Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive285

Admin accounts still getting compromised

Hi all - little surprised this hasn't been posted a little more...prominently.. but there are still administrator accounts getting compromised, and you should be taking action to prevent your account being used maliciously. More information on the actual incident can be found here on Commons and a more recent update here.

• Related discussion at WP:BN referencing how to deal with these compromised accounts

To help defend against these compromises please consider;

• Changing your password - Krebs has a great article on the "dos and donts" here
• Enabling two-factor authentication - see above and read this simple guide
• Using a unique password for Wikipedia
• Creating a committed identity

I think I speak for the community when I say this is important, and we need to overcome whatever hold it is these malicious actors have over our credentials. Thank you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah this is a pretty big deal. Can we initiate a forced reset of all admin passwords? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• This would be a nuisance to those who have already changed their passwords. The linked e-mail states "Please change your password, if you haven't already changed it in the last week." Espresso Addict (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Couple of comments. 1. I would strongly recommend the WMF immediately attempt to crack every administrator password via a simple dictionary / rainbow table attack and desysop everyone they get hold of. This is a standard security procedure that is perfectly acceptable. 2. The instructions WP:2FA have got to be super-duper simple that I can do with my brain turned off. "First you must have or install a Time-based One-time Password Algorithm (TOTP) client" - that means I want a direct link to the Apple or Google store that works. The current instructions point to Google Authenticator, an article littered with {{fact}} tags which I normally take to mean "everything in this article is suspicious and may be false". Great. I do not want to have spend time fiddling around with apps on my phone when I get it wrong, while simultaneously trying to deal with my kids who can do it with their eyes shut. You must not run the risk of people thinking it's too much hassle and not bothering. Remember, it is not a requirement to be good with computers or programming languages to become an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Point taken - I've updated the 2FA instructions with some Google Play/iTunes App store links and will try to rewrite some of the guide -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've got 2FA turned on. One more thing, Special:OATH needs to be done on the local wiki where you have administrator rights, the instructions tried to log me in to Meta, where I don't have admin rights. All that said, once I had the app, scanned the code and put the key in, it didn't seem to be any more onerous than accessing internet banking, so my fears are a little alleviated. But we should still make the instructions as good as we can get. How can I help in this area? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I see 2 {{fact}} tags in that article, and they're both on things that are obviously correct to anyone who knows how TOTP works. I wouldn't worry about them. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The 2FA instructions still don't work. I have installed Google Authenticator but "Special:OATH" is a link to an "Unauthorized" page. Admins on a Wikipedia are not automatically admins on Meta-Wiki and so this system simply doesn't work. Also it is not a "mobile phone" but a "smart phone". The two terms mean different things. Tim 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• (Solved it thanks to User:Ritchie333 but these instructions are all over the place. Tim 14:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict × 2) Well I've made an edit-request for the watchlist notice which needs a helpful admin to move over. Other than changing/clarifying the Special:OATH link, is there anything else which could do with some clarification? Personally Ivanvector's suggestion to force-reset everyone's passwords is the next step if we see any other compromises -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved the watchlist notice. Katie^talk 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Katie, and good idea with the committed identity -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll update the help page on meta to state that is needs to be enrolled from wiki you are admin on. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have updated Wikipedia:Simple 2FA as best I can to document what worked for me today, but I can't do much else unless without more testing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

May I make another, somewhat late, suggestion? Include a second suggestion besides Google authenticator. Google is banned in some countries, such as China. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We've included freeOTP and some other options, including a desktop client -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

General discussion

To save people visiting this section from the watchlist notice, I've moved a block of discussion down here -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• UK and EU law does not allow for the WMF (or anyone else for that matter) to forcibly attempt to crack user or admin accounts on Wikipedia. Force-reset the passwords yes, actively crack the account passwords no. There are ways a systems administrator can identify weakly passworded accounts (running the hashed PW against known blah blah blah), but these do no extend to actually identifying the password, as to test it is correct would require logging into it and opening them up to all sorts of data laws regarding accessing private accounts without permission. Consider this a friendly warning before someone starts getting bright ideas about doing their own pre-emptive cracking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That aside (and yes, it wouldn't be a good idea for anyone to try that) - all we expect is our admins to reset their passwords if they haven't already, and strongly consider enabling two-factor authentication. If possible I'd like to see that watchlist notice get done, as some other editors may wish to reset their passwords also - it wasn't just administrator accounts which details were supposedly gained, but its fairly obvious which can cause more damage -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but the ToU specify that any legal claim one might have against the WMF is subject to California law. If that doesn't suffice, WMF should add a clause to the password security section allowing cracking audits for priviledged accounts. BethNaught (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Its a long and detailed discussion but the short version is 'The TOU do not protect the WMF or individual editors/admins in this situation'. If you want a longer explanation pop a note on my talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • And one can well imagine why such laws are necessary. "Hey, it's our site, (we're the bank, the local community org, Wikimedia) let's hack into everybody's account. And as long as we're there...hmmm...let's see if those accounts lead us to access on a person's computer....hmmm...the sky's the limit." — Maile (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea to run a password-cracker program (which I know has been done before), but anything the WMF did in this regard they would do in California through individuals based in California, and I suspect that any objection based on laws of other countries would simply be disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

We aren't doing anything dumb like storing the 'password strength' value in the database, are we? If we are, please contact me. I understand we use PBKDF2 for password storage, which wouldn't be my preference (I prefer bcrypt), but is reasonable provided we are using a reasonable number of iterations. OWASP's Password Storage Cheat Sheet is useful, and this stackoverflow question implies Wikipedia should be using 256,000 iterations as of 2016 (64,000 in 2012, doubling every year, so two doublings). The rule of thumb is to target roughly 1 second of CPU time; I haven't run tests to ensure that's the case. But, given some of the accounts have apparently been hacked while using strong passwords, it's very likely Wikipedia's password storage isn't the source of the compromise, even if we are using a stupidly low number of iterations. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The attackers appear to have a password dump from a different website. They do not appear to be bruteforcing/dictionary attacking passwords directly from our db (either online, or trying to reverse our password hashes), as they are only successfully compromising about one in every 10 accounts they tried. Thus password strength is irrelevant in this attack (That said, please use strong passwords to protect against other potential attackers), the problem is users using the same password on other insecure websites. Do not share your passwords among multiple websites. Please enable 2FA. Thank you. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In the light of the newest batch of compromised accounts, is it worth doing another mailshot round to admins? I ignored the first message as it seemed to skimp over the real reason for sending it and made me think (as I'm sure other admins did) "well of course my account is doing to be compromised!", only to change my mind like Beeblebrox after seeing more cracks. Just a paraphrase of "please change your password ASAP" should be enough - something as simple and idiot proof as you can get it. That TRP had no idea why his account was locked (despite getting the mailshot) suggests the previous mailshot did not work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly worth doing - I believe from a message on Xaosflux's talk that there are discussions of some sort relating to this. I appreciate the possible PR issues and understand why the softly softly approach is needed, but its clear that unless we get a grip on this situation now we're just going to be playing catch-up. Thankfully its eased up, but the attempts are still ongoing, so it will happen again at some point -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• For admins, we certainly can send another enwiki massmessage - suggest they change their passwords and consider enrolling in WP:2FA. There is a MMList here that can be used: Wikipedia:Administrators/Message_list. If this needs to go out to all editors, then we will need a banner campaign (and likely not limited to enwiki!) - or enwiki can put up a sitenotice for logged in users (mass message or watchlist will not be as effective for contacting all editors). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Last time something like this happened we initiated a new policy, WP:STRONGPASS that should have made an attack like this impossible. This was supposed to be a binding policy on all administrators, but apparently a number of them, including Jimbo, ignored it. It was widely advertised at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Password strength is totally orthogonal to the issue being exploited in this attack. The strongest password in the world is useless if you reuse it on other websites that the attacker has access to. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Beeblebrox: as much as having a strong password is important, unfortunately here it would not have helped - the attackers likely gained access to password dumps leaked from earlier hacks of other services (such as the Adobe hack earlier this year) and tried them on Wikipedia. It appears a number of editors and admins have been re-using passwords, which is why this attack worked. The key thing here is to change your password, use a unique password for Wikipedia and consider enabling 2FA -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess we didn't specify that since it seems so basic we shouldn't have to tell admins not to use their facebook password or whatever. It does appear to be mostly users who used their real names, making it easy to tie the two accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• This serious security breach has reminded me why I've always refused to register with WP:UTRS. The registration page says "Warning: Do not use the Labs Project (this site) if you do not agree to the following: information shared with the Labs Project, including usernames and passwords, will be made available to volunteer administrators and may not be treated confidentially". I wonder how many UTRS admins use the same passwords as their Wikipedia accounts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please do not use your wikipedia name/password with stuff on tool labs. Anyone is allowed to create a tool, so the password can go to anybody. All new tools should use OAuth for authentication, which stops tools from needing your password. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Obviously people shouldn't, no, but a UTRS system in which passwords are not confidential is asking for trouble - I was staggered when I found out about it. But can you at least confirm that UTRS was not the source of the current hack? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• I think we return to the WP:NOTSUICIDE argument. The community has a right to protect itself. Admin accounts, if compromised, can do damage. A forced reset and mandatory 2-factor should be the minimum response, especially considering how many inactive admins we have on the books. Audits (although controversial) should be considered. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements#RFC November 2016 let's just make this policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Audits were approved by the community in the RFC that led to the STRONGPASS. As far as I know they have never been done though. Maybe now's the time? It's been a local policy for about a year and was adopted as a global policy as well. WMF staff were active in the global discussion at meta so they are well aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Is there any technical reason that TFA has not been enabled for either all accounts or, to cut down on numbers but catch most active editors, any account with any additional permission? Jbh^Talk 17:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Jbhunley: There simply isn't the infrastructure currently to deal with the people who will inevitably get locked out of their accounts. 2FA wasn't supposed to be rolled out this early at all, but in light of the circumstances it was. In due time it will be enabled for everyone once everything is set up. In the meantime, if you wish to have 2FA enabled on your account all you have to do is ask a steward to add you to the testing group (as I have). This can be done at m:Steward requests/Global permissions. Note that you only need advanced permissions on one CentralAuth wiki. So if you are a sysop on the testwiki for example you can enable 2FA there and it will be enabled here. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think it's technically possibly to automatically enable it as it's also a two step process to set up, because it requires you to enter in a verification code from whatever client you will be getting the tokens from (e.g Google Authenticator, winauth) in order to be paired up with that service. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  "Enabled" as in turn the button that you have to click on. If you aren't a sysop or above on one CentralAuth wiki and you aren't part of the 2FA "testers" group you won't even see the button in your preferences to turn it on. Otherwise, yes. You have to physically enable 2FA by clicking said button. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, gotcha. I misunderstood the question. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Majora: Thank you. Jbh^Talk 01:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any technical reason that TFA has not been enabled for either all accounts or, ... any account with any additional permission? — I suggest that forcing all editors, or even editors with some additional minor-not-admin rights (eg me, with AP, ECo, Rv) to use 2FA might be a bad idea, and might lose editors. I would be reluctant to have to get a smartphone, or install additional software on my PC, just to edit as a registered user. (I currently have a password that easily exceeds WP:STRONGPASS and is not used on any other site.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think "enable" meant "make available for those who want it", not "make mandatory". Right now it's unavailable to regular users, but they are working on that. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Is this a mobile only thing? I do not own a table and do not use my smart phone all that much (in fact I abhor the thing so I make a point to "forget it" as much as I feel I can get away with) and the way I am reading this its primary to defend against mobile editing issues, but I contribute only with a tower and/or laptop. I'm not going to put myself through the aggravation of doing the Texas two-step to log in if this is not an issue for the non-mobile editors (the tower/laptop crowd). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not specifically, you can install a code generator on your computer (see Wikipedia:Simple_2FA#How_to_enable_2FA.2C_the_simple_way_.28desktop_-_Windows.29 for an example). If you do this, keep your setup information very secret so that it can't be used elsewhere. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The traditional way to do it is with a dedicated device that you put on your keys, like this. That's both more convenient and more secure than a software token like on a smartphone, if you don't mind the additional small gizmo. They're around 5 USD each in quantity and I could imagine the WMF issuing them to users with access to private info (CU's etc.) who have to self-identify to the WMF anyway. The WMF issuing them would also make sure that the person supplied a working snail mail address to receive the token. I'm trying to find a place to get them cheap in small quantity for people who want to buy their own. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment One further bit of advice: if you have a password manager and 2FA token on the same device (mobile phone or whatever), then if someone pinches your phone they have both authentication credentials. That may be less of an issue of password dumps getting loose though. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

if you have a password manager ... if someone pinches your phone they have both authentication credentials... — Not necessarily. If you have a password manager that encrypts your passwords with a strong master password/phrase (personally I use Password Safe), and if you keep the password manager locked (with the master password) when not in use, then someone stealing the device gets no passwords - just a database encrypted with a strong password that is only in your head. Of course the attacker may install a keylogger or other snooping software on the device then return it ("evil maid attack"), but that's a different problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That works, but it's asking a bit much to expect most people to enter a complicated master password if their phone is idle for more than a few minutes. I can think of some alternatives but nothing I know of has caught on. Lots of people in fact do exactly what I described, which is why I brought it up as something to be careful about. You're using more cautious procedures than most people are willing to bother with. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Two questions

1) Is this latest hacking activity happening only to admin accounts, or is it part of a wider hacking happening on Wikipedia?

2) How is WP:INACTIVITY monitored? Right now, it doesn't seem like a good idea to have stagnant admin accounts on Wikipedia.

— Maile (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know it is limited to admins. There's little point to hacking an account with no advanced permissions. And don't get me started on the inactive admin policy. I tried to get it beefed up a while back, but everybody insisted that just making one edit every few years was enough to protect the project from rogue admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So far 5 of the compromised accounts have been normal users, however they don't seem to be targeting them as much anymore. Additionally at one point they compromised a crat and used it to promote a normal account they had recently created. However patterns can change, so please secure your account even if you are not an admin. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to find the compromised admin accounts are seem to be people with recent activity. If this were not the case, and the crackers were targeting "sleeper admins", we'd have a brilliant case for strengthening WP:INACTIVITY. But I don't think we do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave up on that after the RFC last year. I presented an example of an admin whose last hundred edits go back eight years, who hasn't used their admin tools in any way in seven years, so basically isn't an admin, but gets to permanently keep the tools so long as every time they are informed they are about to use them, they just reply to the message and -bam- renewed for another two years. Why someone would cling to administrative right they clearly have no intention of using is a bit obscure to me, but apparently enough of the community is ok with it to let it persist. Or maybe, looking back, I didn't do a good enough job presenting the case, I don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: In light of recent events, I think that now is a good time to revisit the current policy on admin inactivity. If you and/or any other users are interested, I'm willing to help draft a new RfC -FASTILY 09:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Fastily: As an editor who has also proposed increasing the activity requirements, this is another good reason for it. I doubt anything will change unless we have proof that inactive editors have been targeted though. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibly related at VPump. This individual has not edited since Dec 2015, but more significantly, has not used the tools since May 2012. And still has the tools. Nobody seems to be saying it's a compromised account, but it's a case for more oversight of tools. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

To be more specific, they used their tools once in 2012, and that is the only time they have used them in the past ten years, before that they used them about fifty times in 03-06, and that's it. But still an admin so long as they make an edit every two years. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference, though, getting back tot the original question, the actua process for removing admins via our current, extremely lax policy i documented at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. All one would have to do is remove themselves from the list there and then they're good for another two years even if they do nothing else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A bot actually updates that, if they make any edit-anywhere, or any log action they will get retained. If the community wants to define a new activity requirement for admins a RfC will need to be passed. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A vote (link) three weeks ago to remove rights from a long term Commons bureaucrat, based on the spirit of the inactivity policy rather than a literal reading, makes for an interesting test case. If only for the fact that the mood of the community is demonstrated by the vote being 100% to remove rights. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would support putting through an amendment to the de-adminship policy permitting some sort of non-adversarial process for doing a similar thing. Perhaps talk with the Arbcom folks about using the committee members as a decision-making panel, to avoid WP:NOTAVOTE issues. When there's concern that an admin with no misconduct issues isn't really going with the spirit of the inactivity policy, the members of Arbcom would then vote on whether the admin should retain rights. Since the voting would be done by the arbitrators as individuals, not as the official committee acting on a case, we'd go to the vote without workshop, case pages, proposed decisions, etc. A decision to remove rights would be treated as any other inactivity case — we would need to be careful to emphasize that the desysop was not some sort of sanction, and the rights-removal log would need to be something like "Procedural removal of +sysop due to inactivity", just like with an admin who just hadn't edited at all. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I do stilll believe the policy needs to be stricter, but I don't want to be the primary drafter of an contentious RFC. I started one on unique passwords because I feel this is an emergency situation and it is important for all admins to know about it and to get it into policy ASAP, but other than that I'm pretty much done with pushing big policy RFCs. I'll happily participate and offer advice to drafters who are interested though. As always, I will shamelessly plug my essay on the subject: User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought that inactive admins got their bit turned off for security reasons, but they could get it back on request if they became active again. If you're saying they'd need a new RFA or something like that, then that would be a hard sell and I'd hope it wouldn't pass. I'd expect there aren't a huge number of inactive admins (> 1 year) so maybe it's worthwhile to send an email reminder to any admins that haven't edited in that long. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins (no logged events in > 1 year) should indeed have their bit removed permanently (or until they pass another RfA). The main issue being admins that haven't edited for a long time and then find themselves doing something wrong because they weren't up to date with current community norms. There have been a couple of examples recently. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh, the same thing happens with active admins. An admin with good common sense is much more valuable than someone who is boned up on the latest wikilawyering but is clueless, even if the sensible admin has some out-of-date knowledge here and there. The cases where someone got in trouble is that they were obnoxious about defending errors instead of saying "oops, I see what you mean, thanks". 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We do all make mistakes here and there, no doubt, but there is an ever-diminishing group of admins who were appointed "back in the day",( usually defined as pre-2007) when RFA was a cakewalk, or in some cases not even done at all. Some of these admins are still active members of the community, but there are some that seem to make an edit once every year or so just so they get to hold onto their bits for another year. Some of them have not actually used their tools in five years or more, yet stubbornly cling to them for no apparent reason. We shouldn't have people holding advanced permisssions if they don't intend to use them, yet our current policy allows exactly that, having no requirement whatsoever regarding actually using admin tools. One edit every two years is all you need to retain admin status indefinitely, and even if you have it removed you still have another year to ask fo it back, and then you're set for another two years. Does that really seem right to anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We have one of the loosest admin activity policies of the "big" Wikimedia wikis - see m:Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies. --Rschen7754 05:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Tools

If we enable 2FA, how are we supposed to login to tools like AWB? Timrollpickering 10:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering:Either the tool is changed to use OAUTH, letting MediaWiki take care of the authenication, or you can use bot passwords. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I use BotPasswords, it has the benefit of setting that logon to not have the full sysop package too (e.g. your AWB BotPassword will not need to block users or delete pages; you can control what access it has). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

New information page and navbox

I've created a new page Wikipedia:Compromised accounts to try to explain why accounts get compromised, and measures that can be taken. Also a new account navbox might help people find account related info more easily, including a/c security.

.

Any comments at all? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a few small edits. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a few copyedits too, though this may overlap with Wikipedia:Personal security practices; perhaps the two should be combined. Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that this may be possible. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Tell people that writing down passwords is much safer than using the same password on every site. That outdated rule ("don't write passwords down") made sense at a time when people only used a computer at work, nowadays it does more harm than good... Prevalence 02:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is saying not to write them down. Generally speaking using password managers is probably the safest technique, but obviously they need to be backed up elsewhere otherwise they are lost from a broken device. Physically writing them is vulnerable to theft unfortunately.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is now open through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. If you wish to participate, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mz7 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc on upgrading the NAC essay to a guideline

Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass (and probably multilingual) addition of unsourced birth dates, etc

The edits of User:Swineposit came to my attention via the article on Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen (see Talk:Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen), but Yamaguchi先生 had already noticed oddities. Swineposit has been most active with birth dates, in particular adding those that are "sourced" by virtue of appearing in Wikipedia articles on other languages, or that are "unsourced", which seems to mean "invented". Yamaguchi先生 blocked him indefinitely; and rightly so, I believe. (And massive thanks to Davey2010 for mass rollbacking.)

It does seem that, whether out of laziness or incompetence, Wikipedia contributors do often pull stuff from articles in other-language Wikipedias. Thus a lot of the poorly sourced and unsourced (probably including fictional) material added to biographical articles here will make its way to their equivalents in French, Japanese, etc. However, there's more. Swineposit nonchalantly talks of editing French- and Macedonian-language Wikipedias. I'd already known that he'd been active on Portuguese-language Wikipedia; it doesn't stop there. Few edits to each of these, but some are newish: Latvian, Asturian, Serbo-Croatian. Few edits to each of these, none of them new: Uzbek, Irish, Kazakh, Basque, Faroese, Dutch, Swahili, Ido, Esperanto, Azeri. This list is not exhaustive. And there may be other usernames involved (cf "MaryCatherineismyname" here).

Oh, and another fun fact: a remarkable percentage of the edits concern 27 March. I'd had no reason to think that this wasn't as humdrum a date as most others, but Wikipedia proved me wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Macedonian (a single, recent edit); French (a lot, some of it recent); Greek (very little, but very recent); German (not much; very recent); Neapolitan (little, old); Russian (little, very recent); maybe more besides. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

And some more: Ilokano (two, this year); Slovenian (quite a few, this year); Afrikaans (one, new); Tamil (one, this year); Nahuatl (several, two of them this year); Malay (two, old); simple English (four, two of them this year). -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, It seems apart from my mass rollback he's been adding unsourced crap for quite some time and has more or less constantly been reverted by various editors too, He's blocked indef and personally I don't think that should change - Ofcourse if someone would mentor the editor then I would perhaps support unblocking providing the unsourced edits stop. –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

And some more: Italian (quite a bunch, several of them this month); Spanish (few, but two of them this month); Turkish (only one, old); Czech (only one, old); Slovak (only one, old); Swedish (only four, but one very recent); Danish (only four, old); Norwegian (Bokmål) (few, but one from this year); Norwegian (Nynorsk) (only one, but it's new); Icelandic (not many, but one from this year). ¶ Again, I have no reason to think that this list is exhaustive. I'd thought that there was some tool that presented stats for any username across the entire range of WMF sites (every Wikipedia, plus Commons, plus very much more); but if it does exist then I can't think where it might be, and some searches have failed to unearth it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hoary: WMFlabs Global user contributions may be what you're looking for. What a mess. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Just what I'd been looking for. Here's Swineposit, who's been active in "104 projects". ¶ I do know that global blocks only work for IP numbers; and that although a "global lock" would do the job, the circumstances wouldn't demand it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, multilingual childishness

Let us consider Dimitrios Maximos (Δημήτριος Μάξιμος): not a household name to most anglophones, but a prime minister and definitely somebody meriting an encyclopedia article free of "factual information" merely plucked from a contributor's fundament. On 11 November 2016, Swineposit added a birth date of 27 March to the English article about this person. (Does 27 March sound familiar?) And on the same day he did the same to the Greek article. Four days later, he did the same to the French article (together with a special bonus).

However, also on 11 November:

• Swineposit added a birth date of 21 March (Portuguese)
• Swineposit added a birth date of 21 March (Russian)
• Swineposit added a birth date of 3 March (Dutch)
• Swineposit added a birth date of 17 March (Italian)
• Swineposit added a birth date of 27 February (Spanish)

-- and yes, all for the same one person, Dimitrios Maximos.

Davey2010 and BlackcurrantTea are right. And if global blocking worked for user IDs and not just IP numbers, I'd apply for a global block of Swineposit right now. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hoary: What you're looking for is meta:Global locks: stewards can globally lock named accounts, which prevents log-ins and editing across all wikis. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. I doubt that I could get a global lock for this. But I have asked on Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard that Swineposit be blocked from Wikidata. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you could build a fair case for this account being locked. My concern is that some good edits are being made, so maybe more should be done to contact the person and ask them why this is happening first. But if it continues, then a global lock would be absolutely appropriate if bad content is being added across multiple wikis. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried asking on User talk:Swineposit, but all I've elicited is semi-comprehensible apologetic waffle about "mistakes" and also -- I think, but it's hard to understand -- the use of other-language Wikipedia articles as sources. If these really are mistakes (which strains credulity), then I'm certain that anybody capable of them shouldn't be allowed to edit anything. And the latter story is highly implausible, given that (i) Swineposit happily splatters different misinformation on various pages about the same person (see my description here in Wikidata), and (ii) he has demonstrably given two different dates of birth (one of them a trolls' favorite, 27 March) for somebody Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen whose only other-language page (in Finnish) had no date. (It was the edits to the article on Konttinen that first alerted me to this mess.) My concern is that this person will simply lie low for a little while and then pop up with a different username. (I don't want to reopen the extremely tired debate about the ease with which untried, brand new and unregistered users can edit Wikipedia, but I am amazed that even Wikidata allows mere IP numbers to fiddle with the data that connect the various Wikipedias.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. I talk above of difficulty of understanding. In order to illustrate this, here's a fairly randomly chosen example from Swineposit's user talk page: "Her birth date was unknown, because it was correct. Keep her article on birth date unsourced." In the context, it would make sense if it were instead: "Her birth date was unknown; therefore it was correct not to give any birth date. Keep her article free of any claim for a birth date, because any claimed birth date would be unsourced." However, something very different might have been intended. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Puff piece?

I've just come across Mark Featherstone-Witty as linked from Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts. Both articles appear to have substantial CoI issues, with the former seemingly almost totally created by a user with the same name. I've put on warnings on both articles, talk pages, and users, but would appreciate a second look from another admin or two to consider whether either or both should be radically reverted (the former even deleted?) --AlisonW (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For the account named LIPALiverpool, I'm going to soft-block them, as that's a pretty obvious violation of WP:GROUPNAME. The edits don't seem to be TOO promotional, so hopefully a hard block won't be needed in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Group of Six Artists

I've had this article on my watchlist and I've been noticing a lot of strange edits popping up in the past month (see history). They are mostly minor unconstructive changes and they were all made by new users with only a few edits who appear to have no knowledge of the article subject. Even the most substantial edit upon further observation appears to be just a re-arranging of sentences. It seems suspicious, but I don't know what purpose these edits would serve, so I thought I'd let you guys know. Daß Wölf 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible (old) paid-editing account

I've stumbled across one of these. What's the best venue for discussing it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you share some diffs to see what is going on? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Usually, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is the venue, I would think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If by old you mean inactive, and the paid-editing is declared/obvious, merely adding a connected-contributor-paid banner to article talk pages plus a user talk warning (and article maintenance tags if edits are still live and need review) is what I'd do. If the account is still active then yea, WP:COI/N would be the first venue I guess (after a user-talk discussion attept). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, chaps. Salvidrim, they're by a long since inactive contributor. Please point me in the direction of the right tags. Some of the articles may be heading for AfD, as he's not done the best job of it (mind you, they've survived 5 or so years, so what do I know). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Connected contributor (paid)}} is the talk page banner (or {{Connected contributor}} for COI without specific monetary ties, such as autobios), see the template page for documentation on parameters. {{COI}} is the one that goes on the article itself, and {{uw-coi}} is the user warning but if the user is long gone it might be useless. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion by new User?

It appears User:Aaron's The Best deleted a page and moved pages but it also appears this user is new and not an admin. Something seems off about that, no? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC) This is what my watchlist says:

• (Move log); 06:15 . . Aaron's The Best (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Slave and free states to Talk:Slave states and free states ‎
• (Move log); 06:15 . . Aaron's The Best (talk | contribs) moved page Slave and free states to Slave states and free states over redirect ‎
• (Deletion log); 06:15 . . Aaron's The Best (talk | contribs) deleted page Slave states and free states ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)

--Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I can't find the link now, but there was a change to the logging so that when a user moves a page over a redirect, it now logs it as a delete of the old redirect, whereas it didn't before. Edit: ah, here you go -> link. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess the only question now, is how G6 really applies, as that says it's for admins who are absolutely certain there is no need for discussion or controversy - and now moves over re-directs apparently need no discussion and no admins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"and now moves over re-directs apparently need no discussion and no admins." - As far as I am aware they didnt before except where a move was contested (like any other move). The only difference is that now it is logged more explicitly. I dont see why the reference to G6 needs to be there anyway, 'Deleted to make way for move' should be enough? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, G6 is there. As to contested, the call from WP:MOVE is conditional and requires a pre-determination that there will not be contest or else don't make it, without an attempt at discussion. At any rate, we'll see how it goes regarding controversy, and if documentation remains as is. Alanscottwalker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software automatically adds the content of MediaWiki:Delete and move reason as the deletion reason when moving a page over an already existing one. That text is used regardless of what permissions one has, hence also for non-admins, irrespective of what the policy says. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, I saw this recently on my watchlist from a user I know isn't an admin. Thanks for clearing up the mystery. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's literally no technical difference from previous operations: it's just appearing in the logs. Before, any autoconfirmed user could create B as a redirect to A and then move A to B; now, any autoconfirmed user can do the same. Before, the edit creating B would just disappear; now it actually shows up as a deleted edit in the logs, and admins can view the creating edit in Special:Undelete. See the history and logs for User:Nyttend/A and User:Nyttend/B, which I just now created and moved without using any admin tools. So basically, it's just a better way of documenting what's been possible since 2004 at latest. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it only works if you create the redirect and then move it? (Why you did it that way, instead of just moving is just extra steps?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, nothing has changed except the logging mechanism. If you could move a page over a redirect before, you can still move it. If you couldn't move it before, you still can't. I gave that as an example because it was simpler than saying "move A to B, make no edits to A whatsoever (even ones that don't change the content), and move B over A". Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog

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

---

There was a harsh overreaction by Jytdog (talk · contribs) on my talk page that I would like to kindly ask the user to refrain from repeating, and preferably have deleted from my talk page. It's not proportionate. I am aware that there are more users who feel bullied by this user and I would like to express my consideration for our common responsability of contributing to a positive Wikipedia. As for his sense of ownership of the article Craig J. N. de Paulo, which has been very hard to improve under his constrains (feel free to investigate its history), I don't really care anymore. It's fine, he may have it his ways completely with that article of his. I really just don't want to have him harassing my talk page. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:Chicbyaccident, did you add unsourced content and did you try to restore unsourced content? QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• If you add unsourced material to a BLP ([1]) you can't really complain when another user drops an {{unsourced}} template on your talk page. However, it does appear that this can be sorted out via discussion on the talk page, and is thus a content dispute and not something that WP:ANI needs to concern itself with. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Admins usually consider unsourced content a "content dispute". We can change how Wikipedia works. How about if an editor repeatedly restores unsourced content they can be greeted with a short ban if they were previously warned to stop? QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Chicbyaccident: I am sorry that you feel badly treated by the messages on your talk page, but they really are not harassment, and are standard practice at Wikipedia. Please feel free to simply delete any message that you do not want to keep on your own user talk page (but of course not anywhere else). It is perfectly acceptable to delete personal messages once they have been read, so you do not need to feel like those messages have to stay there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Broadly agree with all of the above. This is a perfectly acceptable response to adding unsourced content and edit warring. If you don't like it, don't do those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• just as a note, the relevant article Craig J. N. de Paulo is one of several in WP that are related to a shadowy world on the fringes of established churches (mainly Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican) populated by people who are obsessed with elaborate titles (and strangely, heraldry) who create whole fancy hierarchies for themselves to inhabit. WP is very fertile ground for them to build and "authenticate" these sand castles. User:Anglicanus kindly explained all that to me - he/she is one of WP's quiet laborers patrolling and keeping that stuff out of WP. The OP is the latest in a series of accounts that have sought to elaborate this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 21 November 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.

Patrolling without user right RfC

See this RfC clarifying whether editors without the new page reviewer user right may patrol new pages (in the sense of cleanup tags and deletion nominations). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hi,

TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators, crats, CU, and OS. I highly recommend you enable this from Special:Preferences - it provides an extra layer of security besides passwords. You can use an app on your phone like Google Authenticator to manage the codes, and if you don't have a smart phone, there are other alternatives that run on laptops. Please be careful and write down the scratch codes though - if you get locked out of your account because you lose your 2fa, it may not be possible to recover your account. I would appreciate if others could help disseminate this information to other admins/crats/CU/OS. I'll work on creating some documentation about this once I'm no longer scrambling. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Legoktm, I assume that you're using it yourself now? ;) I've forwarded a link to this to the Functionaries email list as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm passing it around the IRC areas, and letting my Commons colleagues know. Nick (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Could @Legoktm: or somebody else please explain this in terms suitable for the stupider admin demographic? I see the link "Enable two-factor authentication" in my prefs, but I hesitate to click on it. Will something irreversible happen if I do? Will I have to remember and somehow use (?) my "scratch codes" (?) forever more? Bishonen | talk 16:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Everytime you log on with a password you will also have to enter your 2FA code from your authentication device. The scratch codes are one time logon codes in case you loose your device. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope. I once clicked it on Commons, didn't activate it there, and opened a new browser (say, Firefox) and tried to log in there. Success. — regards, Revi 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You said you didn't activate it? You have to activate it, then it should be active on all projects using central auth. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't activate it. (I'm replying to "but I hesitate to click on it. Will something irreversible happen if I do?" of Bishonen.) — regards, Revi 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the link, there are still steps you have to go through to activate 2fa. It is also possible to deactivate it if you decide you don't want to use it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What happens when an user with 2FA enabled loose sysop/CU/OS/etc rights? Is 2FA still enabled? --Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that if a user loses their eligibility to use 2FA (e.g. by losing any and all groups that granted it to them) then it will remain enabled, but they will no longer be able to access the special pages for managing OATH, so they won't be able to disable 2FA. --Alex Monk (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T150584

This is good information, I suggest we massmessage the enwiki admins - will give it a day for any comments first; if anyone wants to help write up the massmessage text, feel free to drop a template below! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What where and how is "my authentication device"? On my non-existent smartphone? I'm frankly not sure it sounds like something I want. I log in and out quite a lot [inexplicable coughing fit] and would rather not add extra hassle to the procedure. Anyway, I have a pretty strong password. And, while I respect WP:BEANS, is it known or suggested that the recent hackery attacked weak passwords? (Was Jimbo's 1234..?) Bishonen | talk 16:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Just wait for the promised manual. You can get a bit of an idea by clicking on the link (nothing happens yet at that point - just do not click Submit).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, it cannot be activated accidentally. A code from the authentication app is required to complete the process. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I notice admin socks apparently can't use it. (I don't have an "Enable two-factor authentication" link.) But shouldnt they be able to? Suppose somebody hacked me or Bishzilla and started making statements with our authority seemingly behind it. Unfortunate to say the least. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 16:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Striking out. You're not allowed in Wikipedia space! However, to be serious, is there a reason everybody can't have it? Bishonen | talk 16:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

There's currently phab:T100375 about the user interface of the feature, and open questions as to what the procedure might be for resetting accounts for users who lose their device and their one-time scratch codes. Anomie⚔ 18:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It is written that we cannot lose our scratch codes, as the account cannot be restored without them. If we do lose them however, can't we identify ourselves to stewards, much like written in here? Bharel (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You need a root DB user to do that. We stewards don't have such access. If I am right those single-use codes serve as TOPT tokens just in case you loose your token generator device. To prove the identity of an account, My guess is that I'd continue sticking to a committed identity. Corrections welcome. Regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If you loose your scratch codes and your 2fa device, and you can prove who you are beyond doubt (What "beyond doubt" means I'm not sure, but I guess committed identity is a good choice), then a developer will remove the 2fa from your account. However, please don't loose your scratch codes. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The scratch codes are HOTP rather than TOTP, although the distinction doesn't make any difference to you as an end user. Anomie⚔ 18:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It turns out I was wrong. The scratch codes are just random values saved in the database and checked against. Anomie⚔ 20:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

How does this work for people who are admins on another project, but not this one - will the TFA be global? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Presumably, with SUL, once activated on any project, it will be active everywhere. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it works globally and it is also available for admins on other projects. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I activated on Commons, and when I was logging in to enwiki (where I don't have sysop bit) I was asked to submit. — regards, Revi 17:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How will this work with WP:AWB? --Rschen7754 17:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I've opened phab:T150582. Regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You can use BotPasswords for your own account to log on to AWB even if 2FA is active - not sure if this is a good thing or not, but you could use it to limit your AWB access to only what you need when using it. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Longer term, AWB should either use OAuth or should switch to action=clientlogin. Anomie⚔ 18:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 enabling OAuth for AWB is a great idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wanted page Help:Two-factor authentication - anyone with good experience in writing up Help pages :D — xaosflux ^Talk 18:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• Excellent news. I would also support mass messaging administrators about this. Are there plans for expanding access to all users sometime in the future? Mz7 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  I think that 2FA should definitely be extended to Edit Filter Managers as they can screw things up mightily as well. BethNaught (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: This may be compromised email accounts (shared passwords possibly) - I got notice of a password recovery email that I did not initiate. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Could we get that mass message sent out ASAP? More accounts are getting compromised, left and right... — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Make sure that the email account you use has two-factor set up on it as well... --Rschen7754 19:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Awesome initiative! I suggest adding Board members, stewards, arbitrators, and soon propagate to other projects. Pundit|utter 19:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• I don't understand why us lowly users don't get access to this extra layer of security. Does this mean I need to go through an RfA, just so I can use 2FA? Doesn't sound quite fair.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: All in due time. They were/are working on it for everyone. It was rolled out early for people with advanced permissions in light of the circumstances. Once they have the infrastructure and the protocols to help the people who get locked out of their accounts (which will happen) it will be rolled out to everyone. --Majora (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  Makes sense. I'm fortunately a sysop on the testwiki so I can activate mine from there.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 20:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A good bit of the above would make a good start of a FAQ for the help page, if someone is interested in doing that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• I wrote a quick blog post about this, corrections earnestly welcomed. Anyone else remember Tubgirl in the site notice in 2007? - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  Talk:Main Page/Archive 98#Who the hell put encylopedia my ass on the page?????? 53 seconds I'll never forget. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  @David Gerard: In regards to your comment about fobs in your blog post - In the long term, we would actually like to support physical tokens as an option people could enable (e.g. U2F). See phab:T150565. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'll add that then :-) It's useful that these days everyone carries a suitable token device around with them, of course ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have 2 questions. What to do if you lose access to appliction on your phone? And how to authorize via API if you have two-factor authorisation.--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • When you enable 2FA you are given a number of one time use codes to print out and keep in a safe place. If you loose both the app and these extra codes, you are then locked out of your account (Similar to if you totally lose your password and recovery email. If you can prove who you are, a developer can restore your account to you, but you must have strong proof). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • As for the API: You can use action=clientlogin for interactive login, or OAuth (preferred) or BotPasswords for automated login. Anomie⚔ 22:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• Question: Before someone complains, it note of the Google Authenticator used in the 2FA service "Previous versions of the software were open-sourced but subsequent releases are proprietary." Does anyone else feel we will get 'issues' because of that? I know it is only a service, but somehow it feels wrong to be closed source. --AlisonW (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  You can use FreeOTP, which is fully open source, and available in free app stores like F-Droid. Legoktm (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is fantastic. It was very easy to implement for my own account. Great work! Mkdw^talk 01:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Question/comments When I first read about this security layer on mailing list, I felt really interested. Now, I am not feeling that much interested. a) My main issue is I don't have a smartphone with scanning feature. Looks like I have to add those long codes manually. b) These tokens will never be shown again. -- I have not enabled it still, but everytime I am refreshing the page I am getting same 5 codes. Does it mean, these tokens will never be shown again after I enable it? c) I am using Google 2 Step Verification for many years now. I find it easier to use where they send code to your phone, backup phone, and finally you have an option to add recovery code. Anyway, thanks for enabling this feature. We needed better protection options/ --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  The "never again" part: once you complete the enrollment you will never be able to retrieve those again; you don't add those codes - you would add manually the one code that is under the QR code to add mnaually. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't 2fa be available to bots? Compromised bots could do bad things which would not be easily noticed (because their edits are marked as a bot edit). And maybe also for filemovers, since they could easily vandalize a lot of pages with just one filemove (using a gadget). Pokéfan95 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 2FA does not make sense for bots, since the idea is to authenticate through separate systems, but a bot does not have separate systems. Bots are encouraged to use the bot password feature though. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @BWolff (WMF): For the most part, bots should be using OAuth or BotPasswords already to limit their exposure, that is why 2FA for the main account shouldn't be an issue. Older bots that don't support oauth or botpasswords would have a problem trying to use 2FA though. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Bots should use OAuth if possible. If it's not possible, any bot should be easily able to use BotPasswords simply by changing the password used for login in its configuration file. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Two-factor-authentication is a welcome addition, certainly. I'll echo-paraphrase a post above ... I don't have a smartphone at present. I'm wondering if this is 3rd-generation 2FA technology; most 2FA I've seen involves the use of text messages as the second factor for 2nd gen. 1st gen 2 factor is based on, like, RSA hard tokens or, more recently, soft token applications. I look forward to the manual which explains in less technical terms how to take advantage if you are not a smartphone user. Thank you for taking this forward - it is a step in the right direction. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If you don't have a "smart" phone, but your phone still supports java apps (I think that's called a "feature" phone), you can use http://totpme.sourceforge.net/ BWolff (WMF) (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Google's 2-step verification is user-friendly and allows users to lock it onto their home PC so they can skip the dual stage, and only need to type in a password, though would continue to require two stage for any other machine. Wikipedia's 2-step is a little off-putting, and doesn't appear to allow locking onto a chosen machine, so two stage verification would always be needed, even on a secure home PC. I should image there would be a number of admins who would not be using Wikipedia's 2-step because it appears difficult to implement, insists on 2 stage verification every time, and would permanently lock you out of your account if you make a common human error of losing things. I think it would make sense to implement a more flexible and user-friendly two stage verification - even if that makes it slightly less safe. Better to have a 95% safe verification system that 100% of admins use, than a 100% safe verification system that only 5% of admins use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just a thought - is this going to be made compulsory for admins? If not, then I fear it might not help much, because those admins more conscious about security and more likely to adopt it are already more likely to be using more secure passwords that better resist brute-force attacks (which is very likely what's happened here). Those who aren't too hot on security and who are likely to be the ones with weaker passwords won't be as keen to adopt 2FA. (I've been involved in password security issues for a long time in one way or another, and my biggest lesson is that appealing to people to voluntarily do things better is usually doomed to failure.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In the near future, it will not be compulsory for admins. In the long term - its a possibility. However, we will not do that without having an extensive discussion/rfc on wiki. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It will probably become de facto mandatory for new admins by way of RFA question "will you commit to activating 2FA if successful". Stifle (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I keep getting "Failed to validate two-factor credentials" when I hit Submit with the code from Google Authenticator and "Wikimedia:<my name>" .... anybody else having this problem? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you use "Wikimedia:DavidWBrooks" or "Wikimedia:<my name>"? De728631 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Wikimedia:DavidWBrooks" - not sure why I wrote it the other way. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks The name is actually just a label for your device, and does not actually "do" anything as far as I can tell (e.g. I enrolled a second device and put WikiPEDIA instead of WikiMEDIA, but still get the same codes). The two-factor secret key is important, check your entry for things like ZERO vs "O" mismatches. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Why don't I have the option to receive an email when my password or other critical information has changed? That seems common sense for security. I don't use mobile devices as admin, so this seems to be a lot more pain than gain. A second "different" password would be simpler and more effective, particularly since uptake would be higher and the learning curve is zero. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• It'd be nice to see this implemented for our bots as well, unless it already is and I missed the memo. «»Who?¿? 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Scratch last, I missed the topic where it was covered above. «»Who?¿? 00:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• What about us admins who don't have smart phones (call me old-fashioned but I have a phone for phoning, a camera for taking photographs with, and a laptop for computing). I'm pretty sure that my password is secure. Should there be any attempt to force admins to use this, I for one will be voicing my opposition to such proposal. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There are ways to run 2FA apps on a standard computer (though this can weaken the security model 2FA is meant to support). Chrome users can run the GAuth addin; it is possible to get an Android virtual machine on Windows to run the android-based Google Authenticator app within it. There's probably more similar methods too. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • You can also run a 2FA app on a standalone tablet, and presumably someone's written a version for a laptop or desktop. --Carnildo (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
      • There's also totp-me for feature phones that can run J2ME applets. Anomie⚔ 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Update: People in the Edit filter managers group can now also enable 2FA. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick question : does enabling 2FA mean it is reasonably safe to log into an administrator account on a public PC, such as in a library, school or airport? I know many admins have alt accounts specifically for this purpose? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I suppose as long as you don't select Keep me logged in or if you explicitly log out you should be safe from having someone log in, as they will be presented with the 2FA challenge (more on that). However, I think the main reason admins are twitchy about logging into public computers is the possibility of keyloggers/other unsavoury software making a record of your password. It's still not the best idea, but it is slightly safer -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Recent account compromises suggest that many admins are following security practices significantly worse than logging into shared computers. If the computer was maliciously controlled, the attacker could steal your session cookie and then continue using your account on other computers (This applies regardless of if you check the remember my password. In fact, since the computer is not yours, someone could have modified it to always check the box even without it being shown as checked). Of course the counter argument, is probability wise, how likely is it that someone has modified that computer, and cares about your wikipedia account (As opposed to people's bank accounts)? Someone could also modify the computer to record your password (2FA would mean that they can't use that password to log in, but attacker having your password is in a significantly better position than one without your password, even with 2FA enabled). I would recommend against logging in on shared computers if your account is sensitive. If you do ever log in on a shared computer, you should probably at a bare minimum have 2FA enabled and be browsing in "incognito" mode, which will make you mildly safer, but ultimately not that much safer. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass message draft

I've drafted a short message that could be sent out to administrators. @Xaosflux and MusikAnimal, and others, do you have any additional suggestions?

If all looks well, I can send it out shortly. Mike V • Talk 19:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What is "TOTP"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: I would also add the recommendation to enable 2FA on their email account, if possible. The issue here as I understand it is they're getting passwords that were leaked from other sites, so we should make sure our admins know to use a unique password for their WM account and their email account — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: TOTP is short for Time-based one-time password. In a nutshell, to log-in you enter your password and an additional code that changes frequently (usually every 30 seconds). @MusikAnimal: After, ... your account will not be recoverable. I could add "Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets." Mike V • Talk 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, the message has been successfully sent to those on this list. Mike V • Talk 20:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Authentication device"? I don't use apps and am liable to change computer at a moment's notice. Also I edit from different IPs at times. I don't use a smartphone for anything much online except finding out where 'here' is, and how to get 'there'. (In fact, a lot of my phone use is done on a stupidphone...) My password at WP isn't used anywhere else, and nor is my email PW. If someone will give me a link for this confirmation of identity thing, I'll do that, but I think I'm more likely to lock myself out using this other thing. Peridon (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Peridon: Full instructions for creating a committed identity are in the template documentation for Template:Committed identity. In short, you take a bunch of non-public verifiable information about yourself, turn it into a random string using a cryptographic hash function, and then post it on your userpage. If you ever need to confirm that you are the same person who put the committed identity on your userpage, you would send the information to a trusted user, who would put it through the same hash function and compare the results. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks for that - I'll look into it tomorrow, As to the other thing, I hope that by then someone will have a definitive version of what it's about in language that people like Bishonen and I can understand. And I too don't trust a Google involvement. I haven't got a password with them, and I don't intend to give them one. Peridon (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• I just set up 2FA after my account got compromised earlier today. Much easier than I expected, in fact! Thanks. --AlisonW (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I have implemented two-factor authentication in the past, I've always done it by providing my phone number. Is there a reason why this is being done by Google Authenticator? I don't use my phone to log in. I log in from a laptop. The impression I get from the Google Authenticator article is that you have to be logging in from the mobile device. Or will logging in from any device generate a code sent to your phone? I am sure that is what actually happens, but am double-checking here first, as the Wikipedia article is not clear, has a 'citation needed' tag, and shouldn't be relied on anyway... Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Sites such as Yahoo Mail that send you a code via text message, that you use to login, are simply inplementing the same 'standard' without requiring you to generate the codes locally. You can actually configure a code generator for Yahoo Mail, and it will produce the same codes that they send you by text. Google Authenticator is simply one 'implementation' of this software... any compliant generator will work (I use the Amazon one). Revent^talk 21:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern is that the Google Authenticator requires Android 2.1 or higher to be installed. I have recently had a problem with upgrading What's App on my phone, and the upgrade process keeps failing. I wouldn't want to be locked into relying on upgrades on my phone to the Google Authenticator app to be able to access Wikipedia. To be clear, can the process of generating codes be transferred from device to device if one of them fails for some reason? Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: TOTP code generation is dependent on the 'account name', 'secret key', and 'time of day'. You can simultaneously generate identical codes on any number of programs or devices if configured with the same information. Print out the 'enable two-factor authentication' page, with that information, and secure it physically... you can then use it to configure a new device. Revent^talk 21:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to make this clear to people, since there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding. You do NOT need a smartphone to use this, you merely need a TOTP code generator. There are physical devices that do this, Windows and MacOS applications, and multiple addons for Google Chrome. The 'manual' configuration information displayed on the confirmation page, where your scratch codes are located, can be used to configure any number of devices/programs to produce the codes... any properly configured TOTP code generator, with a synchronized clock, will produce identical and synchronized codes. If you lose your device, but still have the configuration information, you can configure another one to produce a valid code (though your login is no longer secure, since you no longer possess all copies of your code generator). Revent^talk 21:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean you can generate codes on the same device that you use to login with? That is a security hole, surely? THe whole point is to separate this between different devices, isn't it? Login on one device. Get authentication codes on the other device. But then many people log in from all devices these days. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You 'can', but obviously should not. Revent^talk 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes. Remember that you still need access to that actual device in that case. Whereas before you did not. That is an extra barrier. It's even better if you use two devices, but it's not the most important aspect of 2FA. 2FA is about "something you know" (password) AND "something you have" (a unique key on a device). Having just one iis not enough. That's what makes it safer than just the password. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just enabled it and it seems to work just fine. Also for the many people using the word "loose" above, it's actually "lose". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• So, let's see.. "experimental", "must have an app", "Google <whatever>", "scan a QR code" " if <this and that> you will totally be locked out of your account". Other than be being insane, why would I want such a thing? I do not have a smartphone (yes I read that we do not need one, still...), I do not trust "Google <whatever>" to have anything to do with my passwords or anything (yes, I do use some Google stuff, but the less the better), I do not trust Wikimedia if you're pushing me into Google arms either... What "recent events"? All my passwords are unique and pretty much scrambled ones. Why should I use a Google thingy that will eventually lock me out? (I am not saying I will not, I am saying the current information scares me more of the TOTP - starting from using weird acronyms on messages... - than from any hacker :) - Nabla (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nabla: "Google Authenticator" is just one software implementation of this. You can use Microsoft Authenticator, if you want, or any other TOTP code generator (including an open source one). They will all produce identical, synchronized codes if properly configured. There are 'keychain' devices as well, though they tend to suffer from time drift and have to be resynchronized. The protocol involved is an IETF standard, not a Google product. Revent^talk 21:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Revent. I appreciate you trying to help. I hope you understand that replying with a few more "weird words", helps little :-) 'keychain' devices? IETF standard? Can't technical people talk in a way that only-mildly-technical people like me understand? :-) Please do not take me the wrong way, I know you and others mean well, but the current explanation is simply too strange. Damn... I use two-factor authentication already, to access my bank online, and it is way simpler than this. Or at least it feels like simpler, maybe is just the explanation that is still making things too complicated. I would suggest a couple of improvements for the help page. A simple one: the link to "others" links to a non existing page (named Google something - so the alternatives to Google are... Google, so the help pages says :-) or not). A not so simple one: provide step by step instructions on how to set it up without a smartphone. I presume quite a few people will not do something that may block us out, unless we are mostly sure it will work. Again, thanks for the effort, please keep improving it - Nabla (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC) PS: Went to check the activation page. It states "Step 1 - Download a mobile app for two-factor authentication (such as Google Authenticator) on to your phone." If there are alternatives, please someone explain them. Weird as it may seem not everybody has a smartphone... - Nabla (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nabla: TOTP = Time-based One-time Password Algorithm. IETF = Internet Engineering Task Force.

A 'keychain device' would be a physical device, that you hang on your key chain, like one of these. Any TOTP 'implementation', properly configured (with the account name and secret key shown on the 'enable' page) will produce identical valid keys.

There are also four or five different extensions to Google Chrome that do it, and Windows/MacOS software, but as mentioned above programming the device you use to actually login (your computer) to generate the codes is insecure.

You will be unable to enable two factor authentication without 'proving' that you have a valid method to generate codes. The valid code changes approximately every minute. Scanning a QR code simply saves typing the configuration information (the secret key is a quite long alphanumeric code) into the code generator to program it. Revent^talk 23:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but right now this makes no sense to me. I am not going to get a smartphone to login to WP, nor a keychain device (so that it is... :-) Maybe in a few years it will make sense. - Nabla (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not actually trying to 'convince anyone', just explain (as people don't understand it, and have been saying wrong things). Revent^talk 00:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a way to do it like in Gmail where you can just select an option to "remember this device" and not have to do the authentication every time? ~Awilley (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's a good point. What if we set it up with cookies to remember the device? Perhaps if you've activated the new two-factor login process for your account, it could avoid requiring the additional steps whenever you log in with the device in question: you'd only need the additional steps when you're setting up the cookie in the first place, or when you're logging in from a different device. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep in mind, if you are "remember me"'ing your credential on a browser - 2FA will not be triggered unless an event that normally would have triggered it occurs (e.g. clearing cookies, actually logging out). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful if someone would simply give the steps required to log in after this is activated. A simple, non-technical list. To log in, you will do A, B, C. - Nunh-huh 11:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: It's simple.

A. Go to login screen. B. Enter 'normal' username and password, hit "Log in" (as normal) C. Look at your 'device', and enter the token (it's a six digit number). Hit 'continue login'.

That's it. Revent^talk 12:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that; I think adding that to the message of availability might be prudent. So it will work just like, say, Google does now? The cell phone rings, and the number is there? I don't have to open an application and ask it for the code? - Nunh-huh 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you need an application either on your phone (preferred) or on your computer that generates the token string for you. It's not automated, so you need to activate this app yourself each time you want to log in to get a new token. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

So then the actual sequence would be: A. Go to login screen. B. Enter 'normal' username and password, hit "Log in" (as normal) C. Find your smartphone (or other device-I imagine it could be the computer proper, so perhaps no finding involved). D. unlock it. E. open an authorizing-app. F. Look at your 'device', and enter the token (it's a six digit number). Hit 'continue login'? - Nunh-huh 22:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. But it looks way more complicated than it actually is. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting, though, that these apps have basically 'no' user interface beyond showing codes... tap on phone... look, code. Moments. Revent^talk 17:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but as I said above, I recently suffered from an app that failed to upgrade properly and probably needs reinstalling in some way. Having to do that is a pain, and ties you into the app. You need both the mobile phone and the app to work. When receiving a text message with the code, you only need the phone to work (assuming it can receive text messages). It is like having to launch an app each time you want to make a phone call or send a text message, or each time you think someone is trying to contact you. The question I would have is whether this app launches in the background each time the phone is switched on, and waits there waiting for the signal to generate a code (similar to the way incoming phone calls and text messages work without needed to actively switch those functions on). If you have to physically launch the app each time (similar to using online banking fobs), rather than it activating itself by a signal received from the site in question, and there is no way to have a 'home' device where you only use TFA infrequently, then that is a deal-breaker for me (I don't mind using TFA on other devices). I do have a PGP public key. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

And on the other hand, if it sits in the background, how much battery life will it eat up? -Nunh-huh 22:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you "launch" the application. I installed it on 2 android phones (same key and codes on each), one is a $20 disposable type - it gives me my code in less time then it takes to unlock the phone. Please note, if you edit from the same secure device and "remember me" - you will not be getting prompted for this unless you try to perform a security action such as changing your email or password. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but for some people that will be a barrier too far. The good thing is that if people try it and find it is too much hassle, they can disable it again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of a smartphone, you can also use a local program on your PC/laptop. For those who don't like Google software, e. g. WinAuth is a free open-source app that doesn't even need to be installed. You download it onto your desktop and launch it only when you need to log in. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Too complicated - While I applaud this idea, implementing it should not require reading more information than is contained in the entire United States constitution, scattered over several pages. Can't it be more simple just to figure out? As noted (in probably several hundred words), not everybody connects here via smartphone. Not everybody wants to read through "...if A does not apply....you can do B....or you can do C...or" and then on and on and one. The first and ONLY thing that comes up under Preferences/Enable two-factor authentication are instructions for a mobile app. I don't know if I enabled it or not - but didn't click on submit - but there is a place there that gives me the secret key numbers and scratch tokens..and then says to enter a code from a mobile phone. Oh, give me a break. If your account has been compromised, you're already stressed. Why does this have to be more complicated than Einstein's theory of relativity? Just give us a simple bulleted list of instructions that work the same for all systems across the board. Please. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point. I'm going to use the analogy with accessing my bank account online (as I did below) because it's similar; the bank provides me with a security device I use for authentication, and went over it with me when I first got it in order to confirm I understood it. Or, to give you another analogy, if I think my back door is a bit weak and easily breakable by a burglar, I might phone a locksmith out to have a look at it. The point is that I don't need to think about how to set the security up when I can pay for somebody to do it for me. Obviously that's not practical here, so I think we need to accept that 2FA just isn't going to work for some people and anyone who thinks it's "simple" needs to do a bit of hallway usability testing with newbies to cancel the inverse-Dunning–Kruger effect they're experiencing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Please feel free to email me directly if you'd like any help, but I'm trying to de-tech WP:2FA a little at Wikipedia:Simple 2FA. I've also found a windows based TOTP client which you may find helpful -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that this was an expedited deploy to deal with an immediate problem. As a side effect of that, all steps to "improve the usability" of this process were skipped (and this is one of the reasons the feature is not yet offered to everyone). There is a list of user experience tickets that will have to be dealt with post-fact, which was never really how anyone intended to make these improvements. I personally have already solved 4 usability issues that should land in the coming weeks, mostly based on feedback in this and similar discussion. Improving the messaging and workflow is a bit larger a task, but hopefully someone should be able to take that on soon as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is vulnerable to attacks by the alt-right

I sometimes think of Wikipedia as an undefended picnic of truth, made of anonymous volunteers from all over the political spectrum, with differing agendas which pretty much balanced each other out into a kind of mainstream position, perhaps leaning a bit to a liberal or progressive orientation. And I think established contributors here will agree with me when I say that it has worked beautifully so far. But our shared project is highly dependent on a good-spirit among volunteers to have a collegial disposition and to work constructively, to learn from each other, even when we disagree with each other, to work out those differences, and add to the general knowledge. Most of us who have been contributing here for a while know how easy it can be for one or two contributors to stir up a lot of trouble, how time-consuming and frustrating it is dealing with abrasive types (it can cause many good contributors to leave). But what if swarms of new volunteers with a shared alt-right agenda enter the picnic? There is nothing stopping them. I claim there is a huge temptation for such groups to try to re-write truth, or cause so much distortion and friction that well-meaning contributors give up. My sense is the encyclopedia is vulnerable to such an attack. I believe it makes sense for us now to begin to think about prevention methods, or ways for the community to figure out quickly when something like this happens, and to have counter-measures ready to deploy, without, of course, ourselves becoming so reactionary and fixed. I realize this is a tough problem but I am calling on contributors smarter than me to begin thinking about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You should have kept this on your userpage. A solution in search of a problem. "Counter-measures". Seriously... Doc talk 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Doc9871; I hold no brief at all for the American alt-right, but you are the one who looks like a conspiracy theorist here. Why is this particular group any different to any other political movement, religion, band fan-club etc whose members participate on Wikipedia in large numbers? ‑ Iridescent 11:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Okay so you people are saying that I am needlessly concerned, that it is a non-problem, that Wikipedia, by its very nature, will cope with such a problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. Substitute "the Jews" or "the communists" for "alt-right" in your original post to get an idea of how ridiculous you sound; that a group is theoretically capable of organising its members to participate in Wikipedia en masse doesn't mean it's any particular concern, or that the existing protocols (which have managed successfully to control POV-warriors ranging from the I-P hardliners to the Church of Scientology) can't handle it. This is the admin noticeboard; what administrative action are you requesting here, other than a vaguely-worded "I think we shouldn't allow people who disagree with me to edit here" appeal? ‑ Iridescent 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I am still in shock after the US election, and I hope you are right that the existing protocols will work as before, and that balance will prevail.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Hate has won, you see. Now misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and just all-around discrimination is now the standard. Here, there, and everywhere. Doc talk 11:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like gaslighting to me. The "alt-right" aren't just "people who disagree with us". This is not political. Their views are hateful and bigoted and they really should not be allowed to edit here. We shouldn't give them the time of day or even validate their racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. opinions disguised in the form of so-called NPOV. That's almost as bad as the opinions themselves, if not worse.--WaltCip (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't foresee a particularly worse alt-right invasion because of Trump than we already had because of Gamergate. And obnoxious agenda-pushing of every stripe has been around as long as Wikipedia. IMHO we've done a poor job of dealing with the problem (some of the cures we've implemented have been worse than the disease) and WP has become a worse project over the years because of it. There's been a ton of analysis of these issues published on and off of Wikipedia over the years, so I doubt we're likely to find a solution in any particular AN thread. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

at Files for discussion which has a backlog 350+ item backlog spanning over three months. All admins are invited to participate, as most of these are very easy closures. -FASTILY 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: Is the usual process here to just delete the file and let the bot close the discussion? I've noticed that quite a bit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If there is a good case for deletion. Sometimes relicensing as non-free is better, or relisting. There is a script (User:Evad37/FFDcloser) for doing these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of these don't require admin action. A lot of them, as Jo-Jo mentioned, are simple relicensing. I've gone through a lot of them myself and done just that. FfD has been perpetually backlogged since the closing of PUF. Really doesn't need a new AN notice every few weeks telling people that. I'm sure everyone knows by now. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, since many listings go un-actioned indefinitely until I post about them. Here's our day-over-day count at FfD; downward spikes are usually the result of AN notifications. -FASTILY 02:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Assistance required at AfD, re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue (2nd nomination)

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

---

Resolved

Could someone look at the above - It has been running for more than a month, had three relists (last one 18 days ago) and appears to be going nowhere. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have closed it. Number 57 14:37, 21 November 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:Requests for page protection

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 just finished going through the page and there are two left, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Toronto and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Moses in Islam, both of which I am involved. Could someone take a look at them. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather:  Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:32, 22 November 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.

North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2016

We've an IP (107.77.208.138) who keeps editing in that the 2016 North Carolina gubernatorial election is decided. The election-in-question has not been decided & is likely headed for a recount. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Jo Cox

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

---

The article Killing of Jo Cox was previously move-protected while the case was sub-judice. As Mair has now been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment (see Talk:Killing of Jo Cox#Requested move 23 November 2016 and BBC news here) we now have the unnecessary bureacratic hurdle of moving the page to its correct title. Would an administrator please review and move the article? Thanks for your attention. Keri (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the move protection (put in place 4 months ago), so the page can now be renamed. I would encourage you to find consensus on a new name at the discussion page before changing the page name. Dragons flight (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. As it happens there is some indecision on the new title after all, so the discussion will likely have to play its course! Keri (talk) 14:05, 23 November 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 privacy related edit deletion request

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

---

Could you please delete this edit and hide the edit summary. An IP wrote a personal attack against me in the edit summary, but no private information was leaked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could please hide the edit summary for this edit too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: These would fall under the "not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations" clause of the Revdel criteria; it's not so bad as to require revision deletion in my opinion. Sam Walton (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Would the first edit come under #3 of the CRD? The edit had no value to the article, and likely its' only purpose was to put in a edit summary concerning me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Warned the IP about personal attacks and what is not "vandalism", but I agree with Sam that it doesn't warrant revdeletion. Miniapolis 23:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The IP address you warned had been hopped off too, the current one is User talk:2607:FB90:1E0A:4EE6:0:30:F809:8501. This hopping has been going on for about a month now I think, and it's why I believe it is not ordinary incivility but prolonged. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Warned again about personal attacks. Do you have evidence that it's a dynamic IP? Miniapolis 22:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the warnings. I do believe it is a dynamic IP, and some other linked IP's (and maybe a possible account) are listed at ANI. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to put up with long-term harassment, and since I'm handing out rangeblocks for that stuff this morning, I've blocked 2607:fb90:1e00::/44 for one month. Katie^talk 12:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for the help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 23 November 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.

Odd editing - review please

Could someone please take a look at the contributions by Chitt66? I've found some rather odd edits (and reverted a couple of them) and am not sure what's going on, but don't have the time to do a full review. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian

User:JDG is almost certainly deceased. He wrote several times he was terminally ill, such as here, and has not edited since December 2007. I just reverted anonymous edits to his userpage, almost certainly in good faith efforts to "disambiguate" the user from a hacker who uses the same handle, but unintentionally making it look like the ex-Wikipedian and hacker are one and the same. I fear the userpage will continue to attract the same attention and that it be locked. I also believe there used to be a convention to block deceased Wikipedians' accounts to prevent compromise, but don't know if that's still the case. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. Hope this helps. - jc37 23:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Per that link (and presuming you are correct), I've protected the userpage. The rest should be able to be done at editorial discretion.

If it turns out that the page should be unprotected, there is no need for the unprotecting admin to notify me first in this case. - jc37 23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Protection for deceased editors' userpages is a matter of policy, not a matter of editorial judgement in fighting vandalism or edit wars; it's something we'd have MediaWiki do automatically if it had some way of determining which editors were alive and which weren't. In cases of "the report of my death was an exaggeration", to quote Clemens, the reason for the protection has obviously expired and should be undone by anyone. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Trial (report mode) for new blocking adminbot User:AnomieBOT III/Trial block log

For any admins that process speedy blocks, please note the new feed at User:AnomieBOT III/Trial block log - these entries may actually need to be actioned - and any feedback is welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

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

---

There's a backlog at WP:AIV. Been a few hours since last admin attended to it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 26 November 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.

Fake news website

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 semi-protect the page Fake news website.

Because of increase in incoming vandalism and disruption after the recent block on PantherBF3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor please post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Maile (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 21:42, 25 November 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.

Harassment by editors

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 guys & gals, I'm being harrassed by some of your editors on Sports in the United States. Can you please tell them to stop reverting my good edits to a subject they clearly have no knowledge of? Would appreciate it. Thanks 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:C83A:BFAD:6BF4:26D3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Further, they have now taken to harrassing me on my IP 'talk page' here: User talk:2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:C83A:BFAD:6BF4:26D3 as well as at this very admin page! 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:C83A:BFAD:6BF4:26D3 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is copy the source from the article you're linking to, and add it with your additions. And stop making comments such as calling people "dumbass" - that will get you blocked for being uncivil. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, you have violated the three revert rule and have reverted five make that seven times in the last few minutes. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 21:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC).

• Everybody involved here needs to calm down. Edit warring is absolutely not how we resolve these issues, neither is hurling insults, but I would also note that it was completely inappropriate for @KGirlTrucker81: to repeatedly try to prevent this from being posted here at all. Nobody is behaving particularly well here, and I see no attempt to discuss this on the talk page either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

  I've resolved it with a reference. However this should not have been necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've left helpful notes at both user's talk pages. Hopefully this doesn't happen again. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Message from Primefac and zzuuzz recieved, understood and appreciated. Matter over as far as I'm concerned. 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:C83A:BFAD:6BF4:26D3 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 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.

Srb

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.

---

Indef block please, per WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please clearly who you want blocked? At first I thought it was someone named Srb as per what was in this section's title but there is no one with that name here.--76.65.43.0 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-Requested Block ansh666 02:23, 27 November 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.

Portuguese Wikipedia seems to have been overtaken by a clique of politburo bureaucrats who see as their role to prevent editors from contributing to Wikipedia

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.

---

On 24 Nov 2016, I started a Portuguese translation of the Job guarantee wiki page. 1h later the self-proclaimed wiki police user Stego put the page for deletion. As I attempted to continue the translation, he insisted on vandalising my work, putting it for deletion 2 more times. A feud ensued over a page, that is not even that controversial, and a mob of other self-proclaimed wiki bureaucrats gathered around to bash and block me. These people seem not to understand the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and act rather to suppress other people's contribution, instead of adding to it. There is a serious perversion of the Wikipedia culture going on in the Portuguese realm, as it was captured by a clique of self-proclaimed petty authorities. Perhaps something was lost in translation when Wikipedia was exported to a culture fraught with soviet-style bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre.levy.al (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 November 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.

Deletion review / Please help make a decision on William Tunberg's article

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

---

The deletion banner has been at the top of Tunberg's article since November 9 (17 days). There are 5 keeps and one delete. The editor who wants to delete is SwisterTwister. SwisterTwister and I have dialoged on the page. He feels Tunberg doesn't have enough museum collectors. The majority of Tunberg's collectors are religious institutions, universities and corporations. He's had a long and varied career that has spanned 50 years, and his commissions include large altar crosses, Arks of the Covenant, and large sculptural installations, such as the 30-foot marquetry wall he did for University of California, Riverside. He's taken the ancient art of marquetry and applied it to fine art sculpture and has been called one of the world's most foremost woodworking and marquetry artists. In the process of adapting the medium to fine art, Tunberg has developed new technologies and applications in marquetry. I've been prohibited from completing the marquetry section or editing his article because I'm his wife. Marchjuly has been working with me and I can't speak highly enough about him. He's taught me a lot about Wikipedia -- the COI rules, linking, citing, and other subjects too numerous to mention. He's been kind, generous and especially patient with all of my questions and concerns. But what do we do now? I'm afraid one of Tunberg's collectors will see the banner, which will injure his reputation. Please intervene and make a decision one way or the other. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• William Tunberg (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AfD

Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I closed the AFD as keep. Regardless of the subject's kindness and generosity, which are irrelevant for our purposes, it's pretty clear that the article passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Katie^talk 13:38, 27 November 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.

Incorrect posting to the main page

The posting of Florence Henderson to the main page by User:Jehochman has been determined to be against consensus and has been reported at WP:ERRORS for a few hours. Could someone please action the pull consensus at ITN? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I suggest that a few more of our "trustworthy admins" add WP:ERRORS to their watchlist? Problems on the mainpage can persist for hours and that's something that the project should strive to avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and the only reason I saw this was luck of the draw. Being a holiday weekend, I had been logged off for hours. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's only a "holiday weekend" in the US, there are thousands of other admins who aren't American, so there's no reason to continue to allow failures of process, errors, etc on the main page once they've been identified, for hours and hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added WP:ERRORS to my watchlist. Joyous! | Talk 22:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

there are thousands of other admins who aren't American
You mean hundreds. Of which only 522 are currently active. Curiously, there is no Category:Wikipedia administrators by location.  — Scott • talk 20:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Scott, actually there is but it's a couple of years out of date, and (rightly) only lists those who've publicly disclosed where they live. (FWIW I'd guess that the issue isn't that the admins don't exist to maintain the main page, but that most admins are totally fed up with constant demands to tinker with a page about which the number of readers who care could probably be counted on two hands at most, and at least one hand's worth of those are probably the more obsessive element of WR/WO looking for nits to pick.) ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are well over a thousand admins, and while most of them are American, there's little reason that the ERRORS page receives such little interest. More admins need to add the page to their watchlist. Thanks for your note Scott. Thanks, Iridescent, for your constructive and helpful dialogue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating page redirect

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

---

Would you please be so kind to create a redirect to Rainbow flag from it's emoji sign? Humanity will thank you! Flávio Neves Rodrigues (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a pair of two emojis. It doesn't seem like a likely search term to me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, emojipedia redirects to that page. Cheers! Flávio Neves Rodrigues (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: I also used in this tweet and it seems to work as emojipedia is saying. Flávio Neves Rodrigues (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:25, 27 November 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.

Suspected sock puppets of User:Mokshanine

I've noticed recently a bunch of disruptive article talk page posts that are signed "Amanbir". The name seems unique enough that one can assume it is all from the same person. When searching user talk and article talk I have found posts going back to 2012 from this person from a number of IP addresses. I have started making those with Template:IPsock. (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mokshanine.) Is it a waste of time to mark the ones from past years or does that help? Is marking the recent ones helping? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this baby name web page, the name comes from Punjabi. I wouldn't assume that this name is unique without consulting someone who knows more about Punjabi names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A few users I could find quickly with over a thousand edits here, with some recent activity: Gman124, Hunnjazal, Nauriya, Satdeep Gill, Shemaroo, TopGun, Uchohan. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Od Mishehu whats the issue why I ahve been taged here? Nauriya User talk: Nauriya 17:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it true that "Amanbir" is a unique name? I underestand that it's a Punjabi language name, and that you speak Punjabi. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Yes, I haven't heard of a name Amanbir and indeed it is unique. But it is obviously a Punjabi name as Aman and Bir both are pretty common as prefixes and suffixes in various names like Amandeep, Amanpreet and Rajbir, Sukhbir etc. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 13:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, it's not clear to me why I've been tagged in this discussion. I'm not aware of the persons being discussed here. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 15:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Od Mishehu. I meant it seems unique on Wikipedia talk spaces and I am going on more then just his name. (Of course I googled it.) His style is very consistent. Much WP:QUACK in his posts and edits. That is not the question I asked. The question was is it helpful to mark the IPs as suspected sock puppets. Is there a point to marking the ones from years ago. He is IP hopping quite a bit and seems to never come back to an IP he used in the past once it is blocked. I un-tagged those people in your post, so we do not have any more "why am I here" posts. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Having a name in an unusual language is not, all by itself, a reason to think that multiple accounts/IPs are the same person. And speakers of the same language also tend to have similar IPs more often than speakers of different languages. When the main evidence is the name, you need to be sure that the name is, in fact, unusual and not just foreign. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

This is being continually overlooked. Could admins please add it to their watchlist and address issues that appear on the most important page on the entire project please? Some stuff has been on there for 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the Main Page is "the most important page" on Wikipedia is like saying that the cover is the most important part of the book: it confuses prominence with value. I wouldn't give a damn if the Main Page was discontinued, as long as the content of the encyclopedia remained. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. We have errors on the main page. The main page is visited by millions of people per day. The main page isn't a "cover", it is full of so-called facts and encyclopedic content. We shouldn't be allowing errors (which have been reported for hours and hours) to persist. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I agree with you that errors on the Main Page should be fixed quickly, and your call for more admins to monitor WP:ERRORS is a laudable one; I simply disagree with your take on the importance of the Main Page. To me, it's the tail, not the dog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok cool. I still think it's far from the tail. We have dozens of claims on the main page every single day. Turns out that a lot of them are wrong. A mainstream newspaper would be forced into issuing corrections. Wikipedia just shrugs it off. So the least we can do is ensure error reports are given due consideration in a timely fashion. If someone found a glaring factual error on the homepage of a commercial website, I think they'd find it pretty ridiculous and it would undermine the integrity of the rest of the site (which, relatively speaking, is like the Wild West compared the scrutiny that should go into ensuring the main page is up to scratch). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've fixed the obvious glaring error and another issue. I do find that I'm doing this far too often. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not normally around at weekends, sorry I wasn't there to help. I'm a regular at ERRORS and agree with BK and TRM:

• a there are very few admins that bother with ERRORS. Sadly.
• mistakes on Main page make Wikipedia look ridiculous.
• too many errors come through to Main page, especially from DYK and to a lesser extent from ITN.
• something ought to be done but it seems the community doesn't care

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as well, but that's probably no surprise. Fram (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User Issue

I saw today this user. I reverted some vandalism edits, but also some older edits that appears to be vandalism and still on Wikipedia. Like this edit (22 October) and this edit (17 November). I'm not an vandalism expert and don't know how to deal with it, but I think all his edits needs to be checked. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Note I see this might not be the best place to post this issue. But I don't see what the best place is. Feel free to cut and past it to another place. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Spartanburg, South Carolina

Does anybody know what is going on with this article? See history. Given the number of editors I haven't notified any right now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a class project of some kind? Katie^talk 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That was my impression. Is there someone from the education project that can intervene? The edits appear good faith, but extremely poorly executed. And obviously no inkling of Wiki - culture. John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal that may be of interest

Voting on a proposal that concerns block logs and the blocking policy is now open at meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Admins and stewards#Enable administrators to update block logs, through December 12. The instructions say explicitly that it is permissible, and not a canvassing violation, to post a message such as the one I am placing here, so I hope that interested administrators and editors will take part in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be violating anything in particular to post a CentralNotice on this? — Maile (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! No, they say that any kind of good-faith get-out-the-vote message is entirely permitted. Depending upon how widely one would distribute the message (and a CentralNotice would be pretty wide), it could be more appropriate to announce the election as a whole, rather than a single proposal. In fact, a broad notice to users that voting has begun is a good idea in any case. Here is a link to the main page for the survey, by the way: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Advocating a particular proposal might be seen as WP:CANVASSing, but a link to the full set of proposals seems like a good idea (ref Template:Cent which includes such a link now). --Izno (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They explicitly say there that linking to a particular proposal is permitted in this case. I would not have posted about it here if that were not the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"They" is not "us". There may or may not be users here at en.WP who have certain preferences and for which a link to the single proposal would be canvassing. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Then I suggest that those users who may or may not exist take it up with "they". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help closing an RfC

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 available admin or experienced editor please take a look at this RfC on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump and close it. Although WP:INVOLVED I had considered closing it myself given that it is so lopsided that I think it could be treated as uncontroversial. However, there are a couple of editors who are taking great umbrage at the consensus and out of an abundance of caution I think it best that someone else close it. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone??? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 29 November 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 with 2 sockpuppet accounts

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 was referred here by an admin.. this is regarding a fellow editor who has, in the past, been blocked for sockpuppetry. I was wondering if this would be something that interests you and you'd like to block them. The user is HurluGumene and their past sockpuppet[s]: Lurulu and Lurulu2. Thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: Such reports generally go at WP:ANI or their WP:SPI page. DarkKnight2149 22:30, 29 November 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.

malformed AFD

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

---

I see no discussion page for Project .44.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It has never existed. Note that the article was nominated by an IP, who couldn't create the discussion page in the first place. If the IP had given a rationale (e.g. at talk), I'd say to create the page with that as the rationale, but lacking a rationale, just undo the edit with an explanatory summary. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD message has been removed. I think this can be closed now. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:36, 29 November 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:BatteryIncluded and the US Election 2016 results

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.

---

• BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs)

While we've been appaled by the surprise election of Donald Trump, BatteryIncluded appears not to exhibit any views on it. He seems to congratulate the new President-elect, as well as to attack anyone who's against him. He also supports any policy hostile to immigrants, which depended upon by the tech industry, and the proposal to ban the Internet. Most of his comments are favorable to both Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which makes him a puppet.

Most disturbingly, BatteryIncluded is part of a silent majority that stands with Trump, and may helped him. He has shown authoritarian tendencies. There's a specific action to make sure that BatteryIncluded won't involve in un-American actions.

On the right hand note, BatteryIncluded is a long-term problem that crops up every now and then and has shown absolute power over the Internet.

119.40.126.96 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 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.

Please help at WP:ERRORS

There's a dearth of administrators who are willing to help with Main page issues. Really, there are not many of us about. Please do chip in. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this here a couple of days ago? If the main page is dysfunctional and many admins are not willing to join in because of that, are repeated pleas for more fingers in the dike really the way to go? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. But as I'm not planning on deleting the Main page today and it's had issues, I'll flag it up here. Maybe I ought to add a plea for this to every message I write in projectspace. Carthago delenda est! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Zebedee, but what are you saying? The main page is only accessible to admins. If the content there is dubious or incorrect, it is incumbent on admins to fix it. If those admins want to make Wikipedia better, they should follow up on why there are so many issues (e.g. take a look at DYK for starters). But in any case, until we solve the cause, we have to deal with the symptoms. Please, admins, add ERRORS to your watchlist and reduce the embarrassing crap that ends up there day on day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are currently 785 watchers at WP:ERRORS, and no way to tell how many are admins...or no longer even active at Wikipedia. But if my recent experience is any indicator, admins get tired of backing into personal disputes just because they are responding to a request to correct an error. Such a thing is not limited to WP:ERRORS, but is everywhere at WP. That junk gets old fast. I can see how admins get burned out in any area of Wikipedia. And let us please not haul out any project as a personal example of what's wrong with WP. It's a broken record already. If the flaws were mostly at one project, there would be no need for WP:ERRORS. Admins are people, too. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well DYK needs extra special attention, that's why I brought it up. It's hardly a broken record, it's more like a broken project. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps all responsible editors should watchlist WP:ERRORS, and then all repeatedly ask for help from admins they know, whenever the Main Page is covered by serious errors that are not being dealt with. Such an arrangement could be made to a wider forum than those currently being made. MPS1992 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• One problem for me is that things like "pull it" don't mean anything--I wouldn't know what to pull, where to pull, and how to pull. That whole affair is so full of queues and pipelines and waiting rooms and templates within templates, I wouldn't know what to do. I don't mind looking at the page whenever I log on, but it's not a given that I can do anything about it. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  It's all easy enough. Let me know if you need anything explaining. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have WP:ERRORS on my watchlist, and I've started stepping into the fray a bit more. I am comfortable with pulling DYK hooks because I am okay with responding to the aggrieved party who is upset their hook got yanked. I'm not so worried about the template syntax as the various rules and procedures in place - somebody's just asked why St. Andrew's Day isn't in the "On This Day" section, and quite frankly I agree, but I'm half guessing that this is so obvious an omission that it must have been done for a reason (in this case, the {{refimprove}} tag halfway down the article, perhaps). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Challenging closure of Axis: Bold as Love RfC

MrX closed the RfC, claiming "no consensus. There's roughly equal disagreement about whether the source was referring to genres, or simply opining about the album's influences". I am challenging this because--reviewing the entire section--there were six editors who supported the inclusion of hard rock, jazz, and rhythm & blues in the infobox, and three who didn't. That's not "roughly equal", and if the RfC were to be closed, it should have not have been "no consensus"; I believe the closer missed the sixth editor who made his/her stance in a bold yes in the discussion subsection rather than the votes. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Step one is supposed to be discussing it yourself with the closer. Have you done this? Or did you take them straight to AN, without even notifying them? Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

They suggested coming here to me ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but you didn't so much discuss with them as you instantly revert their close. I'm pretty certain reverting closes and arguing through edit summaries is not what is intended by "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion" And with AN just being one possible scenario, you still need to notify them that you started up a discussion that involves them here. That's common courtesy. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Linking their name above should've notified them. Is there anything you'd like to add regarding the actual subject of this post? Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that you're skipping steps in the process of addressing this properly, and should do that first before coming here. I would have speedy closed this had I not participated in the RFC myself. Discuss with the closer first, then come here. And if you do have to take it here, notify people through talk pages - the pinging system is so inconsistent that it's not considered good enough. (You're an experienced editor, do you really not know these things?) Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you're getting at about the pinging system; it works fine from my experience. The editor expressed their position plainly in the edit summary; what's there left to discuss elsewhere? (I've notified them here) Dan56 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Go to the very top of this page. The one you're already on.
2. Scroll down until you see the first block of red text. Then read it.

And again, you didn't discuss anything. He closed the discussion, and you both reverted once with brisk, snippy edit summaries. Stop being so argumentative and difficult every step of the way; if you assistance from AN, then start will following the most basic of the basics. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help resolving accusations against me

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 don't know if this is the right venue or if there is a certain way to do this but I am being accused of being another user named Kumioko here. One person, Bbb23 stated the "checkuser" evidence was inconclusive (I have no idea what that means, but inconclusive to me means not proven). Others seem to be insisting on blocking me just based on some coincidental edits. This Kumioko user attempted to comment but their edit was reverted as ban evasion and the IP they used was added as a "sock".

So I am left with no alternative but to just stop participating in Wikipedia because a couple of people want to ban me without evidence? I need help. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously not a new user, and quickly launched into contentious parts of the project within days of registering your account. It is quite reasonable of editors and administrators to question what accounts you have previously used, and to suspect you might be banned from the project. The best way to help yourself would be to come clean as to your previous accounts, either publicly, or privately to the arbitration committee. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that you're about to be blocked for being a sock of Kumioko. The evidence is convincing, as is the self-incriminating tone and style of your comment at SPI. - MrX 01:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

First I have no idea what I said that was self incriminating. I asked for help and linked to a discussion where i am being accused of being someone else.

Secondly I agree I am probably going to get blocked regardless of guilt. There seems to be a culture of blood here and you are going to get it.

Lastly, I have never had an account before. If you think I had one then prove it or move on. I did a few edits here and there over the years as an IP and have been reading things off and on for a while and yes I read bits and pieces of the Kumioko incident currently and in the past when it was ongoing. Personally I think they were railroaded and the actions I am seeing right now from all of you has me convinced that they were right. I hope you are proud of yourselves for running off another editor who is only trying to help. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

PS, I also have absolutely no idea what I did that was contentious. I assessed a few articles, most of which weren't for WPUS yet it is those you seem to be focusing on. So its pretty obvious you are digging for a reason, any reason at all, to block someone you can accuse of this Kumioko editor. I guess you found one. Go ahead and block me as a sock of them, I don't care at this point. You wonder why I am annoyed? Really? Come on. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Checkuser" looks at technical things (e.g. your IP address) that are otherwise concealed, and tools such as IP geolocation are relevant. If you're on a different continent from Kumioko, the checkuser can say "there's no chance that these two are the same person", if you're using the same IP address as Kumioko, the checkuser can say "the accounts are definitely connected", and if the evidence isn't clear either way, the checkuser says "inconclusive". Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Go read the result. Bbb23 stated the CU was inconclusive. Yet, here we are. I don't really know what CU is or how it works and don't care. All I know is I am being falsely accused of being someone else because I commented on the WPUS talk page and assessed some articles that user also edited. If you have proof then fine block the account. Otherwise someone needs to close that accusation and apologize for the misunderstanding. The apology is less about wanting it and more about documenting the misunderstanding on my talk page to prevent it happening again. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, "inconclusive" means that the checkuser can neither connect you nor exonerate you. In other words, the checkuser results should be ignored, not used as a basis for a decision either way. This being the case, the sockpuppetry case has to proceed on behavioral grounds: are you acting like Kumioko? I'll not offer an opinion either way. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What I am acting like is someone who is pissed off that they are being accused of being someone else and even though the "evidence" doesn't prove it, a few people are continuing with the accusations anyway like they are the Ten Commandments. I'm not sure how someone should react to being accused, falsely, of being someone else...should I say thank you? You tell me? How does this community expect someone to react when they are being accused of something they didn't do or someone they are not? Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

May I speak bluntly? We don't give a shit whether you are a sockpuppet or a saint. People who do useful things are welcome, while those who waste community time and energy by whining at noticeboards are not. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok fine I will speak bluntly as well. I was contributing positively until Fram went to a Sockpuppet "noticeboard" "whining" and "wasting community time" by accusing me of someone else. Now, if you have a problem with me coming here and asking for help with clearing these baseless accusations then I also do not give a shit. Honestly, the longer I argue this with you "editors" that just seem to want to create drama for no F'ing reasons makes me think more and more than this "community" is a lost cause and not worth my time. Now either provide proof of your claims and block my account or close that accusation and apologize for the mistake. Its really that easy. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Guessing that this is my final comment. Both in your wording and in your tone, you sound extremely similar to Kumioko/Reguyla, whether at the start of Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/03#My_block_on_IRC or in the final sections of User talk:Reguyla/Archive 1. Among other things, both you and Reguyla are unusually fond of the use of "false" and unusually prone to use "its" in place of "it's". Moreover, your tone is unusual for someone who's merely annoyed at how a previous editor was received, as is your focus on the idea that Kumioko was banned for criticising administrators; as far as I know, this position wasn't held by anyone other than Kumioko himself, and you sound very much like Reguyla's opening comments at the linked COM:VP discussion. Finally, the "go ahead and block me" sentiment is hardly what I would expect a newly registered user to say in his first comment at a talk page, his first comment in a discussion (it's very rare to see anyone say such a thing), because people who begin editing as IPs generally know how to fit in with the community, rather than agonizing them. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok so first thing first. The its versus it's thing is due to the spellchecker on my phone auto changing stuff. I just got a new phone and I haven't fixed all the settings yet. Next, I never had a problem as an IP because I rarely edited and was never accused of being someone else. It wasn't until I created an account and started editing more actively that I ran into problems. If Kumioko was accused of stuff they didn't do then sure I guess our tone would be similar. I also never realized using the word false to identify being falsely accused of something to be an uncommon term. It's used on TV a lot, I see it in the news and in printed media a lot, so I guess no one told the rest of the world its usage is uncommon. So again maybe you can tell me how a new editor who has been (what's the synonym for falsely accused) should act when they are "wrongly" accused of being someone else? I get it, you people hate Kumioko but you know what, get over it. Not every new editor who shows an interest in the same topics is going to be them and dare I say it, I am seeing why they had a problem with some of the people here if this is how they were treated as well. [insert sarcastic tone here]You're really doing a great job of proving them wrong. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention your phone, because you are not using a phone to edit this site. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know how Mr. Nosferatu (talk · contribs) became aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko? That is, what prompted them to post there? The 8 October 2016 comment shows precisely the same confusion believed only by Kumioko. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well this edit would have caused a ping. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ouch, that's a bit obvious. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone also block the static IP 138.163.0.41? It's Kumioko (self-declared and obvious anyway), and the previous 3-month block of that IP has expired without any improvements so a longer block may be needed for the IP. Fram (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We'll try six months this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 30 November 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.

Creation of six Regional Indicator Symbol redirects

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

---

I'd like an administrator to create six redirect pages for these Regional Indicator Symbol combinations (similar to the redirect of 🇦🇩 to Flag of Andorra):

🇦🇨

#REDIRECT [[Flag of Ascension Island]]

🇧🇷

#REDIRECT [[Flag of Brazil]]

🇪🇺

#REDIRECT [[Flag of Europe]]

🇮🇨

#REDIRECT [[Flag of the Canary Islands]]

🇹🇦

#REDIRECT [[Flag of Tristan da Cunha]]

🇺🇳

#REDIRECT [[Flag of the United Nations]]

I would do it myself but I get a "Permission error". Thanks. DRMcCreedy (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 1 December 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.

IP pushing PoV?

We've an IP 66.244.122.100 who keeps pushing that Roy Cooper has be elected Governor of North Carolina & yet that election is still in dispute. It's quite likely that eventually Cooper will be declared the winner, but that hasn't happened yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian editing on Articles Concerning American Politics

This is a general question but wanted to get some thoughts. It been widely reported that Russia has sponsored efforts to undermine US elections and politics. Russia has developed fake news, hacked emails, etc. I would think it would be likely that the Russian government could sponsor editors on Wikipedia to push certain POVs inside of US politics. Is this something that Wikipedia has considered? Could Wikipedia do anything to prevent this (e.g. identify editors from locations that are located in Eastern Europe or within Russia)? Casprings (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence this has happened or will happen. If we see POV pushing editors, we'll deal with them, same as always. It's rather easy to do so in that topic area because it's under discretionary sanctions. Given that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we're not about to block all of Eastern Europe and Russia from editing a whole topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wanting to know.. but wouldn't this be easy to look at? You just look at articles the Russian government might be interested in (e.g. Syria) and see if ips are: 1. From Russia or Eastern Europe; 2. Editing the article in favor of known Russian positions. You wouldn't have to ban editors. You could then investigate further or even tag the editors so others would know. There is actually plenty of evidence that this is happening or will happen in the future. Russian efforts in cyber are very widely reported by mulitiple wp:rs.Casprings (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you really imagine that the USA is not also making "efforts in cyber"? If you accept that, then we just look at articles the U.S. government might be interested in (e.g. Syria) and see if ips are: 1. From the USA, Canada or Western Europe; 2. Editing the article in favor of known U.S. positions... and so on. The USA does have a past history of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, after all. MPS1992 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, not to mention that we should expect Russian citizens to enter from a pro-Russian POV at times, if only due to their government's influence. Same as US citizens, really. I should say there's no specific evidence of government-endorsed/paid POV editing. I seriously doubt this would ever happen. I could see it on the Russian Wikipedia as an inward-facing propaganda thing, but on the English Wikipedia? When you can choose to dedicate resources anywhere you want to influence American politics through espionage, hacks, theft of sensitive materials, military operations, etc., what sensible government chooses Wikipedia? As much as we like to pretend otherwise sometimes, we're not that important. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest the US isn't making efforts. What I would suggest that it hasn't been reported in an WP:RS that the US government efforts "include thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia." . Multiple sources do say that about Russia. Rather the US is or isn't doing that also seems a little irrelevant to the question. Shouldn't Wikipedia investigate possible influence by governments, rather or not other governments do it? If multiple reporting on Russia is true, editing Wikipedia to support certain POVs would be right in-line with their past behavior. Both the popularity, the rule based behavior of Wikipedia, and the openness to editing makes it a pretty easy target for any organized state effort to sway public opinion. Just saying... Casprings (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Casprings. There seems to be a vague consensus here that it is unlikely that the WMF would or should spend much time investigating possible influence by governments. That, of course, is merely the opinions of some editors here on this one particular project. I think most or all of us volunteer editors do our best to deal appropriately with editing we encounter that seems not in accordance with WP:NPOV for whatever reasons. Speaking of which, you may wish to spend some of your volunteer time assisting User:Sagecandor, who has posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about potential influx of Russian propaganda users regarding exactly that. MPS1992 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't respond to every moral panic that crops up from time to time, whether it's rainbow parties or Russian whatevers. LavaBaron (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Everybody who is editing articles on Russian/Ukrainian topics knows that this happened already years ago. We have a lot of POV pushers, in particular, from the Russian side. They are often accounts which registered years ago but made may be several dozens edits. They appear from nowhere and start non-neutral editing, edit-war, often refuse to discuss or repeat the arguments which were already rejected previously etc. This takes enormous amount of time from editors in good standing, and in the end the accounts get blocked anyway. The easiest is to block these accounts per WP:NOTTHERE as early as possible if it is clear they behave disruptively.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested unblock, user:zanimum

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.

---

zanimum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone could work with me to get me unblocked, as per this suggestion on Meta? I believe the password I was using on LinkedIn some years ago, which was leaked a few months ago, is the password I was using for my global Wikimedia account. Anyway, someone logged in and delinked the main page on about 170 pages, using my account.

I'm an editor since 2002, a sysops since 2003 or 2004, and part of the WMF Communications Committee. I'd like to simply change my password to something secure, and go back to editing, please. How can we go about doing this? My email address is available on my German Wikipedia user page. -- 198.96.114.148 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (user:zanimum at work)

Your email address, nicholasmoreaugmail.com, appears on your userpage here as well. Please reply to the email I've just sent you. Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, that's true! (I got lazy and Googled my username, instead of typing in the URL, and strangely other projects came up first.) I've just replied, thank you for your help! -- 198.96.114.20 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that I've no objection to any admin unblocking the account locally without reference to me, once the ID has been established. Sorry, I don't have time to look into this myself. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have received a response from Nick, confirming that the IP really is his. Now let's see about getting him back in control of his account. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate Zanimum's posting here for the local community to be aware that he will be returning to editing En-WP, but I think the trust and security team in the Office has also been involved recently in confirming that compromised admin accounts have been secured. Zanimum, would it be possible for you to have someone there give us a go-ahead here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• A steward has already unlocked this account. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:47, 3 December 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 continues to remove sourced information

Hello, could I please have help in solving this matter? I added some information to the Guardian: The Lonely and Great God page but another user continues to remove this information. I tried to engage in a discussion with them on their talk page but they removed the message. This is not the first time I have encountered this. I have seen many other South Korean drama pages that list information like this. A few months ago, under a different IP address, the same user was removing large portions of information and when I tried to leave a message on their talk page they ignored it. I had to get another Wikipedia user to act as a mediator to solve that issue and I'm having to do that again. Could someone please help me solve this? Thanks. (124.43.93.21 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

Active politician?

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

---

I have a dispute regarding this, active politician status on the talkpage of a biography - if a person was in a position then are no longer in a position, they have no political job, no political status at all, are they then classed as an active politician, yes or no on the talkpage settings? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari is referring to the discussion here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• That discussion is about the actual article content, this concern is about the talkpage status only, is he to be classed as an active politician or not when he has no political job Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  This is a pure content dispute (about a banner that doesn't really matter at that). What administrative action are you looking for here? Work it out on the talk page. --Majora (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  As an aside, your edit didn't actually do anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • user_talk:zzuuzz Then why was it reverted? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zac_Goldsmith&diff=prev&oldid=752856912 the use absolutallypuremilk is claiming there is a consensus for his change that a person without any political job is to be classed as an active Politian - active, yes or no - then why do we have the parameter?
  • It is more important than that, although it is clear to me, Apsolutepurepilk is disputing it, I am looking for an administration comment to sort this out, it is important, otherwise why do we have the yes or no options, should inactive politicians be classed as active - yes because they have been active in the past? Govindaharihari (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • When you've got users like Martinevans123 on the case you don't need an admin. Actually I see the the diff which is mentioned on the talk page will work - there's more than one parameter to change. Personally I think the talk page template should be reworded to include politicians who have recently left office. As it is currently worded however, it clearly does not apply. Don't bother with whether they are active or not, look at what the template says. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I have requested an edit to the template so this issue does not suck up time again, see here Template_talk:Active_politician#Edit_request. I also suggest changing the wording so it applies to all politicians in office, regardless of whether they are campaigning for reelection. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
      • That idiot Evans knows nothing about politics. He can't see the wood for the trees. Tell him to just get his skates on and stop being so ruddy reckless. Sheherazade Ventura-Bentley123 (talk) 21:43, 3 December 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.

Possibly compromised account

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.

---

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

Recent behavior of WikiCats (see deleted edits too) suggests that it might be compromised. Would appreciate if an admin (or admins) could investigate. Thanks, FASTILY 08:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm going offline now for a while: I'm happy with anyone else taking further/different action. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering the long absence, and that the edits they're making are similar to those made over 10 years ago, my money would be on the account not being compromised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any evidence of compromise either. The two things they have created (and which have been deleted), Parochialism in Sydney and Category:Catholic Church offices, have have been deleted before after being initially created by the same account - a hacker wouldn't be able to see their deleted contributions and wouldn't know they'd previously created them, would they? Also, there is evidence of long breaks before too - not as long as this 3-year gap, but we have only 2 edits between between December 2006 and January 2008, a gap between September 2008 and May 2010 with only two edits, and a gap of nearly 2 years between September 2011 and June 2013 with no edits. As per DrKay's comment, I have unblocked - and will keep an eye on edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Actually, I've just realised that there are links to Parochialism in Sydney and Category:Catholic Church offices at User:WikiCats, so a hacker could have recreated them from there - but I still think these re-creations coupled with previous long absences put the balance in favour of not compromised. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been unblocked by Boing! said Zebedee on the theory that there is no compromise of the account. In my opinion this thread can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 3 December 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.

Image files with embedded data

For those who don't wander over to commons often - there has been a large issue with uploaded jpgs containing a hidden video appended at the end of the file, in order to use Wikimedia as a free web host. I suspect less likely here, as we require autoconfimation to upload, but since commons has implemented an edit filter to stop such uploads, they may start looking elsewhere. See...

• c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Influx_of_files_with_embedded_data_.28CSD.23F9.29
• c:Special:AbuseFilter/160
• Filter Log
  

Would it be sensible to add their edit filter here to to make sure? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The query on Commons yields nothing here. MER-C 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence of active damage on enwiki, I think we should let it be for now. Edit filters are expensive, and this a new/not-very-prevalent issue on Commons. It may be a temporary uptick in activity. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As an admin here and at Commons, I agree: as long as the query finds nothing, we should be good, and we can always use the filter if needed. If I were one of these uploaders, finding myself thwarted at Commons, I'd try to find some other way to do it (I have a "good" idea, but WP:BEANS gets in the way...), rather than coming to the largest of all WMF projects, where folks might find it easy to stop me if I did the same thing. Nyttend (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonywiki

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.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Anonywiki (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of GMOs, imposed at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anonywiki, logged at

log of sanctions (according to EdJohnston, I can't find it.)

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Anonywiki

This is the by far most bizarre sanction I have ever received on Wikipedia.

The original text read that commentators were "pointing out" that Jill Stein's comments contradicted the scientific consensus. The "pointing out" was changed by me to "claiming". In the discussion I added the analogy that if Huffington Post writers are writing that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union we don't say commentators are "pointing out" that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union.

In the end some other editor changed the verb to "writing that", which has the equivalent point, marking an improvement to the accuracy of the article first initiated by me and a mistake in moderation by EdJohnston. I totally agreed with this edit, it was similar to my own, the "pointing out" was changed to "writing that" because we do not have a point of view about this opinion.

In my opinion EdJohnston has not understood the argument and is pushing his moderation powers around. In my opinion he has acted in an outrageous manner and I hope he is sanctioned himself.

I agreed with the new more correct wording but because EdJohnston did not like my opinions he found that he would ban me from the subject of GMOs for one year.

The reason that in one edit I removed the Huffington Post links was because of the incorrect wording. I had zero problem with it after that. Anonywiki (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

The problem with Anonywiki's editing about GMOs was discussed in detail in the Arbitration Enforcement request. The complete set of diffs was presented there. Two other admins supported issuing a topic ban. Anonywiki speaks as though his own position on GMOs was obviously correct, writing that "Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such articles that have specific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them." He does not seem to be aware that an RfC was closed on 7 July 2016 by a panel of three administrators that expresses the Wikipedia consensus on the topic of GMOs. The consensus was found to be Proposal 1 of that RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality

I was the editor who originally filed the complaint against Anonywiki. His/her appeal should be denied for the reasons set forth by EdJohnston, and because Anonywiki presents no substantial reason to lift the topic ban. Neutrality^talk 00:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonywiki

• I see no legitimate reason put forward by the OP for the sanction to be overturned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, assuming that this appeal is declined, I assume that the clock starts ticking on the six months before Anonywiki can appeal the sanction at that time, and is not measured from the original placement of the sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK. Miniapolis 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• I see no reason presented for lifting the topic ban. Decline. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. This appeal clearly doesn't address the totality of the issues presented at AE, and I have no confidence in lifting a topic ban when the editor under sanction doesn't understand why their editing was problematic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline - Editor makes the same arguments made at the original AE, and is clearly attempting to unilaterally change consensus. I see no merit to the claim that EdJohnston overstepped their authority as an admin. Recommend that the six-month clock start over when this appeal is closed, and any appeals prior to that date should be summarily closed on that technicality. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Anonywiki

• There is clear and active consensus to decline the appeal. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:27, 5 December 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.

Question of possible undue weight in articles on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Because I don't have a freaking clue exactly where to post this, I am posting it here. In the first article, the lede prominently mentions the factoid that Clinton won the popular vote by 0.2%. There has been significant discussion on the talk page of the other article on Donald Trump about adding that material to the lede of that article as well. Personally, I think the matter is basically virtually trivia, and certainly doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the lede of either article at this point. The matter has received a great deal of press attention since the election, for various reasons, but I have to personally think that this attention to it is only a temporary blip. I could be wrong of course. I think broader input from a greater variety of experienced editors on this matter would be very useful, and sorry if I put this in the wrong place. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're very incorrect that this is going to be a blip. It's also in the lede not only of George W. Bush but of Rutherford B. Hayes! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There is historical context in both of those mentions (gotta love the ref for the Bush one though), but more generally: House POV will prevail, don't drive yourself nuts about it. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The only part that's really annoying is the tendency to phrase it as "despite winning the popular vote, XYZ lost the election." which puts the emphasis on the popular vote, not the true major event, the actual result of the election. It took a bit on Clinton / Trump to get it phrased as "...lost the election despite winning the popular vote". Subtle but very real POV push and yes, the house POV as well. Ravensfire (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that phrasing to the effect of "X lost in the electoral count, despite receiving (some) more popular votes," would probably be more neutral and place more emphasis on the matter that is really important in these instances, the electoral count, not the popular vote. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, nobody won the popular vote in 2016, as nobody got over 50%. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been mentioned on the Trump talk page too, where someone indicated Clinton won the plurality not the majority. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing goes to WP:NPOV/N after discussions on talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if those articles-in-question were victims of WP:RECENTISM, as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily; Hayes' article has mentioned this fact since at least 9 August 2002. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Particularly the bio of Trump. Clinton has been pretty much quiet lately, but there seems to be an almost uncontrollable urge on the part of people to add content to the main article on a topic, in this case the Trump bio, rather than the more directly relevant subarticle dealing with the narrower topic. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Need other adminly eyes on Arnav19

• Arnav19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arnav19 is a very prolific editor in Indian television articles, but for six months or more I've been dealing with massive cleanup efforts across his articles. He's created tons of them using some flawed template and just keeps creating more with the same weird and unnecessary errors:

• Numbering things 01, 02, 03 instead of 1, 2, 3. I had to fix a ton of these in August but they still keep coming.
• Adding Indic script to the lead (contravening WP:NOINDICSCRIPT)
• Misusing |related=, |followed_by=, |preceded_by= - the first is for spin-offs, adaptations, reboots. Arnav tends to use it to indicate shows that are thematically similar. The other two are for works in the same general continuity. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine precedes Star Trek: Voyager. Arnav et al. use it to indicate that Show X aired in the 8pm time slot before Show Y.
• Generally having no awareness or understanding of Template:Infobox television despite numerous efforts to get him to look at it.
• Prematurely creating articles for individual TV seasons when the articles basically duplicate what's in the main article. Compare Annamalai (season 3) to Annamalai (2014 TV series). Or look at Rayil Sneham (season 3) and ask why there isn't even a main article on the show.
• There was an issue with him recreating Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series) after an AfD had been held for a AfD had been held on a similarly named article. (I just remember this issue. Not sure what to do about it.)
• A couple of months ago I had to fix a ton of articles that incorrectly listed Tamil Nadu (a state in India) as a country.
• I haven't even dealt with the matter of whether or not the articles he's creating are notable. Is it on Indian TV? Boom, he creates it.
• There were numerous other problems -- poorly sourced improperly formatted International broadcast sections, etc.

Now, he didn't create all the articles, but I found I kept finding his name at the bottom of a lot of them. Some of the problems have improved, but many have not. And as a very strange coincidence, many of my fixes were met with extreme resistance by a number of fly-by-night editors and IPs. Like, people were going out of their way to restore 01, 02, 03, and a number of the other bizarre mistakes. Very odd. IP 73.189.117.30 was one of them, a California-based IP on Comcast. In this edit from a few days ago, Arnav creates an article and includes the unnecessary |preceded_by=, |followed_by= and |related=, which gets filled up (erroneously) by a California-based IPv6 editor from Comcast. Given the nature of Indian entertainment articles, it's not out of the question that there are numerous paid editors circulating around these articles. Anyway, the bigger issue is how to handle Arnav, how to get him to bring the articles he's already created up to snuff before creating more, and how to deal with the problems created. I'm happy to help with some of the cleanup, but since I've already been involved in a lot of the cleanup, I think it would be most equitable to let another admin handle the adminning here. Arnav has not been impolite, but his prior assurances that he'd help clean things up I don't think have been fulfilled and he keeps moving forward with new articles instead of being sure that the one's he's created meet a basic standard. I also think that English is not his strong suit, so that will be a challenge as well. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've come across the editor when I was cleaning up after another sockfarm. I've found most of the articles to revolve around shows on Raj TV but unlike that sockfarm (which was exclusive to the channel) Arnav19 is prolific on any dubbed TV series and the articles all had the same problems as the farm. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Leaving pings for User:JamesBWatson, User:Huon and User:Doc James who have issued previous blocks to this editor. Per Cyphoidbomb, now that the editor has admitted there is a problem, if he still seems incapable of changing his approach then a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them indefinitely due to copyright issues and than agreed to unblock them once they agreed they would not happen again. Any more of these since the block? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay yes indefinitely blocked. They continue to copy and paste. Such as here[4] from [5]

The problem with likely paid editors is that they will simply move onto socking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thanks for the assist here. Yeah, it'll always be a problem, but at least if I now have a pattern in my head for this user, it might be able to get them blocked quicker and have CU confirm stuff. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: thanks for your info on that other sockfarm. I'll try to keep that in mind. I've been dealing with something I've been calling a "Campaign of Ignorance" where it seems a ton of IPs and fly-by-night users keep reverting anything that doesn't fit with a cookie-cutter template. I'm going to bend your ear about that on your talk page in a minute. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Let's keep it neutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sinbad Barron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello sysops. I am topic banned from making any edits on the Balkans and this is how it's now been for about a year and a half. I only edit from time to time anyway and the account I have is a legit alternative account of User:Sinbad Barron, but this is known to all editors that have dealt with my account. Ideally I would have liked to ping User:Swarm here but his editing pattern shows he may not be likely to respond to my message any time soon, it is one month since his last contrib. Anyhow, would someone be willing to allow me to make edits once more on Balkans subjects as I promise I will respect concensus, not edit war, and be constructive. I'm happy to accept some form of restriction if this can be allowed. Thankyou all from now for any consideration, in mean time I will edit as I do normally. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify the name E.V.R ( periyar)?. You have mentioned Erode venkata Ramasamy, but his actual name is Erode venkatappar Ramasamy. Pls check and correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaiharajas (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, Elaiharajas, how is Periyar E. V. Ramasamy related to Sinbad Barron's topic ban from the Balkans? Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sinbad Barron: Can you please provide links to the prior discussion that resulted in the topic-ban? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be @Let's keep it neutral: not Sinbad Barron, SB is blocked indef for being a sockmaster, and Let's Keep it Neutral, among others is a sockpuppet. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron/Archive. User:Let's keep it neutral is employing a misleading signature that identifies him as User:Sinbad Barron, a blocked account. According to his block log, the surviving account User:Let's keep it neutral was unblocked by User:Swarm in September 2015 per the terms of the standard offer. In return for being allowed to return, the user accepted a ban from the topic of the Balkans as an unblock condition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Since Let's keep it neutral and Sinbad Barron are the same person, I see nothing wrong with the signature and account use. When a user's been blocked for sockpuppetry, and when a successful unblock request is made, there's no general requirement that the master account be used; if the unblocking admin unblocks a sock instead of the master, it's not block evasion. When the same person has multiple accounts that are openly disclosed, there's nothing wrong with having one account sign its posts with another account's username. See the "Except when doing so..." sentence of WP:ALTACCN. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)

There is no consensus to overturn the RfC closure. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to request a review of the closure of this RfC regarding the page Paul Singer (businessman). It was discussed with the closer here.

The previous RfC for this same issue (12/10/15) can be found here where consensus was established six months prior to the RfC in question. Between the two RfCs, the closer had created a number of discussions (possibly in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) here: [6] [7] [8] [9]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

It must be noted that the RfC in question is rather old (29/04/16) and editors protested the closure since it was closed by the same editor who opened both the RfC itself and all other discussions, and was not necessarily reflective of consensus which does appear to reinforce that set out in the 12/10/15 RfC.

The improper close of the RfC would normally not be an issue, however, yet another RfC has opened, claiming that the last discussion was "inconclusive" and we must therefore have another discussion.

I would argue that this has all been incredibly disruptive considering the huge number of editors involved (36) in the prior 8 discussions from a 16/07/14 RfC to the 29/04/16 RfC is plenty of discussion for something which editors have considered relatively uncontroversial - 23 have been in favour of the current consensus and 6 against, with 7 somewhere in between. Furthermore, consensus has often not been respected in the rare points of calm between discussion, with some of the "6 against" editors making against-consensus edits and reversions.

This is a messy situation, but to conclude, I would like to request the evaluation of the close here and the closure of the current RfC, considering the arguements made by other editors at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC is Nonsense. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.

SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.

Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:

After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): You're hardly the person to close this RfC... is a splendid example of grotesque snark. I did not "close the RfC" and that snark is ill-suited for rational discussion. In addition, I left in the "vulture" opinion about EMC, and note that the lead is supposed to be in summary style. I am concerned that this sort of snark is poisonous to any discussion, and ask that any editor who feels such personal attacks should be used should get the aitch away from here. Collect (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?

From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.

The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Wikipedia calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Wikipedia should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: [10] [11]. You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG; that's a fair representation of my basic thoughts as well. As I just posted on the Singer talk page, we're trying to discuss the use of "vulture" as a descriptor of a human being. "Vulture" is as such a charged word in the sense that we're liable to annex this valued meaning to a word that is used in the context of a business endeavour. Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture. I am utterly amazed people fail to see that. The previous close was precisely that, a "middle of the road close". The "vulture fund" practices are thoroughly discussed throughout the article in the context of what quality sources have to say about the matter. Using the term through a personal angle by making a de facto generalisation in an article's lede is another story, and I believe we were making some progress back in October in this regard. I would very much like to see us return to that stage and come up with a neutral and balanced solution. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC makes for a dramatic read. My perception of things, after also skimming the older RfCs linked about halfway through, is that the prior RfCs were imperfectly framed, and as a result conversations were bogged down by arguments over whether Singer himself was a vulture, not whether vulture should be a descriptor in any lead at all. The RfC certainly has broader implications than one biography, as the overall precedent on Wikipedia most definitely favors avoiding such descriptors in bio leads. Has anyone else been able to find a biography or corporation with an animal slur used in the intro? I tried with several creative search phrases, and have so far utterly failed. This RfC is far from perfect as well, but I do applaud its attempt to focus the issue away from Singer. Most constructive so far, in my opinion, is that the argument that excluding vulture from the lead equals censorship has been debunked several times. Leads are certainly not required to include every detail of a criticism section, and per prior arguments, any concept that could be carried across by "vulture" could also be carried across with an alternate explanation.

Note to whoever closes this RfC: However long this discussion needs to continue, I would like to note that there is obviously not a clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead, even though the reverts apparently leading to this discussion were founded entirely on the argument that prior RfCs had reached consensus. As such, I would like to note that all three of those reverts have been proven to have been without basis, even if they were done in good faith. A number of contributors, several of obvious neutrality and experience, have agreed that a slur of denigration is inappropriate in a lead when applied to a person or company, especially since both the criticism and the neologism can be fully explained with neutral and more conservative words. As such, the argument that there is a violation of the neutral tone mandated by WP:BLPSTYLE is at the very least plausible, however this consensus concludes itself. Until that time, however, the assessment that biography leads must be treated with extra delicacy is absolutely correct, and I agree with Yvarta's bold action to remove "vulture" when he/she did, just like I would have agreed with a decision to remove "rat" or "loan shark" or "pig." Basically, until something is settled, there is currently no consensus', and I believe "vulture" should be again removed until consensus is reached and the barn is built.Bbmusicman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are examples of why I answered as I did, if anyone is interested:

• Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow
• Mobutu_Sese_Seko
• Manuel Noriega
• List of people named in the Panama Papers
• MS-13

My point is that when derogatory information *is true* then we are not required to pretend it's not there.

• NPR story

- btw, for a dispassionate take on what a vulture capitalist actually is. I think people should read vulture fund and vulture capitalist -- nothing there about animals. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I highly encourage you to take some good examples to the RfC, where contributors can see them (this discussion isn't linked on that talk page anymore, after archiving). I'm a bit confused by your examples, though? Shrimp isn't very deragatory, except perhaps to a very short and insecure person, and "dictator" is actually a relatively neutral, especially compared to synonyms such as "tyrant" or "monster" or "fiend." Other phrases, like "mass-murderer," also have negative connotation, but they are clinical and exact, without cartoonish connotation making the phrases more loaded than necessary. Perhaps other examples? Yvarta (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Observations: (1) SegataSanshiro1, who opened this AN thread and who has written more than double the amount of text of the article than any other editor [12], is Argentinian (as noted on his userpage) and has a very strong POV and agenda about the article, since Singer's most controversial debt-funds are Argentinian. (2) In my opinion FoCuSandLeArN should not have closed the previous WP:RfC (nor should he have made the edit[s] presumed to be "consensus" -- at the very least, another editor should have made any edits springing from the RfC), since he started the RfC and has also been involved in the contentious debate(s). One can withdraw an RfC one has started, but one cannot close it. Only an uninvolved editor can formally close an RfC. See WP:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. (3) That said, SegataSanshiro1 has opened this AN thread in a very non-neutral, POV manner, and as Meatsgains commented above, SegataSanshiro1 had no problem with FoCuSandLeArN's 5-month-old close until now. (4) What seems to need to happen is for an uninvolved administrator to look at and close the current RfC that is now on the talk page awaiting closure. (5) I believe Collect, a neutral and highly experienced editor, has encapsulated the issue well in his three comments above. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 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:THQ

Input is welcome on this thread, to try to determine consensus and/or a plan moving forward. I started the proposal, but only after a discussion I was generally uninvolved in (prior to my comment immediately preceding the proposal).

There seems to be a trend toward support in sheer number of !votes, but there have also been some really good compromise suggestions, and some well thought out oppose arguments, including from some current/former WMF folks. Thanks in advance. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock review: User:Musa Raza

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

---

User:Musa Raza was indefinitely blocked, with talk page access revoked, on 20 May 2016 by Admin Tokyogirl79 for sock puppetry, see block log. Following UTRS appeal #15961 against the block, that was submitted on 14 June 2016, Musa Raza was made our Standard Offer. Tokyogirl79 revoked email access on 28 June 2016. Following the elapse of six months since the block, a further UTRS appeal #17018 was submitted on 30 November 2016. As a result of that appeal I am procedurally bringing the case here for Community review. In that appeal Musa Raza fully accepts their wrongdoing and has stated that they wish to "start editing as a completely changed user". However, the Community will wish to be aware of the comments by the blocking admin, here. I have enabled their talk page access to enable them to reply to any comments. Just Chilling (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm against it. They had a pretty big habit of saying one thing in public and a completely separate thing in a seemingly private environment. What I mean by this is that while he was writing seemingly contrite messages on his talk page Musa Raza was sending me e-mails with some semi-veiled insults like calling me a liar, and accusing me of bashing him. Might I add that he was calling me a liar on things that had already been proven, like his sockpuppetry and his repeated refusal to understand why he was blocked. Essentially he was sending me nastygrams because he didn't think that it would get out. Musa Raza is someone that will almost certainly end up blocked once again because he's someone who is trying to exploit the system. He knew pretty well what he was doing wrong all along, but he would continually try to squeak around guidelines by parroting back what someone else said... with a tweak that would, if not caught, have given him the ability to break more rules if unblocked because then he could've said "oh, but they said that it was OK for me to do this thing that is obviously against the rules."

Basically, I find it hard to believe that someone who was trying to exploit the system like this back in June would have had a complete change of heart six months later. I tried being nice to him while he was unblocked by helping to restore an article, only for him to turn around and try to edit via me and saying stuff like "Also if possible undelete the article "Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai" or recreate it yourself cuz I know it is notable Pakistan related article as I was part of Wikiproject Pakistan. It is about a film which is about to be released. But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it." In other words, he was trying to manipulate me into recreating a second article by subtly insulting me by insinuating that I'd be more interested in "getting even" and "bashing" him than improving Wikipedia. By that point, however, another admin had pointed out what he was doing and I chose not to restore the page at that time. It was at this point that he had officially squandered whatever goodwill I'd had for him at this point, as this was someone manipulating the system and bashing someone who had tried to help them in a small way.

I'm a broken record at this point, but I really don't think that someone who pulled as much as he pulled would have truly seen the error of their ways in six months time and I just can't help but feel that he'll likely end up reblocked - but not without causing a large amount of headache and trouble before that point. I feel that if he is unblocked, whichever admin unblocks him needs to take responsibility for his actions because I see this user as a bigger liability than he ever would be an asset and that the only way to minimize this would be to watch him like a hawk. (I still don't think he should be unblocked.) I'm going to ping Bbb23 and Favonian since I know that they interacted with this user in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: If you still have them, would you mind posting an example of the insults/threats sent via email? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call them threats, they were more just insulting. The thing about these was that they were written in such a way that he could backpeddle if he wanted to, but the gist of it was pretty clear: he kept badgering me to unblock him or reduce the block, he didn't really do anything wrong, that he didn't understand why he was blocked, I was unfair and lying about him, and so on. I'll post them all in their entirety, along with notes about why they were so problematic. I need to note that I didn't check my email until after he'd sent two e-mails and in the second message his tone gets a little nastier than his first one.

• First email (sent 5/21/16):

This one wasn't as bad, except that this came after this discussion, where I very clearly stated why he was blocked (sockpuppetry, among other reasons) and Bbb23 came in to explain how the SPI worked. Note that in the above linked conversation he refused to admit that he was Mnaqvii despite the SPI closing as sufficient evidence. In this conversation he claimed that it was all "poor evidence" and that I was going against policy. In other words, he tried to deny everything that he did wrong. He did eventually admit that he was Mnaqvii... but only after he realized that he had truly been caught. In the prior post I recommended against an unblock.

email 1
Hello, I'm Musa. I want to tell you that I only want User:Musa Raza back. Is it possible to get that account back? And please tell me the reason why you rejected my every request. I tried to be very good to you but I don't know why you're doing this to me. Thank you.

• Second e-mail (sent 6/2/16):

Now in this one he acts as if the block will only be for six months, ie - that he'll be unblocked without issue. He also tries to claim that he admitted what he did wrong on the day he was blocked, which was not entirely correct since as was noted above, he initially denied being Mnaqvii. Then when he was caught, he tried saying that "Everytime my unblock request was rejected it urged me to create a new account.", which is not the case unless the templates and guidelines say something completely different than what I've seen previously, especially after he was already caught once for sockpuppetry prior to this. I've never seen someone told to make a new account unless they were blocked for a username related offense and even then, in specific situations. Also of note is that he only admitted to lying once - despite the fact that he lied several times about using sockpuppets.

This is the first time he sent me an email saying that I lied about the reasons for his block. Now the vandalism comments were something that he continually stated because he kept assuming that my (and others') statements about his problematic editing were us calling him a vandal. (He did vandalize my userpage once as Mnaqvii and he received a block under that same account in 2014 for disruptive behavior.) The thing is, one of his big issues under all of his accounts was that he continually had issues with notability and sourcing, despite many editors trying to talk to him - you can see this in his user talk history even prior to his block. (Like here, for instance.) Under the most recent account he was also blocked for edit warring, something that he should honestly have known better than to do if he was really trying to stay on the straight and narrow.

email 2

Hello Tokyogirl, You were inactive for past few days and I wanted to contact you regarding my Block. I contacted Dennis Brown and he told me that you can help be better as you blocked me. I just want to say that if it is possible please reduce the period of not editing Wikipedia from six months because I really want to edit it. I want to create and update articles as I can see vandalism on Shahzeb Khanzada but I can't remove it I want to update release date for Madaari but I can't. I have said before that I will wait for six months but trust me six months are really long and I can't wait. Just forget about lying once. I admitted everything on the same day on which I was blocked. And as I have said many times before I don't want to lose the account User:Musa Raza please make me satisfy in this problem. And PLEASE! You can reduce the time and you know that I'm not a Vandal. Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied. I lied but I admitted it on the same day and now I can't do nothing except apologising you. Please try to understand me for once. When I joined Wikipedia in 2014, I was blocked after a few days. Since then blocks are associated with me even though I haven't made any vandalism. I just want to get out of it now. I want the account User:Musa Raza cuz it's my real name and I made it with a new IP (that was not previously used on Wikipedia) with the intention of being helpful to Wikipedia and I don't want it to be blocked. Kindly reply me here as soon as possible and also to the messages on my talk page regarding undeletion. I also want to discuss article Haji Springer with you. So please reply me. Thanks!

• Third email (sent 6/26/16):

In this one he grows more insulting and accuses me of bashing him. Note the sarcasm in the "lovely message" comment and him trying to get me to do his editing for him. This is after I posted this on his talk page. I have to echo what I wrote here: "Throughout both emails (and this talk page) there was a very common reoccuring theme about them being a wronged party, that they were a great editor, and that they should be unblocked right away. They had to be continually prodded and led into admitting any wrongdoing and the emails have shown that without this prodding they reverted back to the idea that they have done nothing wrong". You can see this prodding at User talk:Mnaqvii, where he had several people trying to explain things to him and a repeated refusal to get the point.

email 3

Hello Tokyogirl, I saw you were bashing me on my talk page. After you left that lovely message Favonian added a script or a probably template above that message so the bot does not archives it. My talk page contains the template {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top. I want you to remove it. I know and I understand that you're the most busiest person and this is the most difficult task. But I think you have the strength to do it. I'm determined that you'll remove the template without facing any trouble. I also wanted to say that undid the edits made by that archiving bot but I know it is impossible task. Also if possible undelete the article "Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai" or recreate it yourself cuz I know it is notable Pakistan related article as I was part of Wikiproject Pakistan. It is about a film which is about to be released. But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it. If you remove that template from my talk page that's enough. I will get back in November 2016 and I'll make Wikipedia great again! Don't forget to reply me. I'm waiting for your response. Have a lovely day. Thanks! 😌

• Fourth email (sent 6/27/16):

In this one he does a bit of turn about face with things and tries to insist that he wasn't trying to call me a liar or insult me on the various account talk pages, like at Mnaqvii, where he said that I was being rude to him for refusing to unblock him because I refused to trust his apologies after he outright lied to myself and several others only a short time before about sockpuppetry and because all of his accounts had the same pattern of sourcing and notability issues - despite having an account since 2014 and getting several warnings on these issues from various editors.

email 4

Hello, Thank you for your response on my talk page and for removing that template. I read your message and I think (maybe I'm wrong) you should not judge me just by a email. It was just an email and there's big difference in messaging and editing. I assume good faith and I have always edited with good faith. You are judging me through emails but what about the messages on my talk page where you were calling me nasty? Even after reading that I emailed you with a nicer tone. And I'm not calling you a liar at all. But you're saying that I have bad faith. I think you should not judge me through the emails. Emails are private but you're making them public and saying it is nasty or a bad faith. This isn't a insult to me? I tried to be more nicer to you in the email and you just say that I'm insulting you or I'm calling you a liar. But you find nothing insulting to me in your messages. And I have mentioned in the previous email that I will join Wikipedia back in November. I have admitted everything but you're saying I'm not understanding the guidelines. And if you think that unblocking me will cause immediate reblock, just try it once. I'm ready to wait for six months but you're saying that if we unblock you, you will be blocked immediately as you assume bad faith. So okay then try it once. I: just want to tell you that an email can't decide how I'm going to edit. I'm not here to insult you. And for the page Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai, just type it in Google News or whatever you use. I have nothing to do with it. I'm just telling you that it is notable and should be on Wikipedia. You're thinking too long about it but you just have to google it. I'm not asking you to edit on behalf of me. And if you think I am then don't do it.

Now some of you might be tempted to assume that these emails aren't that bad. The thing to remember is that these were written during the same point in time where he was lying about his sockpuppetry, accusing me of taking him to SPI without solid evidence, and continually insulting me on the account talk pages by saying that my refusal to unblock him because he violated several guidelines was rude and that I was being unreasonable. He seemed to think that I was arbitrarily punishing him despite several people (JamesBWatson, Vanjagenije) trying to explain things. I got the strong impression that he seemed to think that if he could get enough admins on the page, that one of them would unblock him. Boing! said Zebedee even chimed in, saying "please do not accuse her of not giving a damn and of being too scared to unblock you". That's what makes the emails so insulting, as they were just a passive agressive extension of his posts on the account talk pages and were just him trying to continue to badger and insult me despite it being painfully clear that I was not going to unblock him.

To put this all in a summary: Musa Raza continually thumbed his nose at the rules under multiple accounts. He has tried claiming that he "didn't know any better" and only claimed responsibility when he was forced to, when he knew that he was good and truly caught. When I refused to unblock him immediately for the sockpuppetry and other issues, he accused me of operating in bad faith and made ad hominem attacks (some of which were fairly passive agressive) against me on his talk page and via email. He was initially given a standard offer back in 2015 when his first account was blocked, but he apparently refused to take it and instead opened new accounts. He's shown a long term pattern of behavior where he goes against guidelines despite clear indication that he's doing something wrong and doesn't seem to really want to take true responsibility for his actions. His blocks in 2014 for sockpuppetry weren't effective in getting it across to him that he shouldn't open new accounts, nor did the warnings about notability and sourcing - and those were the issues that made it easy for us to find his sockpuppets. If he wasn't able to learn how to follow guidelines since 2014 (since again, he kept making a lot of the same basic editing issues under his most recent account) then I don't know that his current months long ban would have taught him any better. I think that any unblock will just end in another re-block, given his attitude and editing style. Just remember - he made the same promises back in 2015, under his Mnaqvii account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• I also need to stress that he was saying and doing all of this despite me showing him a little sympathy on May 26, 2016, when I restored a page for him. JamesBWatson rightfully called me out on doing that without asking him first, but this kind of shows how quickly Musa Rasa/Mnaqvii will change his tune as soon as he isn't getting what he wants - a repeated behavior of his. Something else I noticed, which I didn't initially since it must have gotten lost in a flurry of notifications, is that he used my middle name to thank me. That's not somethimg that I've readily given out here, so I'm kind of creeped out by that. If I did say that on here, it wouldn't have been to him and I honestly can't remember when I've said that to anyone on here. I didn't respond to any of his emails, so there's no way he would've known my middle name unless he was searching for information on me. I'm thoroughly creeped out now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline. Based on his communication and behaviour, especially the multiple socks, I'm opposed to lifting the block. As an aside, when he said, "Everytime my unblock request was rejected it urged me to create a new account," I read it as meaning something like "every time you reject my block request, it just means I'll (or encourages me to) create a new account." That is, it was his response, not something suggested to him via a template or another editor. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comments. I think his poor English could be misunderstood in those emails:

Email 2

1. He says Just forget about lying once - Rather than meaning he only lied once, it could be read as a request to forget it once.
2. He says Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied. If you read that as Now please don't say that "I can't do this because you lied" (quotes added), I think it was just poor grammar/punctuation rather than accusing Tokyogirl79 of lying, and that he's suggesting that Tokyogirl79's response to him is "I can't do this because you lied". (Fixed the quote placement, as per JamesBWatson, below - it makes even more sense like this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Email 3

1. Bashing? Poor English, he might just mean criticizing.
2. Sarcasm? I think it is very important to be careful not to read US/UK culture into the words of people of Asian or Middle Eastern origin. Very few of the world's cultures actually use sarcasm, and its use declines the further East you go. My wife, for example, simply does not understand what sarcasm is - early in our relationship she would be really puzzled when I'd say something that was clearly the exact opposite of what I meant.
3. But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it. Again, I wouldn't try to read motive into that from my own cultural viewpoint. I think that email could be read as something like "I've asked you to do several things for me, though I realize I'm probably asking too much, but if you just do this one thing for me I'll be happy".

Email 4

1. I'm not calling you a liar at all - as my comment on email 2, I don't think he was.

In short, I think I'm seeing misunderstanding based on poor English, and I'd urge everyone not to over-analyze specific words and phrases as they would be seen with Western eyes.

And I just want to add that I don't think it is fair to describe these emails as "nastygrams". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Middle name

I can see an innocent possibility, and I've sent Tokyogirl79 an email.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• If he hadn't made a lot of barbed comments and accusations of me being rude and abusing my powers on the talk pages of the accounts, I probably would've seen the emails as more innocent, however his attitude on the usertalk pages was pretty terrible and deliberate to where I think he knew full well how he was coming across. He's made pretty sarcastic remarks in the past as well. I read the email, but honestly that doesn't do much to resolve me being creeped out here. The long and short is that this guy has been around since 2014 and has received plenty of warnings about things he should and shouldn't do, and he couldn't even bother to learn those guidelines and avoid detection under the latest account. He engaged in the same behaviors and even went for some of the same articles that got him detected in 2014, which is how I found him. That makes it a WP:IDHT situation wher he seems to be deliberately ignoring the rules. When he's caught, he lies about the sockpuppetry. He eventually apologizes and confesses a few hours later (after he realizes that he was truly caught), but when an unblock isn't immediately forthcoming he turned abusive and honestly, the way he wrote things on his userpage gave off the impression that he thought that I was arbitrarily refusing his unblock. Again, he was caught in 2014 and has had about two years to learn from his behaviors. If he couldn't or wouldn't learn that sockpuppetry was unacceptable or the guidelines about notability and sourcing in that time, it's not unreasonable for me to be skeptical that he's willing and able to understand guidelines now, especially given messages like this one in his archive where he tried to say that I wasn't acting within policy. That suggests that he has read the guidelines, but is only following the parts that serves his purpose. I don't think that he's capable or willing of editing within policy unless someone were to tail his every edit, which would be a pretty big burden on whomever had to take that on, especially since they can't be on all the time. And you also need to take this into consideration - he was still making errors with notability and sourcing... yet was trying to become active with GA nominations. That's kind of concerning, given that nominating and judging something for GA status requires a pretty good understanding of sourcing and guidelines. I just don't think he's ready or able to be trusted with editing and honestly, I don't think that he will be for a long time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Since I got dragged back into this, I also need to point out that he edited a speedy template that he posted on the talk page of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on April 16, 2016. HW called them out on it. The change was to try to alter the template to make it seem like HW couldn't remove a speedy template and that only admins could do that. The template was added because HW removed a speedy deletion template from Fanindra Deb Institution, an article that Musa nominated for speedy deletion only minutes after it was created and despite the presence of a work in progress tag on the article. Musa kept trying to re-add the speedy tag, which HW repeatedly removed, after which point Musa tried to scare him off by posting the altered speedy template on his talk page. Again, the thing is that Musa is asking us to trust him when a lot of his actions with the most recent account were pretty problematic, even if we ignore the whole sockpuppetry issue, especially since he was acting in a lot of areas that would require him to have a pretty firm grasp of policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Decline. In view of his extensive history of disruption, I am unable believe that he will ever be a constructive editor. I note in passing that yet another instance of Haji Springer, Musa Raza/Mnaqvii's favorite singer, popped up and was speedily deleted only two weeks ago. Favonian (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Hmm, that could be a killer. In the light of this review, would it be justifiable to ask for a checkuser check on User:Pushkar6141? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, looking further, the text of the deleted article appears in a number of other place on the web (probably Wikipedia mirrors from earlier versions), and so the similarity of the text is not an indicator of guilt. I'd be very wary of assuming socking here without checkuser confirmation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Pushkar6141 is  Unrelated to Musa Raza. However, I'd point out that Musa Raza was blocked as Special:Contributions/115.167.70.196 on September 27 by Ponyo, and edited again on November 30 (see his last contribution to Talk:Adam Saleh). I have no confidence he won't continue to disrupt as he has clearly not met the conditions of WP:OFFER. Katie^talk 14:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• To add a bit more to this, I'd like to add that his comments in this edit history, in the last section are pretty identical to Musa's comments about his block on the various talk pages. It looks like he was editing under this IP address since August 2016. It looks like he still had the same issues with sourcing/editing that the other accounts had too. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Tentative Unblock, though I suspect I'll be in a minority here. I've read all of the talk page interactions at User talk:Mnaqvii and User talk:Musa Raza, and the four emails posted above, and what I'm seeing is typical of young and headstrong individuals who have not yet developed the cooler heads that adorn many of our older shoulders. He effectively reveals his age in one of the discussions, but I don't want to expose it further other than to say he suggests he's under 20. Six months can be a very long time to a young person, and he does appear to have sat it out as required. And I'm not necessarily seeing the bad faith here that others seem to identify - although I can see how it can be seen that way. What I see is a combination of youthful impatience, coupled with English that is not bad but seems non-native and does not encompass US/UK idiom too well - and I think it is a mistake to concentrate on specific words and phrases and over-analyze them from our own linguistic/cultural perspective. Standing back a bit from the forest of words and looking at the bigger picture, I see a reasonable possibility that he does understand what he did wrong and wants to put it behind him and start afresh. I don't think that repeatedly rehashing his failures and demanding more and more servility will be beneficial, and that instead we need to decide whether it is worth assuming good faith and letting him try again and prove himself by his future actions. What we stand to gain if we unblock him is possibly a life-long contributor who can bring a perspective on non-Western subjects (which we seriously need), and the worst that can happen is that he creates further problems and has to be blocked again. His edits would be carefully scrutinized for sure, which would greatly reduce the risk - and what risk there is, I think, is worth taking. Blocks, as they say, are cheap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I have to switch to decline in the light of the block evasion identified by Katie, above. The latest edit request at Talk:Adam Saleh shows evasion as recently as November 30. I'd still stand by most of my analysis, but we'd need to see at least six months without block evasion starting from November 30. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have come to this discussion because I received a notification of Tokyogirl79's mentioning me above.She and Boing! said Zebedee are two of the administrators I have most respect for, and when the two of them disagree so much about something, it is worth looking at carefully, so Ihave spent some time checking the relevant history.

One of Boing! said Zebedee's great strengths is his willingness to assume good faith. He is a true expert at giving editors the benefit of the doubt when others (often including myself) had not recognised that there was any doubt. I confess that on this occasion, when I first read his comments, I thought he was taking assumption of good faith too far: clearly Musa Raza was making accusations against TokyoGirl, and Boing! was bending over backwards to find a way of seeing black as white. However, re-reading the quoted emails in the light of what Boing! had said, I came to see it very differently.

Reading "email 2", I, like TokyoGirl, took "Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied" as being an accusation that she was lying, though it did seem that the sentence didn't make much sense: why would the fact that she had lied mean that she couldn't tell Musa Raza that he couldn't do something? And what was the thing that she couldn't tell him he couldn't do? The previous sentence was about TokyoGirl doing something (reducing the block time), not about Musa Raza doing something which "this" in "I can't do this" might refer to. Then the next sentence jumps from commenting about TokyoGirl lying to commenting about Musa Raza lying. It seemed totally incoherent and confused, but nevertheless I still took it, as TokyoGirl did, as including an accusation that she was lying. Then along comes Boing!, who manages to see a very different way of reading the passage. Yes, the whole thing suddenly makes perfect sense if we read Now please don't say that I can't do this because you lied as actually meaning Now please don't say "I can't do this because you lied". And so it goes on with the other things that Boing! mentions: not only is it possible to read Musa Raza's comments as attempts to be constructive which poor command of English makes easy to misunderstand, but reading them that way actually makes better sense of them. It is impossible to be sure of every detail, but I am now convinced that Boing!'s reading is substantially correct.

I am in general more of a believer than many administrators in unblocking editors if they appear to accept what they have done wrong and promise they won't do it again, even if their history gives me doubt as to whether they actually will stick to their promise, because if they do stick to it then unblocking is beneficial, and if they don't, then it's easy enough to block them again. Certainly he has an extensive history of lying, twisting, turning, trying to wriggle out of things. However, having read and accepted Boing!'s suggestion of a good-faith reading of his comments, I now see no evidence that he is still doing anything wrong, and in the absence of evidence we have to assume good faith, and so I think we should unblock. (Incidentally, looking at the editing history to prepare for writing this post, I noticed some interesting history. In May 2016 when he was denying being both Musa Raza and Mnaqvii, probably nobody noticed that as far back as October 2014, Mnaqvii had made a confusing sequence of moves of his talk page from one place to another, with it ending up at User talk:Musa Raza, a pretty good give away of who he was. Subsequently I history merged User talk:Musa Raza and User talk:Mnaqvii together, but I had long since forgotten that by the time he was lying about his sockpuppetry about a year and a half later. I don't think that makes any difference here, but I just thought it interesting enough to feel like mentioning it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• I drafted the above message before Boing! said Zebedee's latest contribution, even though I posted it much later. Having now read that contribution, I should mention that I too had thought that this appeared to be a young editor, and young people really can change very rapidly as they mature. I had intended to mention that in my post above, but forgot. Yet another reason to favour unblocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• I think everyone is making this too complicated. The things MR says are fairly standard by most socks. Doesn't normally happen in extensive e-mail, which I've read and don't find insulting, but that's not particularly material to the issue of whether to unblock him. I've lost count of the socks who say things like, "I'll be good", I just want to edit Wikipedia again", "I have useful edits to make", "There's vandalism that needs to be fixed", "Please unblock me", "Give me a chance", and the list goes on. There's of course no way of knowing what the person will do if unblocked, and many administrators want to go with the standard offer and assume good faith. I think the focus should be on the user's history as an editor. Was he a benefit to the project as an editor (one must consider all of his accounts, too, because, remember, they were all operated by one person). I haven't done that analysis and I'll leave it to others if they want to undertake it, but without such an analysis, I don't see how a decision can be made.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline (Non-administrator comment) per KrakatoaKatie. The user socked extensively as recently as 2 months ago, and appears to have edited disruptively as recently as last week (other users have posted links already) just prior to appealing to UTRS. Even if we don't take those edits as confirmation of evasion, we ought to consider their month-long post-block campaign of email harassment (repeatedly contacting users after being asked to stop is clear harassment) against Tokyogirl79 and other admins as further block evasion, which only stopped when their email access was revoked, and should therefore count six months from June 28. Thus they have not met the conditions of WP:SO. I'm often accused of interpreting SO too literally, so I would also oppose on the basis of behaviour: Tokyogirl79 pointed out this editor's pattern of saying what they think we want to hear in an unblock appeal while continuing to disrupt elsewhere, a pattern which continues with this apparently sincere UTRS request while also resetting old declined semiprotected edit requests on one of their frequent targets and recreating one of their favourite deleted pages. I also don't think we're paying enough attention to the fact that this editor looked up not-readily-available personal information about the blocking admin and posted it on the site, that's hella creepy and a terminal red flag for me. A person only does crap like that with intent to intimidate, and they can just get the hell out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline They were just shown to be socking a week ago. This shows, to me at least, that they are trying to say the right things to get unblocked, while at the same time not change their behavior in anyway. WP:SO would be fine, IF the IP last used is the last one used by this editor until June 1st, 2017. Outside that, this block should stay in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'd posted this above, but here's an edit history on the IP's talk page. If you look at how his arguments for having the IP address unblocked, you'll notice that it's in the same style and fashion that he used on the account talk pages for Musa and Mnaqvii, right down to the caps lock shouting and statement that he wasn't vandalizing - something he made while as Musa Raza, despite my not saying anything about vandalism. He also seems to have made some of the same errors as he did with the other accounts (see this conversation), like sourcing and notability, albeit in this case he was pretty much limited to creating articles at AfC since IPs can't create articles. Still, he made edits with this IP starting in August, only a few months after having talk page access revoked at the end of June. I'd be surprised if this isn't Musa trying to evade a block and just engaging in the same stuff he did before. It's just that it seems like he either can't or won't learn from his mistakes and when confronted with his past actions or any mistakes, he starts getting upset and acting like he did with me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Before I posted my message I had seen that Katie had run a check, but she hadn't commented yet. Now that she has, obviously the request to be unblocked should be declined. The six-month clock should be reset but with the understanding that MR's credibility is shot and that he is unlikely to be unblocked six months from now, even if there is no evidence of socking in between.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline - User clearly doesn't get it. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline - I know my good friend Boing! said Zebedee is more forgiving than I am, but I too am often keen to give kids a second chance and I've spent half an hour on this and checking out the background. I've never once been wrong yet (although of course there's always a first time), and the couple of times I've conceded to a consensus to unblock in a case like this, sure enough the user was blocked again shortly afterwards. So I've seen and read enough and my gut feeling tells me: No. Reset the clock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline My opinion echoes that of Boing! said Zebedee, JamesBWatson and Kudpung. Musa has passion and enthusiasm, which is admirable, but it is not well directed. They're obviously not devious like other sock masters nor a vandal but their enthusiasm and passion needs to be tempered by maturity and experience neither of which WP is designed to impart. I would propose that Musa remain indefinitely blocked for a period of no less than a year during which they may not appeal this block. At the end of the year, they may appeal to the community again for an unblock. Socking of any sort would result in a reset of the block counter and extensive socking will result in a site ban. This would make the block a community endorsed block which can only be lifted by appeal to the community. @Musa Raza: this is not to punish you nor is it because anyone hates you but a way to tell you that trust lost on Wikipedia is not easily regained. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 8 December 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.

xTools

x-post from WP:VPT, I am sure administrators find this toolset useful, and if so please vote on the link below.

Hello all!

As you may or may not be aware, I'm a maintainer for xTools, which is a wonderful suite of tools originally developed by User:X!. As many of you have no doubt noticed, there are some lingering stability issues since User:Hedonil (One of our last maintainers) retired in 2014. His rewrite and maintenance also tied us tightly to Tool Labs, which has its own stability issues at times.

I have been working for a few months to rewrite xTools. I have decided to use Symfony, which has built-in caching and template functionality. My current development version is located at [xtools-dev.wmflabs.org xtools-dev.wmflabs.org], though please note that it is pre-alpha software and very buggy!

I have also asked for assistance from Community Tech. If you believe that xTools is useful, a vote would be appreciated: meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Moderation tools#Rewriting_X.21.27s_Tools.

Note: While technically in violation of WP:CANVAS, Canvassing is permitted as part of the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. See here. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 22:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for BAG membership (bot approver)

Hello! I have offered to help with the WP:BRFA backlog as a bot approver. This procedural notification is to make the community aware that a formal request is open for your consideration. Your input is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: MusikAnimal. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My account is old and has no email attached to it, I cannot get my password reset! Help!

Hello I have a very old Wikipedia user account (Falreign) which has no email associated with it. I remember creating this account a very long time ago and it was not necessary to have an email back then. I want to use my account for normal activity, including a place to store my payment information when I donate.

Is it possible to have my email added to this account name and some one reset my password?

Your help is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.208.15.134 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'll have to create a new account. If you forgot your password, and did not set an email address on the account, there is no possible way for you to recover your password. See Help:Logging in. If you don't have email, you cannot get your password back. The only solution is to create a new account. --Jayron32 17:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no way to do what you are asking. It should be possible for you to get control of the account by following the instructions on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The account has never made any edits. - GB fan 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

GB fan's solution is the only one -- make a new account, and the request usurpation (taking over the name) of the old, unused Falreign account. However, I strongly recommend that you find a better place to "store your payment information" than Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume they meant donating to the Wikimedia Foundation. However you don't need a Wikimedia account to donate; this includes setting up recurring donations. For more information see the WMF FAQ. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Falreign (talk · contribs) account has no edits or actions of any kind, so you won't be losing anything by creating a new account and usurping the old one, except for any preferences you may have set, and the logged creation date of the account. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man

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 past summer User:Parsley_Man brought me to this board. The outcome was a WP:BOOMERANG: 31 July 2016 : "Parsley Man will leave E.M.Gregory alone." Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930. He backed off, briefly, but has recently begun trailing me around making minor edits on a range of articles (I am eclectic, but the fundamental discord stems from our different perspectives on Islamism). I recently requested on his talk page that he back off; he has not. Instead he now follows me around to articles I have just edited to make trivial changes like this [13], apparently just to let me know that he is watching my every step. But sometimes in bizarre ways, as when he followed me from Keith Ellison, which we have both edited, to a page where I was moving a bit of text from Ellison's overstuffed page. Parsley Man made 5 rapid edits, correcting and tweaking, but choosing NOT to correct my error in cutting off the last 2 letters of the congressman's name, [14]. I am requesting that an administrator repeat the instruction Parsley Man was given in July, to leave E.M. Gregory alone." Respectfully, E.M.Gregory.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you've posted here before, you know that there's a big yellow box up there that tells you you're required to notify an editor about whom you've started a discussion. I've done that for you. Don't forget it again. Katie^talk 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have, actually. did I? I might have forgotten. I do know that I was dragged here once by Parsley; not he by me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

my bad. I knew that Parsley Man checks my edits daily, and would have seen this. I can see that I ought to have notified him. But I am not the skilled wikilawyer Parsley is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked his last 50 contribs and only two of them involved pages that you have also edited recently. Are you sure you aren't worrying needlessly? I can't see anything particularly problematic in his/her edits either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

He is a tremendously active editor, you need to look at more edits, or at the comps in the previous ANI. Or check his name against my edits. For example, he recently followed me to Keith Ellison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

He was instructed not to at this page. He backed off for a few weeks, then began to track me around again, slowly but with increasing frequency in the last couple of months. I had already tried ignoring him, so I tried thanking him occasionally for a good edit and cooperating on a few things. I finally gave up and called him on it on his talk page, reminding him of the ANI instruction. He may also dislike me because in one of our earliest encounters, about a year ago, when he burst into Wikipedia like Athena, a fully formed and highly knowledgeable editor, I asked him to list previous names under which he had edited, which he declined to do. I believe that he thinks that by making this a creepy and nasty environment for editors with whose worldview he disagrees, he can drive such editors off the project. He's probably correct.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This tool demonstrates the truth of your words. Even if I check only the pages that you edited first and that Parsley Man has only once edited, I see a good number of articles, including recently edited articles, at which he's clearly just stalking you from place to place. This is entirely inappropriate. I've blocked him for a month, and I'll leave a note that recidivism will probably lead to an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 8 December 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 for the editors with editing restrictions?

Just wondering, and posting this here since I'm sure an administrator would know: Is there a template that exists that editor with editing restrictions can use to make editing requests on pages' respective talk pages? For example, for an editor to use on a redirects' talk page for a rather uncontroversial edit, but cannot make the edit themselves due to restrictions placed on them, but cannot use a "protected page edit request" template since the page is not protected? I've looked through the pages listed at Category:Request templates, and I cannot find one that meets this need. (But, I also want to ensure that the template places the templates page in a category that gets checked frequently.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. It's pretty simple: use {{Request edit}} and replace "COI" with "Edit restriction". However, I don't a situation where an editor with a restriction would even be allowed to make such an edit request. Standard TBANs include talk pages. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 Ombudsman Commission

Hello everyone - particularly CU/OS holders,

The WMF has posted a call for volunteers for the 2017 Ombudsman Commission. The responsibilities of this group are to evaluate functionary compliance to the various global policies surrounding access to non-public information, on all Wikimedia projects. See m:OC and the announcement for more information.

In my opinion, enwiki has been routinely under-represented on this group, as well as many other global groups. If any enwiki functionaries think they have time for the relatively-light workload, then it would be nice to see some volunteers from here! The more knowledgeable functionaries they have on there, the better. Note that anyone can apply, not just those with CU/OS rights.

Regards, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Eddington

I would like to call attention to the article Arthur Eddington, where an unregistered user is adding a weird scenario on the evolution and ultimate fate of the universe, with various analogies, and with some references which don't actually mention Eddington. (I have twice removed the addition as original synthesis, and don't want to be revert warring.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• And it's now removed again. [15] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I just semi-protected the page for a week, via disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Old SPI case needs 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.

---

Can someone please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open for almost a month without a single comment. The evidence is pretty much obvious, but I'll provide more if necessary. Just tell me what to do, and I'll do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:45, 14 December 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.

Close review: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

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 above MfD was speedy-closed by User: Nyttend on the basis that The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Quoting the top of WP:MFD: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early". If you wish to prevent this page from being used, seek consensus to have it tagged with {{historical}}. (diff)

I discussed first with Nyttend at their Talk page here and Nyttend was unwilling to undo the close.

I find this speedy-close to be unhelpful and out of process. Yes the top of MfD says that, but per WP:DELETION MfD is how we delete essays. The reasoning that "we don't do that for established pages in WP" is not true, per (for example) two project deletion discussions -- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism - one of which was successful and the other not, but each of which proceeded through full discussion and was closed and was not speedy-closed. Nyttend also said that we don't MfD essays that violate policy/norms, but in my view we do, per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks.

Nyttend also said that there is no disruption being caused by the Njournals essay, but there has been a slew of discussion all around WP including Jimbo's talk page, this AfD) this User talk page, ANI here, FRINGEN WT:NJournals, etc.

The deletion discussion should be re-opened and allowed to continue through its course and be closed normally. Thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, this is being treated as a piece of the previous section, despite properly having == header text ==. Can't explain why. Despite explanations from people at the MFD and from me, Jytdog repeatedly has failed to get the point: (1) we don't delete such pages, as is demonstrated by his example of Wikipedia:Esperanza, which actually still exists and has no entry in the deletion log; (2) the strife surrounding this page is caused by people making a fuss, not because of a problem with the content on the page itself. The speedy close was due to a failure of the deletion-advocates to advance any reasons for deletion: the nomination was created and supported by people misusing MFD to deprecate a page's use, and it's well established that MFD is a place for deleting pages, not modifying their use: if you don't understand this, you need to be taught (if you'll listen) or ignored (if you won't), not accommodated. You'll note the numerous "keep" or "speedy keep" voters who noted that the nominator's and supporters' stated goals could have been accomplished by getting the page marked as {{failed proposal}} or {{historical}} or something of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Nyttend. I heard you at your Talk page, and posted this to hear from others. Yes the outcome of a MfD is not always deletion; this is true. Sometimes it is. Stepping back now to see what folks say and if this turns out to be a waste of time indeed, i'm apologizing in advance. Jytdog (talk) 004:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Cross posting from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Problematic)
  The speedy close was appropriate, because MfD is not a forum for settling policy questions. This issue of notability of journals, of giving them an easy run relative to the WP:GNG for example, is clearly in policy space. MfD was the wrong forum. The correct forum is an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Also note that this is the wrong forum to challenging an MfD close, the right one is WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• The nominator stated that they thought the page should be, "delete[d] ... and put ... out of its misery", so deletion was being sought. If this were a policy or guideline, speedy keep number five (i.e. "The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy.") would apply, but it is an essay (tagged as such since 2009). None of the other speedy keep criteria are seemingly applicable. I found the rationales of those with a preference for deletion to be reasonable (though I disagreed with them and !voted keep); I certainly would not call six contributors with a preference for deletion (meaning it wasn't snowing) all providing substantial reasons a "failure of the deletion-advocates to advance any reasons for deletion". Unfortunately, "established pages" is vague, and that section addresses policies and is titled "Policies, guidelines, and process pages". An essay falls outside of that in my opinion, and it is not unprecedented for them to be listed at MfD. For example, one of similar size and "establishment" was listed in 2015, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks (the information at the top of Mfd was basically the same at that time). The listing of smaller, lesser known essays like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bitter stories made sweet is more common. I can see where Nyttend was coming from, but I think this is a borderline case that is not cut and dry. As such, especially as the opinions were so divided, I think the discussion should have been allowed to continue. Therefore, I must conclude that we should overturn the close and relist the discussion. I concur with SmokeyJoe that deletion review would have been the appropriate venue to have this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• my apologies to those saying this is the wrong forum. I brought this here because I am challenging the speedy-close ... there was no decision on the consensus or lack thereof. Perhaps that was incorrect. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Speedy Keep" is clearly wrong here, but a SNOW close (also effectively a Keep before the time is up) wouldn't have been out of place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:29, 13 December 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 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.

---

Could use a closer at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ag97. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Or, alternately, the community topic ban proposal at [16]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 12 December 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.

Re-creation of a salted title

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 about the right way to handle this but I suppose we should move Matheus Soares (DJ) to Matheus Soares, if it's good enough for prime time, or move it to Draft:Matheus Soares if it's not. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 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 automated spammer blocking bot going active

Hello admins, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3 has completed the "passive" portion of the trial and is getting ready to go active. If you see any issues, please report them at the BRFA. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Once again, errors has numerous items, some of which have been waiting for six or more hours to be addressed. This is a daily occurrence. Please attend to these issues which affect the main page expeditiously. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Was just about to post an alert when I saw TRM has already done so. ERRORS has some issues that need expeditious attention from an admin. On a side note please see this discussion at ITNC. Admins really need to stop posting substandard articles to the main page w/o, or even against consensus. This is becoming a recurring problem and it is very annoying to those of us lesser mortals who spend time reviewing and working on nominated articles. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Just replace the main page with a banner that says "Welcome to Wikipedia", it's fairly useless anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there actually any admins here?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleared some outstanding or outdated requests. Additionally I'll keep more of an eye on this, though I have very little understanding of the processes going on right now. Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. If any admin needs help in understanding how to fix up the various sections of the main page per ERROR reports, don't hesitate to contact me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Pre-emptive Extended confirmed protection for templates

I've just been asked by a user to reduce a protection level I set some years ago, downgrading from Template Editor protection (TEP) to Extended Confirmed protection (ECP), on the basis that past requests for TEP to ECP were undertaken by administrators (two such changes are in the ECP log further up the Administrators' Noticeboard) and that it would be more suitable for the template in question (Template:Location map Russia).
I've read through the note which was left on my talk page regarding ECP, and I've read through the policy on ECP, and it doesn't appear to permit this pre-emptive usage, but I agree with the broad view expressed by the user, that ECP would be more suitable for some templates.
Any thoughts on this ? Nick (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying my response to Nick from his talk page: WP:PP does not discourage ECP on templates per wording of the policy... not yet. Actually, the wording looks vague, especially WP:PTPROT. Would trying to interfere with protective levels, i.e. upgrading protection from ECP to template-protection, violate the "Wikipedia is not bureaucracy" rule? --George Ho (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and Magioladitis: (Talk page stalking elsewhere). --Izno (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I declined a couple of those as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Totally uninvolved; I don't think I've ever seen this template before. Do you think that TE protection is necessary? If so, don't reduce it: this is fundamentally the same thing as going from full to semi. If not, go ahead; we don't have anything against reducing a page from full protection to semiprotection, and this is, again, basically the same thing. Reducing a protection you imposed, if you now believe the protection to be excessive, is reasonable, and it would go against WP:BURO if someone would oppose your action because the lower protection level isn't explicitly authorised for the page in question. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was a large RfC to determine usage of ECP, located here. In that RfC, the consensus was for Option C, which states "Allow use to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." That was very specific consensus to use ECP only to combat active disruption where semi-protection is ineffective. The absence of specific guidance on applying ECP to high-risk templates doesn't mean it's up to administrator discretion. It means that the community has not yet supported us using the tools in this way. Prior to the RfC, administrators could not use this protection level without specific community consensus or a relevant ArbCom remedy. Similarly, I believe that we shouldn't expand the usage of ECP without some evidence of community consensus specifically for that. I expressed similar sentiments when admins started applying ECP creation protection. Maybe these are positive uses of the extendedconfirmed user right and protection level, but administrators who believe that's true should pose the question to the broader community. Admins are provided the tools to use them as the community has determined they should be used. We shouldn't deploy our technical abilities to effectively change the protection policy without an appropriate level of community input. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Has the community opposed using ECP for templates? George Ho (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't use administrative tools on a "Well, they haven't explicitly told us not to do it!" basis. The community hasn't supported using ECP for templates, which is what's relevant here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If "high-use" templates are not "high-risk" templates, can ECP apply to "high-use" (not "high-risk") templates? I'm basing this on "high-use" and "high-risk" message templates. George Ho (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it can, the community has only recently discussed the matter and agreed that extended confirmed protection is for cases where semi-protection has been tried and where it has failed. The policy says In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. We, as administrators, have to respect the wishes of the community through the use of our tools. I know things change and the wishes of the community often change over time, but we're talking about the most recent significant change in the administrative toolset, something which was ratified only a few weeks ago, I feel this definitely has to go back to the community to be discussed further. Nick (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If the community has only just decided it, why would we go back to the community to discuss it further? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, though pre-emptive Extended Confirmed Protection for templates, as a replacement in some circumstances for Template Editor Protection wasn't discussed during the discussion, so there could be something for the community to discuss without rehashing old arguments. Nick (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Brexit means Brexit, don't forget.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The community just decided on a policy, but this use case never came up. It's not rehashing things to bring a new use case to the community for discussion. Ideally, such a discussion should also discuss ECP creation protection, which is currently applied to 17 pages but has no basis in the protection policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• This request is make-work nonsense. Template:Location map Russia was last edited in September 2010 and the only talk page comment was in July 2010. Editors should not wander about the project looking for things that might be useful. Clarification I mean George Ho should give a reason for wanting a bunch of people to spend time on the template. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I was going to compare this to Template:Location map China, transcluded by 1,300+ pages and semi-protected. However, I almost forget that Russia is part of Eastern Europe, which is subject to discretionary sanctions. So are its related pages. I added discretionary sanctions banner in its talk page. I did the same on the template talk page. Shall I add "ds/talk notice" on many other related pages? If discretionary sanctions is justified for using template-protection on related pages, like "location map Russia", then... I shall not challenge that. Nevertheless, other templates not related to Eastern Europe shall be discussed. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  What are saying? Are you thinking of adding tags somewhere? If so, do not add anything to any page unless there is a need. There may be a theoretical possibility that a tag is needed, but the tag should only be added if needed. Or, are you wanting to have a protracted discussion about why a template that has not changed in six years is protected? If so, do not discuss stuff unless there is a need. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'll rephrase: ...I'm giving up on requesting downgrade on that template for now. The talk about it is done. Now back to general concern about templates and ECP... George Ho (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

George Ho you need to stop posting at WP:RFPP asking for changes in template protection. If the template has less than 1,000 uses or is semi-protected and there is no disruptive activity it doesn't need changing. If it is template editor protected it doesn't need changing. Thanks to BU Rob13 they have all been taken care of. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all the thanks I get for making requests of any kind? You know what? Have it your way. Until you trust EC users to edit templates, I'll not make any more requests for protection on templates. George Ho (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC); edited, 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be fair, I don't mind the edit requests where template protection is needed even when they're currently semi'd. Those requests aren't particularly necessary, as I regularly go through the database report and widdle away at unprotected or underprotected high-risk templates, but they aren't damaging. The continued requests for ECP protection to high-risk templates do need to stop, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho I didn't say you should stop just that you need to be more selective in your requests. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for my outbursts hours ago; I struck that comment. However, I still decide to hold myself off from such requests until the time being, i.e. allowing EC users to edit templates without telling them to request the special right to have access to template-protected pages. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As for requesting protection on templates transcluded by <1,000 pages, I saw one of administrators accept some of my such requests in the past. I thought any of you would do the same. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: It really depends on the template. I'd template protect a template with 100 transclusions if those transclusions were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, United States, etc. It's very possibly I would semi-protect a ~800 transclusion template if the pages were medium traffic, but not for low traffic pages. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up ECP discussion

I've drafted an RfC to gauge consensus on two use cases of ECP at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2. Could some of the admins here look over the proposal and provide any suggestions? I'd like to keep it at these two use cases for now to avoid muddling things up. Note that the RfC isn't live, so no actual comments should be made there yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you add more proposals of usage? "High-risk" can be interpreted broadly. What about "high-use templates"? And what about protecting titles of articles? --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I overlooked or misread the bold statement. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'll say what GH struck himself on: We should distinguish between high-use-low-risk and high-use-high-risk templates. I know that I would very clearly not support ECP for Template:Navbox, but I might for Template:WikiProject Video games--both are considered high use but one has a highly-visible impact and one does not. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: If we get into the weeds of what a high-risk template is, we're never getting out of that with any type of consensus for anything. That's been posed to the community many times but failed to gain consensus any which way. As always, protection should be a matter of administrative judgement, and the protection level should be comparable to how widely used, complicated, and high-risk those templates are. We already trust administrators to correctly differentiate between templates in need of semi and templates in need of template protection, so I think it's safe to trust them to make this differentiation as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If the community doesn't form a consensus in favor of using ECP on "high-risk" templates, maybe another RfC proposal to use ECP on "high-use" templates might do. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we need to keep this simple. Protection is an administrative discretion area, including about which templates are high risk and which are not. Approve it for templates or don't, and if we do, let the decision about what is at risk be up to the administrator. Katie^talk 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this should be generally discretionary - and can be entertained at RFPP as needed. Being able to use LESS protection (ECP as opposed to TP when TP would have otherwise been used) shouldn't be a big stretch. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur, Protection should never be based on a set of "if-then-else" conditions. The admins were already granted discretionary use of ECP, I don't see why template protection should be made an exception. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If template protection is not an exception, how do we motivate people into requesting to become template editors? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Two things: Blackmane, the community never granted purely discretionary use of ECP. They granted discretionary use on these conditions: "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic." Extending that to pre-emptive protection of high-risk templates is more than trivial. The community may or may not want the use of ECP to be extended in that way. George Ho, I'm not terribly worried about "motivation" to become template editors. If we create a situation where less editors need the right, then less editors will ask for it, and that's completely fine. There's no need to grant user rights just for the sake of granting them. Lastly, I will be launching this RfC in the absence of any additional comments in a week or so, when I have time to go about notifying everyone from the last ECP RfC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: yes, you are correct. That was the decision that I was referring to as I was involved in the RFC. Apologies to George Ho for not being specific on this. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: may I suggest adding the sentence "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure on templates against disruption that has not yet occurred" (bolded words mine) in accordance with the existing policy on the use of ECP? While I am disappointed with the last ECP RfC, the community spoke quite clearly, and I don't see a strong case against allowing ECP for templates with ongoing severe disruption. However, I will oppose any attempt to allow using ECP to preemptively protect templates. There are already more than enough protection levels for that. Altamel (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Where are you suggesting I add that? The RfC is already clear that it's addressing only use on high-risk templates. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

After the last sentence of the second paragraph, after "two such potential use cases." insert "In accordance with existing protection policy, if extended confirm protection is approved for either of these two cases, it should only be used with prior evidence of disruption, not as a preemptive measure." That, or something carrying the same meaning. Thanks. Altamel (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this asking for more unnecessary rules, Altamel, or is semi-protection adequate enough or something? Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making tackles that. Also, WP:TPROT says that "template protection" should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists – the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In other words, maybe we can make templates editable just for autoconfirmed and/or EC users. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, in theory, ECP is less restrictive than full protection or template protection. That is a reasonable point. But in practice, I have not seen evidence that ECP is being used to make page protections less restrictive rather than more restrictive. Of the 248 pages that are currently extended confirm protected, I count 8 instances where full protection/template protection was reduced to extended confirmed, and 32 instances where a page was upgraded from semi to ECP. The empirical evidence shows that in general, ECP is being used to deny additional editors the ability to modify pages, not the other way around. I noticed that you have made efforts to downgrade some templates from template protection to ECP—thank you for that. But on the whole, I am concerned that if preemptive ECP on templates is allowed, the general trend will be to upgrade, not downgrade protection, which is precisely what has happened with articles. In the last RfC, the closer wrote that extended-confirmed protection should not be used as a first resort, which I interpret as barring preemptive protection. We ought to respect the result of such a widely attended RfC, and note this condition in the upcoming RfC. I see no harm to clearly spelling out the rules under which ECP may be allowed for templates. All the best, Altamel (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat echoing Xaosflux and KrakatoaKatie in regard to the case of high-risk templates, if it is to be allowed, it should be at the discretion of protecting administrators. That being said, I've always found the template editor usage guidelines to be excellent advice. I don't think potentially opening up the ability to edit high risk templates is necessarily a good idea, because of the higher possibility errors being introduced to them, the chance of bold changes being implemented without consensus, etc. Editing high risk templates can affect the display of thousands of pages, as opposed to just one with the majority of edits. An understanding of that is important when editing said templates.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:PC2016 is still open, Godsy and Altamel. Vote soon before it is closed. PC2 allows other editors to edit under the supervision of administrators, especially when ECP or semi-protection is used, as opposed to TP, which blocks non-administrators out but allows those who have rights to edit TP-locked templates. But the number of TE is very small. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisting of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Though there are a lot of votes, I relisted the discussion because I feared that waiting time for a volunteer to close the discussion, which I requested ten days ago, is getting longer. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin and/or expert assistance needed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_109

The above AfD has been running for a month - I cannot close it as I am involved, as opener. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 11:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Have posted the request at WP:ANRFC. Nordic Nightfury 11:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding Darkfrog24

In the past year, Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of Arbitration Enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Article Titles and Capitalisation case. In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted, following an AE request. In February this topic ban was broadened to encompass the Manual of Style and related topics following another AE request. Later that month, they were blocked indefinitely "until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it" after a third AE request. They were unblocked to participate in an appeal to ARCA in April 2016, which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The block was lifted again in November 2016 to permit the present ARCA appeal.

The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued. The appeal is declined and the block will be reinstated. They may appeal again in three months (one year from the original indefinite block). They are very strongly advised to focus that appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Darkfrog24

Last call for 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey survey ends in roughly 90 minutes. Get your votes in if you haven't already! See also the admins and stewards category. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding Fæ

Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Fæ

Original announcement

Request for admin action to protected page Haredi Judaism

Please see: Talk:Haredi Judaism#Replace image with infobox

Action required: Add {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} to top and move rabbi image to terminology section.

I would do it but am involved. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator protection for block-abusing edits?

An administrator is ordering me to protect the edits of socks with the edit comment, "Do not edit closed AfDs".  Two examples are, [17] and [18] I am giving the administrator a chance to explain himself, but if there is no response here, I will simply revert him, as such edits have no 3RR limits.  @Sandstein:.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Might want to discuss this on User talk:Sandstein before coming here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was clear in my warning: "Do not edit closed AfDs, not even to strike through comments by blocked editors. This creates the mistaken impression that the closing admin closed the discussion in the state after your edits." Our policy at WP:TPO is also quite clear: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." I'm not sure what the point of this is, except to waste the time of others.  Sandstein  17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:TPO is not a policy it is a guideline.  Further WP:TPO has in no way been disregarded.  Changing the meaning to the rest of the discussion is covered by dating the strike.  This is exactly why the edits of blocked editors in AfDs cannot be directly reverted, with the exception of when their post is the last post in the AfD.  Changing the meaning to the blocked editor's comments is exactly the purpose of the strike, which is covered by policy.  Also, this is long-standing practice in closed AfDs, and you've not responded to the point that I can revert you and my revert is not subject to 3RR.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• For further examples of Unscintillating's obsessive attitude and repeated long-term misbehaviour regarding this issue, please see e.g., Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_7#Template:Banning-enforcement_undermining and Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_7#RfC_to_re-validate_WP:Banning_policy. It's also worth mentioning that, after I disagreed with him regarding this issue, he stalked and hounded me for over a year. It might be time to consider a topic ban formally restricting this chronically annoying editor from any edits to closed AfDs. Reyk _YO! 17:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Don't edit closed discussions. Barring serious issues like outing or a severe BLP issue, that's pretty absolute. The discussion is an archive of exactly what the closer saw when they made their close, and it's important to maintain it as such. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that WP:Blocking policy is a policy, and WP:SOCKSTRIKE is established practice, your comment seems to be a matter for you to take up at the respective talk pages. 

Your other point that AfDs are harder to read, I disagree with, as it has been my experience that reading old AfDs with block-abuse strikeouts in place allows considering if the closer was improperly influenced by block-evading editors, which is only done while considering the information available to the closer.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Barring serious issues" - I think we're all agreed on that much. But some of us see socking as just such a serious issue. (I would support this strike-through.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

*Just my 2c here but what's the problem with Unscintillating striking a socks comment & adding a note?, Nac & admins have done it for quite some time & in one case a comment was struck a month after the closure so I don't get the issue here ?, Although AFDs shouldn't be edited after closure I just don't see an issue with striking a socks comment after closure? .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind I didn't realize one sock-strike was added despite the AFD being closed back in October - I personally have no issue with anyone adding a sock strike perhaps a few hours or days of it being closed but these shouldn't be added 2 months (or even a month) after a closure - I'm not going to revert but I would recommend the sock-strike be reverted because it's rather pointless - Many socks have been blocked and many have commented at AFD and many haven't had their !vote striked (nor should they). –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's pretty much never a valid reason to edit an AFD that closed a month an and a half ago. Spouting off policies and essays that you imagine support this behavior is not compelling, especially when It looks like you haven't read them very carefully, i.e. SOCKSTRIKE reads, in part '"When deciding how to clean up after a sock, ask yourself "What is the cleanest and least disruptive way of dealing with each edit?" and use that as your guide. As long as you aren't emotionally motivated, you will probably get it right most of the time. If you are unsure with any modification, just ask an admin first" emphasis not added. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• The issue of closed AfDs has no relevance for policy.  Nor is there any theory that the edits of banned or blocked editors have a statute of limitations.  The following is from WP:Blocking policy:

== Evasion of blocks == . . . === Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors === Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't revert, you struck them out. Not the same thing. In any case, you may notice that literally nobody who has commented so far agrees with your position. As I would hope you are aware, consensus, not quoting rules, is how decision making works here, and consensus does not appear at this time to favor your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I also agree the striking in closed AfDs was inappropriate. Would anybody object to a mass undo of his other such edits today? BethNaught (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the op is so fond of linking to things, I would suggest that both WP:POINT and definently WP:BOOMERANG apply at this point and it's unlikely anyone would object other than the filing party here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll get on with it. BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: It is not desirable to make a fuss about socks or banned users. Certainly sock edits should be struck or removed from active discussions, but there is no point doing that to a closed discussion. We know that some comments are from dubious contributors while others might completely miss the point of the discussion—tagging them is not helpful, and the excitement may in fact be counter productive per WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq, We recently started a similar discussion at WT:Dealing with sock puppets#Recommendations for WP:TPO violations for AfD restored on project page.  Your main focus there seemed to be to prefer removal to strikethrough.  As for your objections to WP:Blocking policy, can I suggest airing those at WT:Blocking policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Your last sentence suggests the boomerang is in full effect here. Beeblebrox said it best above in that consensus is how decisions are made. No party in this thread seems to be in full agreement with you. It might suggest your actions were not ok. Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• I noticed the strikes on a few closed AFDs as well (some were closed like a month ago?). Personally, I don't get the point in striking out the stuff from closed AFDs. Considering that we are trying to WP:DENY recognition, it is better to just let it be. Sometimes, edits made to an AFD after it has been closed are also disruptive in the sense that other editors need to double check the edit - which wastes time of multiple editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There has always been a large wiggle room between that which needs to be done and that which can be done, but most editors wouldn't bother to. I see these strike-throughs as being within this. There is no need for them (the AfD has gone now, it wouldn't have been affected by them). Yet Unscintillating also has justification for striking them: these were socks. It is not a good thing to start talking about BOOMERANGs. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

For reference, I'm not assuming any bad faith and I'm not in support of any boomerang here. I'm just saying that it goes contrary to WP:DENY. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty ridiculous. The others are correct imo that closed AFDs and similar discussions should not be altered unless there's a serious issue. Striking the comments of a sock for the sake of striking them is not serious enough. Doing so changes the meaning. Even an IAR perspective yields little as this behavior does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• If you stirke through a sock's comment in a closed discussion, you're giving a false impression - namely that the closing admin saw the comment crossed out. Please also note that in some cases, a user may appeal a closure on the grounds of sockpuppetry not recognized until after the closure - and if you strike it out, it looks like the issue was known at the time of closure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oyi, I can kind of see the point of wanting to strike those out. It could be relevant to a later DRV or other review of the AfDs. For example, it is common to see someone commenting at an RfA that the RfA candidate was often on the wrong side of outcomes at AfDs and if those were greatly influenced by socks, it might be helpful if those socks comments/votes were struck. That said A) that seems rather unlikely, B) striking them seems confusing, C) the whole thing (honestly on both sides) seems like a huge waste of time. Maybe just let Unscintillating add a note to the end of the AfD saying "bob and tom were later determined to be socks of mary" would be a workable solution (outside of the AfD close box if someone really wants to be hugely litteral about _that_)? Again, I honestly don't think it matters much either way, but if it's somehow important enough we need to discuss it here, I think we can find a compromise rather than having both sides quote policies/guidelines at each other and not be willing to move. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

How about the following compromise: In cases where the sock's participation in the XfD had no meaningful effect, leave it alone per WP:DENY. In cases where there is a real reason to believe that the sock's participation could mislead someone who later looked at the XfD, rather than edit the closed RfA, an editor can post a note in small print at the bottom of the XfD, along the lines of "Post closing note: User:X was later revealed to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Y." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Rereading, I see that Hobit made the same suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Great minds :-). In all seriousness, I'd be okay with this being in all the AfDs if someone _really_ wanted to do it (otherwise I fear we'll be back here with folks arguing about "meaningful effect"). It seems like a waste of time to me, but people are allowed to waste their own time and I don't see how it could be considered disruptive. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It is disruptive because editing a closed discussion breaks the integrity of what is shown in the discussion. If no one ever reads the closed discussion, adding comments to glorify the achievements of a banned user achieves nothing other than encouraging the banned user by doing the opposite of WP:DENY. If others want to read the closed discussion, they now have to check the history, notice that someone made an edit, and then check the diff of the edit to be sure what changes were made. It is simple to link to an archived closed discussion, but if it has been edited, the link is misleading because it does not show the situation when the discussion was closed. Editing closed discussions to glorify socks is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with Johnuniq. Editing the archives in this manner serves no helpful purpose and makes review of the discussion history more convoluted than need be. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear on how this applies to what NYB and I suggested. We are suggesting not striking anything, but instead just adding text at the end (probably outside the closed section). It would be clear without looking at the history. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are aware of how unclear that would be when most of the AfD is sockstrikes.  But [I]t is something to look at.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• This argument has moved into a discussion of WP:DENY, because of disagreement with WP:Blocking policy.  But WP:Blocking policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", so unless this noticeboard is a place to engage in "consensus denial", the place for that discussion would be at WT:Blocking policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Had Sandstein accepted my request for G5, link, there would be no issue now, although there is another AfD that IMO should be relisted and needs more discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, note that the request for G5 took place when there were no edits to the closed AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• facepalm I need a great shot of happy beverage to deal with this kind of special... Does post facto editing of closed discussions improve the encyclopedia? If a closed discussion gets incorporated into precedent/evidence in annother discussion the editors and their commentary will be analyzed then. If an editor takes a principled position against a sock swarm, the explanation will be plain as day (if it wasn't already considered in the discussion itself) when editors look and discover that the "majority" POV was actually the sound of a great many ducks singing in concert. I strongly suggest that OP drop the stick unless this is the molehill they wish to sacrifice their wiki career on. Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• And now we see attempted WP:FORUMSHOPing since he doesn't like the result here:[19]. Don't worry, I already shut it down. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Are you closing that RfC in your authority as an administrator?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking this question because you have something to say about that? Because if you do I'd rather you just come out and say it, your passive agressive style of questioning everyone is extremely tiresome and does not serve you well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

trying to unilaterally alter policy as a result of this discussion

• I've updated WP:Blocking policy to reflect the administrator's close of the RfC at WT:Blocking policy that comment is not needed on the question "Are block-evading edits within closed AfDs protected edits?", as the question has been asked and answered.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • After a revert I went with a bit weaker wording and there is some discussion on the talk page if anyone is interested. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• You are really acting the fool here. There was no formal policy change, there was a consensus arrived at here that your edits were not helpful. It's really not that big of a deal unless you make it into one, which is only going to WP:BOOMERANG on you. Drop it, like now. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • *le sigh* this is par for the course, with its utterly misleading edit summary. I think it's sour grapes but sometimes it's hard to tell when Unscintillating is being sarcastic. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure

This is a request to review the closure at Talk:Wurdi Youang#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus (or lack thereof) incorrectly. I and other editors have discussed this with the closer at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure.

The RFC was closed as "no consensus"; there were several editors on each side of the debate, and (to my mind) no indication that any editors were likely to change their minds on the subject. However I do not think that "no consensus" is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because:

• According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies"
• According to WP:CLOSE#Consensus the closer should "discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy"
• Editors in favour of including the coordinates in the article explicitly cited policies, and well-established guidelines and precedents, specifically.
  • WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia will not remove ... information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic
  • WP:5P1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. "a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information".
  • WP:GEO#Usage guidelines: In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place.
    (As is currently done on 1,000,000+ other pages.)
• Editors wanting to remove the coordinates appear not to have cited any Wikipedia policies at all that would exclude the coordinates.

Even the closing statement says that there is a policy that would have the coordinates included in the article (even when an external organization wants them removed) but does not mention any policy that would exclude them.

The result of "no consensus" is not appropriate because it applies equal weighting to opinions that have no basis in policy, whereas those opinions should have been discarded; only those opinions based on policy should have been considered. I submit that result of the RFC should have been to include the coordinates because there are several policies and guidelines that say we should include them and explicitly say that we will not remove them at the request of an external organization. There are no policies that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The GEO wikiproject can state whatever it wants, it is not valid policy or guideline regarding content, any more than any other wikiproject. The only real argument with a policy back was NOTCENSORED which relies on the information being 'encylopedic', given that the only point of co-ords is to precisely pinpoint a location, it is arguable if that is useful information if the location is in private ownership and is a culturally significant area that is highly unlikley to welcome tourists tramping over it. As the owners have specifically requested it not be geolocated, this is even more unlikely to be useful. What it is - useful information, precisely where it is (beyond a general area) - useless given you cant go to it. As there was only one policy-backed argument, which was directly opposed by people arguing the information was not encyclopedic, a 'no consensus' result is acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agreed that WP:GEO#Usage guidelines is not a policy, but it is a generally accepted guideline whose existence - together with the existence of coords on many, many other articles - tell us that the precise (precision per WP:COORDPREC) location is deemed by the Wikipedia community to be encyclopedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects only indicate that members of that wikiproject find the work they do encyclopedic. It does not necessarily make their focus encyclopedic just because a number of people are interested in what is (for a lot of projects) less-than-useful cruft. It is arguable that there is an encyclopedic benefit to that information, and since multiple people have argued that, a no-consensus result is a reasonable close to that RFC. You need a stronger argument than 'other stuff exists' and 'its encyclopedic' when people disagree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I note that I already pointed to Mitch Ames that policy reasons were presented, and that they are aware of it. It is their choice to come here and state otherwise. Diffs: Mitch Ames disagreeing with the RfC, just about the same text he posted here (but I have not compared thoroughly); me pointing two presented policies; Mitch Ames replying to me, so he knew that policy reasons were presented. - Nabla (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that the "removers" did not present any policy, I'm asserting that the removers did not present any policy that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Here's where I point out that your two policies do not exclude the coords from the article, and thus are immaterial to the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

From that point of view, then I may say that you have not presented any policy either... - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• endorse Here we are weighing potential real-world damage vs. harm to the quality of our article. This is not a trivial issue--in fact it is in many ways one of the key issues at Wikipedia. We need to weigh these trade-offs all the time here (that trade-off is, in fact, the basis for our BLP policy). The claim by those wanting to remove it is that there is no significant gain to be had by including the GPS coordinates, and there is potential harm to the site. The claim by those wanting to keep it comes down to NOTCENSORED and a wikiproject best-practices document. I think both are fairly reasonable. So I endorse given the numbers and the relative strength of both arguments (I'm honestly not sure what I'd have voted here). Hobit (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. Once something's added, and you have an RFC requesting its removal, "no consensus" defaults to retaining the content, not to removing it. Moreover, the closure depends on "ethical concerns voiced by several editors", but we aren't bound by certain groups' ethical concerns. Perhaps there's actively consensus to remove the coords (I haven't looked over the discussion itself), but if that's the case, we'll need to have a completely new close, because the current one is deeply flawed. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close. Personally, I think an interpretation of policy that would give WP:BOLDly inserted content special status is incredibly wrong-headed. Consensus requires substantial agreement which is too large of a burden to require for removing material that never had a real prior consensus. Also, you have conflated "ethical concerns voiced by several editors" with " certain groups' ethical concerns" which is a misreading of my closing statement. One oppose commenter spoke specifically to Wikipedia's overarching purpose ("The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the preservation of human knowledge and culture."), which is an argument of some merit. One commenter asked "Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners?", which is a valid rebuttal of the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments, a policy that specifically relates to removal or inclusion of offensive material. - MrX 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". — As I stated at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure, [20] taking the literal wording of the question ignores the fact that the disputed change was the removal of the coordinates, for which there was no consensus. [21][22]. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article when the RfC was started. The article did not include the coordinates at that time, nor for a full five days prior to the start of the RfC. - MrX 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NC is a tricky thing. What is the default when we can't reach a decision? An IP added the data and no one edited the article for a long time. But soon (in terms of edits, but certainly not time) after the addition was reverted, then reinstated then reverted again. It's not clear where the "bold" edit was. In cases like this, I think we need to defer to the closer. But a review is certainly reasonable. I'll continue to endorse that close. The more I think about it, the more I think the request to keep the data out of the article seems reasonable. It's a lot like a BLP issue IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

An IP added the data ... — We should judge the edit on its merits, not on the editor that made it. If we are to judge edits based on the editor, then we need to also consider that Dhamacher has a potential conflict of interest as a researcher working on the site. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My intent when researching the history was to figure out the timeline of all of this and mention them. In this case, it was an IP. I suppose I could have given a full IP address but I felt the exact address didn't matter. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot like a BLP issue ... — There's a fundamental difference: we have a WP:BLP policy; we do not have a policy that says "do not include coordinates" I know there is no policy that says "include coordinates", but see my previous points re WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines as to why we should include coords). That's why my review request says the "no consensus" result is wrong - when you exclude the arguments that are not based on policy, the consensus of editors who refer to relevant policies is that the coordinates should be included.

Perhaps we should have a policy on not providing coordinates in some cases - I've certainly suggested it several times during the discussion, but none of the "excluders" seem to be sufficiently motivated to try to create one. But the reality is that we do not have such a policy, and consensus should be based on existing policies. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Policy follows practice here, not the other way around. AFAIK, this issue hasn't come up before and seems like something that is rare enough that it likely won't come up often. As such, we shouldn't have policy--instead we figure out what the right thing is to do. And we do use relevant policies. (NOTCENSORED doesn't _really_ apply because it's not about offensive material, but the spirit of the idea is there. Same with the ideas of BLP even though this isn't a BLP. We look to policy and history to help us make decisions, but when no policy is fully on point, we need to wing it and figure out what we think is the right thing to do.). Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Similar discussions have occurred before: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#Unsourced geocoords] is about unsourced coordinates, but also delves in to sourced but sensitive coords; Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations is about wildlife, but it's the same principle - the risk of damage to something if its location is published. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Those discussions are a bit old, and not quite on point, but seem pretty relevant. One common thread is that we shouldn't be publishing information that isn't published elsewhere (WP:V etc.) and that that argument is a fine way to keep unpublished information off of Wikipedia. Is there a reliable source for this location? Hobit (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates originally come from an UNESCO-IAU case study about Astronomical Heritage, author was Ray Norris. This case study was published on the UNESCO Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy (see http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1 ). I am the Technical Manager for this UNESCO site. As soon as we became aware of the formal request (by the traditional owners of the site) to conceal the precise location, we complied with this request and changed the original coordinates to the "cultural center" where the traditional owners are happy to receive visitors and guide them to the site. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates are reliably sourced, as mentioned several times during the dicussions: [23][24] Mitch Ames (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The second one is effectively a blog from what I can tell, and the 1st is a later redacted report. Which I will note that the owners of the site could have removed from the archive if they requested (or created a robots.txt file). I think the situation is more complex than I had thought, but I'll stick with my endorse. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

actually we submitted such a "right to forget" request to archive.org (dated october 27, 2016), but have not yet received an answer from them... Ruediger.schultz (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Endorse non-inclusion'. When it comes to inclusion or non-inclusion of material, Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out". All the wikilawyering in the world about whether the material was in or out at the time of the RFC doesn't change that basic guideline, so "No consensus" means "No consensus to include". And absent any compelling reason to include the exact coordinates -- an ACTUAL reason, not handwaving about principles -- then the cultural center is perfectly appropriate to use for the co-ordinates. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out" — What is the actual policy? (You know, those things that RFC decisions are supposed to be based on.) In the absence of policy, can you please provide some evidence to support this assertion of "Wikipedia's practice has always been ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand how Mitch Ames thinks that further ridiculous Wikilawyering would be any way convincing. It's also not my job to educate Mitch Ames on the most basic of practices here -- his entirely self-serving interpretation to the contrary . But tell you what, I'll go dig up the (ludicrously unnecessary) evidence just as soon as Mitch Ames provides NOT further bureaucratic waffle or vague, question-begging handwaves about "encyclopedic", but ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center -- which is where the general public would actually go and is therefore ACTUALLY USEFUL and ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is not my job nor responsibility to read his mind to figure out why this is so goddamn important to him yet he is unable to give a rational explanation that is not 100% bureaucratic. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

... ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center ... — The article is about the stone circle, not the cultural centre. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In other words, no, it's bureaucratic bafflegab all the way down. Is this some sort of "fight the power!" issue with you? --Calton | Talk 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the existence of coordinates on 1,000,000+ other pages suggests that the locations of places and objects of fixed location is generally considered encyclopedic, ie appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not the site is accessible is irrelevant to the fact that the location of a fixed object/place has encyclopedic value.

I repeat my earlier question: What is the actual policy or guideline, or where is the evidence that says Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out"? You may not agree with my interpretation or weighting of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines, but I have cited policy, guideline and precedent to support my case. Perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of citing some evidence for your alleged "When in doubt, leave it out". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note on "reliable sourced coordinates": We just got informed by the archive.org team, that (as per our request based on the request by the traditional owners http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/duane-hamacher/files/2016/10/Letter-to-Wikipedia-re-Wurdi-coordinates.pdf ) the UNESCO Astronomy and World Heritage Portal page about Wurdi Youang has been excluded from their index. So the UNESCO page (nor any historical snapshots of it), where the disputed coordinates originate from, can no longer be referenced as a reason to include these coordinates into the WP article.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Two IP's constantly edit warring and harrasing each other

The IP's of Special:Contributions/95.49.103.80 and Special:Contributions/95.235.130.101 have been constantly editing and warring against each other on both sandboxes and userpages, 95.235 has been insulting the other constantly and 95.49 has been spamming the other with warning templates and including a report to ARV. Either one or both of these IP's are in the wrong and should be dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -glove-(alt, public) (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/95.235.130.101 for 31 hours for vandalism due to a number of their edits. Looking at the 2nd IP right now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They might be the same person. This may be a sideshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and the other IP's edits are showing a attitude that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This diff here: [25], calling the placing of a unwarranted level-4 warning "a joke" is enough to warrant a short time out for disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And to add one more detail, both IPs were globally blocked due to LTA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Move made during Requested move discussion

Please see [26] and [27].

Move made during ongoing Requested move discussion.

Please move the page back and protect until the Requested move discussion has run its course.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Note the tag on the top of the page (before) the move, said: Do not move the page until the discussion has reached consensus for the change and is closed. (Emphasis in original tag). Sagecandor (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Page was moved back by Volunteer Marek. I've asked the user who renamed the article to refrain from doing so again; no need to protect it unless we have more problems there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the user who renamed the page has stated that "it was a mistake for me to just change" the title of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer for User:Spirot67

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:Spirot67 made an unblock request (at their talk) page after they were given the WP:standard offer. I copied the whole request here for admins' consideration:

Dear Wikipedia. I seek a review of my blocked status on this site. I have understood that my editing efforts in March, relating to the Daily Beast, constituted a violation of the rules and etiquette of the site. Although my intentionat the time was never malicious, I have realised subsequently that the manner in which I edited the articles was deemed aggressive and in contradiction to the rules and etiquette with regard to disputation on this site. I have since then become aware of the rules and have understood how (going forward)to more effectively and constructively edit an article in such a manner that it complies with the site's rules and regulations. I understand that this would involve dialoguing with other contributors on the Talk page when matters of differing opinion arise. I am also aware of the three-revert rule within 24 hrs, and that in matters of ongoing dispute, where consensus cannot be reached with other collaborators, that a formal 'dispute resolution' process exist to over come the dispute. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your reply. (Redacted) Spirot67 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we unblock this user? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• The 2016 U.S. presidential election is over, so the temptation to edit disruptively in favor of one's preferred candidate is probably much diminished. I think it's alright to give Spirot67 another chance. Just the same, I would advise Spirot67 to avoid political articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• The election may be over, but social and political conditions in the US haven't changed one iota, and are more than likely to be exacerbated on all sides in the next four years, so the argument made above by NRP doesn't really hold water. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think BMK makes a good point, but what's the worst that can happen? If he goes right back to edit warring over American politics, he can be instantly topic banned via discretionary sanctions (as long as someone gives him a warning prior to unblocking). If you want to give me a trout if he starts edit warring again, that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That's certainly true, but why give an alcoholic a shot of bourbon just because he asks nicely? Sure, we can throw him into jail if he then goes on a bender and does harm to others or damage to property, but he wouldn't have done it in the first place if we hadn't enabled him, so why do it? (And, yes, I'm quite aware of the irony and dangers of the analogy.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm all for second chances, but like Reagan, I believe in "Trust but verify". I prefer a CU review before unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• CheckUser shows no evidence of socking from the current IP address Spirot67 uses, and he has made no edits other than to his talk page in the last six months. The suspected socks listed on his talk page are stale. Katie^talk 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Katie. While CU isn't magic pixie dust, it does lend credibility, and as such, I would support extending some rope here. Blocks are cheap if it doesn't work out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I echo the concerns voiced by Beyond My Ken, but there will be plenty of scrutiny of Spirot67's future edits, and blocks are indeed cheap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I believe we can give him/her another chance. SQL^{Query me!} 17:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. While I also agree with BMK's comments, the passions surrounding the elections themselves is likely to be substantially diminished. While the next 4 years will likely be tumultuous, I don't see how that would be necessarily a stickler provided that doesn't impact Spirot67's editing. Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Past history in the modern era would certainly lead to that conclusion, the problem is, I think this particular time is going to be an outlier, and the tumult is likely to be somewhat more severe than you might think. However, if other editors are convinced that watching Spirot67's edits will be sufficient, I'm not going to mount any additional arguments against unblocking them (and I'll try my damndest not to say "I told you so" if things don't work out, which I hope will not be the case.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock per reasonable request, BMK is welcome to place ITYS on my talk page in 72-font, bold letters if warranted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Nah, I'd get very little pleasure out of that, but thanks for the offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support of lifting the block, with the understanding that any recurrence of problematic behavior will very likely lead to another block which may very easily receive much less favorable review later. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - request sounds sincere enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 12 December 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.

Edit warring and attacking

187.67.133.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been revert-warring on Live from the Suwannee River Jam. When I reverted their removal of the redirect and warned them on their talk page, they proceeded to leave an WP:NPA violation on my talk page. Please block. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously "fascist" is no good, but seeing as how you're kind of acting suboptimally on that page yourself, how about we just let their momentary loss of cool slide? Also, you need to tell them you're talking about them here. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for editing Mediawiki:common.css

Hey, Per Special:PermaLink/753600253#RfC for changing colors to align with Wikimedia UI and Special:PermaLink/754556867#Reopening discussion about aligning colors with Wikimedia color palette and no objection after the given time, please change content of Mediawiki:Common.css with content User:Ladsgroup/common.css. Thanks. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. An unadvertised section at the village pump that has only been open since the 8th is not cause for changing the main CSS for every single user of Wikipedia. Normal RFCs last quite a bit longer. --Majora (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Majora The change is almost unnoticeable but if you think it should stay open longer, Can you give a time? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

More then a week, less then a year? More people have to have a chance to look at it and 5 days is not enough. Many editors only edit once a week. There are numerous admins who understand CSS and how delicate that particular page is that watch VPT all the time. You definitely didn't need to post here. Those that are involved in technical matters know of your thread. And worse comes to worse you can always use {{edit fully-protected}} on the mediawiki talk page. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful time span. I'll do the {{edit fully-protected}} instead :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The time span was to make a point since I can't give you an exact time frame. It doesn't work like that. --Majora (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was open for three weeks in the talk page of common.css, it's almost unnoticeable change. Use common sense. And I asked you to give me a time span and not to make a point, right? Why seven days is enough for RfAs and not for a slight change in the Mediawiki:common.css when it's constantly changing even without an RfC sometimes? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's such a "slight change", why are you so all-fire hot to implement it immediately? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Because I have a lot other things to do and I want to finish this so I can move on to other things. Is it clear? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 06:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so Wikipedia should hop to it because you're one very busy chap. Got it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not busy, Otherwise I wouldn't be answering to you :)Ladsgroup^overleg 08:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladsgroup, you have a rather intrusive signature, could you please change it (remove the yellow smiley bit)? Fram (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, sorry for that. I did it when I was so young. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for unblock discussion from User:The Rambling Man

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.

---

Pursuant to the terms laid out at WP:AE for overturning an arbitration enforcement block, User:The Rambling Man has requested that he be unblocked here. Background on this block can be found here, here, at TRM's user talk page here and at the blocking admins talk page here. As I, at this point, am merely acting as a means to transmit information here, I am officially done commenting on the matter, and will make no vote in this discussion. --Jayron32 12:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock and allow the WP:AE thread to come to a consensus one way or another, per my comments at the ANI thread. Regardless of whether TRM's comments were or weren't a breach, the blocking admin was both clearly WP:INVOLVED by any possible measure, and in disregarding the ongoing WP:AE discussion was either inappropriately supervoting (if he was aware of it), or failing to conduct even the most cursory of enquiries into the circumstances (if he wasn't). I do feel that the tone of a lot of TRM's recent commentary has been inappropriate, and this block was arguably correct, but this is clearly a single admin using the letter of the law as a pretext to block someone against whom he has a grudge, rather than the genuine neutral enforcement of policy. ‑ Iridescent 13:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED states that "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor." In the previous incident on TRM's talk page, Mike V was acting an administrative capacity, issuing an AE warning. Mike V is therefore not involved in a way that would prevent them acting in following up that warning. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• But he has also prevented evidence against TRM at the ArbCom case[28] and made proposals against TRM there[29]. Fram (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• That evidence seemed mainly about TRM's interactions with other editors. Providing such evidence and suggesting remedies is an administrative type of action, not an indication of personal involvement. Where is the evidence of some direct clash between these editors? Andrew D. (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The refusal to even come back to the incorrect interaction ban reminder, coupled with the addition of evidence and proposals to the arbcom case, and the block bypassing an ongoing AE discussion, certainly gives a very strong impression of an admin out to get someone at all costs, as most people in this discussion (here and ani) seem to recognise. Fram (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that I support an unblock, on the basis of my comments in the AE thread, but as I have twice declared in the context of this incident that I am not uninvolved when it comes to TRM (as we have collaborated on WP for years) I ought not to count towards consensus here. Iridescent's proposal to return the matter to AE is a sensible one. Bencherlite^Talk 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose - the terms of the arbcom sanction under which this block is imposed clearly state that it may only be appealed at the the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. As this is not that page, appeal is moot. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That same section says "If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator[...]" The argument for the unblock is that Mike V is not an uninvolved editor, making the block invalid under that section. Valid blocks can only be appealed at AE, but this one can be discussed here. Fram (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Policy is absolutely explicit that AE blocks can be appealed at AN as well as at AE. Arbcom are not Govcom, much as some of their members may like to pretend they are; they have no authority to unilaterally overwrite policy in that way; they can create additional processes for appeal, but they can't close off the existing ones. The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. if you want chapter-and-verse from WP:ARBPOL. (I should know; I was there.) ‑ Iridescent 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Withdrawn. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, the sheer amount of procedural bureaucratic (Redacted) wrapped up in this is staggering. TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Iridescent. I want to go one further and see Mike V desysopped or, at the very least, admonished, for abuse of tools which were used incorrectly in order to have the last word here. He was way too involved to administer any kind of block here. Cassianto^Talk 13:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Like Bencherlite, I don't think I would count as uninvolved here, but I do believe that Mike V should not have blocked TRM (and should have removed his incorrect interaction ban warning). So, as an editor involved with TRM (but as far as I recal not with Mike V), I support an unblock and a continuation of the AE discussion. Fram (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - two fold, a) Mike V is clearly involved and shouldn't have done the block themselves plus the "supervote" or "didn't even bother to look" issue and b) because as stated above ArbCom should not be given the ability to unilaterally override policy to suit themselves. This is a lesson for both to learn from. Mike V about appropriate actions, and for ArbCom not to try and create situations where they have all the say and everybody else has none as they did with; The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Nope, among other things this is policy; request review at ... AE or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). Plus also the enforcing admin and ARCA, but, they aren't relevant here. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and a gigantic trout to Mike. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support speedy unblock so that TRM can participate in the AE thread. No comment on the block itself at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent. JAGUAR  13:40, 14 December 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 Closure Review: Talk:Michael Portillo#RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in the infobox?

This is a request for an official review of the decision to close the Request for Comment at Talk:Michael_Portillo, which was requested by Smerus and carried out by Midnightblueowl. The RfC concerned the issue of whether the subject's infobox should contain his political predecessors and successors, as is customary on other BLPs and as is provided for in the community-endorsed infobox template. As you will be aware, the standard policy is to let RfCs run for 30 days, unless the discussion has come to a standstill and there is either an agreement by both sides that the RfC should be closed or another compelling reason for closure. This RfC was opened on November 14, 2016 – it was closed today, Dec. 3 2016, whereas under normal circumstances it should have been closed no sooner than 11 days from now. Discussion has not come to a standstill (an editor !voted and commented just 10 hours before closure), and there was no such agreement by both sides that the RfC should be closed; the request for closure was filed by Smerus without the consultation of other editors. Moreover, as this issue is relevant to thousands of BLPs wiki-wide I think it is all the more important that the RfC be allowed to run for at least the full 30 day period. Prior to making this review request, I informed Midnightblueowl here and they agreed that an official review was appropriate. I have also notified Smerus on their user talk page. Best wishes, Specto73 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It might make more sense to open an RfC about including predecessors and successors in politician infoboxes in general. Everything said there pro and con has general applicability. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: That is precisely my view. As the inclusion of predecessors and successors in political infoboxes is the current status quo standard, I agree that a wiki-wide consultation would be more appropriate. Given the general applicability of this issue and the overwhelming past consensus, I would be exceedingly grateful if you would reopen the discussion – I don't see any reason that suggests the RfC should have been closed in the first place, and I am disinclined to start a general RfC as I am very much in favour of maintaining the status quo. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

" Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review. Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." (WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). If anyone is concerned about the "thousands of BLPs wiki-wide" (actually it only affects 'Infobox officeholder' articles), they should, as suggested by DGG, take the issue to discussion at Template:Infobox_officeholder. If they are 'disinclined' to do this, that may offer some index of the true level of their concern.--Smerus (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have said, WP:RFC very clearly states that an RfC should run for at least 30 days unless there is a compelling reason why it should not. No such compelling reason was provided at the time, and the request for closure was submitted without the notification of any other editors. My submission is that, as the discussion was still very much active at the time of closure, the closure has cut short any opportunity for further valuable input on either side. I did not want to start a further RfC as I think that it is pretty clear where the past consensus lies, but, if that is what it takes, I will gladly do so. Specto73 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would ask, also, that admins take into account the fact that three 'Yes' voters (Smerus, Nikkimaria, and Gerda Arendt) have been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for unhelpful or disruptive contributions to infobox discussions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes. Specto73 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What a lovely comment ;) - Seriously: we just saw a RfA fail because of things 4 years ago, and this is just as old. Two of the three were only warned, I was restricted and have never found out why, but also don't care. The restrictions were lifted in 2015. I think any closing admin would be better advised to check if comments in the given discussion were helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would add that, in that distant but spectacular battle, I was one side and Nikkimaria and Gerda on the other. The fact that we have concurred on this issue might give food for thought.--Smerus (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we always agreed that infoboxes should be concise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ps: The then-arbs saw you and Nikkimaria on the same side, but we know how well they looked at evidence, proposing to ban a user because he uncollapsed an infobox. I asked the next arb candidates what happened in the edit in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal

Some editors have previously brought up issues with the existences of pages like Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal in the project namespace. Comments at this would be welcome. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

Either this jerk or a copycat was doing this last night as well. IPs I blocked already are 2607:FB90:A084:951A:2EB5:7DF8:2A2B:4C95 and 2607:FB90:2BC:4C23:CF9:EF23:FCF5:2FDC. Widr blocked another one a few minutes ago. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

See here for more: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2607:FB90:A025:56C3:6F1A:1DC3:6173:E38F. I've blocked a few myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Last night it was this and many others. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I placed a short rangeblock on the /32 above to stop the immediate disruption. CU shows that they may be using some sort of bot for the disruption. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I love you like a son, but I can't block that range. It's huge. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
      • That's what Zilla said? Block Chicago, come on, do it. You get shot there anyway. You walk out the door, you get shot. But thanks for looking into it, mom. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
        • You mean that doesn't just happen here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
          • And another edit conflict with the little Drmies. Never mind, Zilla tired of this. Why is the SPI link red? Bishonen | talk 19:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
            • After I posted the link, DoRD deleted the SPI it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Yeah there is no point to it. It's some LTA, no doubt, and I think their lunch break is over. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DoRD: It looks like they are back again under the 2607:FB90 IP range, as 2607:FB90:17CC:9B8F:2B3F:72F4:5CFD:197A (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A2BA:C01C:4B2A:5162:98F7:6BED (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:2B4:722B:2F0A:297A:F70E:2AFC (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A29B:C9E3:558A:F709:74C7:1042 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A2A9:13A1:F12C:BF05:55F5:BEDC (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A287:8D1:2B1D:ED24:5715:3031 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:2CE:BDED:2335:8358:7259:2FE6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A236:36B:4CF3:FD6D:9053:9359 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2607:FB90:A03D:7D1A:9E20:3A50:1C1E:6B8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) among lots of others, I'm sure.

I also have access to the 2607:FB90 range, as it can used by all T-Mobile customers, and getting a new IP address in this range is as easy as rebooting your android/smartphone, or even just simply turning on airplane mode, then turning it back off again and just after one IP address is blocked, the serial vandal is able to obtain a new one only in a matter of seconds.

I have often used that range to do anti-vandalism work, as RickinBaltimore has seen me at WP:AIV a lot... With that said though, there is no trouble switching to the IPv4 range for this network. All you have to do is change/edit your APN settings to force an IPv4 (172.56.X.X, 172.58.X.X and/or 208.54.X.X) address to be used instead of an IPv6 (2607:FB90) address. While this may seem irrelevant, performing another (perhaps longer than the last one) rangeblock on 2607:FB90::/32 once again may not have as much of a collateral impact as one may think because you can switch to the IPv4 network by changing/editing your APN settings in order to use an address from a different range to edit. Though, I'm pretty sure that not everyone using this network knows how change/edit their APN settings, which would be very problematic here...

Anyhow, just some food for thought, and since I also use the 2607:FB90 range, I thought that I might put in my two cents as well... :-) 73.96.113.62 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't be talking about ways to bypass rangeblocks, for fear of WP:BEANS? Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit suppression needed - non controvertial

The previous version of the picture here is non-free, I have reduced the image sufficiently to suit. The previous version needs to be deleted. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 14:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Nyttend. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: FYI, the best awy to deal with that is to tag the image with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block assist

Hey all, I was looking into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal and happened upon 8.37.225.* editing at Hira Public School one of the sock's favorite haunts. It appears to be a Pasadena, California IP (Level 3 Communications) that seems to only produce edits targeted at Indian subject. I opened a bunch of the contrib histories here to determine that. I also notice that Courcelles blocked this IP as part of a range for being a proxy--Should this be expanded at all? If so, a range block expert would need to look into this as I'm useless in that capacity. And just to clarify, I'm not certain that the entire range is being used by this one sock to evade a block, I'm bringing this up here in case someone more familiar with IPs and proxies wants to weigh in on whether or not they think the range is being used in a manner consistent with existing policies, and if not, to block them. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend Template:IP range calculator (alias {{blockcalc}}) by Johnuniq for any admin who wants to see the possible effects of blaocking an ip range. The documentation is pretty comprehensive, but you can always direct questions to Johnuniq, who is very good at answering them. In the case you mention, you could write a CDIR range like {{blockcalc|8.37.225.0/24}} or just give the IPs you want to check {{blockcalc|8.37.225.127 8.37.225.118 8.37.225.114 8.37.225.150 8.37.225.151 8.37.225.169}}. Here's the result of the latter:

Sorted 6 IPv4 addresses:

8.37.225.114

8.37.225.118

8.37.225.127

8.37.225.150 – 8.37.225.151

8.37.225.169

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
256	256	6	8.37.225.0/24	contribs
80	16	3	8.37.225.112/28	contribs
	64	3	8.37.225.128/26	contribs
12	8	2	8.37.225.112/29	contribs
	1	1	8.37.225.127	contribs
	2	2	8.37.225.150/31	contribs
	1	1	8.37.225.169	contribs
6	1	1	8.37.225.114	contribs
	1	1	8.37.225.118	contribs
	1	1	8.37.225.127	contribs
	2	2	8.37.225.150/31	contribs
	1	1	8.37.225.169	contribs

It shows you could cover the given IPs in different ways (1 range block of 256 IPs; 2 range blocks - 16 and 64 addresses; etc.) and links to the tools that shows contributions in each of the cases. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 8.37.224.0/20 as a webhost. Thanks, all. :-) Katie^talk 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's one busy range. Draft:Quantil provides some information about this network. It's probably being used as an accelerator, by something in India by the looks of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom election results live

The ArbCom election results have been posted. 7 Arbs have been elected in total, all on two year terms. You can review the results in full here.

For the Election Commission, Mdann52 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly! Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to someone who's averaged twelve article edits a month in the past year coming second behind only NYB, you mean? ‑ Iridescent 22:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here! Unless you consider that honest comment "belittling" in which case, see you next week! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope their were no Russian hackings ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Judging from the comments above, all the "real" candidates must have been disappeared in the preliminary proceedings. Iridescent, DQ, if that's who you're talking about, does a thing or two which also relate to our day-to-day proceedings. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I believe the community should thank all of those who ran, and congratulate (or at least commiserate with) those who won. Serving on ArbCom can, I think, be an onerous task, but it's a necessary one, and I thank all involved with the election. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Neelix mass deletion 1

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 need an administrator to speedily delete the below 100 redirects. I have reviewed them all and found them to fall under WP:X1. I can't put a speedy deletion template on all of them because it's tedious and takes too long.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh...wouldn't it have taken about as much time to type or copy/paste that list as it would have to type or copy/paste the CSD tag for each article on the same list...? Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The list already existed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anomie/Neelix_list/6, I review them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamebuster19901/Neelix/S Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would 'Sabre-toothed' (a redirect for Sabretooth disambig page) be deleted at an RFD? Seems a reasonable redirect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Likewise why is 'Saint Helenian' an invalid redirect to its page? Its even explicitly mentioned on that article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Likewise the 'Saint Bridget/Bridgit of Ireland/Kildare' redirects seem reasonable. Brigid of Kildare has been spelled differently at different times in history as can be seen from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

'Sagacious' should probably be redirected to Sage (Philosophy), but 'wise old man' is certainly a valid alternative article for an explanation of the term. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Saint Benoit Kilisesi also appears valid from looking at the article. I agree with the below, a lot on that list appear to be valid redirects that require a discussion rather than speedy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I see quite a few that I do not believe should be speedy deleted. The OP needs to go back through and look at each one again and tag those that truly do not belong. - GB fan 14:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Recommend that OP repost this list at WP:RFD, there are quite a few here that should not be deleted. For example, Saint Denis of Paris is a perfectly valid exact title match redirect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... and several of these are not even redirects. If AN will indulge me, I'm going through this list and will tag any I feel qualify for deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hatted so the list doesn't spam the noticeboard. Happy to go through them; there are some useless ones, but plenty that could survive an RfD. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, if you don't think any particular ones should be speedily deleted, then don't delete it. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Will work off a copy of the list on a userpage, rather than here. Please note there's quite a few that would need an RfD, and some (SALC for example) which aren't redirects). -- Euryalus (talk) 14:45, 16 December 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 G7 request

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

---

Hi all,

I was wondering if an admin could delete all pages at the following links please? 1 23. These are all now redundant, so should be deleted - and I don't want to clog up the CSD queue! Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I guess I'm confused. The second link contains User:Mdann52/spamlist41, and that's a list of user pages, including those of some valuable contributors here. How are those redundant, and why should I delete user pages of rollbackers and reviewers who haven't requested it? Or do you want the list itself deleted? Katie^talk 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this refers to the pages in Mdann's userspace themselves. Note there are three links, one of which was broken before. Mdann52, could you clarify? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13 and KrakatoaKatie: These are distribution lists for past ArbCom election mass-mailings. As these lists are generated each year, there is no need to have them. I should add this only applies to the pages listed on the three links (eg.User:mdann52/spamlistxx), not the userpages listed on the pages. Mdann52 (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:45, 16 December 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.

Reviewing unblock requests of own blocks

I've always understood that unblock requests should be carried out by uninvolved admins, and not the one who made the block. This is certainly the principle I use. Is this the case, and is it written down anywhere? I've looked through WP:BLOCK and WP:REVIEW, but couldn't see it. Note, this does relate to a recent example, but it's not my intention to name the admin in question at this time, especially as it's almost certainly down to ignorance, not maliciousness. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's it - missed it when reading it first time. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, if a request convinces an admin to undo his/her own block, (s)he is certainly permitted to do so and respond accordingly to the request. If an admin remains unconvinced by the request, (s)he may add a comment below the request, but not decline it. If a request is actually abusive (to the point of RevDel), the blocking admin may handle it in blatant cases. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Mike V

Enough, already. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 the community to take a look at admin Mike V's recent behaviour, and perhaps past behaviour if others have anything to add. He erroneously warned me for what he incorrectly believed was an infringement of an IBAN. I immediately rebutted the warning with a correction to whom I was referring, yet he dismissed my statement with his incorrect opinion that "I believe it is quite clear that you were ... (referring to the IBANned editor)" , i.e. that my previous rebuttal was therefore a lie. I then asked him to "leave me alone" to allow someone else to assess the issue and provided a series of diffs of the individual I had been referring to. He then refused to acknowledge any further requests to remove the warning. Then he re-appeared to block me for 72 hours yesterday, a block which was considered WP:INVOLVED and against the consensus at WP:AE, and one which a number of fellow admins considered inappropriate. He has since refused to accept any responsibility for his actions and inaction, going on to accuse me once again of lying. I note that a number of vastly experienced Wikipedians including many admins have expressed concern over some of these specific events and Mike V's actions over the past two weeks ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], more on request...) and I have been strongly urged by a number of editors to start this thread to enable this situation and all other such instances to be discussed with a view on what remedies should be imposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I have not seen any evidence presented that Mike V was involved apart from in an administrative capacity. The block itself was justifiable as many others have noted you did violate your restriction on insulting other editors. It is perhaps unfortunate Mike V was not aware of the discussion already taking place, so a gentle reminder to be more careful in that respect might be in order. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Ahem..., people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. CassiantoTalk 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC) An editor who proposed to get an editor sanctioned at Arbcom, presenting evidence and proposing FoFs; who then goes on to present an interaction ban warning which, even when it is shown that there is no evidence that it was a violation of the interaction ban and when good arguments are presented that the links refered to another editor just leaves the discussion (and later reasserts that his warning was correct, just because he says so), but two weeks later jumps to the opportunity to block said editor when someone makes a passing remark on IRC, without even bothering to check if an AE discussion is ongoing... No, no evidence at all that he was involved and out to get TRM. A gentle reminder to leave TRM alone (in his administrative capacity), to re-examine and retract warnings when multiple people provide good arguments and evidence that it may have been wrong, and to change his approach to adminning if he wants to stay an admin for much longer might indeed be in order. Fram (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Yes. I am not familiar with all the Arbcom details that have gone before, but in my view Mike V is involved here by virtue of not replying (for 13 days) to TRM's response to the initial interaction ban reminder. People should not regard silence as a proxy for nothingness.(Non-administrator comment) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) It's a shame that the original AN was closed in an hour with only a dozen participants and the AE was closed in less than 24 hours, as I had wanted to make a comment about this. I'll try to be brief, but I do have a number of things I want to say. First, TRM violated his restriction on belittling other editors. As far as I can tell, no uninvolved administrator challenges that. The only question was over whether this should be a final warning or a block, and both outcomes were defensible. The repeated claims that this AE block was "bad" are just incorrect. Second, this was an AE block, which can only be overturned by a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". That simply can't be achieved in an hour, giving no time for the blocking administrator to even respond. The use of administrator tools to "speedily" revert an AE block deserves considerable scrutiny. Third, Mike V is not involved. He has acted only administratively with regard to TRM, which is explicitly allowed by WP:INVOLVED. Fourth, Mike V should have exercised better judgement in this situation. I happen to think this was a good block, but Mike V should have realized how much of a shit-storm any enforcement of TRM's restrictions would be. It would have been better handled by a group at AE than unilaterally. It wasn't an improper action or use of the admin tools, but it was an unwise one. Lastly, TRM is dangerously close to violating his restrictions again. Some of the comments in this thread are certainly belittling. ~ Rob13Talk 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC) That is absolutely wrong and in no way "belittling". It's a statement of fact. There's a club of admins protecting their own. This is precisely the problem with the sanctions, that people don't seem to understand what "belittling" really means and see "statements of opinion" as such. Incidentally, the AE block was determined to be out of process, hence the closure notes. And why ignore his accusations of lying against me? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC) And if it really was "belittling", why didn't the admin to whom it was addressed get all sniffy about it and block me on the spot? Probably because he's competent. I suppose if you run personal opinion past a sufficient number of admins, you'll find one who finds it offensive or contrary to sanctions or whatever, particularly when they're so subjective. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'll also note that this post may disproportionately draw editors to the discussion with a particular point of view. ~ Rob13Talk 13:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Then you'd be wrong again. If you took the time to read my talk page, you'd see that many editors and admins have asked me to open this thread, so I have done so and noted as such. Perhaps you're looking for some angle here and not really covering the actual initial issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC) As TRM's Arbcom case showed, there's a sizable group of 'we hate TRM'ers equally or more likely to come out of that. Which is ironic, as it was TRM's comment about Banedon canvassing this group during the Arbcom case (ignored by Arbcom) that started this whole thing when Mike accused TRM incorrectly of referring to another editor, rather than Banedon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Indeed; many of them seem to be watching TRM's edits and are ready to pounce on any move he makes. They'll come. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC) My opinion: leaving the initial warning response for 13 days was inappropriate and the block was both involved and a poor decision, given the concurrent AE process that was under way. The lack of communication and refusal to apologise makes these bad behaviours worse. This all feels like bullying the kid who's in trouble with teacher - it's playground level and unbecoming of an admin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Mike V should, at the very least, be admonished for being too involved and using his tools to have the last word on TRM. TRM spent days asking for an apology from MV for insinuating that he was a liar, among other things, but he was ignored. Then, when TRM sailed perhaps a little too close to the wind (I'm not up on the where and wherefores in the matter) along comes a silenced MV to dish out a block. This person is far too block happy (as illustrated on my own block log) and he needs to be reminded of how to treat people, first and foremost, and then how to be an administrator. It's people like him who gives administrators a bad name. CassiantoTalk 13:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC) It was acknowledged at AE that Mike V's block was likely subpar given the flack he ought to have reasonably expected from it, but it was also acknowledged that he was not WP:INVOLVED to a degree forbidden by the policy and as Rob said above, nobody uninvolved is challenging that the block was correct. TRM ought to consider whether repeatedly rehashing this discussion with obvious intent to bring sanctions against another editor is a further violation of the same Arbcom remedy he was just sanctioned under, or whether it would be better to drop it and get on with building an encyclopedia. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I'm responding to the requests of numerous users to bring this up, and I'm also here to get the interaction ban warning revoked and to seek for Mike to acknowledge that calling me a liar twice is unacceptable behaviour. Like some of his fellow admins above, you have failed to address the whole opening thread. And are you now trying to suggest that I can no longer bring any user's misbehaviour to AN because it's a "further violation"? Seriously? I guess that's one way to fly below the radar. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) In what way would this be a violation of his restrictions? If his restrictions mean that he is now free to be attacked by any passerby and isn't allowed to complain about it, then the restrictions need to be abolished or rewritten. And how is he "repeatedly rehashing this discussion"? He was blocked during the previous discussions, which were closed when he was unblocked but didn't really address things like the previous interaction ban warning. Some editors here believe Mike V shouldn't have made the previous block, some believe he can happily block TRM again if he sees anything which he believes violates the sanctions (like, apparently, this very section does). Leaving such issues unaddressed isn't helpful. Fram (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I find that Mike V.'s behavior over the past few days WRT his handling of the TRM block was, at best, lacking in basic competence and at worst, shows a willful disregard for basic due process. I find Mike V's explanation here to be wholly lacking; specifically the way his story changed multiple times to respond to evidence presented by others that he was unjustified in his block. Bencherlite raises some interesting points here at ANI as to the sequence of events. The fact that he invoked WP:AE, while there was an actual discussion going on at WP:AE and then acted in contravention of the consensus at that discussion at WP:AE is irresonsible at best. That an admin would claim to be doing the will of consensus at WP:AE when, at the time the block was issued, another admin had already assessed that consensus and formally declined to block TRM is just awful. Either Mike V. saw the comments and directly violated the developed consensus, OR Mike V. didn't even bother to check the very forum he stated in his block notice he was enforcing a block for. I'm profoundly disturbed by either possibility as to his competence to wield the admin tools. --Jayron32 14:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Mike V presented evidence against TRM at the arbcom case. He also issued an interaction ban reminder in response to ambiguous questions by TRM, which could have referred to any of the two users that were said to have canvassed during the case, and which in context likely referred to the one that TRM doesn't have an IBAN with. When called out, he didn't respond until this blocking incident blew up a week later. This is IMHO enough to make him WP:INVOLVED, and the timeline noted by Bencherlite and Jayron's comments on that timeline above show that this block was likely in bad judgement. As for the block itself, while it may technically fall under the arbcom remedy, it seems overly strict to impose this in cases where the other party very clearly failed to follow instructions that left the Main Page open to image vandalism. The first three diffs presented there are harsh, but largely true statements when directed at Michael Hardy's attitude towards the main page. The fourth, is more problematic, because of telling a female editor to grow a pair can be seen as sexist, but was likely used in its metaphorical sense, and is at best a borderline reason for blocking under the restriction. Any block resulting from that comment should have been from the AE discussion and not from an admin like Mike V who is already arguably involved. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC) More evidence, if any were needed, of the block-happy administrator Mike V at work a few months ago. Pinging John who challenged him about making such a block; again, here, MV failed to account for his actions. CassiantoTalk 11:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) This should be closed so we can all move on. Many eyes are now watching Mike V, and if he slips up in the future I'm certain we can address it. The root of this problem is that TRM told a female editor to "grow a pair" [39]. If there wasn't a concern about the AE process being violated, I'm certain the outcome for TRM could have been worse. (Non-administrator comment) Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC) No once again you haven't read the opening post fully. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Ah, so Mike V. incorrect interaction ban warning and refusal to revisit it for two weeks is caused by TRMs stupid remark two weeks later? That's a rather relativistic approach to cause-and-effect you have there. That TRM made an easy target of himself (I'm sorry TRM, but I think you know this to be true) is not the cause of the problem or of this section, it just highlighted the problem more rapidly. Fram (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC) No problem Fram, I did indeed apologise to Katie a day or two ago about the "pair" comment, which was below the belt, both literally and metaphorically, but yes, easy target when my concerns over the integrity of the main boiled over through general malaise and lack of competent individuals to sort things out. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC) User:Fram and User:The Rambling Man The AE was largely focused on the lack of process in the Mike V block, not in TRM's behavior. In that sense, I believe he (TRM) sort of got off easy, where any straightforward look at the diffs would have revealed clear violations. If you want to revisit the Mike V situation, then your behavior would need to be re-examined also. That's why my advice to you is to drop it and move on and let Mike V use up the rest of his WP:ROPE on issues that do not concern you. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Well thanks but we're here now so we might as well examine Mike V's behaviour in this thread. The issue of admins who fail to meet WP:ADMINACCT most certainly does concern me, and should concern all of us. This is about Mike's behaviour remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Closing "so we can all move on" means "sweep it under the carpet", and that's not the best outcome here. Mike V is once again showing an inability to consider his actions on other editors and a lack of competence in use of the admin tools. Mike V's mass-removal earlier this year of IPBE flags left a productive editor like LouisAlain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked from editing for a month despite clear explanations of the mistake Mike V made and his consistent denial of that. A look at the threads in User:Mike V/Archive7#IPBE Questions give a broader idea of the problems caused. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I believe that, given the history between these two editors (especially during the Arbcom case), whether it technically goes against WP:INVOLVED or not, Mike should probably not be the one issuing warnings and hasty blocks (obviously hasty due to the fact that Mike failed to notice the AE notice posted to TRM's user talk). However, that in itself is not evidence of abuse of the tools. The more serious matter is Mike's radio silence following the warning and accusation of lying. I believe that to be a serious breach of WP:ADMINACCT, and falls far below the conduct we expect of a Functionary who holds both Checkuser and Oversight permissions. To quote the Arbitration Committee on the case that established admin communication standards, all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. I have no love for TRM and, frankly, find him arrogant and rude. However, that is no excuse for an Administrator and Functionary, one of the most trusted roles on the entire project, to fail to uphold our community's standards and cast unfounded aspersions about the integrity of a fellow editor. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC) If there is an issue here, I certainly agree it's an accountability issue. Not one that I believe needed to be addressed at AN, particularly, but Mike V could have perhaps headed this whole thing off with a more thorough explanation of the original warning. ~ Rob13Talk 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I'm hard pressed to see how someone who brings evidence against someone in an ArbCom case and presents FoFs suggesting said someone be desysopped is not involved. Maybe not technically, but common sense says given that MikeV was trying to get RM sanctioned and have his tools removed then MikeV probably shouldn't be dealing with RM. MikeV's claim that he was unaware of the ongoing AE discussion doesn't pass the smell test. Either he was so extraordinarily hasty that he didn't see the AE notice on RM's talk page or he's not telling the whole truth here. Both options are obviously sub-optimal. I also cant help but see the irony that MikeV specifically quoted the part of admin accountability that states that an admin is expected to respond to queries about their actions yet MikeV ignored multiple questions for 13 days or so. To be clear, RM should have been subject to a short block for what he said to Katie. I'm sure that's where the AE would have ended up if MikeV didn't come in guns blazing as he so often does. Capeo (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC) On a side note here, when did we give ArbCom complete discretion over blocking policy and where people can appeal things? My confusion stems from the original AN above. In 2014 ArbCom changed the appeal process by motion as well as giving themselves the power to insta-desysop any admin who didn't follow the procedure. That motion named AE, AN and ARCA as places where appeals can be made. Yet in the final decision of the RM case they seemingly ignored this motion and further limited where RM could appeal, while at the same time citing the blocking policy, which contradicts their decision. Capeo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I have to say I find Mike V's conduct in this case somewhat cowboy-like and certainly sub-par. Rather than restating things, I'll just say I agree with the opinions of Fram, Dweller, Jayron32, RexxS, Patar knight, The Wordsmith (excluding the opinion on TRM) and Capeo. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I agree that the AN discussion leading to the unblock should have run for longer than an hour or so, and that Salvidrim!'s actions should also be scrutinised here. Would it have helped if administrators intending to take action unilaterally against a single user to enforce an arbitration decision were required to check WP:AE and that user's talk page first? And if there is an active arbitration enforcement discussion, to participate in that, rather than take action unilaterally? This seems to be one of the central issues here. It has happened before, that an active AE discussion has been rendered moot by an admin taking action and claiming not to be aware of that discussion. It might seem an annoying restriction, but I think admins who follow best practice do try and do this sort of thing. i.e. check that there is not an active and ongoing discussion. On the other hand, the 'cowboy' comments may be a tad unfair on admins who are more decisive and take action on what they think is obvious without feeling the need to look around for existing discussion. That seems to be the difference in mindset here. Most of this could have been avoided if the AE thread had been allowed to run to its conclusion and if Mike V had participated there rather than acting unilaterally. Mike, what do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, allowing the AE report to run would have been wise, and not taking clandestine admin actions via IRC (which of course are untraceable) too. But actually, I'm also still looking for the accusations of lies to be removed, along with the false warning about IBAN infringement. That's part of the major problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) As noted before, I maintain that my block was made as an uninvolved action since my interaction with TRM has been solely in an administrative capacity. However, I'm willing to post any potential violations of the arbitration remedies to the AE board instead of issuing a block. In regards to responding to the warning conversation I replied to TRM on his talk page yesterday. Between trying to coordinate the arbitration committee elections and resolving urgent personal matters, I was not able to respond to the discussion in a timely manner. Going forward, I'll try to respond sooner or make note of any anticipated absences. Mike V • Talk 23:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Uh huh. And all your other overturned blocks, and the near-universal dissatisfaction with your behavior as an admin? How will you be dismissing that? What about your apparently baseless assertion that TRM was "lying"? Anything to say about that? Or are you still just above it all? EEng 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Since you're apparently going to pretend you didn't see this, here's a ping: Mike V. EEng 02:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I don't believe there is "near-universal dissatisfaction with [my] behavior as an admin". BU-Rob13 sums it up well. I've already addressed the talk page warning above and on TRM's talk page. Mike V • Talk 02:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC) You've bobbed and weaved, as one would expect from your past behavior in similar cases (those in which pretending you didn't hear what people were saying had failed, of course). And your many overturned blocks? Ping. EEng 03:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Many? Out of the thousands of blocks I have made I can only recall a few instances where my blocks were overturned. No more than your average administrator, I'd say. In fact, some of the blocks others have tried to contest were upheld by arbcom. (This one readily comes to mind.) Mike V • Talk 03:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Well, let's see... there's me... Cassianto... and now TRM, just in the past year. And I haven't even gone looking -- those are just ones I happen to know about by chance. Some of the blocks others have tried to contest were upheld by arbcom -- some? Good! So not all your blocks have been bad! Great reasoning! Arguing the percentages isn't a very appealing strategy when it comes to blocks. You should care about every bad block, and how it reflects on your fellow admins (even if, as appears to be the case with you, you don't care how it reflects on you). If you don't have time to make each block a careful one, then slow down and make fewer blocks. EEng 03:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Sigh ... TRM can't you just never violate the arbcom sanctions? That would mean another AE block is never necessary, the entirety of this discussion becomes moot, everyone involved saves themselves a lot of drama, all the people purportedly out for revenge on you have nothing to latch onto, and Wikipedia as a whole benefits! Like, even if we assume that Mike V is out to "get" you, if you start editing like Dweller or Masem, what are the odds that Mike V will somehow manage to conjure up a reason to block you again? You don't even need to file an appeal or fight your way through contentious discussions or anything like that. You just have to change your behavior, and everyone is happy. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Proposed ban I don't believe that it remains an option to allow Mike V to decide whether or not he is involved with The Rambling Man. So I'm seeking consensus here for a finding by the community that Mike V is too involved (as evidenced by the discussion above) with TRM to be able to take administrative action against him. I therefore propose that Mike V is community banned from unilaterally taking administrative action against The Rambling Man. That still leaves him free to raise issues at ANI, the same as any other editor. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I'd also like him to redact his claims that I lied. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose We shouldn't put limits on admins like this. You either have access to the tools or not. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC) So do editors have access to edit tools (including moving pages, uploading etc.), but we still ban them frequently. Not sure why admin tools should be treated differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Sure, but if a community ban to limit administrative tools is the best option, it means to me that this admin has lost the trust of the community and shouldn't be an admin at all. Therefore, this proposal should go to the arbcom to determine if Mike V still has the trust of the community necessary to administrate this website. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) That's what we're doing here, discussing why so many members of the community were dismayed by Mike V's behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) And that's why I opposed this proposal. If every editor with a grudge against an admin sought to limit that admin's interactions with them, we'd have a mess of way to resolve issues. Admin is all or nothing. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC) This isn't a single editor and it isn't a "grudge", it's a pattern of misuse of tools, an abuse of WP:INVOLVED, an abuse of WP:ADMINACCT and many, many individuals seem to agree. So yes, if your position of "admin is all or nothing" then MikeV should be desysopped, de-oversighted and de-checkusered. Correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) If you think that MikeV should be de-mopped going to ArbCom is a smart move (although unlikely to be successful), but opposing a community topic ban motion over this seems odd to me. And not having community sanctions on admins has never stopped bogus complaints, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) In the past, Arbcom has desysopped by motion after a community consensus was established at AN or RFCU (which we no longer have). Any sort of community-initiated desysopping or de-Functionarying (I guess that's a word now) has to start in threads like this one and the one above. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose because phrasing this as a "community ban" is unduly harsh, but support in spirit. While there isn't any broad agreement as to whether or not Mike V's warning and subsequent block merit treatment under WP:INVOLVED, I'm sure he is aware that as a result of these discussions any future action is likely to cross that line and ought to refrain from it. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose I believe the actions were improper, but the IPBE incident shows that there are user conduct and admin accountability issues that go beyond TRM. Closing with a resolution like this would be easy, sure, but it would prevent a full examination and community consensus on the broader issues. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Support. To deal with sanctions and/or reports regarding other editors, an admin needs the ability to be disinterested and dispassionate, and must be prepared to respond to questions about their actions and to accept their own mistakes when they make them. Mike V has failed in these requirements with respect to The Rambling Man, and should not act in an admin capacity with respect to him. I'd prefer to see a voluntary commitment from Mike V to avoid The Rambling Man in an admin capacity, but if that is not forthcoming then I think a community ban is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose it's not wide-ranging enough. Mike V has demonstrated beyond his manner of dealing with me that there are wider and deeper issues that need closer examination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC) The wise can achieve great things in small steps, Grasshopper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, and given the strength of feeling from numerous editors and admins alike, Mike V's behaviour needs close examination, not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying which he has had an opportunity to do now for about two weeks. To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose as there seems to be larger issues here than just MikeV's interactions with TRM. I do think Mike should refrain from further unilateral action against TRM and that he should retract his claims about TRM lying. Anything beyond that, I know little about and can't comment further as of now. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I will amend my comment to more clearly state that I support this proposal with the caveat that Mike should also apologize and retract the claims of lying, and that it not preclude further examination of Mike's record. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Support restricting Mike from making Arbitration Enforcement actions towards TRM - In response to Mr Ernie, such a restriction is precisely mentioned in existing procedure as something that can be done. From the AE header: "Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities." I think the community has demonstrated (here and in the AN thread that led to the unblock) that it believes this restriction to be appropriate at this point in time. I thereby support the restriction as a valid implementation of the community's wishes. I'm hoping Mike V will voluntarily agree to this as well to being questioned every time. Users who oppose this first-step restriction because of "larger issues" with Mike's adminship in general should keep in mind that an immediate lesser restriction does not prevent future wider examination of administrative conduct at the proper venue (an ArbCom case) if they deem it necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose on both factual and philosophical grounds. Factually, Mike V is not involved, and this block wasn't overturned on the grounds that it was outside of community norms. It was overturned due to a consensus of administrators preferring a final warning to a block. No uninvolved administrator argued that a violation did not occur. Philosophically, I don't believe any active administrator should be under sanction. If an administrator has erred so heavily that the community considers a restriction necessary to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, then that administrator should be desysopped. Holding a position of significant community trust and being under sanction should be mutually exclusive. ~ Rob13Talk 16:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose the consensus above and AE is that the block was proper. And the unblock was against the ArbCom ruling. This all smacks of revenge, not at any meaningful attempt at prevention. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Comment: I don't get the "no admin should have such sanctions" or "if this happens, then he should be desysopped". What we do (perhaps in too strong language) is formalize that Mike V. is considered to be involved wrt TRM and should refrain from taking actions towards him, just like every admin must do with editors he or she is involved with. I have a fair number of editors I shouldn't take admin action against, and if there was one were I thought I wasn't involved but the community felt I was involved, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it formally clear to me that I should step back if I had blocked them. If such a thing happens too often, or if there are sufficient other issues, then this may be one element leading to a desysop. However, having a formal community declaration that, no matter what the admin believes, the community considers them to be too involved to act, is in itself nothing extraordinary or desysop-worthy, and opposing on those grounds only seems misguided. Fram (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC) RexxS, wouldn't an iBan achieve the same result? It has the advantage of leaving the "administrator" mess out of it. You can't block without interaction, really. I'm merely offering this as a suggestion--I wonder if this will fall in our lap one way or another anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC) You may be right Good Doctor, but I think that my proposal actually goes to the heart of the matter, and has no unwarranted side-effects. What if, for example, both MV and TRM were involved as editors in a discussion about a topic they were both interested in? Would one have to step away and not participate? It's true that I also wanted to test the water on the issue of providing finer-grained checks and balances on the possible misuse of admin power. I don't believe the community is best served by a "all-or-nothing" approach to that. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oh, you know I live to avoid the heart of the matter. Nothing one finds there is worth talking about in public. That's not to say I don't dig where you're coming from, and frequently narrow is better--but in this case the narrow approach brings on additional problems/complications. The problems you signal (discussion on something they're both interested in), that's the kind of thing that's always hard to figure out with an iBan, but that's not more difficult in this case than in others (or even less, given which mainspace articles Mike V is interested in--and they're not at ITN or DYK frequently). But go ahead and get to the heart of the matter--I'll step back and watch the show, and I'll put a few beers on ice for you, in case you ever get done. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Support -- per RexxS. I'd also like Mike V to make a public apology to TRM. CassiantoTalk 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with the apology, but the ban will simply result in Mike V using IRC to get someone else to do his dirty work. He's already demonstrated that he works with other admins behind the scenes before leaping on-wiki to make decisions. This ban is just treating the symptoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I see your point. How about he be punished by being forced to write a GA or FA? That'll learn him; he'll be so out of his depth that he won't even consider messing with anyone again, let alone you. CassiantoTalk 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all. Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies. 21:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)The Rambling Man (talk) The Rambling Man, I'm not on IRC, nor have I ever collaborated with Mike V on anything, so I can say this easily: this accusation is below the belt. If you wish to make such accusations they better be backed up with evidence. As a former admin, you should know how easily those accusations are made. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oh come on Drmies surely you're not that naive to think folk don't communicate off wiki with regards to canvassing for comments or garnering administrative favours? I'd hate to break it to you but it's also possible for one admin to email another admin with regards to "favours". It's been going on for years but you'll never get anyone to admit it. CassiantoTalk 00:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Cassianto, I've gotten enough emails from your colleagues, so sure, I know that. Yes, it's possible for one admin to etc. Lots of things are possible. Making such accusations is not OK, and TRM claims this has been "demonstrated". Drmies (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but since when has this been about me, Drmies? "Your [my] colleagues"? You cannot acknowledge the fact that you know it goes on in one breath, and then appear to be outraged at the insinuation, the next. The two are non sequitur. CassiantoTalk 08:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Drmies, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mike V himself has said he was on IRC chatting with other admins about this (i.e colluding off-wiki) before appearing on-wiki. This isn't an accusation, it's re-affirming Mike V's own approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Drmies, what are you talking about? Mike V has explicitly confirmed that he enacted this block because someone asked him to on IRC, and the diff of him saying this is in the very first post in this thread. ‑ Iridescent 09:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Support This sort of behavior needs to have a consequence. --Tarage (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC) The ban will simply result in Mike V using IRC to get someone else to do his dirty work. He's already demonstrated that he works with other admins behind the scenes before leaping on-wiki to make decisions. This ban is just treating the symptoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Support, with the understanding that this is only an interim measure while desysopping or other action is considered. I've seen my share of self-important, high-handed, no-account admins in my day (and here I insert my usual disclaimer that I'm talking about 3% of them – the other 97% doing good, hard work for little or no recognition) but this guy takes the cake. I addressed this post to him elsewhere yesterday: Of course you weren't aware of the AE discussion: you were in too much of a hurry putting another notch in your belt and reassuring yourself you're the big swinging dick to even bother looking at the most recent post on the talk page of the user you were about to block. Comments at your RfA were amazingly prescient: "I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not" "Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first." "Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions" "I fear I see a general trend of eagerness take punitive action rather than problem solving" "Over-eager with his desire to block" If ever anyone ever deserved desysopping, it's you. Why don't you just save the community the time and trouble (it will take two or three more 50-editor dramas like this one before even your apologists give up) and voluntarily resign? TRM has serious problems, but I'd take 50 of him over one of you. At least he actually contributes content – something you never do (and as someone commented at your RfA, "I'd like to see some evidence of constructive editing"). It's a shame those warnings weren't heeded, because guys like this bring the entire administrative corps into disrepute. This is his third instantly-overturned block that I just happen to casually know of within the past year alone. That's two too many for an entire admin career, much less a year. None of this is to take away from the fact that T.R.M. still has a way to go in terms of modifying his own behavior; part of what's so destructive about Mike V's misbehavior is that it distracts from necessary efforts to help T.R.M. with his. EEng 19:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Sure, I've already accepted that I need "competent" admins to help out in those maintenance areas, not just "admins", so I'll certainly be changing my requests going forward. And please, desist with the periods in abbreviating my user name, it looks like something shambolic from an American 1970s sitcom. (Or maybe that was your belittlesome theme???!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) My God, T-h-e R-a-m-b-l-i-n-g M-a-n, you're hard to help. EEng 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC) And you're so hard to cope with but somehow between us we muddle along, right? So retain focus on the issues in hand. Unless you consider that honest comment "belittling" in which case, see you next week! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC) <disbelieving silence> EEng 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Retain focus - you may want to consider doing this yourself. EEng delivers a scathing review of Mike V and you're worried about a few dots turning TRM into an acronym from some show? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Whatever. EEng has a habit of diverting attention, mainly to himself, and while what he says about Mike V is spot on mainly, it's then caveated with a note to entirely distract away from the focus of this thread and enables all the TRM haters to get back in the game on the thread. It's great to hear but ultimately it'll be passed by in the noise and traffic from obfuscating admins and the Arbcom Protectorate. And, Mr rndude, it's not about "scathing reviews", it's about righting the wrongs he's done. I only have my personal experience with this particular admin in mind, to be accused of lying by him, twice, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is enough to concern me. I'm not even sure what you do around here, but thanks anyway. Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Sudden enforced silence. Hush now. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 23:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mr rnddude is a regular round here. Someone else who seems to do not a lot other to engage in everyone else's drama. Go away, Mr rnddude, unless you have anything constructive to say. CassiantoTalk 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Ahem, no I am not a regular around here. I have less then ten edits here - or I did until today. Unless you're also including AN/I, then nevermind. Why don't you take a look at what I've been up to since we last engaged in discussion, you'd see that my presence has somewhat diminished here and inflated elsewhere in the project. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC) My contribs are acessible for all to see if you're wondering what [I] do around here or if you're asking me, then, a bit of everything - articles in Roman and ancient history, templates (now), anti-vandalism (fairly recent), ANI, UAA, AfD, etc etc. It's not belittling or anything really, just, a little ironic to bring up focus when you yourself were distracted by an otherwise minute detail (myself too now, so, whatever). In general I fully understand where you're coming from with regards to Mike V's block and warnings and think that at a minimum Mike should apologize for their block and repeal the warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Well to that end, thank you for your understanding. It's bad enough being lynched, and rolling over to die, but then to be character-assassinated by being lied about not once, but at least twice, it needs to be fixed. Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC) <further disbelieving silence> EEng 22:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Sure, and your insatiable thirst for the last word is exemplified nicely here. Point is this is nothing to do with Mike V's behaviour so time to quit your comedy routine. Unless you consider that honest comment "belittling" in which case, see you next week! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) <even further disbelieving silence> EEng 23:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Applause, now, do something productive! Unless you consider that honest comment "belittling" in which case, see you next week! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) <yet even more saddened and disbelieving silence> EEng 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Support. Mike V's continued inability to recognize even a modicum of fault on his part for this incident is rather unbecoming of an administrator, especially since for the interaction ban reminder, there was very clear ambiguity, yet he presented his interpretation as 100% correct, and then went radio silent, before returning to hastily enact an AE block. After this incident, if Mike V doesn't recognize that he is now WP:INVOLVED for any admin actions against TRM, then the community will have to do it for him. Undecided if this is worth removing his permissions, but if Mike V continues to avoid acknowledging that his behaviour was sub-optimal, then it may rise to that. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose  Disclosure: I gave evidence at the TRM case advising for sanctions.  Above, TRM almost apologies for talking to a female about male genitalia, but before completing the sentence with the apology; self-rationalizes by saying, "my concerns...boiled over".  At 06:57 this morning on his talk page TRM stated, "I've had enough drama here to last a while."  The appending of TRM demands to the OP here is further evidence that this is not a good test case to question Mike V's actions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Inadequate but better than doing nothing: The issue here is not whether Mike V is technically WP:INVOLVED or not, or whether his actions were unwise in a single circumstance, it's whether his judgement is sufficient for holding advanced permissions. Facts on the warning: After his initial response to TRM when TRM posted on Mike's talkp age, TRM pinged Mike V three times when providing evidence in the immediate aftermath of the warning. Mike V replied to George Ho pings twice [40] [41] in the half an hour after TRM's pings, but offered no response. Mike V made a further 49 posts over the following several days before taking a ~8 day break. Mike's advice to George Ho was about how George could seek a sanction against TRM. Mike's explanation of his non-response strains credibility (at best), as does his explanation of the rush to block. Giving a questionable warning is unfortunate, but mistakes will happen. Rejecting TRM's assertion that his comments were directed at another editor is a judgement call given no evidence was offered. However, when the evidence (diffs) were provided, Mike V chose not to respond despite being around on wiki, which is problematic under admin accountability requirements, and choosing to respond as he did to George certainly creates an appearance of bias. Choosing to let subsequent requests from TRM and other editors go without response moves accountability issues from poor to deliberate defiance. Maintaining the warning was correct in the face of numerous admins raising issues suggests an inability to reflect on his own choices going to a wider judgement problem. Going on from an IRC comment to blocking under AE, allegedly without checking at AE, is also poor judgement. Doing it with a background of a contentious warning which Mike knew or should have known was seen as flawed by other admins and editors is not only a poor decision; it was inevitably going to cause problems such that wisdom demanded the action not be taken, yet Mike acted anyway, reflecting either a fixation on what he could do while disregarding what he should do – suggesting bias / punishment as a motivation – or a level of self-confidence and self-justification that is dangerous when not tempered by self-awareness. Ongoing assertions of non-involvedness and correctness of actions portrays a lack of reflection and self-awareness that points to a profound flaw in judgement that transcends the TRM issue. Others have noted similar issues with rush to action, refusal to reflect / admit to any error, engage with accountability mechanisms, and poor judgement, such as in the IPBE issue and other blocks. Given all this, ensuring Mike V is declared involved as far as TRM is concerned, and perhaps preventing interactions, is necessary to address TRM's personal experience, is necessary but insufficient. What to do about Mike V, that is more difficult because an ArbCom case is time consuming, would be buried with "let's get TRM" material, and because ArbCom are unlikely to do more than issue an admonishment. A lot of effort for an outcome that might allow a wider sanction when another issue occurs. Mike V has been a functionary for quite a while, and judgement issues going back to RfA have been noted, so he must also contribute positively. Perhaps he needs to step away for a time? I have deliberately said nothing about TRM as his actions are not the topic here, but I agree with Fram that TRM's actions have been problematic, though he has mostly improved since the ArbCom case, and some responses here are also unhelpful. However, the issues in this thread are whether Mike V's warning was valid (it wasn't, far too ambiguous content to sustain it), whether Mike V has acted properly (no, accountability was poor, silence was unacceptable, subsequent explanations inadequate), whether Mike V is INVOLVED (yes, by any reasonable definition, though the policy is designed to protect admins with biases who avoid content disputes), and whether the problem is addressed by separating Mike V and TRM (for TRM, yes, for everyone else, no, as judgement problems are seen in other areas too, including refusal to recognise his involvement or genuinely reflect on the community's views). EdChem (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Support - Mike's contribs speak for themselves - He only came back on to block TRM & that's it...., What with the discussion above IMHO he is involved and so therefore any future blocks should be made by an uninvolved admin ... Not someone who's clearly got a grudge. –Davey2010Talk 03:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Motion to close I think the comment from Mike V here makes this section all pretty moot. Specifically However, I'm willing to post any potential violations of the arbitration remedies to the AE board instead of issuing a block. There is really nothing left here to be concerned about. As such I motion to close this thread with no action required. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose: Mike V's judgement is in question more broadly than just about TRM. Further, that undertaking would still allow Mike V to start AE threads or comment as an allegedly uninvolved admin if (say) George Ho launched an AE case, as Mike V has already suggested to him he could (which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the warning, where TRM offered diffs supporting his explanation and pinged Mike V and Mike V posted responding George's pings but did not respond to TRM). EdChem (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose the incorrect warning still persists and nothing has been done about the fact Mike V has accused me of lying twice. Add to that all the failings in Mike V's behaviour as summarised by EdChem above, there is plenty to be concerned about. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose -- still no apology; still no admission of wrongdoing; still no bollocking. Mrjulesd, I think your eagerness to close this thread, and your inability to recognise the fact that MV is entirely blameless, speaks volumes. You are the type of person who helps feed the notion that AN and its associated pages are a complete and utter waste of time. CassiantoTalk 08:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose This won't get swept under the rug... --Tarage (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose. This needs to be addressed. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Discussion about outcomes @The Rambling Man: What's your desired outcome here? I see two things I'd like changed in the AE log. First, the warning about the IBAN should probably be notated to mention that there's substantial doubt that a violation actually occurred and that the administrator who issued the warning has not subsequently engaged with that doubt as required by WP:ADMINACCT. I don't think it should be removed entirely from the record, mostly because that whole IBAN warning thing is important to understand how the block and subsequent discussions unfolded, but such a note should remove the suggestion of wrongdoing. Second, I think Salvidrim's unblock reason should be struck and replaced with the outcome of the AE, which was a final warning regarding violating the restriction. I do not think either the mention of WP:INVOLVED or "hastiness" should be retained, the latter of which is especially ironic given that the unblock occurred a mere hour after filing at AN. Would this correction of the record be in line with what you're looking for in terms of an outcome? ~ Rob13Talk 22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC) No, the warning about the IBAN should be 100% revoked and an apology issued. An apology for the second accusation of lying should be issued. The admin, as a minimum, should be admonished for failing his responsibilities per WP:ADMINACCT. To be accused twice of lying in the face of scores of contrary evidence is appalling behaviour. INVOLVED must be retained as it has a consensus to that effect. Hastiness or other similar wording (e.g. belligerent, hounding) should be retained, or embellished as there's clear evidence that the block wasn't given as per the evidence provided by Mike V. I'd also like to hear all the concerns of the others who have asked me to start this conversation at AN, so that may take a few more days considering Mike V's background. This may result in an Arbcom case to desysop and de-functionary Mike V as he has lost the trust of the community. That also needs to be pursued. Finally, the obscure wording which allows any arbitrary admin to block me based on an interpretation of "belittling" needs clarification. One admin decides that my "opinion" counts as belittling, while another admin is subject to a comment that a third admin considers "belittling" yet does nothing. A sad state of affairs and an embarrassment to Wikipedia, this whole debacle needs shaking out, and if that means that rogue admins (and Mike V isn't the only one) are called out in a similar fashion to me (i.e. per WP:ADMINACCT) then so be it. It's clear we have several incompetent admins, some of whom foul up attempts to "fix" the main page. Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC) It's practically impossible to force someone to apologize, and fairly useless if you can do it, since it won't come from the heart. I think you're on a fool's errand - but that's just my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with BMK, any forced apology won't be worth the electrons inconvenienced to display it. A log notation / talk page notation that consensus at an AN discussion is that the warning was flawed (or something like that) is a more realistic goal. EdChem (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC) You're right about false apologies, but TRM was asked directly what his desired outcome was. "A sincere apology" would be a very reasonable response to that, regardless of the practicality of obtaining one. Nevertheless, if I got things wrong as badly as Mike V did, a sincere apology would be the first item on my agenda, as I hope it would be on most editors'. Wouldn't you do the same, Beyond My Ken and EdChem? --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) If I thought I had done something wrong, I hope I would apologize after it was pointed out to me, but not if I thought -- as Mike V expresses above -- that my actions were justified and within policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC) If I believe I am wrong, I'll apologise spontaneously. If I've hurt / upset someone inadvertently, I'll apologise sincerely even if I am struggling to understand what I did that caused a problem. I don't ask for apologies, however, because if I do and get one, I can't know if it is genuinely meant and offered to help how I feel or if it is only provided because it was requested – and an apology forced by the community would not mean anything to me if I was in TRM's position. If a sincere apology was to occur, it would have been offered well before now. Mike V sees himself as being in the right, and so declines to apologise, which I can understand. What the community can do here is to form a consensus to post to TRM that the community does not accept that Mike's warning was supported or justified, that the community overrules Mike's judgement in issuing the warning, and that we accept TRM's explanation and regrets that reflections on TRM's honesty were posted. We can also take action on the question of Mike's judgement and (specifically) restrict his use of tools against TRM. Sadly, we are past the point where a sincere apology would lead to rapid resolution, and it could only be offered by Mike who sees himself as having made no errors in judgement or action and does not feel any apology is warranted. EdChem (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I agree, BMK, but having said that I think MV is the type of person who finds the admission of wrongdoing and having to say sorry for it, publically, harder to say than to actually feel. For that reason, I still support the idea of him being forced to say sorry for his actions. CassiantoTalk 08:11, 16 December 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. Subsequent to close The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Only problem is the erroneous entry in the sanctions log that Mike V refuses to do anything about. Also, this ban is moot as Mike V has already started asking other admins to "deal with me". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Let's see: A. Do everything you can to upset an editor. B. Block him. C. Get overturned rapidly and then get banned from taking action against the editor again. D. get equally criticized for an incorrect warning which started all this, but refuse to change one bit about. E. Find all kinds of excuses for your actions (like not having any spare time between the incorrect warning and the overturned block two weeks later, what a coincidence). F. Act surprised and hurt when the blocked/unblocked editor is pissed about you, run to mommy (wordsmith) crying for help, and when mommy rightly tells you to go away, open an AE request (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#The Rambling Man. This kind of baiting should really end in a boomerang block for you, and preferably a desysop as well, as you show yourslf to be totally unfit to be an admin. Fram (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Even though Mike V has done a runner, the fact remains that the log still needs to be corrected. I did not infringe the IBAN, unlike the other named party. The log needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, TRM, a majority of the uninvolved admins responding at the original AE discussion expressed the opinion that the fourth diff offered as evidence did breach your topic ban, and the closing of that AE request was clearly done in the spirit of "time served" in the wake of Mike V's block and the subsequent unblock, so for you to say that you did not infringe your topic ban (which is what I assume you meant, and not an "IBAN") is simply your opinion, and does not seem to be shared by the admins who were adjudicating the AE complaint. I say this without making any judgment of my own regard whether you did or did not breach your sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: TRM did mean IBAN and not TBAN. As I explained here to Ritchie333, there is an interaction ban warning from Mike V from two weeks before the block, which TRM immediately disputed, and about which Mike V has been untruthful. Mike V's recent "I was right" (my characterisation) comment stated "In regard to the original warning discussion, it was becoming unproductive and descended into personal attacks by other contributors. I still am confident that the warning was appropriate and if you had intended to discuss Bandeon, you would have mentioned him by name." This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Here is the actual sequence of events: 22:59 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V issues IBAN warning to TRM 22:59 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V issues IBAN warning to George Ho 23:01 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V logs warning at ArbCom case – it is this log notation that TRM is objecting to 23:10 (UTC) 1 Dec – TRM refuses to accept warning, disputing its accuracy, stating he was referring to Banedon not to George Ho. No diffs provided. Mike V pinged. 23:19 (UTC) 1 Dec – TRM raises objection at Mike V's talk page 23:32 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V removes objection from his talk page to move discussion back to TRM's talk page 23:33 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V posts response on TRM's talk, declares it is clear TRM was referring to George Ho 23:36 to 23:44 (UTC) 1 Dec – TRM makes series of comments to Mike V, providing 14 diffs plus an explanation, and 3 pings 23:51 (UTC) 1 December – George Ho pings Mike V with a question 23:55 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V responds to George Ho's question and ping 00:11 (UTC) 2 Dec – George Ho pings Mike V with another question which includes the diff of TRM's response from 23:36 to 23:44, to which Mike V has yet to respond 00:15 (UTC) 2 Dec – George Ho clarifies question 00:26 (UTC) 1 Dec – Mike V responds to another ping from George Ho advising him not to act "for now" 00:29 (UTC) 2 Dec – the state of TRM's talk page when the reference bot posts, just after Mike V's replies to George Ho. Note that no other editor has commented on the discussion on TRM's talk page. There had certainly been no personal attacks by other editors nor unproductive discussion, as Mike V claimed recently. Mike V has not responded to 3 TRM pings but has responded to George Ho, including a reply which provides a diff of TRM's response / explanation / evidence. 04:26 (UTC) 2 Dec – Mike V makes a single, unrelated post four hours later 08:39 (UTC) 2 Dec – TRM changes heading of thread on his talk page which Mike V created to issues IBAN warning, adding "Incorrect" 10:59 (UTC) 2 Dec – First post to TRM's talk about Mike V's IBAN warning by any other user: Ritchie333 describes Mike V as a "nasty man" 20:17 (UTC) 2 Dec – Mike V makes a series of 5 posts relating to an SPI 20:24 to 20:27 (UTC) 2 Dec – Mike V removes questions from 11 ArbCom candidate pages 21:06 (UTC) 2 Dec – TRM replies to and thanks Ritchie, and pings Mike V commenting "what really irks me here is that {{U|Mike V}} is actually accusing me of being a liar. That's disgusting." 22:36 to 23:30 (UTC) 2 Dec – Mike V welcomes 16 editors and posts a speedy deletion notice 00:55 to 00:57 (UTC) 3 Dec – Mike V tags three user pages as socks 02:30 (UTC) 3 Dec – Mike V comments on who the scrutineers are for the ArbCom election 16:21 (UTC) 3 Dec – Mike V replies to two threads on his own talk page 18:05 (UTC) 3 Dec to 04:00 (UTC) 6 Dec – Mike V makes 8 edits, restoring a deleted page, issuing a block, and replying on his talk page, plus making a change to MediaWiki to end the ArbCom election 13:26 (UTC) 6 Dec – All the changes to TRM's talk to a point after Mike V leaves for 8 days. Ritchie333 is the only outside editor to have commented, and there is only one uncivil comment. TRM has pinged Mike V four times and had no response, despite Mike having made over two dozen edits over 4 days. Mike had ample opportunity to respond, was aware of TRM's concerns, and chose not to respond before his 8 day break. The discussion at TRM's talk did become heated but not in the first few days which is when Mike's response was mandated under accountability standards. On returning from his break, Mike's second edit was the block notice to TRM. It is entirely understandable that TRM is aggrieved, and Mike's explanation does not withstand scrutiny on the unarguable facts, without even considering the issue of who TRM meant in his comments. EdChem (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I see, thanks for the explanation. I stand corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Excellent, organized, and necessary summary, EdChem. It seems obvious that someone with such a distant relationship with the truth, or powers of self-deception (take you pick), has no business being an admin, much less CU/OS. EEng 02:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Discussion on archives moved to separate thread below. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Earlier discussion Can't an admin change the log citing the consensus above? It truly would be the best thing for everyone involved, including MikeV. Otherwise at some point in the future somebody is going to try and use it as evidence against RM which is just going to cause a rehashing of this entire sordid affair. Best to just correct the log and put this to bed. Capeo (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you Capeo, that's just about exactly what's needed in this phase of the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) You're welcome. Far too often around here the simplest of actions aren't taken that could head off predictable future conflict. That said, I think I'm being a bit over optimistic that that would put everything to bed. MikeV's response (or lack thereof) to all this looks likely to draw further action. That's a discussion for a different venue though. Capeo (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC) @Capeo: Good news, the warning has been overturned and the log modified here by The Wordsmith and Floquenbeam. I note that the latter's comments: "Further investigation shows that Mike V misinterpreted TRM's questions; he was not referring to George Ho. It is also very likely George Ho misinterpreted them too, and so violated his i-ban in unwise retaliation." This recognises that TRM did not violate his ban and that George Ho did, likely as he was feeling provoked, which is not an excuse for violating an IBAN. TRM, however, did not seek action against George. No, he posted here in line with Floquenbeam's observation to suggest that, since the entire warning had been struck and not just as it concerned TRM, George deserved to be notified. TRM explicitly stated he had no issue with the warning to George Ho being struck as well. TRM has rough edges and speaks too bluntly at times, but I think this act reflects favourably on his character, as does his clear commitment to the integrity of the main page. I think it is worth highlighting here that, though there is controversy around TRM, he is very much here to contribute to the project. EdChem (talk) 07:37, 17 December 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. Mike V's talk-page archives The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. One other thing that I find problematic is that MikeV has deleted (not just blanked, but deleted) all of his talkpage archives: [42]. Surely that is not allowed for a sitting admin. Could someone please restore these archives? MikeV has disappeared, but he hasn't relinquished any of his tools or powers. The self-deletion of his archives seems to be an improper preemptive and evasive move to thwart accountability and transparency, and to possibly help thwart an ArbCom filing or investigation. Since he has made no communication about why he has disappeared and deleted his talk-page archives, I think the least that should be done is to restore those archives. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Are you sure that admins are required to keep talk page archives? Is there a policy somewhere that states that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Of course there is no official written policy that an admin must retain their talkpage archives, any more than there is an official written policy on dozens of individual things an admin should not do. But WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMINCOND, WP:INVOLVED, WP:TOOLMISUSE, and so on apply here to greater or lesser degrees, as well as the need for transparency, openness, and accountability -- not to mention good judgment and maintaining the trust of the community, especially when under scrutiny. This appears to me to be a blatant attempt to make scrutiny difficult. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC) @Softlavender: The history of user talk:Mike V shows edits back to September 2007, so everything is still accessible. I think the people who archive by moving the page and starting a new one can hide history by deleting the archives, but that doesn't appear to be the situation here... and even if it were the case, should the archives be needed for (say) an ArbCom case they can be undeleted or accessed by admins. If Mike does return, I don't think the manner of his departure will be seen in a positive light. EdChem (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Of course they're accessible, that's not the concern or the question or the problem. The problem is, it's a violation of WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and all the other guidelines and policies I linked to, and forces anyone interested in browsing his talk page discussions to painstakingly comb through and find every single time he archived (which looks to have been approximately every 3 months) and clicking on each page iteration immediately prior to each of those links, instead of having the 8 convenient archives. If and when he does come back (and I see no reason that he wouldn't because he neither relinquished his numerous tools and powers nor said goodbye), or even before he comes back, I think it is important to restore his talk-page archives, whether or not there are any further discussions about him or his actions. One can hardly even consider what to do without those standard records. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC) At present, they are accessible in the history, which is inconvenient but does allow scrutiny. If Mike had created archives by moving pages and create a new talk page then the history would be gone too. I suggest that the latter is prohibited whilst the former is permissible though potentially irritating. WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE is a guideline and not policy, so arguing from it that the archives must be restored is going to be difficult. You can argue they should be restored for some specific purpose, but I do not see an argument to be made from principles that gets you to the outcome you seek. EdChem (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Agree with EdChem: User talk archives created by page move cannot be deleted per this policy. Archives created by cut and paste can be deleted, because the content remains visible in the usertalk page history. This is akin to someone who blanks their usertalk when they are done with a discussion: it can be irritating but is not a policy breach. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Yep. MikeV's creating those archives was a courtesy to begin with. He doesn't have to keep them, as long as the actual talk page history is maintained somewhere reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC) (ec) As I've mentioned before, the fact that the posts still exist somewhere is not the concern or the question or the problem. The problem is, the deletion of the archives is a violation of WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMINCOND, WP:INVOLVED, and WP:TOOLMISUSE, and so on to greater or lesser degrees (as well as WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE). It forces anyone interested in browsing his talk page discussions to painstakingly comb through and find all of the dozens and dozens of times he archived and click on each page iteration immediately prior to each of those, instead of having the 8 convenient archives. If and when he does come back (and I see no reason that he wouldn't because he neither relinquished his numerous tools and powers nor said goodbye), or even before he comes back, I think it is important to restore his talk-page archives, whether or not there are any further discussions about him or his actions. One can hardly even consider what to do without those standard records. It doesn't matter that restoration is for a specific purpose or not – he has not retired, and he is still an admin, a CU, and an OS, and accountability and standard proper conduct befitting those rights are required of him. I am asking admins to restore his talk-page archives on the grounds that it was improper conduct of him to delete them out-of-hand, and on the basis of admin accountability. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 17 December 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. Retired? Would this edit summary + action indicate this, along with the deletion of all their sub-pages (userboxes, barnstars, etc)? And that he's not edited since (although he was "sporadic" at best) suggest he's no longer active? Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Requests for Bot Approval Group membership seeking input

Hi everyone. I am currently requesting to join the Bot Approval Group, and notification on this page is required. Feel free to comment here if you would like to ask questions or discuss the request. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussion review

Hello. I recently created the page to form the process called "WP:discussion review" and then tagged it as "Brainstorming". If the idea is developed enough, feel free to change the status to "draft proposal". Meanwhile, I invite you to contribute to and/or discuss the draft. --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal has now been marked as "failed policy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Age

Could someone reduce {{Age}} to template-editor protection? I don't say would but could — it clearly qualifies, but there are technical issues, and I don't know how to work around them. Here's the protection log in reverse order:

• 14:15, 19 December 2006 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs | block) protected Template:Age (High use/high risk template [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist | change)
• 02:32, 2 November 2013 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for Template:Age ‎‎[edit=templateeditor] (indefinite)‎[move=templateeditor] (indefinite) (Enable access by template editors) (hist | change)
• 02:17, 13 November 2015 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for Template:Age [Edit=Require administrator access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (when I changed this to add template editors, I didn't realize it had cascding protection—so all my change did was make it appear as if it could be edited by them) (hist | change)

Presumably one of you other admins knows this well enough to accomplish the desired goal or to say "Sorry, Nyttend, but it's simply not possible". That's also why I didn't go to RFPP, since a how-to discussion would be more appropriate here than there. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That page was once cascade protected but no longer is. So unless it needs extra safety given the almost 700000 transclusions (which can be done by a specific titleblacklist entry, anyhow), it can be downgraded to template protection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! How did you discover that it's no longer cascade-protected? Given your comment, I downgraded it to template-editor protection, gave my alt account TE rights, and switched to that account. Using that account, I can confirm that I'm able to edit the template — I didn't, of course, but editing that page gave me the WARNING: This page has been protected so that only users with administrative or template-editor rights can make edits message, rather than the "you can't edit this page for reason $1" message I get when I try to edit a fully protected page. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Because even admins receive a message upon editing protected pages. Or two messages, if a page is both plain protected and cascade protected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the last time I loaded &action=edit for a page that I knew to be cascade-protected, so I don't think I ever was aware that we got an extra warning when a protected page was additional cascade-protected. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Main Page is cascaded and I don't get an extra warning when I try to edit it directly. (Unless I'm missing something, or the 'cascading' notation in the protection log at the top counts as the extra warning.) Katie^talk 19:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Main Page is not cascade protected. It is however cascade protecting pages transcluded on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I get you now. Katie^talk 19:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Austrian economics

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1.1 of the Austrian economics case is rescinded;
2. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
3. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in this topic-area, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Austrian economics

Moving ‎Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions

• Wikipedia:Files for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I discussed the FFD old discussions section with Anomie, who controls AnomieBOT, which makes backlogs for older discussions. The page is filled with huge amount of history logs. Therefore, I am proposing the creation of WP:files for discussion/Old discussions. Before that happens, we must be cautious about how this affects the bot, which does the backlogging. --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the proposal exactly? What would look different at Wikipedia:Files for discussion? All I see in the Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions section is under 50 lines which are easily skipped over. If the proposal is to hide the backlog in a subpage, would that help? Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It is to make FFD history log search easier for everyone to use. We can transclude the page as {{Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Old discussions}}. Similar happened to Wikipedia:Requested moves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I raised an issue about it in Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 23#WP:requested moves/Technical requests? I turned the TR into a subpage in 2012. The pages flow smoothly. We can do the same to both FFD and old discussions subpage. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not to hide the backlogs. As said, it can be transcluded without being hiding. George Ho (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think an admin is canvassing

This concerns an edit war at Disappearance of Sky Metalwala

Recently, there was a discussion at MOS/Layout regarding a proposed change to the wording of SEEALSO - essentially to suggest that because we don't allow OR or SYN that See Also sections should be referenced to a reliable source connecting entries in the See Also section to the article they appear in. There was a consensus of disagreement noting that the proposed change a) was a solution in search of a problem, b) was "impossible" to implement, and c) that we should judge the typical editor to exercise good judgment and common sense when populating a See also section. Full disclosure: I was the one suggesting the change in wording.

Fast forward a few weeks, an article about the disappearance of a child contained a See also reference to another child who had disappeared. As both disappearances shared the sole similarity in that the parents were considered suspects in their child's disappearance. Both articles are contained in an article, List of people who disappeared mysteriously (linked in the See also). Citing BLP concerns, I suggested that drawing a comparison between the two presented a connection that wasn't supported by any sources, and that it should be removed. Even implying such a connection sans source could have a detrimental effect on the lives of the people depicted in the BLP (ie. implying some connection to the disappearances, etc.)

Taking note that the editor (Daniel Case) in favor of retaining the information was also an administrator, who made a point of not-so-subtly suggesting that I could be blocked for the two reverts I had made in the article; noting "despite my vast experience on the pushing end of the block button, I will defer to whatever a blocking admin would deem appropriate in that circumstance", which can have an obvious chilling effect on friendly discussion..

Because I disagreed with an admin, I decided to get some guidance on the best way to address my BLP concerns, and initiated a discussion on BLP. As I see it, when the tide appeared to be turning against iincluding the comparison, the admin switched tactics to instead make the problem All About Me. Every single one of us is aware of the deck-clearing aspects of this tactic,which turns the discussion from one about content to one about the editor. it empties the discussion of people trying to focus on content. It's distracting and beside the point. He's now taken to canvassing the very editors from the MOS discussion to help him retain his version of the article. The editor RollProt'ing the article noted that he considered Daniel's edit-warring in the article subject to blocking

I get that admins are just editors with a few more tools, but gentle threats are still threats and notifications are still canvassing when they notification about a discussion addresses only very specific editors who share that admin's viewpoint. I have tried to hash this out on Daniel's talk page, to no apparent effect. I was okay to wait until discussions at BLP arrived at a consensus to be applied to the article, and only came here when I noted Daniel's blatant canvassing efforts. As he's an admin, I came here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Diff of notification of this discussion: 1 - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Shorter version: Administrator Daniel Case (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring (breaking the 3RR rule. even) to include a link to an article on a missing-child case in the "See Also" section of a completely different case. The two cases are utterly unconnected by his own admission, and yet Daniel Case is hiding behind comments at the MOS board to dodge the obvious original research, synthesis by implication, and even WP:BLP issues. --Calton | Talk 09:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Calton and Jack Sebastian: I had reverted the article prior to seeing that Jack had requested protection; had I seen that beforehand, I would have refrained from doing so. I have no problem with Alan reverting it back while it's protected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I think you might wish to re-read the section title. This isn't solely about your efforts to preserve your edited content. This isn't a retaliatory complaint or a last ditch effort to get what I "want". This is to address you actions seeking to influence a discussion by canvassing and offering subtle threats to get your way. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked over WP:CANVASS again. It is entirely appropriate to post notices about discussions elsewhere on things like project talk pages. Yes, it would have been nicer to find a totally "neutral" audience, but you declined to seek an RfC or a third opinion (I was willing to do the latter, but you pulled the trigger on BLPN before I could even suggest it as a possibility), the only way I could imagine to have ensured participation by those not known or believed to have a preference one way or the other.

I am not going to ask just how it was that Calton got involved out of the blue; there are many ways that could have happened.

It is not a "threat" to advise you that your actions were coming close to constituting blockable conduct, which as I said was an outcome I wanted to avoid as I think you can do quality work and it was better to have you not being able to edit one page if it got to that (as it has) than not being able to edit anything; since you were blocked for edit warring three months ago I should think that would be uppermost in your mind. And a block is by no means the guaranteed outcome of a report to ANEW.

I also think the participants in the MOSLAYOUT thread that you started would be interested to know that you not only disregarded the outcome of that discussion but chose three weeks later to characterize it as supporting your edit, when in fact it did not? Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You specifically asked those members who disagreed with my proposed edit to SeeAlso; if you were not WP:CANVASS, you would have made a generic post to the page to elicit comment from all corners, not just the ones who appeared to agree with you.

I know I am not supposed to keep getting annoyed at passive-aggressive bs, but your nuanced suggestion that I asked Carlton to join the discussion (or am Carlton, somehow), added with your attempts to try that nonsense elsewhere are really starting to irritate me. You aren't good at subtlety or cleverness. At all. So, please stop. You're an admin: act like one.

Lastly, of the two of us, who has the ability to block the other? Hint: its the same guy who mentioned blocking in a post about an edit-war that they themselves are participating in. It's the same guy who canvassed others to support his view at a noticeboard discussion.

I'd urge you to suck it up, publicly admit you were wrong and move forward, taking pains to not recreate the behavior that caused this complain tot be filed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both edit warring. Daniel Case: as an admin you should know better. You have added that link no fewer than six times now ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]) despite opposition on the talk page. Care to follow WP:BRD? You have not broken 3RR but you you are still edit warring. Your comment at 19:32, 14 December 2016, whether you intended or not, did have a chilling effect on the discussion. On that article you have no higher status than the OP and it is inappropriate to make comments like this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 16:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to where the supposed "consensus" that Daniel Case refers to in his edit summaries is; there is an extensive wall of text on the talk page but the only others to participate were Calton and Jack Sebastian, neither who offered even qualified support for the proposed edit. Quite a poor effort here, I'm afraid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

BAG reconfirmation

A bot approvals group member reconfirmation discussion is now open at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis 2. Please feel free to review and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting admin eyes

Admins may want to keep their eyes | on this article . Alex_Belfield has been the target of a lot of BLP violating entries today. KoshVorlon 18:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semied for three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dumfounded watsD

Have indefinitely blocked this user. They are 1) editing warring 2) copyright issues 3) civility issues and 4) they are likely not a new account. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good block. I actually came across this editor yesterday while at work and checked out their contribution history to find near constant belligerence and warring. I wanted to bring it to some admins attention yesterday but didn't have time to collect the diffs for a proper report. Capeo (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 Arbitration Committee

The committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2017:

• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Euryalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of these arbitrators will also receive (or retain, where applicable) the Checkuser and Oversight permissions. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2016:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Departing arbitrators will retain their Checkuser and Oversight rights and will remain subscribed to the Functionaries' mailing list. In addition, departing arbitrators will be eligible to remain active on any pending arbitration cases that were opened before the end of the their term; if this provision becomes relevant this year, a notation will be made on the relevant case page or pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2017 Arbitration Committee

Revision deletion (copyright violation)

This edit by a new user blatantly copies and pastes from the reference, making it a copyright violation. The user in question is User:Iphus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done (I requested via IRC) - in future, it's good practice not to ask for revision deletion on a public noticeboard, and to e-mail a trusted admin directly/ask on IRC/use the form in the editnotice's red box. Mike1901 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, public RD1 requests are fine, although the standard way is to use {{copyvio-revdel}}. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 12:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Could someone close a Request to Merge discussion?

It's a request to merge acid rock with psychedelic rock, on the talk page of the former. I'd do it myself since it appears to be a snow close, but I might have a conflict of interest here because I am reviewing the "acid rock" article for GA status. -- llywrch (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin closure),  Done 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding North8000

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012. North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:

• His 2014 topic ban from gun control remains in force.
• His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics, with the scope defined by the American politics discretionary sanctions introduced in the 2015 American politics 2 case.
• His 2012 restriction from homophobia is adopted by the committee as a topic ban.
• He is restricted to one account.

These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding North8000

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The page Rahul Khismatrao is locked by administrators

Rahul Khismatrao is author of book, The Theory of Creator. This book is available on Google Books too. Here's the link: https://books.google.com/books/about/Theory_of_Creator.html?id=DEiLjwEACAAJ . This book is available worldwide. Due to some anoymous editing this page is banned. I request administrators to recreate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.234.73.119 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The page (Rahul Khismatrao) was deleted following this discussion, the major problem being that the subject doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. It was subsequently protected because of recreations which didn't address this issue. If you do want the page to be recreated I suggest you create a userspace draft of the content you would like to put there and then take it to deletion review to see if it justifies making it an article. You will need to show in your draft how the subject meets the notability guidelines. (Merely writing a book does not make someone notable.) Hut 8.5 07:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

RFA and User:UNSC Luke 1021

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.

---

Luke has been a problem for the last few RFAs. He has received a great deal of guidance from some of the best and brightest at Wikipedia. See his talk page [49] for a demonstration. I came in later after he didn't seem to get the point, and put it in "plain Texas Talk", so there is no question he understood that his actions were disruptive, even if he didn't understand how. That kind of misunderstanding would require massive WP:CIR concerns. His last activity at RFA was to repeat the question with a snide comment leading it off. I blocked him for 8 days moments ago. At this point, I don't have high hopes for the editor and my first concern is RFA as a process.

I'm proposing that UNSC Luke 1021 be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, including all subpages and talk pages.

Proposal poll

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Just get it done already and close this poll. Lourdes 01:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, this guy clearly doesn't understand what everyone is trying to tell him. ansh666 01:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support almost every RfA that happens, here and elsewhere, because I truly don't think that becoming an admin is a big deal. UNSC Luke obviously disagrees with that, and he has his own strange and ill-supported reasons. But I don't think that's a reason to topic ban him from the process, or even to block him for asking strange questions. Wikipedia has always served as a place where free speech is tolerated - you can disagree with someone, but they are still allowed to participate. I see very little value in banning him from participating at RfA. His vote doesn't count for much, and nobody seems to be buying his arguments. I also don't like the idea of banning people who don't comment on "the right reasons", because the reasons can (and should) be able to change over time. Who knows, maybe in ten years, people will think he makes sense. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support This editor does not understand rfa, did not listen to advice from many editors, disrupted rfa every time he participated, and dropped a kitten on the wall of an unsuccessful candidate he opposed for "trivial reasons." [50]. He does not need to be anywhere near rfa. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - What do we have bureaucrats for I'm wondering? I thought we'd entrusted them with the RfA process for a reason. The only proposal I'd even consider supporting is a blanket ban on discussion between editors over votes. Ask your questions if you have any, cast your vote, give your reasons if you feel like it, and get the hell out of dodge. We contribute the disruption - not to the disruption, but, the disruption itself - by entertaining the silly stuff, arguing amongst ourselves, and just generally not letting this stuff go. Let a bad vote stand, and let the bureacrat discount the bad vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. He's had more than enough people trying to talk to him about his disruption there, and he simply doesn't get it. I was thinking about proposing this myself, I'm happy to see others feel the same way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry. I just can't bring myself to ban someone completely from RFA. Even those that have previously disrupted the process have only been limitedly banned. Not fully banned from the process. I'd support a limited ban. I just can't support a full ban. --Majora (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the user isn't getting it and AGF can only go so far, He's been helped, guided and given advice all on multiple occasions and yet the disruption continues!, Enough time has been wasted on this user now!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This whole thing seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. OK, he has odd ideas, but there are plenty of (mostly oppose) voters on RfAs that I think have quite odd ideas. To me, RfA is the only place where any registered editor can have their say on who should be an admin. Crats can weigh their votes based on the content, and frankly IMO, his shouldn't have been given much, if any, weight, but that is pretty much immaterial here. This looks to disenfranchise him completely for having odd views. Who is next? Stopping him from asking questions and making comments (a plain support/neutral/oppose vote only) would achieve the goal with less force. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I've read the comments this user leaves on his RfA !votes. Truth be told, it's not the comments themselves so much as how he responds to others that makes this an easy support for me. It looks an awful lot like RfAs are being treated like a ballot box, as if someone can just oppose because they feel like it. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Seems the most efficient way to take care of this. Nothing against Luke personally, but I see this this type of behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I've seen/experienced how much time it wastes. Too bad it comes to a Tban. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Why let him continue to participate in the RFA process if all it does is waste editor's time, and create a more stressful situation for the candidate than the RFA already does? He's been warned and given advice repeatedly, he ignored it all, and gleefully continued on disrupting a new RFA as soon as it came up. That alone is enough to remove him from participating. Valeince (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It seems clear to me that this editor simply doesn't understand what it means to be an administrator. I'd strongly suggest that this topic-ban remain in place for at least six months, to give this editor a chance to become more familiar with Wikipedia and make positive contributions elsewhere in the project. –Grondemar 02:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but only with some significant caveats. Per the discussion at his talk page, the block should be lifted if this topic ban gets consensus, and he should be free to request a lifting of the ban after a year. I trust that these two qualifiers are going to happen anyway. Frankly, I share the concern expressed by some of the opposers, that this could become a slippery slope whereby RfA participants whose opinions are unpopular get kicked off. But I'm coming down narrowly on the side of support, because I do see a time sink for other editors and I do see a disruptive rather than simply nonconformist aspect to the conduct. But we need to be careful not to do this sort of thing too lightly. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that he has accepted Risker's offer (described just below), and I believe that he is sincere. I would prefer instead to go that route. I'd also like to see the block review result in unblocking. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think a middle ground is available here. It seems that the editor may be willing to step back from RFA for now, and I'd like to encourage giving him the opportunity to show some real self-restraint: say, no participation at RFA until (a) he has at least 500 article edits and (b) at least six months on the project (let's say no sooner than March 1 just to set a firm date). We have done this to ourselves a bit by boldly advertising all RFAs; the watchlist notice doesn't differentiate between fairly new and inexperienced editors and those who've been here since before we had a million articles. Risker (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although some of the user's comments are quite interesting, there needs to be a middle ground. He's already been blocked for eight days, so let the block go by, and see if he is disruptive in the next RfA...TJH2018talk 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would prefer blocking to a topic ban. If, after the current block, this editor refrains from disrupting RfA and makes positive contributions then the problem will be resolved without additional sanctions or an eventual appeal. If this editor finally heeded the advice and warnings given then a topic ban would be punitive. If the editor cannot restrain themselves from RfA, then it shows that they are incompetent and should be blocked indefinitely. Esquivalience (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support oddly enough, I prefer the topic ban to the block here. I'd prefer the editor get more experience and have the ability to edit currently and be banned by the community from RfA participation because of their disruption than not have the technical ability to edit altogether. This makes sense, and will prevent further disruption beyond what the current block will do. What are we going to do in the future? Block him every time an RfA happens? Make it a ban, move on. He'll eventually learn and mature and then it can be revisited. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Oppose While I don't participate a lot in RFA, I do read a lot of them especially the Opposes more so than the Supports. I'd be fine with a restriction that requires him to (1) ask his questions, even if it is his favourite one about Wikiprojects because that seems like a legit question to me and (2) make a simple Support or Oppose vote, without commentary. I don't particularly like the idea of excluding a member of the community from RFA without at least trying one other option. Blackmane (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and after the topic ban is in place, lift the block. Let this editor spend a year creating and improving content, and participating productively in other behind-the-scenes venues, including WikiProjects. Take him away from the area where he loses self-control. After a year, my hope is that he will understand how important it is to avoid disrupting RfA, and he can try again, and become a positive participant there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. Surprised that we didn't do something sooner (and make similar proposal for other RfA disruptors). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Luke has had ample opportunity to figure out that he needs to clean up his act. He walked through all of the stop signs right into a block and a proposed topic ban. What makes anyone believe he will suddenly start listening to advice if we let him off easy? I understand and appreciate the concerns shared by those in opposition here, but my opinion is that Luke is going to continue disrupting the process until he is forced to stop. Lepricavark (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support My reasoning is below. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I would normally not recommend a topic ban from RfA, but it's clear that this editor is being not only disruptive but intentionally disruptive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the user's contributions to RFA have little value, but that's what we appoint bureaucrats for. Those who like to argue with this user should remember it takes more than one person to create disruptive drama. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Lankiveil. The disruption is not so severe that it cannot be easily ignored. If there comes a time when Luke does things such as cover the RfA with a page-wide image, or responds to every support vote asking for clarification, then I can support a topic ban. But if all he does is oppose for trivial reasons, one can simply ignore him, and trust the closing bureaucrat to ignore him too. As for asking questions, the candidate is free to not answer. Banedon (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Seems to me like Luke needs to learn a bit how this process works before participating in it. RfA has enough voters and enough troublemakers anyhow. I also think that people need to be careful when saying "bureaucrats will ignore it" unless they are bureaucrats, as these questionable !votes still contribute to the percentage - and more importantly, together with questionable questions (contrary to what Banedon says, they are often treated like an obligation) they contribute to the perception of RfA being a gauntlet that exists merely for trolls to annoy other people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - There is evidence of disruption, but the only thing that bothers me is the questions. The !votes on some are fine. What also worries me is that he recently out of the blue put Patient Zero through an ORCP poll. He endorsed it but then asked me to withdraw it a day later. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I say this as one of the original warners on his talkpage. As someone else has pointed out above, the issue with UNSC Luke 1021 isn't specific to RFA, but is that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates but thinks he does, and consequently keeps wading into processes he doesn't understand trying to start arguments. Topic-banning him from one area will just mean he goes and disrupts something else. Either he's so disruptive we can justify kicking him out altogether—and I don't feel we're anywhere near that point yet—or he should be allowed the chance to prove he can actually participate in a collaborative project. I do support not lifting the existing block early in the absence of a detailed indication from UNSC that he understands why things have got to this point; all the commentary on his talkpage gives the impression that he doesn't take any of this remotely seriously and sees Wikipedia as a cross between a MMORPG and a chat-room, and if that attitude continues the next step will be a permanent community ban. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - and quite strongly. Those who are opposing nevertheless agree that there is a serious problem. RfA also needs to be greatly cleaned up and this is one way to start doing it. More in the Comments section below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Provisional Oppose. I don't see UNSC Luke 1021's RFA contributions as being genuinely disruptive in so far as I don't think any closing crat (should a chat be needed) would afford them any credibility. I prefer inclusion to exclusion as the better way to help new contributors learn and develop, and when that doesn't work I prefer voluntary withdrawal to forced exclusion. I support Risker's suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  "I just wanted to game the system"[51] is considered ok now by some. Perhaps I've grown too old for this game. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't see where I suggested that's OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  UNSC Luke 1021 has now accepted Risker's proposal, so I think we should try that first before a ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in principle, Support in practice but does it really take 5 senior admins with 35 years experience to ram your point home? Kudpung's and maybe the next message were all that was needed. Why for God's sake does it take a further 3 of you to join in? It looks like collective Admin bullying, each piling on and adding various 2ps which amount to no more useful advice than the original 1p. You need to be aware that for some editors with a certain mindset perceive repeated reinforcement by "senior" people to be provocative and react adversely. And so it has transpired in this case. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Leaky_caldron, check the thread in question more carefully. It's slightly misleading because all the posts appear in a single thread, but what looks like a pile-on of people warning him for his conduct in a single RFA is actually a procession of editors warning him about a different issue each time (trolling on Godsy's RFA; hassling the supporters on Boson's RFA; his "oppose, has never uploaded a fair use image" vote; his Wikiproject question; his harassment of candidates potentially discouraging people from participating). You can't see it as it was deleted as a courtesy to UNSC on "a youthful indiscretion shouldn't jeopardise a potentially promising career" IAR grounds, but I assure you that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UNSC Luke 1021 does him no credit either. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Generally, I would be very opposed to not allowing an editor to participate in the governance of the project. However, comments like this make it pretty clear that UNSC Luke 1021 is trolling us. Doing that at an RfA is very disruptive, and disrespectful of the candidates. Based on this apparently retaliatory RfA candidate poll, this topic ban should be broadly construed.- MrX 12:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mr rnddude. Block was punitive in my opinion. I get that he shouldn't have nominated me at ORCP, and in hindsight maybe I shouldn't have gone ahead with it all, but I appreciated the feedback and I know what he did was in good faith. 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 13:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, due to UNSC Luke 1021's stubborn refusal to get the point. I've seen this kind of "bargaining" here before, and it generally degenerates into a timesink. Part of the reluctance or candidates who would be good admins to submit an RfA is because it now entails this kind of gauntlet; I know from experience that it makes a stressful week even more difficult. A topic ban is not forever; if and when the bell in his head rings, it can always be rescinded. Miniapolis 14:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per MrX. Also, just hours before the latest RfA, user agreed to refrain from participating, yet went on to disrupt it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 15:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Disrupting any area of Wikipedia is unacceptable, especially after being counseled and warned multiple times. He may be productive elsewhere in the project, but his purpose at RfA seems to be purely disruptive. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - with reluctance, but put over the top by the "gaming the system" remark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Intimidation and sanctioning of !voters that you disagree with is outrageous. The idea of rough consensus is for everyone to express their views which are then assessed in aggregate. As there are typically over 100 !votes at RfA, a maverick or outlying !vote is not going to make a significant difference. A bigger risk is that the bandwagon effect and groupthink will distort the outcome. And, if we are going to challenge absurd votes, then can we start with the evidence and content-free ones like the ridiculous "why not?" Andrew D. (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, you have missed the point entirely. It's the trolling and disingenuous voting on RfA (particularly in the 'oppose' section where we can start with building up evidence against some editors have demonstrated a disquieting pattern of 'oppose' votes over many years) that are the sole reasons for the dearth of candidates. That said, 'absurd' votes are also those a maverick or outlying !vote is not going to make a significant difference that are a lone vote in the oppose section where an RfA is clearly headed for a consensus to promote. Whether such inappropriate voting will actually influence the outcome of such overwhelming burgeoning consensus is not the issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed close

(I can't do this myself because I've already commented)
Please close this now. 41 supporting, 25 opposing. That is a clear consensus. Proposed text:

User:[…] is topic banned by the community for six months for editing, voting or commenting on RfA, all RfA related policies, guidelines, advice pages, and their talk pages, broadly construed. Any breach of this topic ban can result in a block without warning.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• 41 out of 66 is not a clear consensus because it's just 62%. If it was an RfA, it would fail. Andrew D. (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Even though it is my proposal, I can't call this a consensus. It is frustrating, as many seem to be focused on his voting, which has nothing to do with the sanctions or the claims. Others seem oblivious to the fact that he admits he was trolling. To me, this was a clear cut case of intentional disruption and trolling which continued after he admitted it, after he tried to play off that he didn't understand, and after he made snide remarks while doing it. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement, given the evidence that was available to anyone that bothered to look. I wash my hands of the whole affair. Someone should just unblock him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think any parallels to RFA or any other type of consensus building process that attributes a "pass/fail" outcome can be made here. The question being asked here was not whether any assignment of guilt should be placed. In the vast majority of opposes, there was a nearly universal consensus that the editor had engaged in disruptive editing. The only controversy here is the selection between a block or a topic ban; essentially same sides of the coin. I think the closer should be given the opportunity to weight (and exclude if necessary) support and oppose arguments that failed to address the question at hand by being sidetracked on how they !voted as opposed to their overall conduct. Mkdw^talk 03:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Good lord, if we applied the RfA percentage as a hard cut-off for consensus, nothing would get consensus on this project. Whoever eventually closes will assess consensus the proper way, meaning they'll determine whether a consensus of editors agrees that this topic ban will prevent disruption to the encyclopedia and is warranted giving the circumstances. That goes beyond !vote totals, although I think the !vote totals certainly support consensus here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Couldn't we just ban him from asking questions and limit him to simple support/oppose/neutral? That way we stop the problem but we don't disenfranchise someone? --Majora (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The community has a lot of volunteers like you and I who spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia. It's such a waste of time to repeatedly advise editors who seem to be completely incorrigible. What we should do is topic ban him and revisit this after one year. Lourdes 01:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering he is either gaming the system or is too incompetent to participate, I would strongly be opposed to such a restriction. He would find a way to game it, and the cycle goes on. We all have better things to do than constantly monitor him. He was given plenty of warning prior to this, by many people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just really hate to ban someone from RFA completely. --Majora (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Me too, but sometimes ugly solutions are the only logical choice. If he contributes to articles in a productive way, he can always request the restriction be removed in a year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dennis. I just can't bring myself to support a full ban. Especially knowing that past disruptions by other individuals have only resulted in a partial ban while still keeping in place their ability to !vote. I would fully support a limited ban that targets the problem, the nonsense questions. I just can't support the proposal as written. --Majora (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: isn't that completely irrelevant since RfA comments are not a vote? What good is a simple support/neutral/oppose if it doesn't stand on any evidence, policy, or reasoning? AlexEng^(TALK) 02:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at RfA no. A oppose vote will still be counted, just with less weight than a well explained oppose vote. Refer to Godsy's RfA's bureacrat discussion. They explain it themselves. An oppose vote counts for more than a bad oppose vote, but, less than for a good oppose vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Precedent would be that they are banned from everything besides !voting. I didn't say they couldn't explain their reasoning. But once they hit the save button that's it. No more. They can't discuss it if someone asks them to. They can't ask questions. !vote and leave. That is the precedent that has been set already and I would fully support that restriction here as well. --Majora (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I dislike the block. Hate it even. The editor asks silly questions and makes pointless oppose vote which are a waste of everyone's time, TBAN fair enough. The vote is likely discounted by the bureaucrats at the end of the process anyway. The block isn't a useful preventative measure. TBAN yeah sure - Without disenfranchising them as Majora suggests above. -, it'll kill the issue in its tracks, but, what damage is this editor actually doing to the project that requires a block? Eight days block for that matter, I assume the choice is so that the RfA process can be completed. If you don't like how someone says something or ask something, you suck it up - are you blind to the fact that this is why we're here Dennis Brown? because we don't like what they have to say. We're all responsible for the disruption at RfA. Everytime somebody casts a shit vote, we pile on them like dogs drawn to fresh meat - I do this occasionally also. The disruption on their side is almost minimal by comparison. The bitter argument over the poorness of the vote is what takes up half a talk page worth at each and every single RfA and what some poor bureacrat then has to wade through and read. Why not just TBAN the community from commenting on each other's votes, let all the votes stand, and let a bureacrat go through and get rid of the muck. If it weren't for the questions being contributed as well this'd have no leg to stand on because we have regulars at RfA who post oppose votes for nonsensical reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The block in this case is justified. This user's participation so early in the Ivanvector's rfa has the potential to severely disrupt later proceedings. I'm all for second chances, but there was more than enough WP:ROPE given to Luke, and he went and asked for some more. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I had to block to stop disruption. I instantly put up this tban. Luke has already asked if I will lift the block once the tban passes, I've already indicated I would, and gave permission to any other admin to do so without consulting me. This is exactly the proper use of a block, to stop disruption for only as long as is needed to get the job done. You can't just look at the block in isolation. Admin only have a few extra tools to prevent disruption. One of them is our words. If you look closely at his talk page, many admin, myself included, used a lot of words through three RFAs before it came to a block. The block was a last resort, and I stand by it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree. I am aware of the discussion on his talk page, I am aware that they've consistently cast poor votes and asked silly questions. That is not my concern because this is a regular process at RfA. I know why you've blocked, because this is a consistent issue, but, it's a consistent issue across RfA and is not localized to one person. You could block any number of other editors for disruption. Literally the only difference between Luke and any other case is that they post useless questions as well. None other. Yet I see very few instances of blocks being handed out for that. You didn't have to block, you chose to. Your reasons are mostly solid, disruption is a blockable offense. You bring up words, I see that you did use quite a few of them on Luke's talk page, it wouldn't have cost you to use a few more - such as start the AN discussion, leave them a notice, and warn them that any other disruption during the RfA process will yield them a block for the duration of the RfA and AN discussions. You didn't, you could have, I'd argue should have but I'd be the minority in that case. What's done is done. I disagree with what was done, but, I have no choice other than to accept it. You did whatever you thought was right, I'm not going to question your AGF. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If measures like these make the environment at rfa more productive, would you support that? You agree that disruptive actions like his are consistent there, so why shouldn't we seek to improve that atmosphere? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not supporting action against a single editor for a site-wide issue. I honestly don't think this would improve the atmosphere, and I don't think we should be disenfranchising editors whom we disagree with. Refer to Peacemaker67's comment in the proposal above which I think explains part of the issue very well. Most specifically; OK, he has odd ideas, but there are plenty of (mostly oppose) voters on RfAs that I think have quite odd ideas. Odd is being quite generous, and there's a whole heap of them at every single RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user appears to have suggested the topic ban himself on his talk page, in exchange for immediate removal of the block. Shouldn't this just be WP:SNOWCLOSEd? @UNSC Luke 1021: if you've changed your mind about requesting a topic ban, please make the appropriate adjustment to your talk page. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • He has said that, but it started as a community process and it would be my choice for it to remain a community process. He accepts this, understanding these usually take a day or less. A voluntary tban is problematic to enforce, and frankly, I think the community should decide whether or not it wants to take a firm hand when dealing with disruption at RFA. That may prevent further disruption from other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it shouldn't be snow-closed. Let's think a little bit more about the implications here. Even though I myself have suggested that it's time for some voter standards, and have counseled this user myself, I'm not certain it's either fair or reasonable to make them up as we go along and apply them to only one person; we all know there are several others who are equally as recalcitrant, but they tend to have more on-wiki time and experience, so we seem to tolerate them more. Risker (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Risker, I think that is misrepresenting it. If someone causes problems in a specific area, you give the benefit of the doubt and simply ban them from that one area, allowing them to participate in other areas but with restrictions. Arbcom made a career out of carving out special areas and granting special tools to do just that. This topic ban doesn't prevent them from editing and participating in other meta areas and can be removed once they show a willingness to comply with community expectations. As I pointed out to Boing, they admitted they were gaming the system, then continued to do just that. They are not innocently misunderstanding, they are playing you like a punk. What I don't understand is why we would put RFA on a pedestal that makes it impossible to apply the same sanctions we apply in other topic areas. My block and proposal is simply treating RFA like any other area. It is about being consistent in our sanctions, and the opposite of "making it up as I go". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Just a quick comment here. I certainly accept he was gaming us with his own RFA, as he admitted himself, and that's very much not good. Is he still gaming us? Maybe, but maybe not and maybe he's just a young person who hasn't learned how to behave properly. It's been suggested more than once that perhaps I'm a bit too forgiving on the AGF front, and that might be so. But my take here is based on what there is to lose and to gain, and I see a very low risk/reward ratio. I do not think the behaviour at RFA is causing any actual harm, as the contributions are easily ignored and are having no real effect. If he's genuine and sticks with Risker's suggestion, great, we might have a new long-term contributor. If he doesn't, we'll know for sure and can show him the door then with very little lost. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I know Dennis Brown as a straight-shooter, so I take it for granted that he (and others) see a problem with this editor's contributions to RfA, but I have to say that I just reviewed a number of them, and I don't really see what the fuss is about. I certainly wouldn't characterize what I read as "disruptive", but it's also possible that I've somehow missed the worst of it. I'm not going to oppose the proposal, but if Dennis or one of the others who have determined that the editor's contributions are disruptive would like to point me to a specific example, or provide a summary of what I'm missing, I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my stance (or non-stance). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me also add to my comment above that I don't think that disenfranchising an editor from RfA is something that should be taken lightly by the community – I almost think it should require a super-majority of 2/3rds to pass – and that it has an unsettling slippery-slope feel to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the topic-ban and everyone should, as it's a lesser alternative to just community banning him, which is what probably ought to happen. Here's why: UNSC Luke 1021 is a drama fiend. They have barely more than a thousand edits and barely more than six months tenure. And yet, they're commenting at an SPI they themselves aren't a party to. UNSC Luke 1021 has popped up at drama boards which for a new user is bad news. Only about 18% of their edits are in the main namespace. What else has UNSC Luke 1021 been doing? Handing out ratings for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks, of which he is one of only two participants! Luke has contributed meaningfully to only one article, Astroneer, which is still in sad shape. UNSC Luke readily expressed OWNership when the article was sent to AfD. We were all "new" at some point. Everyone experiences learning curve. UNSC Luke 1021, however, shows an inclination to act with really little thought to the consequences. Based on his userpage admission to being underage, I think he's not a good fit for Wikipedia at this point. Topic-banning from RfA is a slight slap on the wrist which hopefully sends a message. Aren't we here to write an encyclopedia? This way, his disruptive editing isn't going to contribute to highly-visible stressful areas like RfA. Guaranteed this is not the last time we hear from UNSC Luke 1021. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It's not about unfairly disenfranchising anyone, and It’s not a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. I’ve voted on over 300 RfA and I’ve seen ‘crats intervene about 5 times.Wikipedia has always served as a place where free speech is tolerated - it depends just how much free room users should be given to willfully disrupt the project; Wikipedia is not a political platform. What is true is that RfA has been the one venue where people can be as rude, disingenuous, and sometimes even downright nasty with total impunity. This is the sole reason why we are not getting candidates. We have to start making an example of some ‘participants’ and this is one way to show the community that RfA is serious stuff that’s not to be messed with. Even Risker and Iridescent are not denying that something needs to be done. Topic-banning from RfA is a start, and for UNSC Luke 1021, it will give him WP:ROPE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• I suppose I could just always vote the opposite of Luke with 'Anti-Luke vote' as a rationale. A shitty support vote cancelling a shitty oppose vote should mean the net result is he might as well have not voted at all - if the crats are not going to disregard his comments. And I am pretty sure I wont get tired of playing silly games before he does... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Only in death, you need to redo your maths here a bit. Every oppose vote needs four countering support votes to achieve the "75%" pass mark at RfA and 3 to achieve the "66%" crat chat mark. Case in point, 4 supports and 1 oppose achieves a net result of exactly 75% in favour and 3 in favour 1 oppose achieves us a crat chat of exactly 66%. So, your vote will only negate one quarter/one third of theirs. I'll join your game though, so, that just leaves one or two more players needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• I had actually done the math, I was hoping someone else would point out the futility in the hope more people would realise how one editor with terrible motivation can scupper the voting process ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well played Only in death, well played... Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wouldn't 4 to 1 be 80% (4 out of 5) and 3 to 1 be 75%? Or am I missing something? Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, your math is correct, Mr rnddude's is not. Paul August ☎ 19:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ah bollocks, yes you are correct. My math was off. Absolute donkey. I was counting the supports as total votes, instead of adding the oppose as a fifth vote. I mean 4 votes total with 1 oppose, and 3 votes total with 1 oppose. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is well past the more heat than light stage. Leaky Caldron 19:11, 21 December 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.

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Bugged expired BLP PRODs

I noticed that there are several expired BLP-PRODs that for some reason do not show up in Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs. I tried the recommendations mentioned in the blue banner for when nothing shows up in the category, but to no avail. The dating seems to be stuck, because when I look at Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left, many of the expired PRODs do not move to the 0-day entry. Uendi ndini and Konstantin Zadvornov for example, expired on 17 December (5 days ago!). Could an admin please take a look and delete the expired ones? Thanks. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• More of an issue, none of these are showing at WP:PRODSUM, which is where most admins delete expired PRODs from. Something has obviously gone awry. I will raise it at VPT. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is currently backlogged with over 200 candidates. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking this over, and there are a bunch of video game articles that are appearing on the category list but that are not tagged for deletion. Can't tell what's going on - could someone look at these and see if there's a template that is causing the cascading tagging? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Something to do with Template:Video game release perhaps? Sam Walton (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not, but fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:16, 23 December 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 at WP:RFPP

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 seem to be the only active admin there in the last 10 hours or so. Could use some help. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks lot to everybody who helped.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 23 December 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.

Manual extendedconfirmation?

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

---

Is there any precedent or consensus for manually setting the "extended confirmed" bit for a user with long tenure but few edits? (for background, see [52]) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the user name and the page in question:

• Demmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Population statistics for Israeli settlements in the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You're asking about a page covered by WP:ARBPIA3. It is up to Arbcom whether someone with fewer than 500 edits should be permitted to edit. Extendedconfirmed is just a means of enforcing what Arbcom wrote. An admin who tried to grant Extendedconfirmed to the user would not be able to release them from the general prohibition since Arbcom literally wrote down '500 edits' in their decision. (All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits... etc.) Even so, the person is allowed to use the talk page, and their proposals could be made there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector no, in fact the opposite - that it will not be set early unless it is a LEGITSOCK (see WP:PERM/EC). And agree with EdJohnston, gaining group access does not bypass the Arbcom remedy from a editing restriction point of view. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know! Thanks both, that all makes perfect sense to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 23 December 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 a closer

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

---

I think the we need an uninvolved, level-headed, perceptive admin to close the thread about User:Sander.v.Ginkel on AN/I. It's been going on for 17 days now, and there are 5 different proposals (one of them admin-closed as nonsense) about how to deal with the problem. Some kind of closure -- adopting one or more of the proposals or declaring that there is no consensus to do anything -- is needed to put the community out of its misery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it and will post it shortly, although I wouldn't mind having at least one other admin eyeball my findings (which will probably upset everyone). -- Avi (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts in a very difficult situation. I have posted the red text from the close on S.v.G's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for informing Sander. -- Avi (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: in your supervote close (you acknowledge consensus, but don't agree with it, so you change the proposals to some weaker undiscussed ones, weaker still than the clearly opposed Proposal 5), you say "a list of Sander's existing problematic BLP articles" should be made. Is this a list of all his BLP creations, or only the already known problematic ones, or should all articles be checked and the problematic ones be listed? Fram (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Hi. All BLP articles are assumed problematic. The onus is on those who want to keep an article to confirm it is properly sourced and not a BLP violation. If they (others, not Sander) can do that in the preparatory week, fine. But afterwards the articles get nuked and need to be built properly. As for "supervoting", closing these discussions is a bit different from 'crat chats as the closer needs to factor in their understanding of the best application of policy and guideline in addition to consensus. I hope I explained what I did clearly enough and why I thought it was in accord with both the letter and spirit of our project. -- Avi (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Supervoting" is every discussion where the closer is supposed to judge consensus and discard !votes which are against our policies our guidelines. This goes for AfDs, discussions like the one you closed here, and (I hope) crat chats as well. The support for e.g. an indef block didn't go against policy or guidelines, you just interpreted the !votes as being emotional reactions to "proposal 4", which seems rather belittling of the opinions of the people who commented: most of them have a long editing history and sufficient knowledge of our policies and guidelines as well. Similarly, your change from "delete all BLP creations" to "delete all, but only after someone has created a list, post it in some unnown public location, and then let anyone who wants to adopt every article they want" doesn't seem to be anything that is mandated by our policies and guidelines but simply your personal preference. Fram (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fram. What I interpreted as emotional was SvG's proposal 4, not the reaction to it. What was overriding in my mind is that blocks and bans are not to be used as punishments but as measures to protect the project. Should the offending articles be removed and Sander only edits exactly in accordance with the limitations (based on other proposals) then the project is protected. So applying the block now would be punitive and not protective. The block can be applied the moment Sander violates those terms. So the issue is not at all belittling the righteous frustration felt by those having to deal with Sander. If the close came across as condescending, I apologize.

The reason for creating the list was the valid concern raised by a number of people that there are valuable articles there. Having a list of articles to be deleted allows people to fix the low-hanging fruit now and gives them a list to work off of in the future. For what it is worth, User:Tazerdadog wants to batch undelete articles into draft space and check them by chunks there. I suggested he bring that up as a new discussion on ANI. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But the concerns were explained repeatedly during the lengthy discussion, and Sander.v.Ginkel chose to go on with similar edits (like sourcing doping cases to utterly unreliable sites) anyway. The indef block prevents further such occurrences without the need to check all his edits. What you do is add a considerable burden of work to protect an editor who has continued to violate our core policies during all this, and who hasn't given any indication of understanding the problem. You are not protecting Wikipedia here.

As for the "valuable articles": no, there are articles on many subjects who are notable, but that doesn't make them valuable articles. Having a list of all deleted articles would also give people the chance to recreate them. Very little actual value would be lost by deleting all these, as was the wish of the community.

Your close consists of a series of replies you could have given as a !vote in the proposals, and which may have convinced others (or not). But as a close, it was a supervote and did not represent consensus (or indicate where a proposal violated policy: the claim that an indef block would be only punishment and not also preventative is of course not correct). Fram (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram, is it possible you misread the close? Every BLP article is to be deleted. There is a grace period of one week to allow projects like wiki project cycling to identify, adopt, and fix easily corrected articles. Also, while an indef block would protect the project, it would not do so more than the current restrictions would. If Sander adheres to all these restrictions, then protecting the project is served. If he doesn't, any admin could indef him at first violation. The only difference is he is not indeffed now. My understanding of our blocking policy in light of all the options shown in the four reasonable proposals is not to allow him an opportunity based on the suggestions in proposals 1, 2, or 5 would be punitive. I thought I made that clear; I guess I didn't. If your perspective on Sander is correct, he'll be indeffed shortly with almost no danger to the project. If your perspective is not correct, proposal 3 would have been punishment. It's not our job to punish people but to ensure they edit in accord with Wikipedia policy or not edit at all. -- Avi (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I join Fram with my abject embarassment at how Avraham decided to supervote close to a outcome that was clearly unsuported (even to the point of being explicitly rejected by proposal 5). I strongly suggest that the administrator revert their closure and allow another admin (possibly NYB?) who has experience with closing contentious ANI discussions to consider. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Abject embarrassment" is pretty strong, but like all contentious discussions it was impossible to please everyone. Taking all the reasonable proposals into account together with the purpose of blocks and bans, I believe my close solves the issues raised in accordance with the predominant views held by the participants and guided by both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not perfect, but I do not think it such an egregious error as to warrant reversion. If you believe my behavior was that inappropriate, the proper response is to take me to arbitration. Which is your privilege, of course. -- Avi (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think an ArbCom case will be accepted on a single incident, I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you. You've has suggestions from several people observing your closure is inappropriate. Do the right thing, revert, and let someone else who clearly isn't supervoting the opportunity to create a truly community consensus based closure. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Two people disapprove, including in one whose support for proposal 3 clearly stated support for the other non indefinite proposals , whereas more than twice as many have overtly posted or thanked me for the close. Now 5/6 people isn't a significant sample either, but it's more than 2, is it not? If you read every statement multiple times, as I did, there was no way to please everyone, let alone uphold the spirit AND letter of EnWiki. I respectfully continue to disagree that the "right" thing would be to reopen the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Hasteur and Fram here. This was a bad close. Why seek community consensus at all if discussions are going to be closed without any regard for any consensus reached? I have to say, also, that it was not accurate to characterise support for an indef ban as just a reaction to Sander's silly tit-for-tat Proposal 4. Reyk _YO! 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So you do not think there was a consensus to prevent Sander from editing as he had in the past? So you do not think there was a consensus that the articles already created could not stay in main space (albeit less clarity on what should be done with them)? Or is your only issue that proposal 3 did not get implemented as is? How would you characterize one editor's support for indef blocking which reads "Silly "Proposal 4" below has convinced me that this user is not interested or able to curb his disruptive behaviour." Is that not a reaction, albeit justified? Also, please recall proposal 3 was not in a vacuum. The close had to encompass all the proposals and all the inter-proposal discussions. Three of the proposals were clear that there were remedies that did not encompass indef blocking which would serve to protect the project. Perhaps a better way to have phrased it in the call would be "proposal 3 does not live in a vacuum, and the apparent consensus which appears in it is balanced enough by proposals 1, 2, and 5 to indicate while there is a clear consensus for the need for protecting the project, there is no overall discussion consensus that indef blocking is the proper response". Regardless, I knew a priori that closing a discussion of this length, magnitude, and complexity was bound to upset a sizeable number of people, but it had to get done and I hadn't tested my asbestos suit recently .

At this point, I feel as if I'm repeating myself a bit. While I understand the disappointment of a number of editors, I believe that my close encompassed the directives espoused by the consensus of all respondents in all proposals and discussions whilst keeping the overarching goal of protecting the project as opposed to unduly punishing editors in mind. I remain a bit surprised with people feeling a massive restriction on BLP editing, a loss of personal "sovereignty" in BLP space, and a one-strike-and-you're-out sword of Damocles is insufficient.

That being said I believe y'all have three options at this point:

1. Accept the close and keep a sharp eye on Sander
2. Argue that the close was not in accordance with policy and open a new ANI discussion
3. Argue that the close exhibited improper behavior or use of administrative tools and open an RfArb

Personally, I am indifferent, as I believe I acted in accordance with policy and guideline, but I recognize some disagree, and we have dispute resolution policies for that purpose. I'm going to try and disengage (although I'll probably fail). If you want to yell at me, but are not going to escalate the close, the best place to do so is my talk page. I'll certainly see it there, although I do not promise to respond (I need to go bandage my overweening ego and let it heal ). -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oyi, I can see why no one stepped up to deal with this. Consensus was, simply, really very wrong. We don't delete all articles started by someone, even from a banned user, without looking at them. The error rate appears to be darn low and the problems mostly minor. It was one of the worst ANI discussions I've ever seen. I just don't get the pile on. All that said, it's clear that the close doesn't match consensus. Sometimes that's a good thing, but generally not. If folks can't get Avi to reclose or reopen the discussion the only next step is to start a new discussion (here, at AN) requesting the overturn of the close. I get the strong sense that Avi isn't moving, so further discussion with him isn't going to be productive. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Reopening the original discussion would just serve confuse matters even more than existed, and my second suggestion above is to open a new discussion here. Having closed this one, I certainly cannot close a discussion discussing my closure, can I? . Consider though that doing so will delay implementation of the protective measures, leaving potentially thousands of violations in main space and Sander having the opportunity to create thousands more during this new discussion. -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a nice bit of blackmail there, impressive behaviour. That your non-consensus supervote close also "delays implementation of the protective measures, leaving potentially thousands of violations in main space" is apparently less problematic? Anyway, since you won't do the decent thing yourself, here we go... Fram (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I think it's disappointing that you've decided to go for the mocking route, with a million condescending winky smilies. Reyk _YO! 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Reyk: It is clear that you do not know me well, or at all, Reyk. I've been less involved in dispute resolution over the past half-decade, dealing more with maintenance work, but over the near-dozen years I've been on Wikipedia, I've always tried to augment text-based discussion with smileys to provide the body-language cues inherent in face-to-face discussions which text-on-screen does not. If I would say something to someone with a smile or grin in person, I'll try to smiley it (ASCII or otherwise) in text. I've always felt that providing more cues in these kinds of conversations tends to reduce, rather than inflame, tensions, but I could be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Look, if you don't see how it looks patronising to give someone a wink or a smug grin smiley while telling them why you've chosen to disregard their opinions, then I don't know what to say to you. At the very least please keep them out of your replies to me in the future; they are obnoxious and irritating. I myself only use the damn things sparingly, and avoid them in a dispute situation. Anyway, I think it's unlikely that your "one-strike-and-you're-out" situation really applies. When Sander plays up again-- and it's a when, not an if-- the result's not going to be anything else than another pointlessly long ANI thread ending in another non-commital wishy-washy close. I'm not going to keep an eye on Sander. As important as I think keeping inaccuracies out of BLPs is, I no longer believe anything will come of it if he gets caught at it again. I feel I have done all I can to deal with the disruption and I'm not going to trouble myself with this topic again. He's your responsibility now, and you're welcome to him. Reyk _YO! 18:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
      • It wasn't meant to be patronizing and I apologize if that is how it was perceived. I will do my best to remember not to use them with you going forward. If the if is truly a when, I have no doubt that someone will report Sander to ANI or even block directly. If you find evidence of willful violation by Sander and you do not want to block yourself, you are welcome to let me know directly (although I think you'll get a faster result on ANI). I believe you are incorrect about assuming the next violation will result in another 100K of textual debate, but neither of us will know for sure unless it happens. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that Sander.v.Ginkel, apparently not having learned anything from the boomerang of his ANI discussion or the failed proposal 4 he posted there, spent yesterday evening with revenge editing. This includes things like tagging a short article with one general source and 6 inline sources with "insufficient inline citations", or tagging a number of articles which point to a specific article in an (old) encyclopedia with "needs page numbers", because of course people are unable to find a named article in an alphabetic encyclopedia.[53][54]... Some of his edits have been reverted by others as "revenge editing" (wording used by both editors!) [55][56]. Not satisfied with tagging articles individually, he then went for the template itself, again insisting that page numbers are necessary even when the actual article / lemma is indicated (which is the case in probably 99% of the cases). This use of the template is similar to the one used by Template:EB1911, which also references lemmas by the article name, and not by page number. The changes to the template were also reversed by another editor. Fram (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I have given them a week's holiday, this editor is just generating far too much disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Ritchie333. I left a note/warning on his talk page. I don't know how much clearer to make it, but he is on extremely thin ice and it's cracking in front of our eyes. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Request overturn of close

Clear consensus against an overturn. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

As explained above, the closure by Avraham of the Sander.v.Ginkel discussion boiled down to a supervote close, rejecting parts of the proposals which had consensus behind them (2 and 3) and instead implementing something close to the firmly rejected proposal 5, all with some very flimsy reasoning. What Avraham presents are valid opinions, which would have been welcome as !votes in the proposals (or as a new proposal, although that might have been greeted with some exasperation by some); but no good reasons have been presented why the clear consensus has been ignored in favour of his close, as nothing in the proposals was against policy. Fram (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Avraham closed as an uninvolved closer. His close was very well explained in the closing notes and does not appear to be a supervote. In fact, he's to be commended for wading through this huge discussion, with multiple proposals, and selecting the best choice for both sides. I will note , that Fram was involved with this user prior to this first post on ANI (though not WP:INVOLVED, just so we're clear ) and thus is not neutral towards this user, nor the issue being discussed, as such I would move this section be closed unless there is consensus to the contrary.KoshVorlon 16:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support overturning the close, obviously. I think this was a clear supervote. Obviously I also oppose closing this discussion early. Reyk _YO! 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I didn't like Ritchie's close of another similar discussion but so it goes. The "consensus" process, in which closers interpret the result of a complex discussion in the manner of a haruspex reading entrails, is obviously quite flawed but it's the process we have. Repeating the process until you get the result you like would tend to make matters worse. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose simply put I agree it was a supervote. And that's a problem. But I also think the consensus was way out of wack with policy and felt more like a large personal attack than a policy-based discussion. Avi's final outcome is close to what I think policy can justify. I oppose with a great deal of discomfort, because I really do hate supervotes. That said, we have closers for a reason and I think in this case the closing admin got it right. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of comments: to me supervote means closing a discussion in contradiction to the consensus of the discussion. Sometimes that's the right thing to do (and I think this is such a case) but it's something to be very very careful with. Secondly, I too oppose closing this discussion early unless the SNOW case is really strong. It is a reasonable thing to ask for a close review. And given this was closed against numeric consensus of experienced editors, it's something worth reviewing. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's looking pretty WP:SNOWy to me at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree, but waiting 24 hours from the initial timestamp before asking someone uninvolved to close would not go amiss. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Nobody has any cause to cast aspersions on the good faith close of an uninvolved administrator. I remained silent and uninvolved through that whole discussion. My sober, emotionally detached perspective is that that topic needed to be closed and that Avraham's close was the best summation of the discussion. Because you didn't get the outcome you desired doesn't make the close unreasonable or contrary to rough consensus. Avi's interpretation of the arguments with due consideration of procedural concerns and policy was reasonable and more than fair. From WP:CLOSE, Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself.. I strongly encourage you to drop the stick and let this issue rest in the annals of the ANI archive where it belongs. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Avi got it right. This was a mess, and nobody was going to be happy no matter what. I would have closed it much the same way. It was done in good faith and it was necessary. Simple as. Katie^talk 18:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe Avi deserves thanks for attempting a close that was, as he said, bound to please almost none of the participants. At this point, we have a close to work with, and the issue can be re-opened if S.v.G doesn't follow it, so I see no damage in moving forward on the basis he has set up. I'm agnostic on whether the close was a "supervote", which is a charge which is thrown around much too often, in my opinion. Further, if we, as a community, react in this fashion to a difficult close of a convoluted discussion, all it does is discourage admins from closing those discussions, which is probably why I had to come here seeking a closer in the first place. Re-opening is futile, as the original discussion itself shows, as well as the differing opinions in this meta-discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think, on the whole, that this was a great close (the votes for blocking were 23 to 8 in favour, for example) but on the other hand closing stuff like this is a complete pain in the arse (I know, I've done similar before) and as long as we have something to work with that will stop the flow of terrible BLP articles then the main issue has been addressed. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As Andrew D says, if you close a contentious debate it's a near given you're going to brass somebody off, as consensus frequently means people don't get what they asked for. Shit happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose That discussion was one of the messier ones I've seen, and I'm not sure there was a good way to close it at all. The close is well-reasoned and provides as good of a path forward as we're going to get out of this; it goes against the majority vote on some points, but these discussions aren't supposed to be votes in the first place. Litigating the matter further isn't going to help matters. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no good reason to go back into that discussion again. That thread was a mess, wading through it and delivering such a broad analyzing close as Avi did should be commended. No matter what the close ended up being, many were going to be unhappy. Personally, my immediate reaction to the close was to thank the editor and be glad it was closed. It's taken 2/3 of AN/I space and more than 150k bytes to resolve this issue. Let's not create another 150k bytes worth of exposition for another admin to read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Do I agree with every aspect of Avi's close? No. Do I think it was defensible? Yes, I do. Is there anything to be gained by continually re-litigating this until we get the "right" result? Not really. Thanks to Avi for taking on such a messy case that someone was clearly going to complain about no matter what happened. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose. There was no good way to close that discussion. The closer picked one of the least bad ones. I don't agree with every aspect of the close, but it was certainly a very defensible closure based on policy. It did seem supervotey, but it was supervotey in an appropriate way. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

Dealing with socks of globally locked accounts

What's the procedure for dealing globally with socks of masters that are globally locked. Apart from the normal SPI here do we need to notify WMF so that the socks can also be globally locked? Nthep (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

My sense would be to head over to meta:Steward requests/Global to have 'em locked as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)