise the problem of poor reviews and the need for change. I just believe that the broader issue is more important than these specific restrictions, and while restriction 4 could serve a reasonable purpose, it does not serve the purpose it claims of providing a balancing of QPQs. EdChem (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

• Response to Fram: In your first example, I (a) merely endorsed the approval already given by another editor and subsequently accepted by a reviewing promoter (neither of whom you are calling for restrictions upon, possibly caricaturing your focus on me as a case of ruffled feathers over a past slight and underscoring the abusive use of the sanctioning process to kneecap personal "adversaries"), and, (b) the idea that it was "incorrectly approved" is, itself, currently being debated with you cornered into what has become an increasingly customary contrarian and minority viewpoint.
  

In the second example, I voluntarily withdrew - of my own initiative - the nomination before it advanced to prep, queue, or posting; a demonstrated ability at re-analysis and reconfiguration, if anything, serves as a great example of my cognizance of the correct application of the DYK process. Indeed, I almost brought it up myself - thank you for highlighting it! Hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"I (a) merely endorsed the approval already given by another editor" Thanks for pointing out that you did not do a proper review yourself, even though that was required by your restrictions. @Deryck Chan: I leave it to you or other uninvolved admins to deal with this restriction violation. "b) the idea that it was "incorrectly approved" is, itself, currently being debated with you cornered into what has become an increasingly customary contrarian and minority viewpoint." You must be reading a different discussion then, as no one there is still debating whether this was incorrectly approved or not, and the hook was corrected accordingly. As for your "great example of my cognizance of the correct application of the DYK process.", of course, nominating an article that gets rejected almost immediately by the first reviewer, and then gets AfD'ed by a second reviewer, and then is resoundingly rejected at that AfD, is something to be proud of. Fram (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Restriction violation?" Oh goodness gracious, Fram! As per the editing restrictions: "One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because..." Isn't this becoming just a little much? Relax - LavaBaron (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The restrictions are listed at the start of this section. I see "For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor." Your quote above is not part of the editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The restrictions have since been clarified by the restricting admin through interpretive notes in response to specific questions posed by third-party editors. That particular part of the codex is archived here. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else. All the best - LavaBaron (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So, did you review that incorrect hook? Or just rubberstamp it?Fram (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram - happy I was able to help you find that section of the restrictions. Now, as to your question: as previously stated, after evaluating the original reviewer's rationale for approving Worm That Turned's nomination by process of comparison against the content of the article, and possessing the options to either endorse or not endorse the reviewer's rationale, I endorsed the approval already given by Surtsicna and subsequently accepted by Casliber. Best wishes - LavaBaron (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't previously state that, but thanks, I guess. So not a restriction violation, simply another incorrect review. And could you please try to post your posts in one go, instead of the four you needed for this one or the 5 for a previous one? it causes multiple edit conflicts and makes it hard to be certain a reply still matches the post one thought one was replying to. Fram (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Fram! LavaBaron (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Response to Majora: Hi Majora - I put it here because this is a counter-proposal to the proposal for amendment of the terms offered by the sanctioning admin who posted it here (cross-posted to AN). This is why it's threaded within that proposal. I'm working to keep a logical and concise flow of discussion, not "get around" anything. As to why it's been requested after a month, it's simply because there was a spontaneous surge of calls for the lifting of the restrictions made by several valued and tenured community members like EdChem and Cwmhiraeth so it seemed appropriate, in the interest of realizing fulfillment of the aspirations and ambitions of the community for how they would like to organize their DYK, that a quick confidence test be performed. I'm of the opinion that discussion is never a bad thing and don't believing in rationing the quantity of dialog on WP or society generally, though to the question of ending the restrictions I'm mostly fine either keeping or ending them. Hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

CSD F5: deletion conversion?

I've been going through some files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old to delete old versions per F5. Some files e.g. File:Virtue97.jpg have very old versions which have been selectively deleted, but this method of applying F5 has been deprecated since I don't know when (it was before my time, anyway). This means that if, say, the file is renamed in future, the file history is not kept with the page history. Obviously these moves have gone on for a long time and it's not really worth a massive clean-up job. Going forward, though, when I come across such a situation, I plan to undelete old versions so they can be RevDeled instead. I guess I wanted to check if that's OK and to suggest it to other admins who handle this. BethNaught (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pure technical change the way I see it. Do as your time schedule dictate, I don't think such a change has any major benefits or drawbacks. Only thing, check that the selectively deleted file/revision doesn't contain something terrible that must not be shown to the public for even a split second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC on extended-confirmed protection closed

Members of the community in general, and admins in particular, may be interested in the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"security" [sic] concern at Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump

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.

---

An IP editor has been repeatedly removing the address of the Trump Transition Office from the infobox in the article Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump, which is sourced to RS. The IP editor has left a message on my Talk page claiming to be a representative of the Trump Transition Office and requesting the address be obfuscated for "security reasons." I have told them "security reasons" is not a listed criteria for obfuscation of content, but they can contact an arbitrator in event of exceptional threats to life and limb. I'm elbow deep in different drama at DYK and don't have any further time to devote to this new production, so if someone else wants to handle it, be my guest. LavaBaron (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone really care about the address of the "Trump Transition Office"? Doesn't it fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It very well may, but the template Infobox Organization provides a "Location" field which, by longstanding convention, is populated with physical addresses. We may want to consider proposing the infobox be amended to remove this field, as per The Rambling Man's observation vis a vis WP:NOTDIRECTORY. LavaBaron (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove it from the article (or allow it to be removed) and conduct the wider discussion elsewhere. This doesn't require an admin. Just some common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. The IP editor specifically requested to speak with an arbitrator to express their "security concerns" and I felt it was my duty to communicate this request for editors unable to do so themselves. But I understand your position and will close this thread. LavaBaron (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2016 (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.

 As per RamblingMan, no further attempts to stop removal of address will be attempted; a discussion on removing the "location" field from the Infobox Organization will occur at Template Infobox Organization. LavaBaron (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Call for CfD Closers

WP:CFD has been running a large backlog again lately, as is usual. If any editors (especially admins and experienced closers who may not have worked with categorization in the past) are interested in helping to work on the backlog but don't feel they're prepared to jump right into closing discussions at CfD, please feel free to message me on my user talk. I'm happy to help you get started via mentoring. Non-admins are able to close most discussions at CfD, so that's not a barrier, although the mop is useful. All that's required is a basic knowledge of how consensus operates, a willingness to read policies/guidelines and discuss at length, and a decent amount of CLUE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there are plenty of admins who said in their RfA that they'd address backlogs who could roll up their sleves and get stuck in. Unless, of course, they told porkies. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Education and degrees earned in infoboxes

User:Therequiembellishere is actively removing degrees earned and leaving an edit summary "removing clutter", see this edit and this edit and this edit. Naming an institution without the accompanying degree does not serve the reader and is against the parameter instructions on the template documentation page. The parameter usage states to use the "alma mater" (singular in Latin) field for the last institution attended if that is all that is known, and use the "education" field for degrees earned and year of graduation. I noticed the deletions at Franklin D. Roosevelt when I looked to see where he went to law school. This editor is also changing law schools and medical schools to the parent university in multiple entries using piping. See here for instance. I expect to see a law school or medical school for those degrees, not the parent university. I find it confusing to click on a link and take me to a different entry: "| alma_mater =[[University of Virginia School of Law|University of Virginia]]" I can see using the piping in the reverse, say, if we do not have an entry for a medical school, display the medical school and pipe to the parent institution: "| alma_mater =[[Trump University|Trump University of Real Estate and Law and Medicine]]" Seeing the names of two universities and not knowing the degrees earned there, is confusing to me as a reader. I could use help in reversing their changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, Therequiembellishere is correct in that the alma_mater parameter should contain only the schools last school attended, but if more information (graduation date, degree) is available, it should stay in the infobox and the parameter should be changed to education, which the documentation at {{infobox person}} suggests is appropriate for more detailed information. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the template instructions say alma_mater is singular and only the last school attended should be listed. Now I see he is reverting the changes made by a third party, who converted the field to education. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is ridiculously redundant to education. I think someone just wanted to show off their mastery of Latin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Help is need to rollback migrate his changes to the "education=" field: massive number of changes --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAN, you have been here long enough to know that you must notify the other editor of a discussion here. I have done that for you. I can't tell if this is behavioral or a simple content dispute, but I'm inclined toward the latter at this point. Katie^talk 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Therequiembellishere has been removing/changing entries for Alma mater field to display only the institution (where previously they may have had degrees, the law school etc) which is correct *for that field*. Alma mater should list institution only. However where degrees etc are known, the education field should be used instead. A better action would be (where education is known) to swap the alma mater to education. However that is a content issue. There is a discussion on the template talk page, which is where it should stay. RAN wants to use rollback to remove all Therequiembellishere edits, despite their validity, which would be an inappropriate use of rollback. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard is the perfect place to discuss this. I don't want to "remove all Therequiembellishere edits". Despite your hyperbole, I just want to fix his egregious errors that violate consensus on the template instructions. Especially where they reverted changes back to the wrong format multiple times. I count over 100 removals of the information and I need help doing it. Wikidata uses this field for importing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dont be disingenous. You stated you wanted to rollback their (perfectly valid on the face of it) edits and linked to their contribution history. Any half-intelligent person knows you meant 'the edits which offend me' not 'his entire edit history' despite that being what you linked to. This is a content dispute. You think the infobox should say one thing that is in disagreement with another editor who has been making good faith edits that are not incorrect - keeping in mind in many cases they are reversing the edits of User talk:Masageee33 who was blocked for making those edits in the first place. You would prefer alma mater gets changed to education. Well go ahead and do it and stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You are ranting, and misspelling too. Change "Dont be disingenous" to "Don't be disingenuous". If you want me to take you seriously, start with taking English grammar seriously. User talk:Masageee33 was blocked improperly without an ANI report, that editor was correct, User talk:Masageee33 is incorrect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet they were still blocked. Perhaps you should go whine to the admin who did it and tell them they were wrong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Bitafarhadi

hi all EnWiki sysop , Bitafarhadi is back (1) , in checkuser is confirmed he is used sockpuppetry for trolling with have new sockpuppets (SuksGu , Glayol , PersianGuyz , AmirMuhammad1) --Florence (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this something a local check user would have to look at too? I'm also surprised the accounts weren't globally locked since the sock master's account is a globally locked account. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Note: SuksGu is not a registered account. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:PersianGuyz does say at the bottom that they are an alternate account of User:AmirMuhammad1, they are apparently an earlier account and were disclosed as such by Amir. AmirMuhammad1 was renamed yesterday by the frwiki bureaucrat and global renamer Céréales Killer to User:TheStrayDog. None of these accounts are locally blocked. I cannot speak Farsi; is it somewhere said that these accounts are linked to the Bitafarhadi sockfarm? Ruslik0? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Bitafarhadi and all old accounts are stale by now - it is impossible to check them. Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@AFlorence: hello , you mean User:Bitafarhadi might hacked my user name?? cuz i haven't been for two days here .. for what reason?? who is User:Bitafarhadi and what is the relation among he/she and my former accounts in Persian wiki ?? please inform me what is going on right now? by the way i signed in with my second account and said that is an alternative of me officially, but i informed Gonzo fan27(an admin) before about my second an he/she said you better dont edit with your second. thanks anyway The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@AFlorence: is this a frame-up, cuz you are saying a claim i have relation with a suck puppetry , i didnt know before. this is just my opinion and maybe it isnt real: i think you wanna hunt me cuz you and me started an edit war at Ahvaz article but i invited you for discussing and stopping edit warring in its talk page here , am i right ?? why you didnt reply me? and then you are starting a frame-up against me? i dont have any relation with any suck puppet in En wiki . yes i did a suck puppetry in Persian wiki and i have been punished at that wiki for that, but first this is an another independent wiki and second i didnt suck puppetry here anytime. please stop claiming against me otherwise i will want an admin to check my IP's actions and show you its just a frame up and personal vengeance (i think) but if you dont have any bad reason and my opinion isnt right then i dont have any complaint against you , cuz we are all fellows and friends here . health and wealth The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 16:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

investigation about this frame-up against me

hello dear admins it seems User:AFlorence dont want to reply about his/her action against me! ( i left a talk back in his talk page). i said i dont have any kinda relation with User:Bitafarhadi and its sockpuppetry and other accounts of it . but he listed my accounts and my sockpuppetry in Persian wiki which i have been punished for it in Persian near by bitafarhadi's user name. i didnt any sockpuppetry in English Wiki . but he sentenced me and related me to another material in . also im so confused and i dont know what i can do to show i dont have any relation with Bitafarhadi and why AFlorence listed my accounts nearby Bitafarhadi and why he/she want to say i am Bitafarhadi!!!. i think its a frame-up and needs an investigation because i invited him to stop edit warring and disscuss about the subject in Talk:Ahvaz i think maybe he is angry about that and want revenge on his acts but i stopped editing there and he didn't reply to my discussing(?) anytime . thanks any way. The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 18:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protect 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.

---

Sorry if this is not the place to go, but there has been a large amount of vandalism on the page Perth Modern School, and I have already reverted twice and cannot revert again, and I was wondering if someone could semi-protect the page. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Josh, just a couple points to help you out. Glad to see you're respecting WP:3RR, however that doesn't apply to common vandalism such as this, so feel free to revert it again if it comes up. Also the bets place to go to request protection is the request for page protection page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I'm more in the content generation section and have never really done any vandalism fighting before. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2016 (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.

Ban appeal of Antidiskiminator

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

The ban is lifted, per WP:ROPE and WP:AGF. If problems resume, return here to request reinstatement. My decision is motivated by the quality and thoughtfulness of the "support unban" comments and the wisdom of those making those comments. The "opposes" aren't convincing. I am most convinced by the sentiments that (1) self-abasement is never required, and (2) after two years it's time to clean house and give this editor another chance, and (3) the ban consensus was borderline at best. Sanctions shouldn't last forever, generally. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Almost two years ago I was topic banned by Drmies (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.

This is a link to discussion regarding my first ban appeal. At that ban appeal, I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime, the list is much longer with 97 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because I am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to the restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.

Although most of the votes in support of my ban (especially Joy, Peacemaker67, IJA, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Bobrayner, No such user, ...) came from editors who had been involved in numerous disputes with me, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic area by strictly following wikipedia policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors. Based on the recommendations (here and here) from editor (Ceradon) who closed my last ban appeal link my plan in the topic area I was banned from for a probation of one year two years includes:

• 10RR restriction
• limiting the amount of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools. I underline here that I was wrong and made mistake for not doing it before.
• If any of above mentioned editors explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to relevant noticeboard.
• limiting the amount of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
• limiting the amount of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year

Apart from group of editors who reached consensus to ban me and keep me banned, I would appreciate if only uninvolved editors would present their !votes for lifting the ban. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• • I am very grateful to all support !votes to my ban appeal. To show my gratification I will amend my above proposal and change one year probation period to two years and 1RR restriction to 0RR restriction in the topic area I was banned from. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, AD. Our most recent contentious interaction was at Talk:Marin Temperica, where I found a non-trivial error in a related topic area that you appeared to have made, and failed to correct it after an editor pointed it out (and this was four months after your latest ban appeal). It reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skaramuca, and I started to fret. But, once I clarified the complaint further, you handled it reasonably well. I liked that, and honestly it was a relief. I don't know if your restraint and graciousness there was helped by the fact that you still had this this topic ban here.

The main troubling part in this appeal is that you still seem to think that since many of us were involved in disputes with you that this rendered the ban somehow less valid. It has been said over and over again - there aren't that many editors in the WP:ARBMAC space and the fact that so many managed to see a serious problem was more damning than exculpatory.

My feelings are mixed at this point. I'll defer judgement after I see some more input from others. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• I say let's lift the ban. The editor seems to want to avoid further problems, and I'm sure if they slip up any uninvolved admin can reinstate it quickly. The risk is minimal, and lifting it would being a good content creator back to the area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Lifting the Ban - seems legit LavaBaron (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the ban; there was a long-term problem of POV-pushing and adversarial editing, and I've seen no evidence that would stop. On POV-pushing, well, Antidiskriminator asks for the ban to be lifted by citing a high volume of editing (which is at worst part of the problem, and at best utterly irrelevant to NPOV problems). As far as the adversarial editing is concerned, Antidiskriminator helpfully provides us with a list of perceived adversaries (it's difficult to find somebody active on Balkan articles who hasn't been involved in a dispute with Antidiskriminator). bobrayner (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Lifting the ban. While this is an improvement on last year's request to have the ban lifted, it's still not satisfactory. In particular, it's concerning that AD is still stating that the ban was somehow mainly the result of comments from editors they had been involved with in an attempt to undermine it (even if this was originally true, the similar views expressed by the editors he or she had been interacting with and near-total lack of editors defending them is obviously grounds for concern, and the discussion of the ban last year attracted much wider coverage) and that he or she was "topic banned by Drmies". The ban was imposed by the community in 2014, and re-endorsed by the community last year. This suggests to me that the conduct which led to the ban is likely to re-occur. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• CommentOppose I appreciate the ping. Obviously I'm involved, but so are most of the regular editors in the space Ad wants to return to, and in my view our perspectives are equally as valid as those of uninvolved editors. At this stage I am tending to agree with Bobrayner and Nick-D. Ad's user page is a case in point (just click on "Useful links). He refuses to get the point as to why he was TBANed in the first place, which gives me no confidence that his behaviour will be any better if the TBAN is lifted. He maintains subpages where he lists, in significant detail, every single tendentious thread he's created on various articles, and lists of articles he now won't edit because of his "hurt feelings" because his tendentious behaviour on the talk page was called out for what it was. Much of Ad's objectionable behaviour was on talk pages, not in articles, so a 1RR restriction seems pointless in that regard. Given his expressed interest in the Ottoman Empire, I'd be willing to consider reducing his TBAN to "Serbs and Serbia 1924-current (broadly construed)", as the Ottoman Empire folded in 1923, and that still keeps him clear of WWII and later. He has already had a TBAN lifted after which he just went back to his previous behaviour. If the TBAN is adjusted or lifted, the community needs to be willing to impose significant ARBMAC discretionary sanctions if he goes back to his previous behaviour; I'm talking a substantial block followed by re-imposition of the current TBAN with a minimum two year no-appeal period. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of User:Antidiskriminator/Articles I will not edit nor comment, where section headings are thinly veiled references to other users. That's... less than reassuring. I looked at my reference and it's to a now-deleted article's talk page, [95] / [96] (links visible to admins). I'll re-read it again later and try to see how I could have done better. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read it twice now and I guess I see the problem. The discussion basically ground to a halt because AD employed methods of communication that have frustrated me to no end in the past, and I just lost patience to try to engage in a more productive manner. He was citing snippets from Google Books based on *snippets*, not an actual reading of the relevant text. I tried to click all those book links again and use the Google Books search within, and in the Croatian author's book I found the snippet to page 87 as AD mentioned, but right below it also page 111 which says that these people called Skaramuca are Croats. Add to that that the book was published in 1991 - I'm not very comfortable with citing that by default. So this was basically another one of those situations that led me to propose this topic ban - AD was citing something to try to prove a Serbian-ish POV statement, while disregarding conflicting Croatian-ish POV statements found in the same set of sources. It's an incongruous editorial method at best, and because it happens in WP:ARBMAC topic area, it's often harmful to the encyclopedia. There's little to no promise of disputes being actually resolvable, because the underlying cause remains unresolved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW Joy, your experience mirrors mine to a significant extent particularly the use of cherry-picked snippets and failure to place material in proper context. I just don't see a way to address this behaviour other than a TBAN. It is a consistent modus operandi demonstrated on many talk pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate Nick-D's clarification/parsing of "topic banned by Drmies"; indeed, it was a community decision and I don't think it could have gone any other way. Personally, and I think I said this last time, I don't have much of a problem with a (partial) lifting of the ban, but I'm hardly an active editor in the area so I wouldn't be the one suffering from any possible disruption. Sure, the nay-sayers were active in that ban discussion and the subsequent unban discussion, and they are active in that field--that's simply how this goes. There's more editors than that half a dozen or less editors, but not many of them spoke up in Antidiskriminator's defense. I found that unfortunate but again, that's how it goes: communities are made up of microcommunities, and here is one which apparently saw little promise in the unban appeal last year. Peacemaker67's proposal is perhaps a good begin to start a discussion, but I have to say, AD, naming names of your opponents already backs them into a corner and is not very likely to make any of them change their mind, or the minds of those who may listen to them. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of ban. I guess I also still count as "involved", having occasionally clashed with Antidiskriminator on a small set of issues (though nowhere around the bulk of what he edits). In my perception, having a look over his recent contributions in the fields he's not topic-banned from, he is still the same old type of tendentious "polite POV warrior" – a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging other editor over content disagreements, but covers up his stonewalling under a fixed facade of never-failing formal "civility". A brief look over his (sparse) talkpage engagements in the last few months gives this [97], a brazen-faced defense of a rather blatant piece of tendentious WP:OR in an article he wrote, completely ignoring the valid point of criticism raised by another editor. The article in question (almost exclusively his work) is a nightmare of bad writing and plain bad English, and in effect a completely unnecessary POV fork of a much better (though arguably over-long) section in the main Skanderbeg article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Fut.Perf., let me take this opportunity to clarify something for this thread: while Antidiskriminator notes that the named editors are "involved" with his case, that in no way means that they are not allowed to participate, or that their opinion holds no value. You, as an admin, could possibly be WP:INVOLVED (I don't know, I haven't looked into it) but, Antidiskriminator, if Fut.Perf. were INVOLVED with you, that would only mean that it would be wise for Fut.Perf. not to take administrative action against you (unless specified as exempt in INVOLVED and blah blah); it does not mean that his opinion here isn't appreciated. "Involved" is frequently used on ANI as a kind of pre-emptive deterrent (not saying that's what's happening here), but that really doesn't mean a lot. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd second that. I'd also note that from reading the previous discussions of the bans its obvious that the editors who had been in dispute with AD were supportive of the ban due to legitimate concerns, and weren't out to get them (the rare occasions when this occurs are usually painfully obvious, and typically involve editors who are already not in good standing - neither of which was true here). Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Notice how the problem is that he engaged what appears to be a pro-Albanian POV editor, and they had a largely fruitless discussion. Or at least that's my impression reading that discussion - the issue of WP:CFORK was brushed aside in favor of pontificating over nationalist terminology. This is the risk that comes with having editors that do not have true, battle-tested NPOV sensibilities - they will fail to improve the encyclopedia, and may well cause problems. Only the amount of these issues is in question. I know it sounds horribly elitist when I put it that way, but painful experience teaches me that it really boils down to that. Just like not everyone can make quality physics articles, not everyone can make quality history articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove', per rope. Can always reban if AD becomes problematic again. A topic ban imposed after a total of 5 votes, at least 3 of which were people either (at the time) currently or previously in content disputes with AD... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Until Antidiskriminator is willing to explain, in their own words, what actions they undertook that caused them to be t-banned in the first place. I like to see unbanned editors identify their own mistakes and identify the steps the will prevent them from re-occuring. Confession is the first step to reconciliation. --Adam in MO Talk 01:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Changed to Support. I had originally thought that since this editor had not shown an understanding of what lead to the ban in the first place that, such an understanding should be demonstrated before returning. After this time period, though, I changed my mind and I think we should give them another opportunity. Thanks Bishonen, for speaking with reason and compassion.--Adam in MO Talk 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Of course it is, compare (mutatis mutandis since it's about blocks, not bans) item 6 in the Optimist's guide to Wikipedia: "When people insist that before blocked users can be unblocked, they must apologise, admit their mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that they understand why exactly they were blocked and how right it was that they should be, or show remorse, it's probably not because the insister would like to see a show trial or ritual humiliation. More likely they have some psychiatric training and know how important it is to resolve conflicts and seek reconciliation, and how much better the delinquent would feel afterwards." (There's some good hidden text in there, too, not sure who added it.) What I'm trying to say is that I support lifting the ban and giving AD a second chance, without requiring any self-abasement by him. It's been two years and, as Only in death points out, the original TBAN discussion was somewhat skinny. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

I can't help but think discussion appeared too short because nobody wants to read all the linked walls of text that had led to it. (No slight intended - I often don't want to do it either.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen. Yes, recognition of past errors is important and frequently helps speed along such requests, but ritualized abasement is quite another matter. In overt cases of total malfeasance I and others have asked for an allocution of previously committed crimes, for instance sock accounts etc., but these were POV accusations, and much more is in the eye of the beholder/community. I repeat that I think it would be a good idea for AD to indicate what precisely they think they won't do that get them in hot water before, and I repeat to AD's opponents that we should be willing to give them a chance. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I also think many admins and other interested parties don't work in ArbCom areas, and steer clear of any discussions that touch on them. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we complain that no-one else other than "involved" editors will give their opinion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

'Question to the OP You have just changed one of your proposals to acceptance of 0RR in the area of your topic ban. This will mean that you will be unable to make any edits in that area. How is this any different from your topic ban that you requested be lifted? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• • @DrChrissy: WP:0RR says "The zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts...Editors may also voluntarily agree to abide by a stricter reverting standard such as 1RR or 0RR, either in response to problems in a particular area, or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The reason I sent the post was because I was wondering whether you realised that a normal edit which removes the content of another editor counts as a revert, even if you do not use the revert function. I guess this means that you could make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content, but I wondered whether you realised it will be this restrictive. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @DrChrissy: Thank you for pointing to this. Yes, I did realize that this means that I could make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2016 (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 split

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

---

Can soeone hist-split St Marys and St Peters Church, Barham. Revisions from the 11 August onwards need to stay those prior could do with going back to my sandbox but can otherwise be lost if easier. Amortias (T)(C) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (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 extend rollback right / supply "rollback" button for page creation vandalism

I'm familiar with (some of the) prior discussions of how to lighten admin workload, but I believe I may possibly have made a proposal that in this specific form has not been made before, to extend rollback rights in a very small but potentially useful way. Background is that I had to clean up after a page creation vandal today and found that there was no rollback button available and rather, pages had to be deleted individually. As a side effect of the proposal, ideally admins should get a rollback button to remedy page creation in the simple scenario of a page consisting of just one edit, or, (let's call this version B of the proposal) where the page has only one editor. Please comment at the proposal thread on village pump, thank you. Samsara 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Samsara, something seems to have gone slightly wrong with your proposal. Above you say "ideally admins should get a rollback button to remedy page creation [vandalism]" which would almost certainly be accepted as a proposal if they don't already have that ability, but on the proposal page I only see a proposal for non-admins to delete those pages, which is a perennial proposal that is rejected every time it appears. I suggest proposing the admin version (after checking to see if they can do that already). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here's my understanding. Rollback quickly restores the version of the article prior to the edit or edits of a certain user. It doesn't work with new articles because prior to the article creation there is no version of the article. Samsara's idea seems to be that if an admin rolls back an article that has only one editor, instead of making an error message the rollback performs a deletion of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Except an admin can just delete the article if they want to do that. I read this like Guy Macon, as another of the proposals to give *all* rollbackers the ability to effectively delete vandalism/nonsense articles with only one editor - effectively deletion-by-rollback. Which has been shot down justifiably everytime it comes up. If a proposal for a *new* unbundled 'Delete page if no edits except one user' on a par with the page-mover right level of 'trustedness' - it might get somewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: I don't doubt that "it might get somewhere", but to my mind, it would be a small, rarely used privilege. Does anyone specialise in hunting page creation vandalism? If so, it might make sense for non-admin members of that group of users. However, it makes the most sense if you have BOTH buttons, not just one. Hence my thinking it belongs with the rollback privilege. But I think I've uncovered a deeper problem in that large chunks of the community don't trust our rollbackers - including other rollbackers! This concerns me far more now than the original proposal and looks like something that needs to be addressed. Samsara 21:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that rollback is given out like candy and is routinely misused, it is not surprising. To be fair most uses of rollback are fine, but the potential for damage is less than delete, hence less oversight and 'trust' is required in its usage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

After going to another page and checking off a few boxes. Possibly they first need to realize that the page needs to be deleted rather than rolled back. All this adds extra time, which may be harmless in cases where the vandalized title is not widely watched but if it is a lot more people will see the vandal page. Or attack page if that is what the page is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. This. Thank you. Samsara 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Username 'tjfs' cannot reset password

I believe I used to have the username 'tjfs' but I can't reset the password as there is no email address stored, can you assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipder~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sipder~enwiki, there's really no way for us to do that; the developers won't reset passwords, and nobody else has access to the passwords database. The account only has one edit, so there's not a ton lost anyway. Feel free to create a new account! Your Sipder account apparently got renamed because of the WP:SUL process (see [98]), but you're of course free to continue using it if you don't mind the awkward username. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin Eyes Needed on American Politcs

I feel there is too much battleground and tendentious behavior on articles under Discretionary Sanctions relating to American Politics, e.g. Talk:Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016. I am surprised that we do not have Admins monitoring those pages. I encourage one and all to keep an eye on them and exercise the authority delegated to you by Arbcom if appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, there's two admins in just the most recent thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Never enough admins, I say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin eyes are always welcome and helpful on contentious pages, and American Politics is a particularly contentious area these days. SPECIFICO may not have realized that there are two admins who participate regularly at the Donald Trump articles (I am one). Personally I consider myself involved so I limit my admin actions to deleting and blocking trolls, and issuing warnings. I know of at least two other admins who do not contribute but monitor the page SPECIFICO mentions. I think SPECIFICO is referring to a recent sarcastic comment on the talk page, but IMO it did not rise to the level of needing an official warning or admin action. I should also note that at least four editors have been placed on topic bans from some of those articles, and their absence has contributed to a fairly collegial atmosphere considering the highly charged subject matter. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm the other admin, but like MelanieN I consider myself involved re: Trump-related pages and limit admin actions accordingly. I do encourage more admin patrolling in this area. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am uninvolved admin who monitors Trump and Clinton pages and have protected, warned, and blocked. But I'm not blocking because of a "hint of snark". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already received a taste of what it's like to edit these articles and it isn't good. Content creators cannot edit in good faith in these areas without encountering a host of tendentious and poisonous behaviour by people who are not interested in contributing, only wanting to push their point of view and create drama. I've come across people making false claims, doing drive-by citation-needed tagging on already sourced content, deleting sourced content with spurious and false reasoning, and using their own personal opinions as justification for how articles should be instead of policies and guidelines. People are able to do this freely without any ramifications and it just makes real editors annoyed and not want to edit, because they're spending all their time dealing with troublemakers. The end result is that these articles are absolutely dreadful, because all the good writers have been pushed away and only the troublemakers are left. TradingJihadist (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

TradingJihadist, you started editing with this account yesterday and have focused on Murder of Seth Rich. So what are you basing your observations on? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've experienced all those behaviours while editing that article and dealing with the consequences of editing that article. It makes me not want to waste my time and I imagine it's the same for others. But don't you think it's true? TradingJihadist (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

TradingJihadist, looking at your edits, the pushback and warnings you received were well-deserved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you would be able to justify that, but I doubt you can. You're just making vague assertions. All my edits have been sound. TradingJihadist (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

TradingJihadist, let me ask you straight up. Is this your first account? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Content creators" is not a term brand new editors know... At least not with the quasi-political meaning it has on Wikipedia EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ditto for "doing drive-by citation-needed tagging".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: TradingJihadist has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. MelanieN alt (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe some Admins could also take a gander at Murder of Seth Rich and its talk and AfD pages, too. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There's some ugly SOAPBOX, BLP smears and other off topic nonsense -- all politically-charged -- at the AfD page of this article. I'd again like to enlist some Admin review. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. You can barely parse the policy arguments there anymore.--Savonneux (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)