Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive293

Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo

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 has been an unblock request open at User talk:Hidden Tempo for a month, with no admin apparently willing to review it so far. I won't review it myself, partly because my name already appears in Hidden Tempo's block log.

The block was made by User:MastCell with a reason of "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring; repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban".

User:Bishonen offered to convert the block to a topic ban from post-1932 American politics, but that was not accepted and has now expired.

I now think the only realistic way out of the stalemate is to turn it over to the ultimate authority, the Wikipedia community, to decide. The discussion at the user talk page is lengthy, and I doubt I could summarize it fairly to the satisfaction of all parties - so with my apologies, anyone wanting to help will need to see what's been happening for themselves.

Current options include unblock, decline unblock, and convert the block to Bishonen's suggested topic ban - but obviously, anyone here is free to make other proposals. I will not offer any opinions in this discussion myself, and I'll leave it to someone else to close and implement whatever is decided. Whatever the outcome, those who contribute will certainly have my gratitude (and, I suspect, the gratitude of other admins too).

So it's over to you, folks... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am bothered by the following paragraph that they (Hidden Tempo) posted in the discussion on their talk page: Since such diffs do not exist, especially in non-AP2 articles, this poses a dilemma for a potential declining admin. I also suspect that your reluctance to dissent from highly influential and powerful admin heavyweights like Bishonen and MastCell is a common sentiment in the admin community. This sounds like FUD to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that MastCell has not provided diffs is true. Sanctions are supposed to be grounded in evidence, and if serious sanctions like indefinite editing bans are to be handed out, there should surely be solid evidence to back up them up. I find it troubling that after so much time, the original blocking admin has not provided diffs, and that it's viewed as somehow wrong for Hidden Tempo to point this out. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether MastCell did or did not provide diffs does not invalidate my concern. Besides, not everybody relies on diffs some people prefer to read a page history to get to conclusions as it provides more context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely false to suggest that I didn't provide evidence for the block. I've addressed this falsehood repeatedly, including here. I'm disappointed that some people continue to repeat it, and would ask that others don't accept this falsehood uncritically. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In the post you linked, you did not provide any diffs showing what was supposedly problematic about Hidden Tempo's behavior since his return to editing on 2 July 17 March. If it really is a falsehood to say that you have not provided diffs, then please correct the record and link to a post where you did, in fact, provide diffs detailing Hidden Tempo's behavior since 2 July 17 March. You've spent a lot of time calling this a falsehood, during which time you could have actually linked to such a post, or provided diffs. I've looked through the history of this sanction, trying to find where you posted diffs, and I haven't been able to find it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

MastCell pointed to the "Trump-hater" comment, which goes back to this edit (or maybe an earlier one), and the edit-warring that followed it, and the entire godforsaken thread on the Stephen Miller talk page where Hidden Tempo is just digging a hole. "Cosmopolitan bias" is indeed what Miller said, that's indisputable, in this ridiculous exchange, so this has no merit (Politico's "It’s a way of branding people or movements that are unmoored to the traditions and beliefs of a nation, and identify more with like-minded people regardless of their nationality" was well paraphrased as "deficit of nationalism"), and merely leaving Miller's insult to Acosta, without much context, is indeed undue if not an outright BLP violation. So that entire talk page thread is based on a false assumption, plus it shows what others have noted and what I will call (sorry HT) an uncollegial tone ("bud", and the rather patronizing pointing at some diagram). Muboshgu gives an insightful analysis, albeit brief, on the problem with HT's edit (look for "It's Miller's POV/spin"), and TheValeyard, early in the thread, makes an IMO correct observation: "You aren't being attacked; you're being called out for making poor-quality editing choices, and attempting to edit-war to keep your poor-quality edits in". Rjensen reverted HT too, and I've not seen Rjensen at the weekly dispersal of Soros checks. It seems to me that any admin who looks over that discussion sees what led to the block. (BTW I'm glad the Colbert nonsense was removed from the article--thanks HT.) Drmies (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
Drmies - it appears that you are now addressing the content dispute itself, rather than discussing the validity of MastCell's diff-less block. You will probably not be surprised that I entirely disagree with your view that the Politico op-ed was sufficient for the material. You may remember that I was once blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for referring to an 11% trustworthiness rating as a "feeble" number[1], since the RS I used (not an op-ed, by the way) did not also use the word "feeble." This is why I believed the imaginative and very loose interpretation of the op-ed to be a BLPVIO, and required its removal (see FT2's explanation below). Additionally, even if the material passed mustard, that page is a BLP and therefore editors must not reinstate contested material that had been removed, without building consensus on the talk page. I have no clue what Rjensen's views are on the activities of one George Soros, and fail to see how they're relevant to WP:BLPREMOVE policy, which really couldn't be more clear. But this AN report is not a forum to debate the content. This is about my diff-less, evidence-free block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry you misread my comments. I wasn't commenting on content as much as explaining why your article edits and talk page contributions were clear enough indications of blockable behavior. In my opinion, of course. BLP exemptions, by the way, need to be reasonable, so it's not like the mere claim of a BLP violation suffices. Moreover, there are two living people involved, and the contention is that one of those edits of yours was a BLP violation of the other person, so to speak. I hope that clears it up.
Sorry, failed to look at the "feeble" thing. RexxS is a pretty straight shooter, and this edit summary indeed was not your best moment--one can argue, I suppose, that you've had it in for Marek since then or even before, but that's neither here nor there for now. I'm not quite sure why you want to point me to a discussion where you were blocked for a BLP violation, and unblocked on the condition that you grasp the BLP, when that's precisely what we're discussing. User:Boing! said Zebedee, of course, is the one who got this whole discussion going for you in the first place, so again, why would you want to rag on them right now? I'm asking because I just don't understand the tactics here--if I were you I'd be making friends, not pointing at old things that don't make you look good, while criticizing those who have been good to you. Now, if this is only about paraphrase, I've been teaching paraphrase for 20+ years, and I think that was a pretty good one. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't see the above comment about my block as anything more than just a statement of fact. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're now starting to make the case that MastCell has refused to spell out for the past month. If that case justifies a topic ban or an indefinite ban on editing altogether, then it should be made after this situation is cleared up. The problem here is that we are dealing with a month-old ban in which the blocking admin has very conspicuously not provided evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies: Less than a week ago you dismissed the following commentsfrom another participant in the Miller thread (made elsewhere): "You pulled that out of your ass", "for fuck's sake", "Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake" as merely "feisty". Here you identify HT's use of "bud" as a problem. Can you understand why some may think different standards are applied to different editors?

The content HT removed has since been removed by consensus. That should tell us what we need to know about who was on the right side of the edit even if they were not on the right side of policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, I don't know why others think what they do. "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't demeaning to the person. "You made a mistake" is an attempt at a factual statement; it can be right or it can be wrong--similar with "bullshit excuse". "For fuck's sake" is an expression of exasperation for which one often cannot blame the speaker. Or one can--it doesn't matter. None of these three are attacks on a person, though one may well say they're not really polite in all circumstances. (If I had to take issue with anything it's with the imperative...) Are you with me so far? Drmies (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: This is getting comical. Without a hint of irony, you're trying to argue that "bud" is more "uncollegial" than "you pulled that out of your ass." Your attempt to even argue this point seriously calls your impartiality into question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As the real Thucydides said, with age comes wisdom. I hadn't gotten to "bud" yet. You are welcome to actually read my words, and then our policy, which has the keyword "personal" in it. Besides, I'm more interested in James's response, though I'll gladly entertain you while I'm waiting. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, don't get so hung up on ass. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
Jo-Jo_Eumerus - I and others welcomed the blocking administrator multiple times to provide the diffs showing the behavior for which I am blocked. He declined each and every time. They were never produced by MastCell, or any of the other administrators who took a passing glance at the UBR. If you believe my quote: to be an example of FUD, my invitation to supply diffs showing this pattern of WP:TEND-behavior since my TBAN remains open. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock per time served. I read the entire history, I see the past bad behavior, but per WP:ROPE I think we can safely say that anything, and I mean anything, resembling poor behavior will lead to an immediate indef block with nary a chance for appeal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Accept TBAN, oppose unblock without restrictions Oppose unblock - The mere fact that no admin is willing to close this request is an indication of the time-drain presented by this editor. The editor appears to believe that disagreement with their positions is clear evidence of bias, or worse. There exist numerous examples of the editor’s tendentious editing, snarks, condescension, edit-warring, POV-pushing, rejection of reliable sources, and unwarranted accusations of bias. Indeed, WP:CIR is suggested by the striking claim that a block didn’t mean you couldn’t register a sock. Like MastCell, I do not want to provide diffs as I have a life and don’t want to be sucked into unending arguments. After all that has occurred, HT still appears to think this is about the actions of other editors/admins, instead of the editor’s own actions. I don’t see how an unblock is warranted even as the editor continues to strike out at admins. IMO, Bishonen’s offer of a TBan was not only generous, but could have been beneficial to the editor. Should the prevailing view of the community suggest a TBan, I would probably not argue against it. Although, I think we’d probably be back here or elsewhere at a later date continuing discussions of their behavior yet again. Objective3000 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page are so convoluted is because lots of editors have time to make comments but few have the time to provide diffs. Let's try to avoid duplicating that problem here. D.Creish (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

More than adequate rational was provided for the block. Objective3000 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've already chimed in on the talk page, so I'm not sure whether a bold vote here in this section too is appropriate, but in general Jo-Jo Eumerus has it right, I think. They say FUD, I'd say Chewbacca defense, but it amounts to the same thing. I don't understand the desire to give sockpuppeting political POV pushers endless final chances in the topic area; 3 chances (or 4, depending on how you count) should have been enough. Serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
  Floquenbeam (only pinging for courtesy) - Again, I am not "sockpuppeting." I made 10 edits to two talk pages with a sockpuppet in February. It was a mistake, I admitted it, and it's done with. Still no diffs for the "POV-pushers" aspersion. Your qualifier "final chances in the topic area" is the lead, here. The unblock is a no-brainer. The real question is to TBAN or not to TBAN, which is an AE issue. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mandruss and Boing! said Zebedee: could you guys decide on just one way to transfer comments here? As it is, I've now been pinged 3 times for the same comment. The original ping on HT's talk page, this inline copy/paste, and the bottom section copy/paste. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't spotted that Mandruss was copying the comments across, so I've reverted my copy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Very sorry for the inconvenience. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN but oppose unblock without restrictions (my opinion has changed, see subsequent comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC) - I haven't time to review that entire page, I doubt most editors would. I reviewed the latest unblock request and on its face it seems sensible; Hidden Tempo has addressed the issues leading to the block much more rationally than the vast majority of unblock requests I've ever seen and so I trust they understand why they were blocked. However, I'm also reading some quite recent WP:NOTTHEM and so I'm wary of letting them go straight back into the topics where their edits led to a block. Thus I endorse Bishonen's topic ban proposal - even though it's "expired" there are many administrators already suggesting HT take the offer (add me to that list) but I cannot support unblocking without restrictions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock without conditions. This is very simple: MastCell did not provide diffs to back up their characterization of Hidden Tempo. Indefinite bans cannot be handed out without evidence. The argument that Hidden Tempo is a time-drain on the community is especially troubling. Banning an editor without evidence, and then accusing them of wasting time when they defend themselves is just Kafkaesque. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The total amount of discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page is overwhelming. FT2's summary of the situation in this section (User_talk:Hidden_Tempo#Review_of_block) is concise and covers the relevant points. D.Creish (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock without conditions. I agree with Thucydides411. The blocking admin continues to fail to provide the diffs, all while accusing another editor of failing to answer one of their questions. We already have one admin currently hauled before ArbCom for repeated failure to provide evidence. Add to that the fact that MastCell returned from a 1.5 month hiatus right before handing down an indef block, and I get the strong impression that Hidden Tempo has not been treated fairly. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
  MastCell makes the claim that he has provided "evidence" for his reasons behind the indefinite block (""tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring"), after being confronted once again for his refusal to provide diffs of the post-TBAN behavior in question[2]. However, as every reasonable editor understands, a link to an ANI discussion in which I was tangentially involved and an AE appeal from last December is not "evidence" of the indef-worthy post-TBAN behavior which he is claiming. MastCell has not provided diffs of the behavior in question. Period. I admitted to the 3RR violation (as a result of removing BLPVIO material). The other three claims are catchall, vague, highly general and subjective accusations for which there is no evidence, which is why MC either a) can't find any diffs or b) has the diffs, but refuses to provide them for some unknown reason. I leave it to the community to decide which possibility is more likely. Hidden Tempo (talk) 11:24, Today (UTC−5)
• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated. Mastcell has provided a sufficient rationale at the time of the block, and subsequently to explain the block, and its clear from HT's editing history the topic ban prior to the block served its purpose in preventing disruption. Regardless of if HT accepts a topic ban or not, he can be unblocked and have one imposed upon him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• A couple of points:
  1. It isn't fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs or rationale for the block. MastCell blocked from an open thread at ANI and provided a rationale there (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Sanity_break) and then when challenged, MastCell gave more detailed rationale here and here and here.
  2. "Indefinite" block does not mean forever. The block lasts only as long as it takes for the user to recognize the problem and make a commitment to fix it. That's the reason no admin was willing to touch the unblock request. Hidden Tempo clearly doesn't recognize there's a problem, and instead spends their time attacking the blocking admin and any others they perceive as enemies.
  3. In my review of the editor's history after having been pinged to the talk page, I found what appeared to be a history of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. Part of the problem is that the user seems to categorize editors into camps based their contributions to political articles. (You can see a small sample of this by going to the user's talk page and doing a Ctrl+F for "editing pattern", or for a longer read, read the sentences where HT uses the term "AP2".)
  4. I would have been happy to unblock the user myself if I had seen anything resembling a serious commitment to fix the problem. I didn't.

Based on this, I think the best path forward would be to implement the topic ban as proposed by User:Bishonen. It would have been better if the user had accepted that themselves, or proposed a suitable alternative, but the time for that has passed I'm afraid. ~Awilley (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I should clarify that I think the user should be unblocked (and not community banned) as they have not to my knowledge proved themselves a net-negative in any area other than American politics. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
Awilley uses the same rationale as MastCell - contending that a link to a pre-indef AE appeal and a link to Nfitz's ANI report (also pre-indef) is sufficient evidence for a pattern of post-TBAN "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" editing. It's not. A sanction as severe as an indef block requires detailed, clear, unambiguous diffs of my edits, showing the claimed editing pattern. Intentional or not, MastCell muddies the waters and poisons the well by going on and on about pre/mid-TBAN behavior. "He was TBANNED last December...he edited a talk page with a sock last February...he got into a heated content dispute at Stephen Miller..." That doesn't cut it. If I had the diffs, then I could see the problem to which you and MastCell are referring, view the specific edits in question, and then address the problem and rectify the editing pattern. But of course, we never saw the diffs. Ex: Awilley is an employee and comes into work, but is sent home because Awilley is not compliant with the company's dress code. Awilley must be told explicitly and specifically how he is violating company policy, or else Awilley will come into work day after day, and be sent home day after day, until Awilley figures out the correct wardrobe combination. Is Awilley being treated fairly? Does this scenario indicate a productive, efficient process of remedying a problem? That is what is happening here. I addressed each and every single block reason in my UBR and followed WP:GAB to the letter, and I did it with diffs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Awilley wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK YOU BOSS" or something like that? Drmies (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, in certain circumstances it's quite clear. In others, not so much. If my boy gets sent home because he has pants with belt loops but is not wearing a belt (OMFG yeah we have those kinds of rules in America), I can complain because in kindergarten you are allowed pants with belt loops but without belt. And if he gets sent home for some stupid infraction I may well ask why, since his sister and I do our best every morning to make sure we're following all the pissy little rules. But if he shows up with a t-shirt that says "Jesus is a ****" (I won't write this common British insult, but the shirt exists) I am not going to be surprised if he doesn't make it into the classroom. And my arguing that the shirt actually had the proper school colors is not going to help him much. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but that belt analogy didn't really make your t-shirt analogy more clear (on my end, at least). I believe you're contending that my alleged post-TBAN pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" is so immediately apparent, obvious, and unambiguous that MastCell is completely exempt from WP:ADMINACCT and is thus not required to provide diffs (outside of a few non-sequitur links to an AE appeal from last year and somebody else's ANI report)? If I've gotten that right, then why the need for a very polarized AN discussion? Several editors have rallied to my defense here (for which I am extremely grateful, by the way), echoing my sentiments about evidence-free sanctions being permitted to stand, and observing none of the behavior that MastCell believed to be so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block in order to protect the project from my film, sports, and yes, even my AP2 edits. If what you're saying is true, no discussion would be required. To stick with your analogy, perhaps Awilley would be arriving to work without a required red pocket square (even though Awilley is wearing one), sent home without being told why, and refusing to give a reason after being asked for one repeatedly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
My point was that the reason for your block was pretty clear. No, that doesn't mean no discussion is ever required. What it means is that not all cases are the same--some are easily nailed with a diff or two, others are shown by an overview of a particular discussion and a few other pointers. That so many admins (and other editors) agree, and that no one except for Boing, who is a very kind individual, and FT2 have chosen to even engage with you should be a pretty clear signal too. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: It is fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs. Looking through the ANI post you linked and the three subsequent explanations, the thing that strikes me is that MastCell did not provide diffs showing a pattern of problematic behavior since Hidden Tempo had returned to editing American Politics. The diffs that MastCell did provide were simply rehashes of the previous sanctions. MastCell's rationale appears to boil down to: you were sanctioned previously, so I don't need to provide evidence that your current editing is problematic - I can simply declare it to be so. MastCell has had plenty of opportunities to provide diffs showing that HT's post-sanction behavior is problematic, and they have, for whatever reason, not done so.

As far as I'm concerned, this refusal to provide evidence should render the sanction invalid. If sanctions are warranted, any administrator is free to gather evidence in the form of diffs, present it to the community, and propose new sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock while restoring the topic ban I've said it from the beginning when I was pinged by HT initially and I will repeat it again. The only way to move this forward is to enact the first step, which is to unblock the editor and restore the topic ban. Only then we can have discussions about the validity of the ban and the administrative actions – these discussions cannot happen concurrently. Therefore, I agree with Ivanvector and Awilley, endorse the offer proposed by Bishonen even though it has expired. Alex Shih^Talk 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban is a minimum. I agree with Awilley, Bish, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by reviewing admin: I was pinged by Alex Shih on 23 August and reviewed the block, so I'll not opine on the unblock request itself (I said I would defer on that to others). I would like to draw the community's attention to my summary findings. 1/ HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc. During July 2 to 1 Aug he was not on TBAN and there were again no adverse issues noted. This suggested that a full indef might not be needed to protect the project. The sole issue since was a BLP dispute in early Aug, where HT may in fact have been right per policy (the reinstater must demonstrate BLP is complied with for negative reinsertions and HT's concern was not addressed). I did see CIV/AFG issues but the user was evidently trying to improve in those areas.I asked for anything else adverse since March/July showing the behavior in the block, and none was provided. Against that, the few respected admins who did opine, such as Bishonen, felt there were concerns as evidently did the blocking admin. I remain concerned on the question of whether too much reliance is placed on stale conduct and whether it obscures a lack of recent and as-claimed conduct. Also about the blocking admin's handling (I felt the block was 'sloppy' and could have been improved by good handling). My review is on HT's talk page if wanted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock With Indef TBAN "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" is an accurate summary of his behavior. Switching from a block to a TBAN including American Politics seems reasonable. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unconditional unblock. MastCell was well within his discretion to make the block, and it was adequately explained and well supported. Agree with Awilley, Bish, Drmies, that indefinite topic ban from American politics is a minimum. I have to say that HT's reaction to the unblock is really illuminating. It would be one thing if HT took an approach along the lines of "I understand that my conduct here was not ideal for X and Y reasons, but I can be a productive editor and going forward will commit to do X, Y, Z." Instead he took a more confrontational approach: bashing the blocking admin, refusing to admit fault or error, and declining the initial, generous offer to convert the indef block into a topic ban. Neutrality^talk 00:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Neutrality - this is the first time I've ever seen a diff-less block earn the characterization of "well supported." Of course, my indef is probably the first time I've seen a block without diffs period. A block given without diffs, with multiple refusals to provide these supposed diffs that may or may not exist can never be described as "adequately explained and well supported." You go on to say that I did not acknowledge that my conduct was not ideal or say that I can be productive. Did you read my UBR? If you had, you would have seen this, this, this, this and multiple other edits where I explicitly acknowledge violating 3RR policy (even when taking WP:BLPREMOVE into consideration), accept fault for the violation, and lay out my reasons why I can, and continue to be a productive editor. You also used very imprecise language (as others did) to describe my critique of the blocking administrator: "bashing the blocking admin", when that's not at all what I was doing. I'm sure MastCell is a fine person and admin. I have no personal qualms with MastCell. My problem is with his application of this sanction without the required diffs, especially with his AP2 editing patterns and highly irregular and alarming timeline surrounding his 10 minute review of my user contribs. Finally, when someone says this, and then suddenly decides I am in need of an indef TBAN, we really need to take a step back at some point and decide if the full story is on display, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• This again shows no insight at all. The implication of impropriety by MastCell is completely meritless. Multiple editors (Drmies and MrX among them) have produced multiple diffs. Take diff 1 - do you think this is acceptable? Or diff 2 - do you understand why others (like MrX and me) think that this was an abuse of BLP? Saying "oh, I violated 3RR" does not show acceptance of responsibility. You've acknowledged no problems with the substance of the edits. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  Neutrality - at least four editors and one administrator have requested diffs from MastCell, to no avail. Your thesis seems to be that a link to a declined 2016 AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report satisfies WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It does not, as the extremely divided response to MC's indef shows. MrX provided diffs pre-2016 TBAN. Bishonen warned me and subsequently TBAN'd me partially due to those diffs. The TBAN expires, and after ~1.5 months, I receive an indefinite block, for edits after the TBAN. This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window. We are asking for the post-TBAN diffs that show the post-TBAN problematic editing pattern, which have not been produced by MastCell, Drmies or any other Wikipedian. We are not here to debate 2016 pre-TBAN edits.

  I understand that you have a different interpretation of WP:BLPREMOVE than FT2 and I, but I admitted to 3RR (as anyone who read my UBR already knows): "[I] made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting[1] to come to some conclusion.","I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur","While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so [per WP:BLPREMOVE"],"3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat.". So my first ever 3RR vio has been handled. We are now asking for post-TBAN diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing in AP2/non-AP2 areas which definitively show the need for an indefinite block. Please, Neutrality, stop perpetuating demonstrably false narratives without reading the talk page discussion. I cannot acknowledge problems with the "substance of the edits" if ZERO post-TBAN edits have been provided. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock Looking at HT's replies above and to admins on his talk page doesn't fill me with confidence that they even understand why they were blocked in the first place. Usually the first thing you have to do to get unblocked from indefinite is to explain how you handle these situations if they arise again. I don't see that happening here. Valeince (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Valeince - how much of my UBR did you read? I addressed each reason point by point. However, I can't get into specifics because MastCell refuses to provide diffs of the behavior which he alleges occurred after the TBAN. If MastCell would show us some evidence, some diffs of this pattern...perhaps then I could explicitly address those edits. Until then, we can only speak in general terms and make guesses as to what MastCell thinks is "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing. Also, take a look at my UBR. I explicitly said numerous times that should another WP:BLPREMOVE issue arise, I would take allow my NOR posting to resolve before removing the contested BLPVIO material. Please fully inform yourself with the facts before commenting on this discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock I don't see that this is a stalemate. It's not a conundrum, it's a block. Seems warranted. Standard reinstatement framework should apply. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any unblock Favor indef block; oppose any unblock without indef TBAN. Christ Almighty that was an infinitely long history to read through on his talkpage. Bottom line, the user has demonstrated multiple bad-faith behaviors, including socking to evade a TBAN, lying about that pretending not to know that was wrong, and then endlessly wikilawyering and evading reality/facts in the discussions on his talkpage and here (why are we letting him endlessly disrupt the conversation here?). Given the discussions I read, I do not think this editor is a net positive on Wikipedia, and I personally believe they will probably continue to be a disruptive influence and timesink if they are unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC); revised !vote 04:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Softlavender - you are more than entitled to your own opinions on my editing, and whether or not my UBR sufficiently addresses the diff-less grounds for the indef. What you are not entitled to is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I already had to correct this falsehood when it was uttered by Floquenbeam, so it appears you did not read through the discussion very carefully. I admitted to the sockpuppeting immediately - I did not "lie" about it.[3][4] An editor of integrity would immediately strike such a glaring blunder of this magnitude and distaste, and I would again ask that editors refrain from commenting further before actually reading through the discussion (not skimming) and clicked on the diffs. I understand it is extremely long and involved, so nobody would think less of you should you choose not to read through it, and therefore not attempt to offer an uninformed opinion on my fate. Editors are welcome to suggest unfavorable outcomes, but rubbernecking and spouting off a few bytes of random text is dreadfully poor form. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I misspoke; what I meant to say or refer to is what Floquenbeam noted on HT's talkpage (User talk:Hidden Tempo#Thoughts that might break the block review logjam):"HT was topic banned from politics earlier this year, and created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, pretended not to know this was wrong. It is simply not possible that he didn't know that was wrong": [5] (bolding in original). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock without indefinite topic ban - To me, the clearest indication of the problematic nature of this user is what happened the last time they were topic-banned. On 2 December 2016, Bishonen imposed an AP2 topic ban. Between that date and 2 July 2017, the length of the topic ban, Hidden Tempo made a grand total of 63 article-space edits, along with a ban-evading sockpuppet. That is not indicative of a user who has, or who intends to, learn anything and improve their behavior during a topic ban by constructively and substantially contributing in other, non-problematic topic areas. Indeed, immediately upon the ban's time-limited expiration, they returned to tendentious, combative editing in the same topic area. There are several million other topics on Wikipedia to contribute to besides ones related to American politics after 1932, and if this user is truly interested in contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to pushing a single political POV, they should take a year or so to edit those other topics, learn how to work constructively with other users and then ask for the restrictions to be lifted based on that new track record. If they have no interest in other topics, then they are not really here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, but if unblocked must be with indefinite topic ban - per NorthBySouthBaranof. I find the explication of the editor's behavior while under a TB a convincing argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've altered my vote above based on HT's comments in this thread. I don't think this is an editor we really need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock for time served – This block was justified by edit-warring on a content dispute regarding Stephen Miller, wherein the blocked editor asserted WP:BLPVIO to repeatedly remove some phrasing, while others disagreed. Meanwhile the disputed text at that article has been removed/reworked into a neutral statement, so that the warring is moot. An indef block is unnecessarily WP:PUNITIVE. Arguments for indeffing rely heavily on past sanctions and do not take into consideration the numerous positive contributions by the blocked editor and his consensus-seeking attitude demonstrated in talk page conversations. Given that a month has elapsed, I suggest an immediate unblock for time served, with no strings attached. Naturally, future editor behaviour will remain under scrutiny, especially in the AP2 domain. — JFG ^talk 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocks are not a prison sentence. Time served indicates that the block has served its purpose. HT, as numerous people have pointed out, has given no indication he will not continue to be disruptive in the AP area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - This user has given no indication that they are here to improve the encyclopedia and conduct themselves collegially. I am familiar with their reprehensible history of talk page participation[6][7][8][9] but was not familiar with the sockpuppetry. That, and the well-documented personal attacks, BLP violations[10], single purpose POV pushing, edit warring[11], tendentiousness[12], and dishonest abuse of policies[13] convince me that Hidden Tempo should be limited to read-only status on this project.- MrX 12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Question/Comment - Would someone be so kind as to point out the policy or guideline that indicates that a 10 month editing history in a topic area (in this case - post-1932 American politics) is some how not relevant? I can't find anything. What I do see in this unblock request is a single administrator, out of the close to a dozen who have commented, suggest the pattern of editing just prior to the 7 month Tban is "stale". If there is no policy/guideline indicating a 10 month history (which seems to be continuing within 30 day of a 7 month topic ban being lifted) is too long, then it seems a whole lot of text in this appeal seems to be devoted to a false narrative. CBS527^Talk 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Previous behavior is relevant when it shows a continued pattern. I don't see that. I see an editor who was blocked for referring to a politician's trustworthiness ratings as "feeble" on a talk page, for BLP, because that precise wording wasn't in the source, learning from that that text not directly supported by the source is a BLP vio. And that's exactly how we hope a block will work, the editor will learn what's allowed and what's not allowed.

Then I see them taking that lesson and applying it to Stephen Miller, where they removed text not directly supported by the source from the article page, and getting blocked for that. So, add BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked; remove BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked - I don't know what we hope the editor will learn from that. D.Creish (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cbs527: I don't think that anyone is saying that 10-month-old edits can never be considered when weighing sanctions. The issue is this: several editors have pointed to Hidden Tempo's behavior 7+ months ago as justification for the recent block that HT received, but HT was already blocked for that past behavior. Unless HT did something after returning from their block/TBAN to justify a new sanction, then the new sanction is unjustified. If MastCell would care to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that justifies new sanctions, then HT's block history could be taken into account when deciding what sanction is appropriate. But a user can't be blocked once for some particular conduct, serve their time, and then upon returning to editing, be blocked again for the very same previous conduct. They have to do something new to justify a new sanction. To me, the amazing thing is that MastCell has refused to provide diffs justifying the new sanction, and that it's taken this long for an evidence-free sanction to come under review. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the sixth time you’ve posted this here in a touch over a day. The best result of repetition here is that other editors will ignore you. Further, your claims that MastCell did not provide evidence is simply false. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but Thuc disregards the fact that sanctions escalate with repeated violations, as they indicate that previous prophylaxis was not preventive. To be candid, I find this kind of self-serving, since Thuc himself has more than one American Politics sanction under his belt and has a kind of vested interest in obscuring the escalating blocks thing. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite a bit SPECIFICO, coming from someone with their own prodigious block history, and edit warring using BLP as a pretext - the same thing HT was just blocked for - only with far more dubious pretext [14][15]. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet:Of all the dumb places to launch an irrelevant and false ad hominem, this takes the cake. I don't know who else you've smeared here but you need to remove your gratuitous (and false and off-topic) references to me here and now. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you leave yet another note on yourmy talk page? -Darouet (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's a very interesting point, User:Cbs527. The single admin I presume you allude to, User:FT2, also doesn't seem to think Hidden Tempo's actions during the 7-month topic ban December 2016—July 2017 matter very much. I'll quote FT2's summary above for you: "HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc.". FT2 passes rather hastily over Hidden Tempo's sock puppetry during the topic ban, when he used both an account and an IP, and FT2 may not even be aware of Hidden Tempo's pushing at the limits of his topic ban on 25—26 May 2017 ("Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc."), which I and others discussed with HT here. I'm not sure whether FT2 is suggesting only disruption after the topic ban had ended in July ought to "count" towards a block. Probably not, though Hidden Tempo himself is insisting it should, with much bolding: "This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window.". For my part, I think HT ought to have seen himself as on probation when the topic ban ended in July, especially because of his conduct during the topic ban (socking; editing logged out; using his userpage for ban-violating editing, and then, after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me, as so often; and blaming Doug Weller, of all people, for the whole thing, per my link to the discussion above). Instead he continued his tendentious editing after the ban, with CRYBLP wikilawyering like this. Incidentally that link, from 5 August 2017, is one of the links MRX posted above, and a link to the edit warring history in August is another, which hasn't stopped HT from claiming MRX's links are all "pre-topic ban", i.e. from 2016. And now, not to my surprise, HT is bludgeoning this discussion, giving everybody who can't face reading his endless talkpage a useful window into his style of argument. I agree with the block. But if the community decides to convert the block into a topic ban, as was originally suggested by myself, I hope they also take on the specific features I suggested: an indefinite topic ban with an appeal allowed after one year at the earliest. We shouldn't have to look forward to this kind of energy-draining circus once every six months. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

Thank you User:Bishonen, User: SPECIFICO, User:Thucydides411 and User:D.Creish for your response to my question. The responses have help clarify my concern. CBS527^Talk 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  Not going to respond to every Bishonen claim here, in the hopes that folks will actually click on the diffs and verify if what she says is in fact true. As I had previously stated, nobody would think less of anyone for not educating themselves with the facts of the talk page discussion, and thus recusing themselves from voting/commenting. I don't remember anyone informing me that I may not correct false claims or respond to aspersions in the AN discussion. The 3RR vio (which Bishonen sees as a WP:CRYBLP issue) has been discussed and resolved. The fact that the only diffs editors can find are of pre/mid-TBAN behavior, rather than the alleged behavior for which the block was given, speaks volumes. Instead of showing us diffs of this supposed "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing pattern, a few users, which now includes Bishonen, continue to regress to pre/mid-TBAN diffs. But of course, the pre-TBAN diffs are NOT the reasons for the block, and a first 3RR vio block would have expired long ago. This "circus" could have been avoided if the right thing was done in the very beginning: do not indefinitely block editors without giving a warning, and especially do not do it without diffs (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). Thuc got it right: banning editors without evidence (no, a 2016 declined AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report is not "evidence") and then accusing the editor of being a "time sink"/"time suck"/wasting time when he defends himself is quite Kafkaesque. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too, Bishonen. That is helpful. As before this is mainly to explain and clear up any confusion. I saw the May diffs you mention but they didn't seem to show a real issue: you directed HT about his block, he replied that he would follow what you directed. The rest of that thread seems to just reflect HT's anxiety about being punished (regrettable but inappropriate fear of being wrongly blocked or targeted isn't itself blockable). I saw the points you refer to, but they only showed AGF/CIV issues and the one BLP dispute in August: - socking; editing logged out (time served for both or he wouldn't have been back in March); using his userpage for ban-violating editing (links above: warned once, agreed to desist and did so, seems responsive/resolved); after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me and blaming Doug Weller (at worst the former is poor judgment in good faith: even blanked/deleted comments can be linked, and we do like users to provide related links for onlookers and as evidence in a dispute. The rest is user-to-user CIV/AGF).

I wonder if it's actually more about the civility/AGF/NPA issues and tendentiousness in user disputes that he is being blocked for, rather than warring? That might be the point of confusion.

So the basis of my comment was that having blocked a user for poor conduct, we don't reblock them for the exact same episode of conduct, unless the conduct continued. I asked more than once for evidence of continuation of his previous conduct; none was given to me. His BLP dispute was uncivil but validly raised and should probably have been addressed once raised, even if the final consensus supported the original text. HT had served his block/TBAN (eventually) both for his actions in 2016 and his evasion in early 2017; unless there was additional behavior since then to show the lessons weren't learned, those are stale. That's why I asked for any evidence that he hadn't learned them - because I could find none. He does lapse far too quickly into CIV/AGF (and said he may well get blocked in future for those, if he doesn't get a grip on them); while CIV/AGF can also be part of TE/EW it isn't the basis of the block. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock for time served Hidden Tempo was indefinitely blocked for edit warring to remove a questionable interpretation of an opinion article from a BLP and behaving mildly uncivilly in an uncivil environment. He's been blocked for a month which is more than enough. D.Creish (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, D.Creish, but there was nothing questionable about that interpretation, it wasn't a BLP violation, and besides the "mild" incivility ("bud") there was a whooooole bunch of wikilawyering to the nth degree of exasperation. I can't accept your summary. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with 1 year appeal, oppose unblock without restrictions - After having the misfortune of following this thread over the past couple days, and many things that I don't need to rehash in detail, it's pretty uncontroversial that HT has been an overall time sink, and there's probably been more characters spilled by other talking about HT than he has actually productively contributed to mainspace. But apparently a TBAN is a de facto block anyway, since they have little or no current interest in editing on much else. If that's the case, then fine, an unblock and a TBAN effectively change nothing, and nothing will change in a year upon appeal. But if they can find themselves interested in literally anything else in the world, and find a way to be productive, then they can try it, with hopefully a widespread understanding that the community should be reprimanded if another block comes around, and we set ourselves to this obscene level of debate over someone who, as far as I can tell, has given us no indication that they deserve it. TJW^talk 21:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock is my first choice, but my second choice is unblock with indef TBAN on American politics. I was asked to look through the discussion on HT's talk page a while back and I did; I read the whole thing as it was then, and I checked all the diffs provided (the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit; MC has pointed repeatedly to plenty of evidence and anyone making still making that claim has absolutely no excuse for continuing to push it). I'm convinced that the block was justified, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that the behavior which caused it will not resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  MP - I am going to AGF and operate under the assumption that you are offering your completely unbiased, neutral, and objective opinion. However, I noticed that your AP2 edits have the identical overarching theme of MastCell's, MrX's, SPECIFICO's, and Objective3000's AP2 edits, and recently uttered this without a hint of satire or jest, yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision. Today, you said this: "the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit". There is some nuance here. Did he provide diffs to justify his indef? Yes, he linked my 2016 AE appeal of a TBAN and Nfitz's ANI report. What he did NOT do was provide the most critical and relevant diffs: edits that showed a pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing after the TBAN expired. A couple out-of-place diffs does not satisfy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Nobody has been able to find these diffs, including MastCell, which is why so many of us have concluded that they do not exist. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hidden Tempo - "yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision." You certainly can't be suggesting that MjolnirPants does not have a right to express their opinion. In case you missed User:Boing! said Zebedee explanation "here"., WP:AN is open to all editors who are not currently blocked to support any solution they wish. Neither you not anyone else can dictate who comments here. You are not helping your cause by continuing to repeat ad nauseam that Mastcell has not provided an explanation to the block or that Mastcell needs to provide post TBan differences. So far you have contributed over 12,000 bytes of text to this AN discussion alone, the large majority of it devoted this point. We all get it, anybody who reads this certainly gets it - You and some other editors think that Mastcell's justification is not enough. Other editors think that it is more than enough for a TBan. Mastcell has clearly provided his justification for the block whether you agree with it or not. I'm certain editors who read this AN will take both opinions into consideration and form their own conclusion. CBS527^Talk 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: I'm sure you are offended and irked by a great many opinions with which you don't agree; this is part of the reason that led to your block in the first place. As to your reading of my editing history: you're cherry picking edits that support your preferred narrative. As to the specific diff of mine that you provided: if you disagree with it, or (god forbid) think it ridiculous in any way, then I'm quite sure that's evidence of a very different reason to indefinitely ban you from editing. Also, stop responding to everyone who doesn't !vote your way. It's not very helpful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated per Only In Death and a few others. Indef is overkill. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock without conditions - it's remarkable that a single instance of edit warring after months of good behaviour from an editor with a poor history could justify an indefinite ban, and it's dismaying that the ban has stayed in place for this long. Cjhard (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - This is a user who would better serve Wikipedia as a reader -- their time as a beneficial contributor has passed. They have fought the process every step of the way: Bishonen offered an incredibly reasonable topic ban/unblock proposal which, remarkably, was denied. Hidden Tempo has not outright taken responsibility for all the reasons he found himself blocked nor has he presented their post-unblock plans to the community. For those reasons, I cannot even support an unblock with a tban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  TGS, I've already responded to this claim multiple times, so I would direct you to those replies. The takeaway is: I cannot "outright [take] responsibility for all the reasons" (a "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" post-TBAN editing pattern) if the blocking administrator can not or will not provide diffs showing this editing pattern. I have outlined my post-unblock plans in my UBR (did you read it or just skip to the "opinion voicing" part?) and I've addressed each alleged block reason in a general sense. However, all of us are being asked to critique the Emperor's new clothes. Unsurprisingly, many editors aren't letting the absence of diffs and facts stand in their way of having an opinion and sounding off, here. A correlation has emerged between how the community votes, and whether or not they've noticed that MC has not provided the specific blockable post-TBAN diffs that we have repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to pry from MC. If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you want to argue at such length to avoid a, in comparison to the scope of the project very narrow, topic ban makes me consider whether you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, or here to argue politics. TJW^talk 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the "Trial by Water" doctrine of jurisprudence. "The fact that you're protesting your innocence proves you're guilty." Or we could use its closely related cousin: "By not admitting your guilt, you're proving your lack of remorse." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are currently 60,000 articles within the scope of US politics, many of which are not covered under the proposed TBAN. There are currently well more than five million articles. Do the WP:CALC. I don't care about innocence; I care much more about any indication that they're actually here to build an encyclopedia. TJW^talk 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't care about innocence." Then what are you doing posting here? We aren't pondering whether HT's interests are sufficiently broad. We're discussing whether the evidence warrants sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is a noticeboard a courtroom. No one has a right to edit here, we are allowed to contribute on the sufferance of the WMF and its designees, the en.wiki community, which can set up whatever standards it wants to weed out undesirable editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard, when used for this purpose, has testimony, requires evidence, and produces findings of guilt or innocence. It is (or should be) grounded in longstanding principles of fairness and justice. That's close enough to a courtroom to make "this is not a courtroom" a very dubious statement, especially when made without any policy or even good reasoning to back it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above about Trial by Water. This is an appeal of not only the sentence but the finding of guilt. Since it was opened by an admin I assume it's a legitimate appeal. Therefore it cannot presume guilt, and degree of remorse cannot be a factor. Making it so unfairly ties the defendant's hands. I'm not taking a position in this case, only voicing a narrow objection to comments like those of Timothyjosephwood above. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It can presume whatever it wants, as it's not the application of Anglo-American jurisprudence, it's a Wikipedian determination of consensus, a very different thing. There's no "defendant", not "prosecutor", no "judge" and no "trial", and as long as people keep thinking of it using that analogy, they're going to be confused about what's going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll continue thinking of it that way. It's worked fairly well for many centuries of Western civilization. Beats hell out of mob rule, fancy words for it notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your choice, of course, but perhaps you should bear in mind that the Anglo-American Common Law system is not the only one, nor is it the oldest -- and I'm not talking about Trial by Water or Trial by Fire. Other cultures see value in their systems as well. Here, we too have a different system, the communal determination of consensus, and although it may superficially appear to be similar to Common Law, it really is a different animal, and it is vary decidedly not "mob rule" – which is, by the way, the very same canard applied to direct democracy by the vested interests who felt threatened by it. So, if you find yourself making these same kinds of objections to consensus discussions in the future, you might consider that your view of the system could be part of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideas of fairness, rules of evidence and a concern for innocence or guilt in judicial proceedings aren't some quirk of the Anglo-American Common Law system. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? You honestly think that rules of evidence are the same across every system of law? Or that concepts of what is and isn't "fair" are the same? Or that some systems aren't much more concerned with the safety and well-being of the community than they are with what happens to an individual? I'm not promoting these things, or disagreeing that the Anglo-American system is a good one, but you really should disabuse yourself of the notion that its concerns are universally shared.

Here on Wikipedia, while we're obviously concerned about being fair to an editor under scrutiny, there have been plenty of times where "the patience of the community has been exhausted" and editors have been banned even when by a strictly legal standard, the evidence presented may not have been sufficient for some an outcome -- and that's because the good of the encyclopedia and the ability of the collective editorship to contribute without being unduly hassled outweigh the "rights" of the individual editor ("rights" in scare quotes because, in fact, no one has any right to edit here). You can certainly say that you disagree with the way things are being handled in this discussion, but when you draw a comparison with Common Law to make your complaint, you're almost always going to be disappointed, because that system is simply not our system. It's not set up that way, it's not meant to approximate that system, it's something else entirely, with only superficial similarities to Angle-American law (which is understandable considering that we're English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of us live under Common Law).

Anyway, no more on this from me, you're obviously set in what you think and I'm clearly not going to convince you otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Really? You honestly think that rules of evidence are the same across every system of law?" Nowhere did I say that. You're attacking a straw man. The precise rules of evidence vary, but every decent judicial system has rules of evidence. In this thread, I see a total mess. What's the evidence? What are the rules governing what evidence is admissible? Is the fact that the accused tries to rebut accusations itself allowed to be used as evidence against the accused? Apparently it is, in more than a few people's thinking. This process is a total joke.

You're trying to argue, essentially, that we don't need any standards when dealing with HT. We can have a completely arbitrary process and that's fine, because we're not implementing Common Law. Nobody said we have to implement Common Law here - just that we need some basic standards of fair process. In practice, your view is bound to lead to sanctions becoming a tool to ban editors who are unwanted - perhaps for political reasons, perhaps for petty personal reasons - rather than editors who actually damage the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your synopsis of my argument is totally and completely wrong, which means you've wound up putting words in my mouth that I never said, never meant, and that cannot possibly be squeezed out of any of my statements. I have never written or even thought that Wikipedia consensus discussions "don't need any standards" -- who could possibly think such a patently absurd thing? What I have said, repeatedly, is that you are trying to apply the standards of our legal system to a discussion which is something else entirely, something which has its own, quite different, standards of process, fairness, and judgment. You don't like those standards, and you think the system is broken, I get that, and I disagree almost entirely. So we can agree to disagree, but I'll thank you not to repeat such a gross mischaracterization of my argument again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment This thread, and all the WP:BLUDGEON replies copied from HT's talk page, and all the personal remarks on his talk page -- I was stunned to see two bits about me, since I don't even recall having interacted with this user. But HT's BATTLEGROUND approach and discourse laden with personal- rather than content- focused comments [16] [17] and many others, confirm that as others have stated, HT is NOTHERE. Sadly, HT's conduct in this matter has cemented his place in the annals of WP. He should begone, but not forgotten. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. HT, who has only the barest of interactions with me in the past, has suggested in his reply to my !vote that my !vote shouldn't count because I made basic, factual statements about communism and Antifa, that just so happen to contradict views commonly held by individuals of HT's political affiliation. That is personalizing things to a -frankly- ludicrous degree. There were further personal comments made about me by HT on their talk page, but fortunately(?), they felt it would be more prudent to erase then than to allow them to be read by the wider community, here. And that's just me. I've not read through this entire thread, but I shudder at the thought of the sorts of things HT has probably said about users who've been in conflict with them more regularly in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• oppose unblock HT was given the gracious offer of TBAN with unblock, and went for "all or nothing". So nothing it is. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I'm as uninvolved in this as it is possible to be. I have read the entire discussion on the talk page, and the linked material, and I support the block. The partisan, ad hominem argumentation and the relentless, copious, endless wikilawyering are astonishing. Implying that editors with disparate opinions should not have their opinions "counted" is brazen, I'll grant you, but utterly unacceptable. The bludgeoning replies to commenters here are just continuation of a seemingly insatiable need to argue and "refute" every single point over and over again. Sanctions short of an indef block have been tried, and are followed by instant recidivism (or evaded). This kind of tendentious editing is what can make some areas of wikipedia such unpleasant places at times, and we would be far better off without it. -- Begoon 02:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Byte count: In case you were wondering, as of this writing there are now 220,000 bytes of text devoted to this on HT's talkpage, and 140,000 bytes of text devoted to this here on AN. Mostly, in my opinion, due to HT's endless (and endlessly wordy) bludgeoning and wikilawyering and refusal to drop the stick and observe the first law of holes. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• If we're doing byte counts, the more relevant counts are number of bytes by HT and number of bytes by others. People can't comment in large numbers and at length in these threads and then use the length of the resulting threads against the defendant; it defies both logic and principle. I counseled HT against BLUDGEON in this thread, but that was more realpolitik pragmatism than principle. In this situation, dropping the stick means walking away from Wikipedia editing; we are not discussing a trivial content issue. As far as I can tell, HT would accept the indefinite topic ban, so the best way to stop the growth of this thread is to close this appeal ASAP with that result. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The discussions on both pages are only as large as they are because of HT's continued disruptiveness and lack of cooperation, so there's no point in dissecting how much participation is uniquely his. Additionally, nowhere else on AN or ANI, in my immediate recollection, have I seen comments/rebuttals from the blocked editor being replicated on the AN unblock discussion. Lastly, it is not your place to either speak for HT or try to direct the outcome of this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Under the current rules or lack thereof, one man's disruptiveness is another man's vigorous self-defense. Indef me for reasons that I perceive to be unfair and see how much cooperation you receive from me. I assume the same is true for you. I see no consensus here that HT's behavior in this appeal has been disruptive, so nobody can fairly state that as anything more than their opinion, clearly identified as such. In fact, doing so could reasonably be called disruptive. Lastly, I speak for no one but myself, and I tend to respond negatively to lectures about my "place". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Close ASAP because HT would accept an indefinite topic ban? Surely not, Mandruss. I did propose such a topic ban to him on my single admin authority, as a commutation of the indefinite block; HT had two weeks to accept that offer, and did not. This AN review should run an appropriate length of time, whether or not people like the amount of bytes it's generating. If it doesn't, HT could reasonably complain forever more (and vigorously) of frontier justice. A weekend is not an appropriate length of time IMO, as it's pretty common from what I've seen that people don't edit during the weekend. Please keep this open for at least the full Monday in all timezones. Stopping the growth of the thread can't be our foremost goal here. That it's open doesn't mean everybody has to keep talking, but people who haven't been heard from should have a little more time. That said, I don't think Mandruss was trying to direct the outcome of this discussion — merely giving their opinion, like everybody else. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

• In case it isn't obvious, my summation of the byte counts was not in order to request, or even imply a request, to close this thread anytime soon. It was to quantitatively portray how much time and attention the community has spent on this one user these past six weeks. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender: If the comment wasn't meant as a another criticism of HT's degree of participation in his own appeal, my apologies for misinterpreting it.
  Bish: Fair enough. So we'll stop with the talk about byte counts and about a quick close. Although you didn't address it, I still think we should refrain from accusations of BLUDGEON when an indef block is at stake. I think your last sentence should go without saying; I lack the authority to direct the outcomes of discussions, and Softlavender knows that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock, support TBAN of 1-6 months. I've been reading this thread for some time and hadn't made up my mind until recently. HT was blocked after repeatedly reverting at Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor) and invoking BLP to justify the reverts. I don't think HT should have edit warred while invoking BLP - something they acknowledged above. However some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above - have themselves invoked BLP in recent memory to edit war with far more dubious justifications ([18],[19],[20],[21],[22]). In HT's case, they opposed an addition [23] that links Miller's comments to the far right. I tend to agree with Marek that the content should (or at least could) be added, though other editors have pointed out that the BLP concern isn't simply nonsense. For instance in that discussion, HT recommended that if the content be added, Miller's response be included. That's totally reasonable. Otherwise, HT has been generally civil (given the toxic environment on these pages), and has repeatedly and productively contributed to compromises, for instance at Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey. The reason I think HT should be topic banned for some defined period is that they should have some experiences editing outside of American politics, which is a not a healthy place to learn how to edit. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Based on Darwinian Ape's comment below, I'm withdrawing my suggestion that HT should be topic banned. I don't think a single person has attempted to demonstrate that HT's BLP concerns were invalid, and given the total absence of comment on that question - which is the center of this whole discussion - every vote to block or topic ban looks like mob vengeance over HT's political views. I'm not going to support that.-Darouet (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, removing one sentence which wasnt in the source as quoted and which alleged criminal activity on the part of a living person is 'dubious justification'? I believe you can take that argument and stuff it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ha." If by "stuffing it" you mean linking the source, sure, I can do that [24]. Note that the wording and sense of the source were conveyed exactly in the content you removed, yet then, and now still, you erroneously claim they don't. You edit warred over this and are now asking HT to be TBANed for something you've done yourself. -Darouet (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

1. The quoted text was not in the source period. 'the wording and paragraph sense are conveyed exactly' is not sufficient. 2. The text was in itself, false. It stated he 'admitted giving false testinmony', which is a crime, not the actual situation, which was Clapper admitted giving information that later turned out to be erroneous. That you (and the person who inserted the material) cannnot see why that is a problem in relation to the BLP policy is your issue, not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Only in Death, I think your inability to grasp this simple point - that you don't even read a source, edit war while erroneously claiming a BLP vio, and then ask to ban HT for edit warring over somewhat more legitimate BLP concerns - reflects very poorly upon your arguments here generally.

1. The source [25]: "Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans..."

The content you removed: They also wrote that given James Clapper's "false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans," and...

Do you not see the exact correlation between those words in the source, and what is quoted in the content you removed? As to 2-3., calling BLPvio on content attributed to Binney and McGovern about Clapper admitting to false testimony, when Clapper stated "my response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize,"[26] is as thin as it gets. Again, you pulled this worse than HT did, and now you'd like to ban them, but are not suggesting anything similar for yourself. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good, I am glad we have clarified you do not understand the difference between giving false testimony and giving testimony which turns out to be erroneous. I have explained twice now. You do not get a third time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol, what happened to "The quoted text was not in the source period."? -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Darouet:, when you say "...some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above...", you seem to have dragged VM's name through the mud without taking the time to check. "An accusation without any diffs", one might be tempted to say. VM has not posted "above" anywhere in this thread. As far as I can tell, VM has not commented on HT's block and (potential) topic ban anywhere at all. Why would you assume that he had commented here? Or worse, why would you say he had, knowing that he hadn't? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Was wondering if anyone would notice. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you for that important correction. I was thinking of Marek because they were involved in two of the discussions HT was heavily involved in before getting blocked (here and here), one of which led to HT's block. @Volunteer Marek: I'm sorry for wrongly dragging your name in here and hope you'll accept my apology. I've struck your name in my comment (showing that I made the comment but was incorrect to do so). -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any action - User has not demonstrated anything to suggest they are anything but WP:NOTHERE. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock entirely - to be clear, my opinion is that Hidden Tempo should remain indefinitely blocked. I mentioned in an earlier comment that WP:NOTTHEM was in play here, but at that time HT had not commented in this thread and I had not taken much time to review the situation. Although HT made a very elegant unblock request appearing to explain the reasons for the block and how they would avoid those behaviours if unblocked, all of their commentary since then has been wikilawyering about how MastCell's block had no justification and was improper. As Awilley pointed out in a comment above, MastCell explained the block at the time of blocking, and has explained further in incredible detail the justification for their action. Repeating the disruption that led you to a long block and topic ban so soon after that ban is lifted does show a pattern of recidivism, and if HT's belief is not that their behaviour needs to change but that the block is simply improper, then they don't understand what this block is about and they shouldn't be editing here until they get it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand an indefinite block, it can be lifted at any time, should the party provide assurance that what led to the block will no longer be an issue going forward. This user does not appear to acknowledge wrongdoing and instead blames the blocking administrator for a wrongful action, which is plainly an accusation without merit. The removal o this one user from the politics articles has reduced the tension dramatically, in my opinion. Things are still testy at times, even heated, but the sustained rancor has gone down a few notches. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - and support topic ban in the event that they are unblocked. Enough editor time wasted on someone trying to wikilawyer their way out of what was obviously a reasonable block. I endorse what others (especially softlavender, jytdog, and Valarian) have already written above. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment edit:Support unblock I have reviewed the whole discussion in HP's talk page, and read through the comments here, and it is unfortunate that I have to conclude this proceeding is not being governed by logic, reason or evidence, but by -conscious or unconscious- partisanship. It is no surprise that most who support sanctions fall on the opposite side of political spectrum as HT, while most who support "no sanctions" are on HT's political camp. I see above me, lots of comments on how HT is NOTHERE and he is disruptive and such, what I don't see is someone providing answers to the only impartial and detailed review of the block by FT2 I will copy the most prominent part of their review here:

;As an uninvolved admin:

I feel at present the evidence I could see doesn't support the block. But there may be much more I didn't see. We need to know these things from the blocking admin or others who know the situation:

1. Is there more to this or other evidence claimed to suggest bad editing, apart from his involvement during 2 - 6 August on Steve Miller's page? (meaning since March 2017 when his block ended)
2. Has any formal or focused discussion taken place anywhere about the user's conduct any time since 17 March 2017, apart from this thread?
3. Has the BLP issue he was concerned about ever been calmly looked at (to determine if better solutions exist or if the BLP claim is an obvious bad-faith game), or is it basically "the loudest voice determines Wikipedia's view"?

And FT2 continues that we "need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago." (emphasis mine)None of the editors above has provided anything to answer the questions posed by FT2, instead they continued with the same vague statements, and when HT tried to respond to these comments and condemnations, they complained that it was WP:BLUDGEON without a shred of empathy towards HT and how frustrating this must be to him. My conclusion of this is unless someone bring clear evidence that this user was being tendentious after his block ended, he should walk free, so to speak. I don't think that will happen though, I think in these forums, you live if you have enough friends and HT doesn't have that. And the sheer size of the discussion will deter anyone who is willing to impartially review it. I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)I didn't !vote, because I don't believe it will make any difference, but here's to nailing colors to the mast. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The last block I supported was for an outspokenly liberal editor who is as close to an "enemy" as HT could have here, so you can take your bad-faith speculation about my ulterior motives (and those of everyone else who's supported the block) and shove it. I find it beyond reprehensible that you would sit here and accuse an entire group of people of gaming this noticeboard for the purpose of pushing their political views into WP just because you couldn't check off a box on a list that pretty much every other admin involved says doesn't need to be checked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't read that as an outright accusation of gaming, which is a conscious and deliberate act. In fact it includes the words "or unconscious". Possible or probable straw man (which can also be unconscious, so I'm not accusing you of bad faith either.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss: When someone is accused of working to ban an editor simply due to that editor's political views, that is -in my opinion and I would suspect in the opinion of a large number of other editors- the same thing as an accusation of gaming and POV pushing. It's gaming because the accused is supposedly using WP behavioral-addressing systems to further a large-scale content dispute (the dominance of right-wing vs left-wing editors, and thus edits), and it's POV pushing because said content dispute (right-wing vs left-wing politics) is clearly a POV issue; regardless of one's political affiliations, any reasonable editor must acknowledge that both liberalism and conservatism are defensible political views; there's no "correct" answer. Such an accusation, without a shred of evidence, is also unambiguously a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Darwinian Ape - Did you read through the this discussion and check the links provided? Probable not, or you would have notice that FT2's (not TF2) questions have been answered (and links provided) and FT2 is the only administrator out of roughly a dozen who has this opinion.

In almost every response HT has made in this WP:AN discussion HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken. There is no time limit on when previous infractions can be used both by precedence and guidelines. Remarkably, the WP:APPEAL is one of them. "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past." (my bold). See "Abuse of the unblocking process".. With no disrespect to the editors who feel that there has not been a continuing problem with HT's edits (and who, for the most part, understand the guidelines), the large majority of editors feel that there is sufficient evidence for a block or TBan, not because of your rather insulting statement, "I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible." but because they actually took the time to read and understand this process. CBS527^Talk 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, screw you I got mild dyslexia.^^ And secondly, yes I did read the whole discussion on HT's talk. What I see here is an editor who has violated policy in his past, granted a second chance, then went months presumably without any policy violations -which is where we need evidence because if it's not the case and HT was tendentious/disruptive after his ban expired, I wouldn't be objecting to his indef- and what we have is an edit war over a content which HT believed to be a BLP violation after months of, again presumably, good behavior. On top of that, whether the BLP concern was valid or not, we have HT acknowledging his mistake and his promise not to engage in edit wars even if there is a BLP violation, which is the wise thing to do regardless. In light of the evidence provided to us, I don't believe HT needed to be indeffed. Of course a block of some length would be understandable, I would go with a harsh TROUT/admonishment but an indeff block is way too harsh, it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As for people who take offense at my comments, I am not accusing anyone of GAMEing, merely suggesting that perhaps you should pause a bit and reflect when you find yourself on the side of the majority, because confirmation bias is a plague to all of us and we all need to keep it in check from time to time.(Note that I'd be shouting with them if the same kind of block happened to any one of them.)Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC))
Cbs527 - I'll only address this remark: "HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken." I'm not sure if I've been unclear with the point that many of us have been making, or if our wires were crossed somehow, but that's not at all what I have been trying to communicate. The point is that MastCell claims the indef is for "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," and tacks on the "edit-warring" at the end (note that the editors I edit warred with, who were reinstating the contentious material without consensus received no warnings or sanctions). MastCell stated that "the behaviors in question [tendentious, hyper-partisan...etc.] appear refractory," indicating that this editing pattern has continued after the TBAN expired. So it's either a) MC is blocking me for something I've already done time for, b) MC is indef blocking me exclusively for an alleged first-time 3RR offense, or c) MC is indeffing me for post-TBAN edits, for which he is withholding diffs. In all three cases, the block is invalid and should have long-expired for a first-time alleged 3RR offense in the process of abiding by WP:BLPREMOVE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Cbs527. HT didn't make the "insinuation" and you have misquoted it anyway. That was my review observation, and the omitted part is the condition: we need evidence that the behavior is current/continuing without which old conduct issues from many months ago are stale. I have no prior knowledge of the editor or situation and reviewed when pinged as a completely uninvolved admin. This has been a Wikipedia norm for a long time - we reblock for continuing behavior (emphasis on evidence needed that it is continuing), because blocks exist to protect the project not to punish. So I asked for evidence of the claimed conduct. When I'm shown a diff that shows "hyper partisan" editing since his last block/TBAN lapsed and he returned to editing (and I don't mean his poor civility/AGF issues or the BLP matter on Steve Miller), then things will be different. Right now I see nothing like that, and no diffs showing it in any replies. The closest attempt to show actual issues post block/TBAN is by Bish (in this thread) and to me, they show a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation and the issue not repeated, a BLP issue that may well have been legit and per policy should have been addressed properly, and civility/AGF issues. Nothing else (so far). If evidence exists that doesn't just refer to his past 2016 issues and evasion (both served) but shows he is acting as a "hyper partisan warrior" then I'm open to it, but so far - no diffs. No evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• FT2, you say "The closest attempt to show actual issues post block/TBAN is by Bish (in this thread) and to me, they show a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation and the issue not repeated, a BLP issue that may well have been legit and per policy should have been addressed properly, and civility/AGF issues. Nothing else (so far)." The legitimacy or otherwise of the BLP issue doesn't need addressing further by me, I've said what I think of it. But I believe you have misunderstood what happened here in late May, and what HT quite insistently tried to do at that point. Your description of the May episode as "a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation" is... I'm biting my tongue here... misleading. The subject of the thread is HT's userpage. Since you're an admin, please take a look at the deleted history of the userpage. If you still don't think these edits were topic ban evasion, which was compounded by an attempt to get round my blanking and my edit summary here, or that this statement by HT was misleading, or that this attack on me was unwarranted, or that HT's claim to only be doing what Doug Weller had told him to do was disingenuous, then fine, I'm done. Apologies to non-admin readers who can't see the deleted userpage diffs. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen - thank you, and thank you also for "biting tongue". This was the sort of thing I was hoping someone would post when I asked for diffs. Indeed I hadn't seen those as I didn't check deleted diffs and nobody else said they existed. I figured anything improper he did, requiring admin deletion, would be reflected more clearly in formal t/p posts that weren't admin deleted, or in logs, t/p posts by others, hinted by his contribs, or in t/p text he himself removed. There were no links in the discussion. If I'd seen them I might still not have seen their significance in the absence of comments by the blocking admin or someone else. The comment that remained didn't convey the issue fully to me, probably because it was directed at HT not page newcomers, and wasn't disputed, I guess. I agree this was clearly in breach of the TBAN and correctly handled, and that HT should have understood (and possibly did understand?) that it was problematic and/or that he was in breach.

That said, I'm still finding myself looking at the aftermath and what we learn of his behavior and likely future conduct if unblocked. He got a warning, he agreed not to do it, and it didn't happen again. Despite being blocked again, and for 5 or 6 weeks now, it still never repeated. What does this show? To me, that he learned when warned, didn't repeat, and changed. I ask myself what that says about the need to protect the project from this user, and what it says about him trying to do better. (He seems responsive if he feels he had a fair hearing, perhaps?)

That sort of responsiveness is what really comes over to me, again and again. For example, see his multiple edits to fix posts that might come across badly, once he understood they could have that effect. Here are the kinds of diffs I saw, that show why I felt he was trying harder to listen and work collaboratively (and therefore not incorrigible): clarifying a perception of standards and that he isn't arguing "others do it" or sanctions on others, frank and reasonable admission of mistakes, correcting old edit to remove possible perception of attack/civ, explaining concerns about another editor when asked. Hopefully this goes some way to explaining why we might have reached different perspectives when we looked, and again thank you for the time in looking up those diffs - I know it was a pain to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:FT2, with all due respect, I don't recall ever quoting you in this discussion so I don't think I misquoted you. I hesitate to link sections where HT insinuated that only post-TBan differences can justify this block , because HT has already responded that is not what he wanted to communicate and I accept his word on that. If you need, I'll grab one and link to it, but I don't think it is necessary at this point. I was responding to Darwinian Ape's rather uncivil comments, who actual did quote parts of your review. I suspect that was what you were referring to.

Quite frankly, FT2, I, and many others owe you a BIG debt of gratitude for time (and aggravation!) you took to do the review of a rather complex situation. CBS527^Talk 13:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't intend to say much here, because this block had already been reviewed and discussed to death before it was brought to this venue; I've already said my piece, repeatedly, and I'm not a big believer in repeating myself endlessly. That said, HT and his supporters/enablers have taken this discussion on a frankly bizarre detour from reality. They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. [27]). It should be obvious that, lacking any evidentiary support, a block would not have stood for a month through review at WP:AN/I (the single most public projectspace venue, where I placed and announced the block) and by numerous admins on HT's talkpage, but here we are.

  HT was blocked for edit-warring and violating 3RR on a political article. There is no actual dispute about this; HT has admitted to the edit-warring, so I find the repeated demands for diffs a bit dishonest. You see the game he's playing? He's admitting the edit-warring and asking for leniency points for remorse, but at the same time aggressively disputing the evidence for the block. It's sort of like saying: "Go easy on me: I stole the TV and I know it was wrong—but also, you haven't proven I stole the TV!"

  But I digress. The point is that HT was edit-warring, which is grounds for a block. The question then becomes: a block for how long? This is where admins typically take context into account. HT was blocked in December for a BLP violation; he was then topic-banned from American Politics for 6 months for further disruptive and tendentious editing; he then evaded his topic ban using an IP and a sockpuppet account and got caught; and once his topic ban expired, he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area. That pattern of behavior is typically more than sufficient to justify an indefinite block. (In fact, HT has been treated unusually leniently; in many cases, the deceptive sockpuppetry and ban evasion would have resulted in an indefinite block, especially given the absence of any mitigating positive contributions to Wikipedia). He was given a last, last, last chance which he promptly abused. Hence, an indefinite block.

  All of this is clearly supported by appropriate links. All of it is easily verifiable by anyone. And all of it has been detailed, repeatedly, in response to claims by HT and his enablers that the block lacked supporting evidence. Now, one could argue that this evidence does, or does not, justify an indefinite block. But one cannot simply pretend that no evidence exists. Yet that's exactly what HT and his enablers keep doing, here and elsewhere. It is absolutely dishonest, and reflects very poorly on them.

  In terms of an unblock, it's hard to look at HT's postings and see any evidence of real insight, or any reason to think he'll behave differently if unblocked. Read through his talkpage. There's a bit of perfunctory stuff about how he realizes now that edit-warring is wrong, etc. But his real passion is reserved for attacks on me, and secondarily on anyone else who's supported his block. Just looking at today's output, I'm "vile", "elitist", "tone-deaf", etc. I'm bemused that we're seriously considering an unblock request that consists of one part dishonesty (the repeated falsehoods about lack of evidence) and two parts personal abuse against the blocking admin and anyone else who gets in the way.

  Finally, to leave you with a flavor of what we're dealing with, take a look at HT's response when he got caught socking to evade his topic ban: [28]. Somehow, he tries to turn the fact that he was caught socking into an indictment of the person who reported him. I'm not sure what else you need to know. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. 50)." I'm sorry, but you're the one repeating the falsehood. In your original statement about the indefinite block for HT, you accused HT of "edit-warring to repeatedly remove properly-sourced material, using a variety of dubious, WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, or outright specious rationales" but cited exactly one diff. You didn't address why the WP:BLP claims that HT raised were "dubious" or "specious." Afterwards, when asked for diffs to show that HT's editing pattern since returning from the prior topic ban was problematic, you repeatedly stated that you had already provided diffs (which is false), and refused to link to diffs.

This case shows that we need a complete overhaul of how sanctions are handed down. The whole process above makes a mockery of any basic principles of fair judicial process:

1. The evidence has not been presented clearly, and the blocking admin, MastCell, instead of just linking evidence, only links to diffs of themselves claiming to have presented diffs. Normally, the accused has the right to know the evidence being used against them.
2. When HT tries to rebut the accusations made against them, they're accused of WP:BLUDGEONING the conversation. The accused normally has the right to respond to accusations.
3. Many of the people commenting, including admins, are hopelessly involved in this dispute. We need impartial adjudicators who not only have no conflicts of interest, but also no appearance of any conflicts of interest.

I personally resent the idea that this sort of kangaroo court has jurisdiction over disputes on Wikipedia. It's a joke, and we need something better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged? In any case, I agree with you about one thing: this case does show that we need to overhaul how sanctions are handled. If it takes this much time and effort to deal with one obviously unfit editor—who's pretty much standing on a rooftop waving a red flag that says "I'm unsuited to edit a collaborative encyclopedia"—and his handful of enablers, then we're pretty much doomed. Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment; there seems to be wide-ranging acknowledgement that HT's behavior is inappropriate, including from many editors and admins whom I don't know from Adam. I don't think conspiracy theories are what we need right now. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There are larger and more important issues at play here than one editor's editing behavior. As has always been the case since I've been around, the focus is in the wrong place. If the system is acknowledged to be seriously flawed, the appropriate thing to do is to stop and work to improve the system, but nobody has the time to do that because of the seriously flawed system. That qualifies as group insanity in my book. (If you want others to refrain from mischaracterizing your position, please don't refer to those who hold a different view from yours as "enablers".) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged?" You're aware that WP:BLP calls for immediate removal of offending material, and for it not to be added back in until it's clear that there is no BLP issue. HT has said that they shouldn't have chosen to remove the material after it was added back in, but their BLP concern wasn't obviously wrong. They had a reasonable concern that defamatory text from an opinion piece was being restated in Wikipedia's voice. Here's how FT2 summarized the issue:

"Right now this thread has a lot more "heat" than "light", not much focus on the core points of conduct and BLP. The main evidence of poor conduct seems to be a finger pointed at a set of blocks 8 months ago that were evaded 6 months ago plus an unsupported claim of continuing tendentiousness without recent diffs, a single 3RR that's been apologized for, and a disputed removal that may or may not have been aiming to fix a BLP vio and may or may not have been in good faith."
— [29]

FT2 specifically asked you for diffs showing that HT's editing has been problematic since returning from a TBAN ("We need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago. That would allow a more fair and considered discussion which isn't dominated by 'heat'."), and in your response, you argued that you didn't need to provide diffs ("Saying that he had a 'clean record' since March is like looking at someone who's spent the past 2 years in jail for theft and then stolen a TV the minute he was released, and concluding: 'Hey, he went 2 years without stealing anything!'").

If you'd addressed the BLP issue at the outset, rather than ignoring it, then we might all have been spared these proceedings. Instead, you've come back again and again to tell everyone you provided diffs (which you haven't), instead of just addressing the core point: whether the removals were justified by BLP, or could be reasonably considered to be good-faith attempts to comply with BLP, and whether they are part of a pattern of hyper-partisan, tendentious edit warring since returning from the TBAN.

"Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment." When an admin is arguing, with a straight face, that "bud" is uncivil, but "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't, then I can't, with a straight face, pretend they're impartial. My capacity for cognitive dissonance runs out somewhere before there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you should take away from this, MastCell. I've often read admin comments that they're under pressure from all sides when they make executive decisions, and I'm sorry about that. But when you first blocked HT at AN/I, you would have done better to slow down, explain your reasoning, and link more than just one diff [30]. In doing so you might have also explained why this article HT objected to - linking Miller to antisemitism - really presented no legitimate BLP concern. Yes, HT has admitted to edit warring over the content. But really demonstrating HT was CRYBLPing was crucial, because all your subsequent posts about HT's past behavior ([31]) are irrelevant if you shouldn't have blocked them for this edit.

Given all this, you don't help things by calling people who disagree with you "enablers" or "supporters" of HT... you come off looking exactly like the "BATTLEGROUNDy" editor that you say you were correct to block. Is anyone who disagrees with you guilty of being "BATTLEGROUNDy"? Should they expect the same kind of summary justice? Lastly, partisanship is as old as "dim Eden," since you referenced Adam. Maintain you are impartial - if you are sincere that does come across - but to claim that a reference to partiality (in the midst of a massive AN pile-on) amounts "conspiracy theories" is itself ludicrous. -Darouet (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MastCell please do not cast aspersions against those of us who voted to unblock. I'm not an "enabler" or "supporter" of HT. A major complaint in this ordeal is that you make characterizations against editors without providing diffs. In fact, you've done it again in your statement above - "he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area." You need to provide diffs when you make accusations like that. The most troubling point to me is that roughly 30 minutes after you returned from a 1.5 month break you dropped this indef ban and then didn't respond adequately to editors questioning your actions, especially the points raised by uninvolved admin FT2. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I mean by enabling: HT's response, when caught doing something wrong, is to avoid any meaningful acceptance of personal responsibility and instead to attack others. When he was topic-banned, it was the banning admin's fault. When he got caught socking to evade his topic ban, it was someone else's fault. When he got blocked for edit-warring, it was my fault. When a disparate bunch of uninvolved admins affirm that HT's block was reasonable, then it's their fault because they all must be biased and lacking impartiality. And when this process doesn't yield the desired result, it's an indictment of Wikipedia's entire dispute-resolution structure ([32]). HT has found a small handful of people willing to help him avoid taking responsibility and instead to blame anyone and everyone else for the consequences of his actions.

I don't think you're really taking part in that. But frankly, if you're more invested in criticizing how I choose to spend my free time than you are in addressing HT's disruptive editing, then I think it's fair to question your sense of perspective. As for FT2, I did respond, at length, to his concerns, as best I could understand them; see here. More generally, I've tried to stay out of this unblock discussion because HT's strategy is clear: to personalize the discussion by attacking me. If there was any question of how he would respond when a diverse group of uninvolved admins agreed that his block was legitimate, I think the answer is now depressingly clear. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MastCell thanks for the response. I can see better now what you meant. I actually tried to advise HT to let this discussion run its course without responding to all the points, but it went unheeded. OTOH I can understand how they feel, since they feel the premise of the block was unfair to begin with. However at some point the law of holes applies. I didn't mean for my comment about your break to be a criticism of how you spend your free time. For that I apologize. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC))
MastCell continues to make the same mistakes and utter the same falsehoods. Following the same exact flowchart template he's been using for a month: 1) he says I'm not accepting responsibility for the editing behavior for which he refuses to provide diffs, despite my UBR and repeated acceptances of responsibility for the 3RR 2) attempt the "Look at this over here, instead!" sleight-of-diff (linking pre-TBAN/mid-TBAN editing, rather than the "repeated instances" of problematic editing for which I was blocked) to distract from the absence of diffs, 3) utter damaging and demonstrably false claims, and hope nobody notices (never once did I assign fault of the socking to "someone else"[33]), and I also never called into question the AP2 edits of any other admin - just yours. Then, you cite somebody else's diff as part of your strategy to lend credence to what you are saying. Pinging Thucydides411 so he is aware of the egregious dishonesty of this act. Then, you finish with the tired old falsehood that you keep repeating, that YOU are being attacked. And for the nth time, you are not being attacked. Your sanction within the context of your agenda-driven abortion/AP2 editing pattern is what I, and others, have called into question. I explained the difference to you in detail here, which was never moved to the AN board (too long, but the takeaway is that you never provided diffs for what you call "repeated instances [of problematic behavior] despite prior blocks and topic ban") and I addressed your slur of "enablers" for those with whom you disagree. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that MastCell cited my post as an example of HT's behavior. MastCell should strike that from the above.

My objection to this process isn't that it doesn't yield the result I'd like. My objection is that it lacks any of the basic characteristics of a fair process. Evidence hasn't been presented clearly (that's mainly on MastCell and their "enablers," to borrow a term, who haven't taken MastCell to task for refusing to provide evidence), the accusations are presented so vaguely as to be impossible to refute, the accused is told they're WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion when they respond to accusations, and respected members of the community are chiming in to say that guilt or innocence - or even fair process - don't matter. The sanctions process needs a complete overhaul. It needs clear rules that provide for a fair process, and it needs impartial arbiters, which rules out a large fraction of people involved here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I have some unsolicited free advice for you. There is a chance that my advice is worth more than you're paying for it. Here is my advice: Before you object to the lack of diffs for approximately the 16th time (I lost count), please go to WP:BLOCK and look for a line in there that says you are entitled to receive a diff. If – as I believe you will – you find that the policy does not actually require anybody to provide any diffs before (or after) blocking someone, then please think about whether it's in anyone's best interest to keep insisting that the absence of diffs is a violation of some bureaucratic process.

The intensity and persistence of your efforts to demand procedural justice for a supposedly unrelated account strike my cynical eyes as unusual, and by this point, I doubt that I'm the only cynical editor involved in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

1. The intensity and persistence on one side of this issue is no greater than on the other side. 2. Taking a stand in a situation where one does not have a personal stake is in fact very unusual, and that's an unfortunate reflection on human nature. Add: Oh, on second look I guess that's a suggestion of possible socking or some other bad faith. I'd suggest you strike that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't see any good advice in your post. I do, however, see an implied threat in your post. I also see an apology for not providing evidence for blocks (who needs standards or fair procedure when we don't like the blocked editor, right?). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was good advice. I said that it was free. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: There's really no point in attempting to get Thucydides411 or Mandruss to re-evaluate their position. They are solidly convinced that this process is "unfair", that the "system is broken", that this is a "kangaroo court" and an example of "mob rule". They adamantly believe that Hidden Tempo is being railroaded because nobody likes him. (I didn't even know who frigging guy was!) These are the kinds of things that are said by died-in-the-wool advocates, true believers who are not going to be swayed by pointing out little things like evidence or policy or even asking them to apply common sense, because they know what they know, and that's the end of it. They really haven't said anything new since their first few comments in this discussion, but have repeated the same tired old tropes again and again and again.

At this point, they're really not much better then trolls in regard to this discussion, and the best thing to do from now on is to entirely ignore them, as there's no point in trying to change the mind of someone whose mind is set on not being changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting something like that, but I was surprised it hadn't come. Not even close to worthy of the point-by-point rebuttal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my point has been precisely that evidence should be presented. You're the one who's been arguing that evidence isn't necessary, and that basic principles that make judicial proceedings fair aren't relevant here. If you'd spend half the time you spend attacking me to gather and post diffs, we might actually make some progress. But throughout this enormous thread, the two basic things you'd think would be addressed - evidence showing that HT has continued to edit war in a hyperpartisan way since returning from their TBAN, and an explanation of why HT's BLP concerns were completely unreasonable - haven't been addressed. So yes, I'm convinced that either everyone is too lazy to actually gather evidence, or they've tried to look for it and haven't come up with anything convincing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Tell you what, you post one diff, one single diff, in which I wrote that "evidence isn't necessary", and I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If you can't post one, then you stop posting on this thread. Deal? (If I were you, I wouldn't take the deal, since I never said that, just like I never said that "we don't need any standards", the last absurd thing you accused me of espousing. You really need to stop making such easily fact-checked statements about other editors in a medium in which everything is visible to everybody.)

As for looking for evidence, I've already seen more than enough to make my !vote, so there's really no point in my expending energy in an attempt to convince you, since I don't think you would be convinced by a signed confession. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@BMK, It's not fair to lump Mandruss in with Thucydides like that. Mandruss's few comments here have been logical as far as I have seen...their opinion just differs from yours on some points and happens to align with Thucydides on some points. (Your criticism of Thucydides is on target AFAICT.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thucydides' and Mandruss' point is straightforward: processes here should be professionalized, evidence should be required and clearly presented, and the accused should have a right to respond to each point. Not everyone's obliged to agree with that, and many don't (I'm not even sure what that would entail). With no prejudice to their position on evidence or procedure, BMK's response above is not only wrong, but one of the most uncivil and overblown I've ever seen from a regular contributor. In that context, your endorsement of it does more to convince me that Thucydides and Mandruss are right about procedure than any argument they've made. -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your definition of "uncivil" is odd, to say the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I was just kidding, what you wrote wasn't uncivil. But even if it was, there's really no point in attempting to get [you] to re-evaluate [your] position.[34] After all, what you write is typical of died-in-the-wool advocates, true believers who are not going to be swayed by pointing out little things like evidence or policy or even asking them to apply common sense, because they know what they know, and that's the end of it.[35] Most of your comments above repeated the same tired old tropes again and again and again.[36] Since you're really not much better then [a] troll in regard to this discussion[37] (sic), it's clear the best thing to do from now on is to entirely ignore[38] you.

I would tend not to believe any of that about you, BMK. But if you truly believed that kind of exchange was civil in an editorial room or professional environment, perhaps I would be correct to label you using your own words. At least, as you suggest above, I wouldn't have been uncivil. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So... you weren't kidding?

Look, this argument – that the system is broken and in need of a complete overhaul – gets trotted out in consensus discussions in which the conclusion is heading to a result that is not approved of by the person presenting the argument; I've yet to see it expressed at a time when the editor agrees with the probable consensus. That means it's primarily a rhetorical device, the essential purpose of which is to sway the discussion in the preferred direction.

I'm not saying that our system is perfect, or can't be improved, all I've said is that its standards and procedures are not those of the legal system, and shouldn't be expected to be. In return, my argument have been consistently mischaracterized, words I've never said have been put into my mouth, and absurd ideas I've never espoused have been ascribed to me. I think I have every right to be annoyed by that and get a bit snarky in return. Beyond My Ken (talk)

You began your foray into the discussion about fairness in these proceedings by saying that guilt can be presumed at the outset: "It can presume whatever it wants" (in response to Mandruss' comment that "it cannot presume guilt"). This was in the context of a discussion about whether or not we can use the very fact that an accused editor speaks in their own defense as an argument that they should be blocked. In response to the argument that basic principles of judicial process and fairness require that we not presume guilt and that we allow the accused to respond to accusations, you went into a lecture about how we were being Anglo-centric, and bringing in legal principles which are just special features of Anglo-American Common Law. And in response to the argument that there hasn't been clear evidence presented, you expounded on your belief that the idea of "rights" in these proceedings are irrelevant (in this case, specifically, you were talking about the right of an editor who's being sanctioned to have evidence presented against them): "the good of the encyclopedia and the ability of the collective editorship to contribute without being unduly hassled outweigh the 'rights' of the individual editor ('rights' in scare quotes because, in fact, no one has any right to edit here)." This was the thrust of your digression into a discussion of Common Law - your objection to the idea that basic ideas of procedural fairness that exist in Common Law (and in the Civil Law, by the way) are relevant here.

You added on that you think we have our own standards of fairness and procedure, but when basic standards that would actually be required for fair proceedings are raised, you complain that we're borrowing ideas that are supposedly specific to Common Law (like the right to defend oneself, or the right to see evidence, or a presumption of innocence, or even for evidence to determine the outcome). You pose a vague notion of "community consensus" as an alternative, and given that you've argued against the actual principles that make any judicial proceedings minimally fair, I would be terrified to ever have to submit myself to such a capricious system. Your system is just a recipe for whatever prejudices people harbor to have free reign.

You can donate to whatever charity you'd like. I don't enjoy these games. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, you have once again grossly mischaracterized my comments, but that's OK because anyone interested can actually read them for themselves and draw their own conclusions, which I'm certain will not be the same as yours.

I once attempted to hat this colloquy with you as a sideshow, but you undid it. Perhaps another editor might consider doing so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly support unblock, support TBAN - Ok, I've had it and I'm taking a position. Arguments by FT2, Thucydides411, and Darouet are articulate and compelling. Meanwhile I am thoroughly unimpressed by MastCell's comments about enablers and conspiracy theories, which in my mind call his or her judgment into serious question. Other comments in support of the indef appear to be mostly vague accusations of disruptiveness—remarkably, some of them referring to HT's failure to give up and submit soon enough under a system that does not require him to do so. If people want to impose such rules and restrictions, they need to get community consensus for them and get them in writing. HT has been far from the model editor, but I think he should be given some rope outside the AP2 area, with the opportunity to show tangible improvement and appeal the TBAN after a year (or two). This indef block can't be called preventative when nobody knows how HT will behave outside AP2 area. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose unblock - After reviewing this cluster of a situation, I've come to the realization that it's not actually as complicated as it may initially seem. HT's behavior in response to the block quite simply smacks of typical bludgeoning behavior, in which a blocked user unleashes unending torrents upon torrents of paragraphs that somehow always manage to dodge any attempts at justifying the block, while ultimately never adding up to anything other than, "I'm a victim of biased admin abuse". It's certainly no more than 1% of blocked users who actually resort to this behavior, but I've been around long enough to recognize it as a distinct tactic attempted by some. It's, at best, an attempt to use rhetoric to circumvent normal unblock process, but more realistically, it's more akin to throwing a tantrum until you get what you want. We should not reward this behavior, in fact we should not even be humoring it like this. The block has been extensively and repeatedly justified; this user's manipulative behavior well documented. I'd be appalled to see the community actually bend to it at this point. Any support of an unblock in favor of a TBAN is seriously flawed—for one, this user rejected the proposal themselves, instead demanding a complete exoneration. Why would we reduce the sanction if the user themselves continues to refuse to admit wrongdoing? Secondly, a review of this user's contributions makes it obvious that this user doesn't want to offer anything outside of this subject area. Their account is solely dedicated to this subject area. So, what benefit to the project are we purporting to restore by unblocking them with such a TBAN? They've never shown us they're capable or interested in contributing to this project outside of this one problematic area. I half expect this user to continue their bludgeoning with another lengthy paragraph in response to me, citing worn-out and empty rhetorical talking points about "bias" or "lack of evidence" or some other sort of "misconduct". Enough. Let's cut the crap. This user is not worth the effort they're currently expending from the community. Let's deny the unblock request and move forward without this user's drama. Swarm ♠ 06:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Swarm has summarized this well. In fact, given the accuracy of his statement, I would fully support a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. At this point, I'm not seeing that HT has learned anything from this block and has taken on the lessons they need to learn. I might have been fine with an unblock and a TBAN, but at this point, the IDHT behavior has gotten so bad I can't support an unblock at this time. Yes, I've read most of the various threads and comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block (comments on length follow) -- having reviewed the talk page, diffs and this discussion, I endorse the block as within discretion -- when coming off a topic ban, don't return to edit warring -- it is within discretion to block (even if another admin would not, such as FT2 might not), it is further in discretion to make it indef - but indef is often subject to later change -- not infinite. FT2 apparently sees it differently, but that does not make the block unreasonable (nor does it necessarily make FT2 view unreasonable, just different - others disagree, reasonably so, as his analysis hinges on what degree of weight you put on edit-warring and problematic history). As an aside, whatever FT2, might have done, he did not actually grant the appeal -- which also may have been in discretion -- he shared his thoughts - and it is now out of FT2's hands and others' individual hands, as it is now here at AN, in collective hands. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker - It never was in my hands. I chose not to take it, to ensure a clear perception to HT that I trust the community to decide, reviewed neutrally, could speak neutrally, and remained neutral afterwards. I felt that trust mattered in this case, and I also didn't feel it right to claim to know more than many others with much longer experience who might have seen things I didn't. A bit like NPOV - state the evidence and issues raised, let others see if they agree or not. So I deferred from the start. My concerns such as they are, are mainly about the quality of the blocking admin's adminship and basis of the decision. Although of course I gained a view on HT's conduct it would be just one view of many. I posted a reply to Bishonen above with a few links, that's relevant to the points you mention (diff link for ease), and which may help explain my perspective and what I also saw. No reply needed as the thread's long enough, this is more just to clarify. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock This timesink needs to end. HT has shown a complete unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his actions, and they are wiki-lawyering more than any editor I can really recall in some time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I had forgotten about the now-deleted edits. This entire process is the definition of "timesink", and I agree with comments made by a few others (including RickinBaltimore and Swarm, just above). If someone wants to get unblocked, and if the block and the events leading up to the block (and here we should take the long view, going back to January at least and stopping for a while in May) are clear (or clear to most admins/editors, anyway), then such a discussion waged in this way is proof of unproductivity. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock The current indefinite block started at 7 August 2017. Hidden Tempo and supporters appear to be basing their opposition to the block on a claim of a lack of justification, but that rather misses the point of Wikipedia which is that many eyes are available to investigate this kind of issue. Many admins would have reviewed the appeals at User talk:Hidden Tempo in the last six weeks and none have chosen to unblock. If Wikipedia is run by lizards who block righteous editors, HT will have to find another website. Diffs have been provided, but the timesink factor is sufficient reason to oppose an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC))
  Comment - I think everybody's about had enough of this thread and said their piece. Bishonen suggested that this thread remain open through last weekend, and it has stayed open much longer than that now. This is going around in circles and just as I predicted[39], the thread has now degenerated into aspersions[40], personal attacks[41], and false accusations/half-truths[42][43][44]. Let's simplify what's been learned so far from this Rorschach test of an unblock appeal, and I think I've summarized most major points of view and facts:

The facts thus far

Many believe my appeal to be nothing more than a "time sink," "time suck," and a waste of time for the "good" editors. This same group also believes my manner of speaking is merely wikilawyering and/or "gaming the system." Additionally, arguing my case in my own appeal has been called WP:BLUDGEON'ing, many times. A large group of editors feel that MastCell has adequately explained his indefinite block[45], which was for a 3RR violation after "repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior." This same group also claims that diffs have been provided of this behavior on pages I've edited since my TBAN, such as Sean Spicer, Linda Sarsour, Mitt Romney dog incident, Fake news, Jean Lake, James Comey, Game Change (film), Dave Gettleman, Dunkirk (2017 film), A.B. Stoddard, Lucky Whitehead, and New England Patriots, and anyone who says otherwise is simply exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior. Another group, of which I am included, has not been able to find these diffs anywhere and feel that WP:EXPLAINBLOCK has not been satisfied. We maintain that we have not seen the evidence that MastCell says was enough for an indefinite block. This point has been one of the primary points of contention, and I have contended that the other group is in fact exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior. After an editor noted that diffs still have not been provided, an administrator who previously claimed there ARE in fact diffs[46], simply says "I don't care about the diffs"[47] after being asked for a diff of the diffs being provided, and accuses anyone who cannot find them of being "blind to them." One "support block" voting administrator complained that I was "uncollegial"[48] at Stephen Miller by calling another user "bud," several times. This same administrator feels that this is an appropriate way to speak to other Wikipedians. In my unblock request, I addressed each reason for my block one by one. I could not cite specific diffs given by MastCell of "repeated instances" of the problematic edits, as he did not provide any. However, I did the best I could to assure MastCell that such behavior would not be a problem for me, and provided multiple diffs showing that my editing at large was being mischaracterized.[49] Several administrators have noted that I did not follow WP:GAB, while I and others have pointed out that I did in fact follow WP:GAB,[50], and itemized each of the three main instructions one by one. Many administrators and editors have criticized me for not "taking responsibility" for my block. However, there is an orgy of diffs indicating the contrary.[51][52][53][54][55][56] I have been repeatedly attacked as being WP:NOTHERE and exhibiting WP:TEND. These criticisms come despite diffs showing creation of a film-related article and hyper-collegial behavior, while also attempting to resolve content disputes at the noticeboards instead of edit warring.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. This edit was made about 1 week prior to my block, during a content dispute, in which I say: "I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, please don't view me as an obstruction to progress being made in the article or from establishing consensus!" and "I feel I've made my case. I'm ready to move on...Thanks for all the discussion regarding this." The editors, including myself, have been asking for diffs of the "repeated instances" of the problematic behavior of my TBAN since this is what allegedly led to the indefinite block. The reason why we have emphasized the importance of these diffs to such an enormous degree is because a sanction without evidence is invalid, and thus my appeal should be granted. Additionally, specific diffs of the problematic edits would be of invaluable help so that I may address the specific edits with specific language, and specifically explain to the community why those specific problematic edits would not occur. Alas, this opportunity was never available to me, as we never received any specific edits. The closest we got is MastCell pointing to problematic editing leading to a TBAN and poor behavior during the TBAN.

So the facts have been established, and important milestones and key points of debate are within the collapsed section. I, and it seems the vast majority of participants, are more than ready to have this report closed. I made my case, and many others have made their case as well. Please let's not spend any more of our time arguing the same points again and again. If an uninvolved administrator could close this, I think we would all be very grateful. While there is a good amount of "unblock without restrictions" !votes, it seems the !vote tally is not in my favor. Nonetheless, this has run its course. Thanks to !Boing for taking action and moving this appeal along, and thank you to all the editors who saw what I saw and voted accordingly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. There's clearly a pattern here that justifies an indef block/ban. Even when the earlier tban was evaded with a sock, we got this response (I got this diff from one of Hidden Tempo's posts above) which is just a tirade against others for their own disruptive behavior. I'm far removed from this, in terms of interaction with the editors, topic area and geographically, and what I've seen about the behavior here is very very concerning. In my opinion, it isn't why an indefinite block was imposed, but why it wasn't done earlier. When there's a pattern of behavior like this, you can't just say that "oh that was before the previous block", the block is there to improve the editing environment and it is serving that purpose. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. The block was fully justified. I am not convinced that Hidden Tempo accepts the basis for the block nor that they will not repeat the conduct that led to the block. Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional consideration

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.

---

Given that HT is currently not currently under a topic ban, but is under an indef block, which can theoretically be lifted at any time - taking into account the replies to the above section, I am suggesting that regardless of the discussion above regarding unblocking, HT is placed under a community topic ban, not appealable before 6/12 months (state preference) after their return to editing - whenever that may be. Because given the discussion above, its entirely possible they wont be unblocked at all (or no-consensus) and we will be having the same argument in 6 months time. This way at least the topic ban gets taken out of the picture and simplifies the discussion. If anyone has a better idea feel free.

• Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my rationale above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef Tban. Minimum 12 months to appeal after Tban commences. Tban to commence immediately upon any unblock. (I do not, however, support unblock, per my comments above.) -- Begoon 17:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support 12 months. Everyone who runs afoul in one area should be given a chance to edit in another topic area to see if they can still be of benefit to the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support 12 months - A good idea to make this clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any topic ban should be supported by evidence. The fundamental problem in this case remains that evidence has not been presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously needed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although the longer this stays open, the more likely the block will remain. Objective3000 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support proposal (indef topic ban, appealable after 12 months). Neutrality^talk 01:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a failsafe of sorts. On the off chance that this user is unfortunately unblocked, at least they would remain banned from their primary area of involvement. Swarm ♠ 06:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from American politics broadly construed, appealable after 12 months, in case there is consensus to unblock.- MrX 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm an optimist, and I think this user is capable of bringing net benefits to the encyclopedia. Their actions will be closely watched, and per WP:ROPE there will be no more chances after this one. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I can't decide whether it's better to have the TBAN expire in time for the US primaries in six months, so that he can end up re-blocked or re-banned in plenty of time before the mid-term elections, or shortly before those elections, so that we can have more peace in the interim (but then a bigger mess 12 months from now). I'd be happiest with December 2018 or an indef. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having read through all of this (yes all of this thread and the voluminous talk page) I'm still undecided on the block but would support a topic ban per Neutrality. Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support review of reverts that led to block. If it is decided that HT was falsely crying BLP, I'd support the block and topic ban. If not, I wouldn't. I would not envisage myself participating in that discussion. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at those previously, and I agree with the way MastCell and Drmies characterized them. So there's one regular user and two admins who've reviewed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: thanks for your note. What Drmies did - actually address the BLP issue here - is what I wish the community would have done here overall. From most comments, including from most of MastCell's, you would have no idea what specific thing HT was blocked for. One reason is that Mastcell didn't go into the CRYBLP issue in their block [66]. That's surprising, since the whole thread [67] was about BLP violations (you were there too so you must remember). In that sense, I agree with Thucydides and Mandruss that this whole procedure has been problematic. And it's actually my primary concern. As an aside, personally, I think that even if HT was sincere in his BLP objection, the content wasn't objectionable enough by any standard to warrant HT's edit warring. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that one can't use most of MastCell's comments at HT's talk to find a specific incident which led to the block. However, the reason given for the block by MastCell was not "this incident led to this block" but "a long pattern of behavior has led to this block", and MC repeatedly explained their rationale and provided links to an ANI thread in which a great deal of links were provided to show that HT has engaged in POV pushing and battleground behavior. MC also provided an explanation for the oft-repeated claim that HT had been editing with good behavior for some time prior to their block; HT was subject to a topic ban during that time. Finally, MC also noted the frequency with which HT has been sanctioned and then had those sanctions lifted; by repeatedly expressing remorse and understanding that their behavior was wrong. Now, one can debate MC's interpretation that HT is simply good at gaming the unblock/sanction removal system, but one cannot argue in good faith that HT had not returned to that same behavior upon returning from a topic ban, and as such, one cannot escape the conclusion that HT continued to behave in a manner which HT knew was unacceptable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting at this point that a "review" is needed? Surely this is some cruel, bureaucratic jest? You yourself state that even if the user actually was sincere in their BLP argument, we shouldn't take it seriously. And yet you're seriously suggesting that we, after all this time, need to review the situation. Wow. Just wow. Swarm ♠ 00:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, Swarm: thanks for your comments. I assume that HT's prior blocks were deserved. But I read a number of threads HT was involved in immediately prior to MastCell's block, and they were civil, even if others (even me) might have disagreed with them. So I disagree with Mastcell's invocation of partisanship, etc., to justify their August 7th block. I don't think anybody's enjoyed this whole process, but, possibly because of structural problems in the way these decisions are made, I think people's efforts (and good intentions) have been misdirected. I'm not going to go into this further. You can read my earlier posts in this long thread, and everyone will say/do as they please. -Darouet (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CRUSH; civility and POV pushing aren't mutually exclusive. And to be honest, you are one of our more politically conservative editors, so it's not surprising that HT would treat you with a bit more respect than they would treat someone who is one of our more politically liberal editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

She is also one of the editors on this page who seems unable to discuss issues without personalizing them and ignoring the underlying evidence and policies. And don't forget, this is an appeal of a block. In an appeal, the appellant's culpability is indeed stipulated. So all the crocodile tears and garbled reference to the Magna Carta or whatnot/whatever are really de trop. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

seems unable to discuss issues without personalizing them ... she says, personalizing the issue. It is bloody amazing that intelligent people can be so quick to find fault in others while in the same breath exhibiting the very same behavior they are criticizing. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss and SPECIFICO: I hope both of you realize that both of you are critiquing another person, and that it's both completely understandable and not worth getting riled up over at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. 12 months. Broadly construed. Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2017 (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 request

This has been going on for 8 days, and it's gotten to the point where there is 24 hours or more between !votes. There's a pretty clear consensus here not to unblock, and another overwhelming consensus to impose a topic ban on top of that. Even Hidden Tempo has indicated that they can see which way the wind is blowing with their last comment (which I might point out, was once again full of falsehoods and wikilawyering). I don't see how letting this sit another week is going to change that, considering that, as best I can see, every single one of the "only gotten involved as a result of this particular discussion" !votes have been to oppose the unblock. Even Darouets condition under which they said they would change their opposition to the topic ban to support has been fulfilled. (I can't say it's been fulfilled to Darout's satisfaction, but said review has certainly been done by now). I think it's time to close this and impose the topic ban. Pinging some admins who haven't !voted. @Ritchie333, Oshwah, NeilN, and Boing! said Zebedee:. @Bishonen: has only been involved in her capacity as an admin, as well (except for a single clarifying comment here). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I just made a related comment in the wrong place, which I have now removed! I opened this saying I will not judge the consensus, but I will reflect the consensus in my pending unblock review. Whoever evaluates the consensus, please be clear over whether there is a consensus to unblock, whether there is a consensus to impose a topic ban (and what that should be - is it Bishonen's original suggestion?), whether the two are conditionally related, and whether there is any consensus over when a new appeal (for any block or ban, whetever is decided) can be heard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Tally of options

Option	Tally	% of !votes
Decline unblock	25	60%
Unblock w/TBAN	9	21%
Accept unblock	8	19%

Taller of !voters

Option	Tally	% of !votes
Decline unblock	25	64%
Unblock w/TBAN	6	15%
Accept unblock	8	21%

Well, as far as the numbers go (I know consensus is not a tally of votes, but anyone who thinks that a tally of !votes isn't a part of a consensus has some 'splainin' to do), I count 25 !votes to decline the unblock, 9 !votes to unblock with TBAN, and 8 !votes to unblock without condition. I also counted 14 !votes to impose a TBAN regardless of outcome, and only 3 !votes opposing it. Now, the methodology I used was to tally each proposed solution independently regardless of editor, so for example, I've counted myself in both "decline unblock" and "unblock with TBAN" tallies, as well as Beyond My Ken and at least one other. All of the editors who gave multiple options gave "oppose unblock" and "unblock with TBAN". If I were to focus entirely upon the rationales given and the arguments made by those who offered two options, that would only reduce the number of !votes for unblocking with a TBAN, so I'm being generous to those opposed to this block in counting this way. The way I counted, 3 !votes can be removed from the "unblock with TBAN" category if you only want to count 1 option per editor. I've broken that down to the right.

As far as the arguments go, I've laid them out below:

Arguments for unblock w/o condition

1. HT hasn't engaged in any sanctionable behavior since the last sanction expired.
2. MastCell never presented any evidence of sanctionable behavior.
3. An indef block is too harsh/unwarranted.

Arguments for declining unblock request

1. HT has engaged in sanctionable behavior since the last sanction expired.
2. MastCell presented compelling evidence of sanctionable behavior since the block.
3. An indef block is appropriate given the amount of disruption this editor has caused.
4. HT has a history of engaging in sanctionable behavior.
5. HT has a history of dishonesty.
6. HT's has made successful unblock requests by promising not to engage in the same behavior again, yet has ended up sanctioned for the same behavior again.
7. The amount of disruption caused by HT and their supporters during this discussion is indicative of what we can expect the next time HT is sanctioned, should we unblock.

Note how each of the "unblock" arguments are directly contradicted by the first three "keep blocked" arguments. Each of those has an element of judgement to it, so I can't say they've been effectively countered. So it's up to each editor to decide which opposing assertion is true (or more true). Personally, I agree 100% with the three "keep blocked" assertions. In strict terms, the first "unblock" argument is completely false, HT and FT2 have both admitted that HT engaged in an edit war right before this block, even though both have made this argument. But I would still consider it a judgement call, because the argument that the edit warring was done over BLP concerns was made, and is not without weight (I don't really buy the CRYBLP counterargument, myself. I think HT legitimately thought this was a BLP issue, but it also seems apparent that an editor without a battleground mentality would not have felt the same way as HT.)

There's also another factor: How many admins have looked into this and declined to unblock? I count at least 3. Bishonen offered a compromise which was rejected, FT2 offered a counter-argument, but declined to unblock and you have also declined to unblock, instead asking the community what they thought. I know you wanted broader input, but that fact that you felt that you needed broader input indicates that this is not a simple matter of a bad block.

So that's my summary. I admit, I !voted (and HT has criticized me for doing so, as well as criticism me for defending my !vote and for calling for a close after HT, themselves had called for a close), and I'm not "unbiased" as it were. But I don't think that my opinion (or "bias" if you disagree with it) is invalid. Indeed, I first read about this block with the preconception that it was a bad block, based on FT2's summary on HT's talk page, and upon my interactions with Nfitz, the other editor involved in the dispute that resulted in the ANI thread that got HT blocked. (Those interactions took place in that ANI thread, and they left me with a very bad impression of HT's "opposition" in that discussion.) But it was MastCell's response at HT's talk page, in which they contradicted literally every assertion FT2 and HT's supporters made, made additional accusations against HT (namely, that they have a history of "weaseling" out of sanctions) and then provided evidence to support all of those claims (contrary to the abject bullshit that keeps getting repeated here) that changed my mind.

Anyways, that's what I've seen in this. I think it's very clear that the community doesn't want this unblock request to be granted. I think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak at best, and dishonest at worst. So in my opinion, the consensus is clear on both fronts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Section is replete with mudslinging, NPA's, ABF, and generally poor conduct. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course you think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak. That's both the cause of and the result of your position on the issue. Likewise, I feel that the arguments in opposition to this unblock are weak(er), and that's both the cause of and the result of my position on the issue. dishonest at worst is an evidence-free AGF violation and should be stricken like all the others in this thread. I hope and assume that the closer will completely ignore this completely subjective analysis, which would give undue and improper weight to one side of the question, not that ignoring it will affect the outcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC) That's both the cause of and the result of your position on the issue. Oh, I wasn't aware you were capable of reading my mind. Can you tell me what I did with the spare key to my shed? I know I had it last week, but for the life of me, I can't recall where I left it... Or... Bear with me here... Or... You could try to make a case that the consensus in this thread is to unblock without restriction. Go ahead. But let me know before you start, so I can get some popcorn and cotton candy. I always love popcorn and cotton candy when I'm watching gymnastics. Even the logical kind. Alternatively, you could stop assuming bad faith, considering that I've already explained that my first impression was quite the opposite of my current conclusion. I even explained why, but I suppose it's too much to ask that you actually read that part... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Your summary contains a number of significant distortions. The two most important are as follows: "Bishonen offered a compromise which was rejected." HT thanked Bishonen for their offer, but said that they preferred to have their unblock request reviewed. It wasn't that HT rejected the content of what Bishonen was proposing (converting the indefinite block to a topic ban), but rather that HT wanted someone to actually review the original indefinite block. "But it was MastCell's response at HT's talk page, in which they contradicted literally every assertion FT2 and HT's supporters made, made additional accusations against HT (namely, that they have a history of 'weaseling' out of sanctions) and then provided evidence to support all of those claims (contrary to the abject bullshit that keeps getting repeated here) that changed my mind." The problem that I and several others have with this block is precisely that MastCell has chosen not to give evidence for their claims. Pointing that out isn't "abject bullshit." It's a simple fact, and I feel like I'm witnessing entering into an alternate reality whenever I read these claims that MastCell provided evidence. If they did provide evidence, please just link to the diff where they did so, and also link the diff they gave as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC) HT thanked Bishonen for their offer, but said that they preferred to have their unblock request reviewed. So in other words HT rejected Bish's offer. The problem that I and several others have with this block is precisely that MastCell has chosen not to give evidence for their claims. Bullshit. I don't believe for one second that you actually believe this, given the countless times MastCell (and many others, including a number of admins) has addressed this. To be perfectly clear: I am saying in unambiguous terms and without reservation: You are lying. And with that, I have nothing more to say. I will not engage with a liar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC) You could have just linked to the diff where MastCell gave evidence, and linked the diffs that MastCell gave as evidence. But instead of actually substantiating your assertion that MastCell has provided evidence, you chose, again, to insult me. Others can make of that what they will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Why would I bother? Did you already forget that whole "you're lying" thing? You don't correct a liar, you ignore them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Thuc? Changing the story again? I thought the problem was Napoleonic Justice? Now what? Marek's ass? I must say, in all your interactions I've never seen MPants "insult" you or anyone else on WP. A forthright statement of condemnation is about as good as it gets at AN, land of drama and subterfuge, and I admire Pants for disclosing his view without a trace of personal animus. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) I think everything has been said. No point in making the closer’s job more difficult. Objective3000 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pants, I'm really surprised that you need this explained to you. It took me about 15 seconds to find flaws in your analysis, and I didn't bother to continue because the merits of that analysis are not the issue here. This community has just spent 8 or 9 days debating Hidden Tempo's block, and we are not going to spend another 8 or 9 days debating the consensus of that debate. A closer doesn't need help assessing consensus from anybody, certainly not from an editor who !voted and commented in the discussion and couldn't possibly claim to be neutral. I'm struggling to AGF and see this as nothing more than really bad judgment, and if I didn't think the close would go your way anyway I would be making a much bigger issue of it. Please don't do it again in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't point out any flaws: You insinuated that you knew my underlying motivations for coming to the conclusions I did, I made fun of that insinuation because it's a little ridiculous to suggest that you know someone's private thoughts. You also suggested that the passage "dishonest at worst" was an aspersion, when it's clearly given as but one of a range of possibilities (though I will state clearly that I absolutely believe it applies to at least one editor here, and the evidence is right here in the fifth comment of this discussion). That's it. That's all you had. A subjective interpretation of what constitutes an accusation and a rather ridiculous insinuation that you are somehow in a position to contradict me as to what my own thought process was. That's not finding flaws, that's just complaining.

One thing we agree on, however, is that your comments weren't made for the purpose of mudslinging. I only moved that hat such that it would encompass your first comment because that was the only logical point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't point out any flaws because the merits of that analysis are not the issue here, as I said. Since you're clearly not interested in hearing what I'm clearly saying, I think I'm done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a little strange to respond to an analysis with complaints, then later defend that response by saying you found flaws in the analysis, only to later turn around and claim that the merits of the analysis aren't the point of your comments. If the merits of the analysis weren't the point, then the only thing that makes sense is to presume your comments were a condemnation of me, personally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Second the request for closure. If the closer finds consensus to leave the block in place, Hidden Tempo should still be able to make future unblock requests on their talk page (hopefully this time without attacking the blocking admin) as there certainly isn't consensus here for a community ban. Also, for reference, the terms of Bishonen's suggestion were an "indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, with an appeal on WP:ANI or WP:AN allowed no sooner than a year from now" and that evasion of the topic ban via socks/IP would be grounds for an indefinite block. ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Attempted closure

Well I tried to close this [68] but I have been reverted [69] by user User:MPants at work as "We need an admin to impose those conditions, a regular editor should not be deciding the exact sanctions to apply." What is the consensus on this? I feel I comply with the requirements set out in WP:NAC. Also Boing! said he would adjust the unblock request to reflect the community. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As explained in my edit summary, I do not believe a non-admin has the right to impose such a sanction as you did in the close by indicating that HT was now subject to a community site ban. If the community disagrees, I will -of course- change my mind about this. But I do believe that the actual question here is a much larger one than this particular issue, and might need to be hashed out with a site-wide discussion, as it may involve a clarification of or change to policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mrjulesd, in a thread that has been so immensely wikilawyered to death as this one, there is basically no chance that an NAC is going to not get thrown back in someone's face as a reason why the outcome was invalid. It may seem silly and pointless, but them's the breaks sometimes. GMG^talk 13:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the close was not appropriate - I voiced my reasoning at User talk:MjolnirPants#Why?, so I won't repeat it here. (But I do thank User:Mrjulesd for having the courage to try to cut the knot.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, twas a courageous close, and certainly well intentioned. And I'm not convinced entirely that my interpretation of policy is correct (that a regular user cannot close a thread with the imposition of a community site ban), but as I said, that would require a much large discussion. Until then, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn after comments from Boing!. Thanks for your comment GreenMeansGo. The only question now is "what admin would want to close this discussion who does not feel they are involved"? Maybe some day. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, statistically speaking, we have enough admins that at least one or two of them are bound to be rabid masochists. Although maybe we should make a user category for them, so next time they'll be easier to find. GMG^talk 14:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And here I was, about to take a look and potentially close the discussion, but heaven forbid I reveal my true nature as a rabid masochist... Primefac (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You know the difference between a sadist and masochist? A masochist says hurt me, the sadist says no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We've got room for all types here at Wikipedia. It's just a matter of finding a place where you fit in... and where your "talents" are best used. GMG^talk 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That'd be a pretty lackadaisical sadist. I'd say "how exactly do you want me to hurt you?" then press for details until the massochist is all worked up and excited. Then I'd say "No". And smile. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I never heard of a non-administrator implementing a topic ban and I seriously doubt it is permitted. Per WP:Banning policy, "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)." In this case we would be looking at a community consensus ban, and the policy about a community consensus ban (WP:CBAN) clearly states "When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made." Also, "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse." --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Go for it, User:Primefac! --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Second close

The close summary - "TL;DR: No consensus to unblock. Clear consensus on the topic ban.
I think there's fairly clear consensus here against unblocking as a community action. I don't feel that MastCell has explained himself very well; trying to figure out what all this is about feels somewhat like diving down the rabbit hole and a clear explanation of what seems to have been a reasonable action might have saved some spilled bytes (hint for those who come after: this is what's it's about, which for an editor coming off an AP2 topic appears to justify some sanction). Of course explaining yourself repeatedly gets tiresome and I don't really blame him for wearying of it. Otherwise, there is certainly no consensus to unblock but I don't think that amounts to consensus to convert this to a community site ban; the subject has been raised, but not extensively discussed. Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted.
There is very clear consensus for an indefinite topic ban; one is therefore imposed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)}}"

Firstly, many thanks to User:GoldenRing for attempting another close, but I'm afraid I have to revert it as it is problematic. I brought it here because the unblock request had been open for a month and no admin appeared prepared to tackle it, so we need an actual community discussion decision (wrong word, grr). "No consensus to unblock" and "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted" does not provide that decision.

We need clear answers to the following two questions

• "Unblock, yes or no?"
• "Topic ban, yes or no?"

If an admin attempting to close can not discern those answers, I think they should defer to others who might be able to. User:RickinBaltimore, User:Primefac, and I think one more were planning on producing a joint closing statement, and I think they should be allowed to try that. If between them they can not discern a consensus, we'll then have to think what to do next, but just throwing it back to those who came here for a decision is the worst possible solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: thanks for taking the initiative to close this, but I have an issue to clarify. You stated: "...there's fairly clear consensus here against unblocking as a community action." I'd like to draw your attention to the "community bans and restrictions" section of the banning policy, wherein it states: "[e]ditors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'." I'm only bringing this up because you then stated: "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted." This last statement of yours that I quoted appears incompatible with the banning policy, which seems to dictate that future appeals of the sanction should be presented to the community for review, and indeed we've had serious dramah in the recent past over administrators unilaterally deciding to unblock a user who was thought to have been community banned. Can I suggest you clarify your intent? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC) NOTE: I was typing this while Boing! said Zebedee was reverting the close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• User:GoldenRing, I guess it's customary to start by thanking you, but "TL;DR" — Too Long; Didn't Read — really? If that was a joke, it didn't do much for me. Perhaps that's just the famous problem that text doesn't have a tone of voice. I know the discussion is long, but that's because a lot of people have invested time and engagement in it. Please don't close it if you in your turn don't have the time or the engagement to read it, all of it. I agree with Boing and Ivan about the problems with your close. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: it was intended neither as a joke nor as you have read it; that sentence was the TL;DR Sunday of the remainder of my comments. GoldenRing (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's revert of the close. Yes, we do need clear answers to those two questions. We appear to have at least two other Admins planning on a joint close and we should leave it to them. I also agree with Ivanvector that a community refusal to unblock means that an editor is community banned and cannot be unblocked by an Admin acting on their own. And, boring as another agreement might be, I'm with Bishonen to the TL;DR issue. A decision as important as this warrants some time put into considering the close. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• While I agree with the revert of the close for the reasons given above, to be fair, I'm pretty sure GR's "TL;DR" means "if you don't want to read my close, here's a shorter summary". TL;DR has kind of become an unfortunately confusing self-deprecating way of saying "in a nutshell". I wish people wouldn't do that, but it has become fairly widespread. think that's all that was meant here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually just typed up pretty much the same exact thing before I realized what you said. Just goes to show that I should read more than just the comments I was responding to before I edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, you're probably right, @Floquenbeam: GoldenRing probably meant it in a self-deprecating way: 'sorry my close is so long'. In my defense, though, it was a bit confusing because the close wasn't long, it was quite short. It's a big, complicated thread. You usually, and appropriately, see long and elaborate closes of those, because many points need to be clearly addressed and analysed. This was a short close, and indeed missed addressing important stuff. But I'm sorry I misread you, GoldenRing. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Floq has read my intent here correctly. To be clear, I've discussed this with B!SZ at my task page and am absolutely fine with his revert; if I'd spotted that there was a panel forming then I'd have stayed out of it, but I read this discussion through before that and then spent the intervening time reading history and pondering so didn't notice it. GoldenRing (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I read it the wrong way first and then realized what it meant. "TL;DR version: " followed by "Full version: " probably works better. Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll stick my oar in once more before signing off for the night. In my view, in formulating a close of this discussion, there are three questions that need to be answered: Does this discussion amount to consensus for a site ban? If not, does it amount to consensus to unblock? And does the topic ban (for which consensus certainly exists) likely adequately address the disruption? Since I think the answers are no, no and yes, respectively, I arrived at the close I wrote. I will be interested to see how others answer those questions. GoldenRing (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No on the "And does the topic ban (for which consensus certainly exists) likely adequately address the disruption?" one - the job of a closer is not to evaluate whether a solution is adequate, but only to determine whether there is a consensus for it. Deciding the close based on one's own evaluation of what is sufficient is supervoting, and that is not allowed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see I was mistaken about the TL;DR bit. But I agree with Boing! about the fact that we (Admins) should only be determining whether a consensus exists, not if a solution will or will not work. But GoldenRing is both relatively new as an Admin and bold (in a good way) to take this on, and this is just part of the ever growing learning curve. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Site ban?

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

---

In reading over the two closes today I noticed that there is disagreement over whether votes against an unblock equate to support for a community-imposed site ban. This seems like too big of a logical leap to me, since some people may have been opposing the unblock thinking that Hidden Tempo could be later unblocked via normal processes if they demonstrated that they were ready to edit constructively in other areas and would no longer be a force for disruption. That was my understanding at least. In any case, if we're going to site ban someone let's at least say what we're doing while we do it. ~Awilley (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging people involved in the original discussion...please keep your comments short...this thread is too long already. @Mr Ernie: @Objective3000: @Floquenbeam: @Ivanvector: @Thucydides411: @D.Creish: @Lepricavark: @Only in death does duty end: @Alex Shih: @Drmies: @FT2: @Power~enwiki: @Neutrality: @Valeince: @SPECIFICO: @Softlavender: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @Beyond My Ken: @JFG: @MrX: @D.Creish: @MjolnirPants: @Ψλ: @Cjhard: @TheGracefulSlick: @Jytdog: @Begoon: @Darouet: @Nihlus kryik: @ValarianB: @Fyddlestix: @Darwinian Ape: @MastCell: @Mandruss: @Swarm: @Ealdgyth: @RickinBaltimore: @Johnuniq: @SpacemanSpiff: @Just Chilling: ~Awilley (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. I believe that the indefinite topic ban from American Politics imposed above is sufficient to deal with the battleground behavior of Hidden Tempo, and I haven't seen any evidence of disruption outside the topic area. Looking at the consensus against unblocking above, I think the current unblock request should be closed as "declined" and Hidden Tempo should have the opportunity to form another request if they desire. If that fails, their talkpage access can be removed, and they will be de facto banned. ~Awilley (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• In answer to GoldenRing's question, I would say yes, per Ivanvector's quote from the banning policy: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". But my personal feelings are "meh". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• A community consensus not to unblock, in my opinion, should require a new community consensus to override. That's a ban, according to CBAN. I'm not too hung up on what we call it, really, but if it seems easier or clearer to call it a site ban, then I support that. -- Begoon 00:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Begoon: I like your take on it better than my own just below this, so... what he said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• So... this is one of those cases that illustrate why there's a need for explicit banning, as opposed to de facto banning. In a lot of community site ban discussion, there are editors (including those that I respect quite a bit) who say "The person is already de facto banned, why do we need a community ban?" I'm not going to repeat my arguments against that, except to say that the policy snippet cited above is about de facto banning, and not about explicit banning. So... my answer is to split those hairs and say that if HT is not unblocked, then he is de facto banned, but has not been explicitly banned via a community ban discussion.
  Yes, that stance can be criticized as a distinction without a difference, but I think that if an admin took it upon themselves to unblock an editor who had been explicitly banned after a community site ban discussion, the heavens would descend on them, but they would (possibly) have a more plausible excuse if the editor involved was only de facto banned.
  Now, if you folks would stop pinging me, I can get back to counting all these damned angels cluttering up the head of this darned pin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC) See above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose site ban – (pinged) Seems that every day of discussion can only get worse for Hidden Tempo's prospects vis-à-vis Wikipedia. I stand by my initial opinion that an indef block was unjustly WP:PUNITIVE and disproportionate to the editor's actual disruption level. A site ban would be even worse. I already note the chilling effects on other editors (see Cjhard's comment of 21 September: Regardless of how the discussion turns out, I'm done with this project based on how you've been treated.), and I shiver at the pile-on that we have witnessed above. If I were in HT's position, I'd feel like being at the hands of the Grand Inquisitor, getting tortured ever deeper for screaming my defense ever louder (WP:BLUDGEON in local jargon). Disgusting. — JFG ^talk 01:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• There is nothing to debate here. Process-wise, it is clear that a) they were indefinitely blocked; b) the unblock request was brought to the community and was discussed (to death); and c) there is no consensus to unblock. Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Per CBAN, they are now CBANed. It isn't relevant that people weren't !voting with this mind. It is intuitive. This CBAN can now only be lifted via a community discussion; no admin can do that on his or her own authority, as the community devoted a ton of time to this, and there is no consensus that HT will not again abuse their editing privileges. A successful appeal to the community will need to be framed in a way that compels consensus that HT will not resume their disruptive behavior and suck up another boatload of community time. (I said this in my initial !vote above, but HT really should have accepted Bish's offer of a TBAN; they went "all or nothing" and got nothing. Somebody who cannot take the reasonable compromise is indeed not cut out for the kind of community work we need to do here) Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• I was going to make a comment but Jytdog and Begoon sum up my feelings about this situation. Valeince (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose site ban per JFG. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE is an inviolable Wikipedia policy, not something to be applied selectively or weighed against other factors. As I said in my !vote, we have no history of HT's behavior outside AP, so the indef block cannot be preventative. This essential point is being ignored here and if the indef block stands it will be an embarrassing failure of the community to abide by its own standards and principles. Per JFG, a site ban would be even worse. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban – Many of the development in the AN discussion was related to bludgeoning of the process. Site ban would certainly be an overkill. Alex Shih^Talk 01:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Per policy, a community decline of a request to remove an indef block is a community ban (linked in two other comments). I'm not always a fan of that being true, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why we would make an exception to a clear, consistent policy for this user. If the point of the entire - what, 1 week? - discussion is just to confirm what everyone already knew - that the block was legit, that HT hasn't come up with a legitimate unblock request after 1+ months, and that an indefinite topic ban is the bare absolute minimum - then Jesus, what a colosal waste of time. If any admin can unblock if they personally like the agreement they can make with HT, then every single person here has wasted their time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, sure, but really what Floq says. What needs to be clear is that all of this really adds up to "no unblock by any individual administrator". Drmies (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban - I don't particularly care whether this is closed or not. This is a fairly nuanced issue of policy that matters quite a bit to the particulars of the close, and I personally don't think it applies here. Whether this policy applies actually matters quite a bit to the way the close works, and I don't think it does, at least by the consensus of the community, which is the only thing that matters. At the end of the day there is no more central place to establish precedent than here. GMG^talk 02:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban I have removed the inappropriate non-admin closure. I echo Mandruss's perspective on the matter, as well as what JFG so eloquently said. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2017 (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 4: the Closening

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.

---

Coffee for the challengers.

@Tazerdadog, Primefac, and There'sNoTime: sorry, I have to challenge this close again. The banning policy clearly states:

• In some cases the community may review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction.
• Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Both of these have occurred here. You noted explicitly that consensus endorses the indefinite block. I don't think anyone could possibly argue that this days-and-kilobytes-long thread does not represent "due consideration by the community", and in fact Hidden Tempo "remain[s] indefinitely blocked". Thus, policy dictates that they are banned by the Wikipedia community, notwithstanding your bolded statement that you don't see consensus for it. I urge you once again to reword your close to reflect this, so as to avoid future wikilawyering. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Just a courtesy note that I've seen this, and that I will be contacting the other closers shortly -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I should have said up front, thanks for stepping up and taking the time to close this in the first place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'm also aware of this, and I'm working on getting a cohesive response together from all of the closers. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog, Primefac, and There'sNoTime: Just a note re:above - The site ban question was open less than 24 hours and half of the comments indicated there was nothing to debate per policy. CBS527^Talk 18:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I told you you shouldn't have mentioned the war site ban ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding the just-revised close: 1) no such thing exists as a "community block": all community-derived sanctions are within the scope of the banning policy (thus nominally bans); 2) nowhere was it suggested that Hidden Tempo's talk page access should be revoked until you suggested it just then. I do see that there's a table in the banning policy highlighting the differences between blocks and bans which implies that sitebanned users' talk page access is "usually not allowed", which I hadn't noticed, which I can't find supported by the actual policy, and which goes against current practice in my experience. It wasn't my intention to suggest that Hidden Tempo should not be allowed to edit their talk page, and I see no reason to suggest that now. I see that procedural nitpicking isn't going to change the actual practical result of this, and so I'm withdrawing my objection to the close based on the most recent revision. Thanks again for taking the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (September 2017)

Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case 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 Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. 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.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (September 2017)

Range block for proxies

Oops, rangeblocked all of Alaska!

A range block that involves these IPs would be nice. 185.121.173.172; 185.121.174.133: 185.121.174.134. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Range would be 185.121.172.0/22 according to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: there's a handy range calculator at the bottom of Special:CheckUser that you can use for these :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, BEANS. Hahaha! Seriously, no one should let me anywhere near that button. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Funny this came up, I just asking about moving the CheckUser range calculator somewhere public. Where do you think it should go? Special:RangeCalculator? Or bundle it in with Special:Contributions and/or Special:Block? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... my personal preference would be a separate page, with the interface remaining on the CheckUser page as well. It is often necessary to calculate ranges when using CU, but with the regular contribs or block interface I don't see it being used enough to warrant being loaded onto the page every time. Edit: I've commented on the appropriate section, so as to avoid splitting the discussion. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we go for large range blocks on proxies, but not mobile phone ISPs? We have a few bouncy socks who cause far more trouble, but we can't get a thing done about them. Proxy use is not implicitly evil, any more than IP editing is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We do. Just ask the dog/rapper vandal. Or that other guy, who keeps fucking around from Georgia and whose range block includes me, a state over. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not a hope against Europefan though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Proxies have less chance of collateral damage - mainly due to proxies not being permitted in the first place. Large bans on mobile phone ISP's are pointless as functionally a lot of mobile phones will change IP whenever they lose-reconnect a data connection to their mobile carrier. I can force a mobile IP reset just by enabling and disabling 3/4g. It can be done, but in a lot of cases its pointless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well said. Webhost proxies also tend to be clustered, so there are many VPNs or "private" proxies in a tight range. Slightly different than an open proxy but often just as problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's talk page access

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

---

On September 25, User:The Rambling Man was blocked, some will say, in accordance with his arbitration restriction. That is not being argued here. However, GorillaWarfare has also revoked talk page access to TRM and anyone else who wants to message him, effectively gagging him for two weeks. Despite a discussion at her talk page, GW has not shown a sign of lifting the talk page restriction. I am here to ask: should TRM and other editors be allowed to edit his talk page again?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, again this isn't a discussion about the block or if protecting the talk page was a good or bad idea. That being said, I think it would be prudent to unprotect TRMs talk page, if only to stop people disruptively bypassing the protection -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Striking this - it's disappointing to read the below, and frankly this is all just a touch too dramatic and becoming personal. Please find something more constructive to do -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes I tried to reason with GW with some reasonable and civil alternative options and ended up banging my head against a wall. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This is not a raving vandal but a competent, productive editor who has received a two week block. The justness of the block is a topic for separate discussion. TRM should be allowed to have two-way communications. We hope (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - no reason to revoke TP access. GiantSnowman 19:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes TRM did nothing to warrant the restriction of their talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Revoking talk page access should be done only very rarely and in extreme situations such as gross abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. If "to stop people disruptively bypassing the protection" translates as to stop other editors from attempting to communicate with a colleague, while attempting to improve WP (TRM is in the middle of some collaborative article work), or to pass on harmless supportive messages then things have come to a sorry pass on WP frankly. Irondome (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You're free to twist what I meant any way you wish, but at least we agree on lifting the protection. You have a great day now -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what it amounts to doesn't it? Irondome (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Disruptively removing messages of goodwill is the least constructive path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Not seeing a good reason for full protect. Arkon (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes No need to revoke access. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per User:SchroCat and others. Quite troubling that this action came from an arb, who we elect to solve issues, not make them worse. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes and while I understand why he was blocked for doing something I suggested he not do, I'm quite perturbed that he has been blocked for so long during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin/Workshop an ArbComm case at a critical time when input is needed from more editors and TRM behaviour is being inappropriately examined. The talk page lock is a step too far. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: Without necessarily agreeing with you, thanks for posting a constructive argument re participation in the case. It would be great if a lot more people took part in cases, and didn't leave them solely to the parties and the arbitrators. Every case ends in a vote and there'll always be people unhappy with the outcome. But greater community participation along the way might mitigate some of those feelings at the end. Statement of the obvious perhaps, but we have had some cases in recent times with near-zero participation, and it's not great for actually resolving disputes. I do appreciate the irony of me saying this while marked inactive on the Rubin case - I was away when it started and it seemed unreasonable to jump in at the end . But as a general point, the spirit of getting more people involved is a good one, and thanks for raising it.. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Historically during his blocks TRM has contributed to Main_Page/Errors through his talk page, not spammed malformed unblock requests or attacked other editors. There was no reason to restrict his talk page access. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per the arguments above. GW appears to think she's in some kind of closed court dictatorship and that she and the rest of her cohorts at ARBCOM are beyond all criticism. They're not. And the gagging of TRM's talkpage is further evidence of this oppressive behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment linking to my reasoning here just so it's available from this discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. (I commented there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Leaning no unless there's a stipulation that the block is not to be discussed there. Otherwise it feels like inviting drama. I remember that the last time TRM was blocked he pinged other editors about main page stuff and these other editors acted on those issues on their own accord, and according to Irondome above TRM's in the middle of some collaborative article work. If we can keep doing productive things like that, then I say yes to reinstating talk page access. If it's just going to lead to 'discussions' about how arbitrators might as well rename to dictators, then we're better off leaving the protection in place. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• To add, even if talk page access is to be restored I'm in favour of leaving the protection in place for a short period of time (say 2 days) before restoring it, so that emotions are less of a factor. Banedon (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What about my emotions? talk page sample --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to tell The Rambling Man that the article he improved so much in revieweing is now on the Main page: DYK ... that after baritone Johannes Martin Kränzle recovered from MDS, he made his debut at the Bayreuth Festival in 2017 as Beckmesser, staged by the festival's first Jewish director? Thank you, TRM.

• Yes - Mostly because of the ARBCOM case. That said, it seems rather win-win: if TRM uses the talk page in a productive manner, it's a win for the project. If he uses it in a disruptive way, it's WP:ROPE or "I told you so" for those concerned. The potential for disruption is minimized by being constrained to the talk page, so the possible benefits seem to outweigh the possible harm. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:ROPE applies to what TRM does, but what about other people? Banedon (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Banedon: But of course! This is why I buy stock in rope manufacturers (and glue manufactuers)... there's always a demand for it on wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Begrudging yes. Last time his Main Page error spotting, from the confines of his prison cell, seemed to be even more fastidious and ruthless. Could we allow him alternate Thursdays perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, unless the arbitration proceedings are stayed while TRM is unable to participate publicly. I certainly hope the Committee chooses to respect the consensus that is obviously emerging here, rather than claiming some kind of privilege. This sort of outrage can and should result in revisiting the Committee's power structure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an arbitration enforcement action; not an arbitration committee action which would have fewer community review options. GorillaWarfare has already indicated they have no objection to any consensus outcome from this discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You and I both know the fact that it was an action taken by an arbitrator, in the midst of proceedings in which both the arbitrator and blocked editor were participating, purportedly in enforcement of a prior arbitration sanction, and which involves a unique and (to my mind) essentially unprecedented action means that it's as good as a Committee action. Nobody would dare undo this action without the consent of GW or another arbitrator, which I admit she had deigned to provide. Even if this is not directly an action taken by the Committee, it is an action which has tainted the appearance of impartiality that the Committee requires in order to function. This very fact is part of what makes GW's action so outrageous. That there may be a reasonable explanation for why it might be a good idea (see, e.g., my learned colleague BMK's explanation below) does not excuse the unbelievably poor optics of this action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Again, this was an editor acting in their capacity as an ordinary administrator to enforce an arbitration committee decision. It wasn't discussed with the rest of the Committee, it wasn't voted on beforehand, and it didn't need to be as it is not an action by Arbcom as a whole. As an ordinary administrator action it is open to review here or at AE, and that's precisely the conversation we're all having right now. This is entirely different to (say) a block imposed by direct Committee motion or in a PD (an Arbcomblock), which is voted on by the Committee as a whole and cannot usually be reviewed other than at ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - Looks like I'm swimming upstream here, but after reading the discussions on GW's talk page and seeing her explanation for the TP protection, it seems to me that TRM should really thank her for it, as it prevents him from duplicating his actions in previous instances, which exacerbated things for him considerably. Of course, the downside is that it will presumably harden TRM's feelinsg against ArbCom even more, but I think the block would have inevitably done that anyway. So, in short: GW's action were justified by the sanctions in place against TRM (and, incidentally, none of the objectors has apparently stopped to wonder why talk page access cut-off and protection were made a part of those sanctions in the first place, since it's something that's hardly usual; the answer lies in TRM's previous behavior) and should be kept in place. Further, if TRM himself wants talk page access restored and the page unprotected, he should e-mail one of the editors above to have his opinion placed on the record here. I wouldn't recommend it, though, since opening up the page is just a likely to end up with a much longer block, perhaps even an indef one.
  (For the record, some may be aware that TRM and I have history, but they may not be aware that in the Arthur Rubin case, I have argued against any sanctions being dealt out to TRM, so the opinion expressed here is not motivated by an anti-TRM bias, just an evaluation of the circumstances.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Admins having a discretion to do something doesn't mean they can just do it because they think it's a good idea. GorillaWarfare has failed to provide any persuasive reasoning in support of her actions. Her - belated - explanation is unconvincing. I remain of the view that the preemptive talkpage protection appears designed mainly to reinforce an extremely questionable block. We should take actions whose effect is to silence those who have been sanctioned only as a last resort. WJBscribe (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This now tops my list of 'most shortsighted admin decision made'. And given the previous action that was in its place was the unblock of a certain Australian serial sock-abuser, its in good company. While the points made by BMK are certainly *good* ones, given the active case which is currently being dragged out to no good purpose, a case during which I might add Arthur Rubin reported TRM for edit warring - despite the fact the only reason Rubin is editing at all outside the case is because TRM made a rather overly generous plea for him to be able to do so: I would certainly feel in his situation that the dog and pony show that is Arbcom at the moment might be more than a little vexing and worthy of fairly harsh criticism. I would also point out, that as this was an AE block of existing arbcom restrictions (albeit recently amended) that the block itself is subject to appeal either at AE or here. Given the amount of criticism its garnered at GW's talkpage, that might be worth entertaining. If no one has proposed unblocking him by tomorrow, I will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  The issue with appeals at WP:AE is that the rules say that "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction". It's a rule that frequently stands in the way of reviewing poor AE blocks. If TRM's talkpage access is restored, he can however post an appeal on his talkpage for someone to copy to WP:AE on his behalf... (another good reason for unprotecting the talkpage) WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  While correct in a sense: all admin actions (with very very few exceptions) are subject to review and can potentially be overturned as a result of community consensus at an appropriate venue. eg here. If consensus is the basic admin action is inappropriate, its irrelevant if the sanctioned user has appealed it or not. We dont continue to punish people when consensus is the punishment is unwarranted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hyperbolic venting

• And purely for the benefit of those unaware of the meaning of that expression: - see "Gentry’s Equine and Canine Paradox." -- Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Martinevans123 is referring to OID's use of "dog and pony show". I believe it also used in the sense of a presentation that is required to fulfill contractual obligations but is, in fact, almost totally unnecessary, consisting mostly of smoke and mirrors, or spun up out of meager content. At least, that's the way I've heard it used in the theatrical biz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Without endorsing the sentiment, I thought he was referring to what the article describes as "a jocular lack of appreciation," which is surely a better way of expressing disagreement than the more common "hyperbolic venting" for which these noticeboards are so famous. Ah well. Martinevans123, as always thanks for the entertaining page link. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• What? No opinion about whether TRM should have been blocked, and no opinion about whether a blocked TRM should have access to his talk page, but it's downright absurd to give the page full protection unless there's active disruption by other users going on at the same time. If you don't want to allow the editor to edit his talk page, just tick the box for "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" when you're specifying the block settings. There's no need to prevent other people from editing it. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes with admin eyes watching the page to make sure the situation isn't exacerbated over the block period by TRM or his detractors. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. Every time he's been given talk page access during a block in the past, he's used it to edit by proxy behind the block. The point of these short-term blocks is to incentivize a change in behavior so we don't have to go long-term. This is a case of "for your own good". If TRM doesn't feel any impact from being blocked because they continue like normal by proxy, then they will continue being a general nuisance and eventually be indeffed by ArbCom. This is the reason why ArbCom added the restricted talk page access option to the remedy in the first place (as confirmed by an arbitrator I've talked to). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If it’s gonna happen, better for it to happen on-wiki. This is an awful precedent to be setting, and will only harm the legitimacy of the Committee. That we even have an arbitrator !voting in this discussion is almost as outrageous as the fact that an arbitrator took this action while a case was pending. This is unbelievably shortsighted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Blocks and protection are intended to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not put editors on the naughty step. If the use an editor will make of their talkpage while blocked is to "proxy" helpful edits that improve the content of Wikipedia, this is a good thing. For that matter, TRM is welcome to contact me by email or indeed on my talkpage on other Wikipedia projects where he is mot blocked to let me know of WP:ERRORS in mainpage content that ought to be corrected. WJBscribe (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, purely in my capacity as a regular editor, and largely per BU Rob13. Additionally, this is also for TRM's own good, so that he doesn't shoot himself in the foot during his block. Giving him back talk page access would, whether that's the intention or not, be an exercise in WP:ROPE. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Let us gag him in order to save him, I guess? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mendaliv: Gag him from what? What is he going to do with talk page access that he should be doing or needs to do so urgently that it can't wait til his block is over? And is it worth getting that done at the potential cost of him shooting himself in the foot? I'm honestly curious. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - BU Rob13 brings up an excellent point of how this has been abused in the past for editing by proxy. Removing the protection would enable this behavior to continue and potentially jeopardize his ability to continue with the project. -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - Per BU Rob13, mainly. TRM has an avenue to request unblocking still, so there is no requirement for TPA. Additionally, I find the push to overrule enforcement with denigrating remarks inappropriate. There are reasons TRM is where he is at right now. – Nihlus (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as GW has imposed per BU Rob 13, and since the restrictions placed by GW are within reasonable admin discretion. I'm not convinced it's going to work to effect a behavioural change, but it's worth a try since nothing else seems to be working. Martinp (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. In addition to what Rob13 said above, it's worth pointing out that ArbCom was specifically aware of that past history, and therefore made it part of The Rambling Man's restrictions: The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block. The people who are treating this as a bizarre and unusual situation must be unfamiliar with the circumstances of the case. --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No way. ArbCom do not have the power to overrule the protection policy and its WP:PREEMPT provision. Blocking without talk page access may or may not be reasonable (not having investigated, I offer no opinion there), but full-protecting the page is outright unacceptable. No disruption by other editors was occurring shortly before this protection was levied — a sockmaster came by to disrupt things, leading to semiprotection on the 21st, but other than that and a message delivery, all that happened in the days before this protection was a couple of instances of people chatting with TRM. Blocking him with no talk page access means that people won't be able to talk with him, so if you're intending to stop this kind of conversation, you don't need any kind of protection. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose you must disagree with discretionary sanctions then. --Rschen7754 04:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the full protection - Did anybody notice the lack of the required AN notification on User talk:The Rambling Man? Talk page access hasn't just been revoked, the talk page has been given full protection which prevents any editor from editing it except those with administrator tools. The minimum that needs to be done is having the protection removed so that other editors can give required notifications (such as the one currently being neglected). I have no opinion on whether talk page access should remain revoked. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• TRM has still got e-mail access. Most probably someone has already used that to notify him of this discussion, but just in case no one has, I just did so.
  E-mail is also a means for editors who have been involved in collaborative efforts with TRM to communicate with him, and, with a minimum of effort, group e-mails can be used for projects with multiple collaborators. Yes, it's a little bit of a burden, but not so much so that any necessary communication can't be carried out quite effectively. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• And that use of e-mail is also part of why we ought not protect the user talk page. We shouldn't encourage a situation where we have yet more secret e-mail loops forming. Let's do our work out in the open. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that we're "encouraging" situations such as this, I think this situation came about pretty much because of the editor's own behavior (it was a fairly predictable result of violating the sanction), and the suggestion of using e-mail is simply answering those who claim that TRM cannot now participate in ongoing collaborations with other editors; because the e-mail option exists, that's not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Mainly because it's unnecessary. TRM, while arguably being too forward, hadn't said anything untrue in the statements that lead to his block and TP protection. The ridiculous amount of bureaucracy in this case is enough to make anyone want to bang their head against a wall. Secondly, I find the idea that he shouldn't be granted TP access because he may "edit by proxy" which, the last time, did nothing but improve the encyclopedia, a bizarre argument against removing the protection. Capeo (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - The block is another discussion for another day however inregards to the tp access revoking in my eyes it was overkill to say the least and it obviously should've never have been done in the first place. –Davey2010^Talk 02:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No per Beyond My Ken, who said the words better than I could have, and BU Rob13, who hits the nail on the head so hard that it's gone through the wood and out the other side. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. This is absurd and unnecessary. I don't see any sign of talk page abuse that would suggest the need for this drastic action. If he abuses it, then shut it off. But a preemptive strike? Not so much. agtx 03:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Agtx: Could you expand on that a bit? Do you mean that you looked at TRM's recent talk page activity and didn't see anything there that would justify GW taking the action she did, or do you mean that you examined TRM's behavior in all the past circumstances where he was blocked, including those which led to ArbCom including this in his sanction "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block"? [70] Clearly GW was within her discretion, since the sanction specifically gives that to her, so arguments against her being allowed to do it are pretty much null-and-void, while arguments which turn on whether she should have done it rather turn on having a good overall view of TRM's behavior, which an arbitrator is more likely to have a handle on more than the majority of those posting here, myself incluyded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: The first, which I think is enough. I understand that's part of the sanction, but it's an additional thing, right? As in, the admin can block TRM, or the admin can block TRM and fully protect the talk page. If the admin is going to do both things, then there has to be a reason for it related to the violation of the sanction (that is, TRM's recent behavior). I don't know what that would be other than talk page abuse, and I'm not seeing it here. agtx 04:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's not additional thing in the sense that the admin has to have additional evidence to impose the talk page restrictions: it's totally at the discretion of the admin, with no requirement for a more onerous evidential burden then needed to simply block. The sanction read, in toto:

  4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

  If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

  If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

  The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

  Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

  As for just reading the current talk page actitivty of TRM, that's really not sufficient, and I don't believe that GW's action was based on that (or that's the impression I got from reading her talk page responses.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I read the sanction, and I read GW's justification on her talk page. I think that the way you're looking at this is just a little too formalistic. Evidentiary burdens? That's not what this is about. The question is whether GW used her discretion in a way that lines up with the views of the community. I say no, she didn't this time. Clearly you disagree, and that's fine. agtx 04:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• ArbCom sanctions and enforcement action pretty much have to be "formalistic", considering the amount of Wikilawyering they'r esubject to, and the scrutiny (such as this) given to the Committee and the admins who carry out enforcement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This sums it up. This situation is a perfect example of something where the enacted enforcement protocols were followed, as written. Consider how much discussion and debate has been generated. Any time steps are skipped or actions are done without due process, it almost always causes a tsunami of debate and contention. The reason being is that ArbCom issues are generally the most controversial issues on the project. Issues with unanimous consensus rarely make it to ArbCom with the exception of a few areas. Mkdw ^talk 15:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No--PerRob13.Largely for his own good.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No per Rob13; Beyond My Ken; and Ks0stm; and per GW's presented rationale, which I will quote here with a diff [71]. I wish it was quoted earlier, maybe it would make a difference:

Regarding why I placed the TPP, it was because of TRM's past history in reacting to blocks (and I believe this is why that enforcement was authorized to begin with). In the past, TRM has responded to blocks by generally whipping himself and others into a frenzy, often goaded or egged on by folks who want to push his buttons. He's in the past made things worse for himself, as well as wasted a lot of time for people trying to keep it under control, so I decided to include the TPP to avoid that. I feel like it's worked fairly well—folks with concerns about the block/protection have still been able to discuss their concerns, and TRM has been able to discuss the block via email with myself and the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In particular, my concern is others unfairly egging him on, which then creates a situation. TRM has lately been an effective editor during talk page discussions over at Talk:2017. I want the best outcome for him. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No per Rob13 and Steve Quinn. --Rschen7754 04:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• It should be noted, the 2016 arbitration motion grants that the "enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block". The WP:ACDS policy states, "All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful." In the same section, "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction". Consensus requires a basis in Wikipedia policy. Based upon the relevant policies, there is no policy-based standing to overturn the sanctioned administrative action. TRM may only make a private email appeal under the current circumstance. I can only presume that this was intentionally implemented; it seems very specific to allow an enforcing admin to fully protect a user talk page during an enforcement block. Mkdw ^talk 04:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Specific indeed. In fact, I believe that language was added to the proposed decision in the case by GW, as drafting arbitrator, unless I'm misreading the timeline. -- Begoon 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw: GorillaWarfare has agreed to the lifting of the protection if this discussion shows a consensus to do so [72]. It was with the interpretation of the rules you have advanced in mind that I asked for her agreement. WJBscribe (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It can equally be noted that IAR trumps those policies you've highlighted, @Mkdw. It can also be noted that there has been an observation that TRM has continued to improve the pedia through his talk page whilst blocked which, in my view, lends more weight on the applicability of IAR Dax Bane 05:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. As much of unpopular an opinion this may be, The Rambling Man knew what was coming. I don't take TRM as a fool who just slipped. ArbCom has already made an amended remedy that specifically says that TRM is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. His comments here fell afoul of that undoubtedly to me. His arbitration enforcement also states that the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block. This is less about GorillaWarfare and more about how TRM's next escalating block, if the pattern follows, goes to a month. Not following the remedies already set out encourages this behavior. There is already an appeals process for how to go about being unblocked and this isn't that route. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - I guess I should express my view. Two things to consider: an Arb could have simply barred TRM from commenting at the Workshop talk page or take the time to realize the Workshop would close in a few days. Other editors have noted that TRM has contributed to their projects and this inability to even edit his talk page is impeding progress. The inability to discuss with TRM before blocking was a huge misstep and the "protection" of his talk page on top of that makes this overkill. What is this preventing: open discussion, supportive messages, collaboration? My word, the horror!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No I agree with Beyond My Ken and BU Rob13, and accept the explanation for the talk page restriction offered by Gorilla Warfare. The sanctioned editor must learn now to moderate their behavior which has been problematic for years, but they have thus far failed to do so. No editor is indispensible, no matter the number of members of their fan club. This editor should take the sanctions to heart, and comply with them diligently upon their return to editing. Or find some other hobby. Countless people edit without such drama. Drop it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, per BMK, BU Rob13, Cullen328, and others. The editor has stirred up more drama on Wikipedia than any other editor in recent memory, Eric included. There's no need for there to be more drama now on his talk page, or proxy editing, or further self-incriminating actions. Wikipedia can function without that, and without his on-wiki input, for the duration of the block. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. A suitable rationale wasn't given in the first place (apart from "the possibility is given in the finding") and inventing ones after the fact in this discussion is not exactly helping. FP should be for vandals and similar culprits. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Pointless, punitive, stupid and, I fear, makes it look like the Committee wants to push TRM towards the exit, which is entirely in line with so many of its actions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No TRM can appeal the block through other means if they want to, and as the discussion here clearly illustrates, there's no shortage of places where interested editors can discuss ArbCom's actions and ways forward. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Nick-D You misunderstand. The question is not about TRM's block. It's about the fact that I, for example, am prevented from posting at his talk page, because an Arb has protected it. The question is whether that protection is improper. If I edit TRM's talk page abusively, block me. Don't protect the page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  The second half of my comment addresses that point. There is no need for the talk page to be active for the next few days, and given the history here it appears to be for the best for it to not be. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  "There is no need for the talk page to be active for the next few days" So, we should always apply full page protection every time we block a user? Because there's no need for their user talk while blocked? That's a bad rationale. And while I admire your self-confidence, you're basing your assumption on a false premise. While TRM is blocked, I and thousands of other editors, are not and I may have 20 good uses for TRM's user talk "over the next few days". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  WP:There is no deadline, and no editor is indispensable. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  "no editor is indispensable". Understood. On tomorrow's OTD - Alouette 1 has several {{fact}} tags, 1991 Haitian coup d'état has unsourced paragraphs, same with Guadalupe Victoria, and Michaelmas. Can you fix?. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  WP:SOFIXIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  I will admit to being biased against the Main Page -- I wouldn't mind if the majority of it was scrapped -- but it certainly must be a structural fault if a section of it is set up in such a way that a single editor is vitally necessary for its proper running. We really cannot afford for that to be the case -- for want of a nail... -- and it points to the need for some kind of restructuring so that if that vital editor is lost (for whatever reason) the section can continue operating as usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No - action within admin discretion, explicitly authorized by Arbcom, and reasonable given the history of talk page protection being needed when TRM is blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: what history of protection being needed? See the protection log. His talkpage has only been fully protected once for a total of less than two hours, when it removed by another admin and not restored. WJBscribe (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: I'm referring to the Arbcom case's enforcement log, where it is noted that TRM's talk page was fully protected in tandem with arbitration enforcement block in March of this year, and that the validity of that block was challenged and upheld (though its length was reduced). I admit that this particular enforcement provision is unusually harsh, however I have to assume that because of its unusual-ness, the Committee had good reason to offer the remedy of restricting all edits to the page, not just the usual user-level talk page revocation we see for users misusing it during a block (which doesn't seem to be the case here anyway). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No Gorrillawarfare should not have agreed to this AN process, but since she has, reviewing it as an admin action, given her reason, and given ARBPOL and the documented history at WP:AE, her action is within reasoned discretion (the only way reasoned discretion can't be found is if you assume bad faith, which should not be assumed) - that only leaves whether locking the page, instead of just taking away talk page access to the blocked user is the better choice, but that is practically a thing without any difference - as we have seen, there are multiple forums available to non-blocked users to talk about this and send their good wishes, as well as communication by e-mail. For the future, I recommend placement of the reason in the template, in addition to the reason for the block. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. For all the reasons give by those who voted 'yes'. Plus being a member of Arbcom does not provide immunity against criticism for their admin actions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• A surprising thing to say. Where has anyone claimed that members of Arbcom should be immune to criticism? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - if the idea was to prevent TRM from "proxying" while blocked (which strikes me as a goal totally at odds with our actual function as an enyclcopedia... remember that folks, we're here to write an encyclopedia???) then prohibiting his access to his TP would be enough. Frankly, I found the full protection to be overkill and struck me as the blocking arb (because give me a break - who is likely to forget the blocker was an arb here) trying to stifle oppostion. Your milage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - wrong decision, even if on paper within the discretion of the blocker. Using extreme measures in non extreme circumstances is more about attitude than necessity. Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Seems OTT. And the blocking admin seems to care more about a pet cat, than being accountable for this mess. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• That personal attack is uncalled for. GW has explained her reasoning on her talk page (even though I happen to disagree with it.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Seconded as being uncalled for - please give your opinion, but keep it civil. Your point is equally valid without the personal dig -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Kind of an odd thing to say. Of course I care about my pet cat, and I'm responsible for keeping him healthy. Would you have preferred I cancel the vet appointment so I could respond on my talk page a few hours sooner? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite a big time gap between you locking down TRM's page, your appearance to say you're "busy" and your return here. So pretty please, with sugar ontop, please sort out this mess you created. Thank you ever so much. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What? That's not at all how it happened. I locked down TRM's page, then returned to answer some of the questions and explained why I had been gone a bit longer than normal. I didn't just return to say I'm busy and then leave again. I've been regularly checking my talk page and this discussion in case there are things I can clarify or answer. I guess I did go away again once, but I can't imagine you want me to not sleep as well as neglect my cat's health... I've already said that I will respect the outcome of this discussion, and so am letting it run its course. If there's a question or something I can clarify and I've missed it, please point it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it happened. As you're not very active at all, it's easy to get the diffs: Locked down TRM page at 00:13, 26 September 2017‎. Replied on your talkpage with your cat story at 21:06, 27 September 2017. Turn up here to reply at 17:44, 28 September 2017, with a small number of edits in between, but none really addressing the issue. There's nearly 48hrs between the first two timestamps and almost 24hrs between the last (IE the best part of three days). And for the record, a human life (TRM) out-weighs the importance of any other living being. It just seems odd, if not bad, that such a controversial action that you did, you seem to have vanished for most of the time after it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, you are not helping with your hyperbole. Yes, a human life outweighs the life of other creatures, but TRMs life was not at stake, it's just his user talk page which is protected. GorillaWarfare should not have fully protected it (that it is allowed by ArbCom doesn't mean that it has to be done, thta is solely your own choice and respnsability), and the protection should long have been lifted seeing that it is clearly controversial and there is no consensus (and no good reason) for it; but attck them on those grounds, not on some "you value your cat above the life of TRM" nonsensical angle. Fram (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking back to the issue of User:Coffee, when he was bullied by an admin and that nearly ended VERY badly. Thankfully, he was OK. I'm not saying that TRM is in the same situation, but as a long-standing, long-term editor, I do question the mental state of such users when they are essentially gagged, with no right of reply. I doubt he'd contest the block, or even if he did, it being sucessful, but this lockdown is certainly not the right way to go about it. Now to take my weasel for a walk. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Your comments are extremely inappropriate and ridiculous. As others have stated, your use of personal attacks and aspersions is out of line and should be struck. ...a human life (TRM) out-weighs the importance of any other living being. This is insanity. She is not putting up TRM for execution and he will survive through this block. If you don't strike out these comments, I ask that an administrator who reads this handle it themselves. – Nihlus (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I've been closely watching this discussion, as well as comments on my talk page. I am letting the discussion run its course, and while I am happy to answer any questions or concerns that I can clarify, it would be more disruptive than helpful for me to respond to every point here. There have been a number of rhetorical questions, but I don't think I've missed any where someone actually wanted me to answer. If I have, again, please point them out.

Also, this thing about my cat is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm pretty amazed you're continuing that point. Canceling his vet appointment so that I could respond to a question a couple of hours sooner would've meant at least a week's more discomfort for him, given my vet's general availability. Trying to make some sort of equivalency between my cat's well-being and TRM's life is ridiculous hyperbole—this isn't a case where TRM also had ear mites and I was solely responsible for getting him medical care. As for your point about the mental health of blocked editors who can't edit their talk page, that happens many times a day. If you were actually concerned about that and not trying to make some ridiculous point here, I'd think you'd be discussing that more widely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well other users are now questioning your incredible poor timing in dealing with the matter in hand. (SagaciousPhil, for one, in the section below). Are they wrong too? Also, now you're back, please can you answer the question from yesterday evening, if that's OK. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are wrong. I've said as much below. And thank you for pinging me there just now; I've responded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Rather than the crowbar, I'll apply the feather. Nihlus is mostly correct here, minus the unnecessary threat of admin enforcement. If it was coming, it would have already come. He's on an admin noticeboard with many admins present here. That said, Nihlus is right that TRM isn't up for execution - at least, even in account form, not yet. Perhaps leave the pet cat out of it. GW is actually accountable for her cat. Admin accountability does actually come second to real-life accountability. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• In 1943, Abraham Maslow formulated his hierarchy of needs and identified the most basic physiological needs for human survival, including food, water, air, clothing, medical care, shelter, and Wikipedia talk page access. If you actually believe this Lugnuts, then you lack the proper perspective and competence to edit Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The care of a living thing is more important than your sense of entitlement. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Did I just read this right? That the health of a family member, whether 4 or 2 legged (or even 3 legged) is less important than what goes on at a website? Seriously? Someone needs their priorities checked. Hopefully, you'll never have to make a choice between taking care of a loved one and what goes on, on the fucking internet, because who knows what will happen to your loved one. Blackmane (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - Unnecessary action. TRM's TP access can be revoked if he steps out of line. Semi-protection should be enough to keep away "grave-dancers."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - full protection of a user talk page should be extremely rare. Jonathunder (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No No editor is indispensable, and Wikipedia seems to have coped last time without TRM editing via proxy so it'll cope again. GW's actions are very much within what's allowed- in fact, explicitly stated as allowed. Sandstein did the same in March and whilst GW's inital response was not ideal, this complaint appears to be more about Arbcom bashing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. If you don't like the restriction, appeal it through proper channels. If you don't like the policy, get a consensus to get it changed. All you are doing here is carving out an exception for an popular editor, which essentially means some editors are more equal than others. As Jcc said, no editor is indispensable. If the encyclopedia survived without RickK, it can survive without TRM's talk page for the duration of the block. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• No protecting the talk page is explicitly permitted in the remedy, so obviously the arbitrators thought it was reasonable and may be necessary, and the justification for it looks perfectly reasonable to me. I'm sure the sky isn't going to fall in if nobody edits this talk page for a fortnight. Hut 8.5 19:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes In response to BU_Rob13 and his concerns regarding TRM's use of the talk page to "edit by proxy behind the block", I think that the strongest arguments for restoring talk page access comes from certain members of ArbCom themselves in a prior case involving TRM, so Yes per Drmies[73], Doug Weller [74], and Opabinia regalis [75]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsareArde (talk • contribs)

• The above editor has 16 edits to their name (March 2015-present), only 2 of which are to articles. [76] Their edits are also widely separated in time. [77] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• So... what happened with that "Clarification and amendment" earlier this year? Was Sandstein's page protection overturned, and what then occurred on TRM's talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sandstein's protection was removed by Bishonen about two hours after it was placed initially. The "Clarification and amendment" was abandoned as moot as the protection had already been removed and the block reduced to a week by appeal [78](time served). In regards to my post quantity, I can only direct you to the comment I made on my talk page.DsareArde (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I read that, it was ... unconvincing. All I can say is that a legitimate editor with a record such as yours should consider accumulating a little credibility as an editor before wading in to highly contentious issues such as this one. And I would say that no matter what your !vote was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The readers are the ones who suffer while TRM's talk page remains blocked. I'm certainly no great editor, but I read articles on this website every day (most often from navigating off the main page). To be frank, readers likely don't care about this little dance that editors play, and therefore everything we do should benefit them. Like...letting prolific contributors contribute. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• That would seem to be an argument against the block which TRM received, which is specifically not the subject of this survey. As pointed out numerous times, editors who need to interact with TRM regarding projects they are collaborating on can do so by e-mail, so nothing is preventing them from editing; the only editor prevented from contributing is TRM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken I'm not talking about the block (which was bad - arbcom blocking someone critical of arbcom actions in a certain case during said case), but about the full talk page protection. Last time TRM was blocked he posted main page errors he saw on his talk page for others to correct. To me this is an improving the project, which should be every editor's goal. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, as per Ealdgyth who took the words out of my typing fingers. My wording would, however, have gone on to be far more vehement in condemning the action taken especially as the admin/arbitrator has already been a named party in an ArbCom case where her previous unilateral actions were deemed "suboptimal". In the light of the current ArbCom case, to revoke TPA and fully protect the talk page is further suboptimal behaviour as it can indeed be seen as an arbitrator choosing to stifle opposition and take punitive action just because she can. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Are all editors expected to blindly accept authority? Many of the "no" !votes sound to me like "it was made by a member of ArbCom thus it must be perfect". People in high positions make mistakes too. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @A lad insane: God I hope not. XD We're not infallible. One glance at the number of clarification and amendment requests at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 is enough evidence of that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I notice a trend upthread. Most "yes" opinions came in during the evening in the UK, while most "no" opinions came in during the evening in the US. This sounds like that "cultural differences" thing rearing its head again. People are asserting that TRM was insulting or belittling, but all I see is fair comment. If somebody asserts that Arbcom over-react and punish people, and Arbcom then does something that looks like over-reacting and punishment even if they did not intend it to be, then people will think it's true! I'm reminded of something I learned a while back when moderating web forums successfully - it's not enough that justice is done, you have to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, and I've never seen any "cultural differences" be called in or observed at any other similar poll here on Wikipedia. Nor are most of the Yes !votes British or a greater percentage (population count taken into account) American from what I can see. What I see is the earliest respondents were those who were arguing with or objecting to GorillaWarfare on her talkpage (or at least watching it because they objected to her action), and thus immediately saw the link to this discussion which was posted there immediately after this thread was opened. No one appeared to want to break the tide until BMK, which then somehow gave permission to other dissenting !votes. Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with BMK's insights - all that's happened is the drama that would have happened on TRM's talk page has migrated on GorillaWarfare's (and here) instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

+1. Many of the "No" votes talk about TRM's behaviour, but miss the point that we're not talking about the block, but about the gagging order on his talk page. If you remove the "No" votes that concentrate on discussing TRM's behaviour, rather than talk page access, the numbers drop considerably. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any "No" !votes that are dealing with whether TRM should or should not be blocked. Some of them do refer to TRM's past behavior, that's true, but only as a factor in why GW would opt for imposing the discretionary talk page protection, which seems to me to be a perfectly valid argument. I see no reason to "drop" any "No" !votes, unless we're also going to consider dropping the knee-jerk anti-ArbCom "Yes" !votes as well, but I wouldn't support that either. People have numerous reasons for commenting the way that they do, and it's a pretty slippery slope if we start eliminating only those whose reasoning appears to us to be erroneous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to look more closely. Several deal just with the block, so I'm surprised you can't see them. All I asuggesting is ignoring those votes that do not deal with TPA, which is entirely logical, given that is the topic under discussion. SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please enumerate the !No votes which "deal just with the block" and "do not deal with TPA"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you can read them for yourself. SchroCat (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not, since, in my estimation, none of the "No" !votes meet your criteria, which is why I'm asking you, the person who is making this claim – and suggesting that certain !votes should be discounted – to back up your opinion with a bit of evidence. It shouldn't be all that onerous for you to list the "No" !votes which "deal just with the block" and "do not deal with TPA". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. I didn't see any Ivotes which deal with "just" the block. I believe the talk page full protection was noted.

Ritchie333 I think saying "the drama that would have happened on TRM's talk page has migrated on GorillaWarfare's (and here)" could be an insightful comment. It was GW's intention to keep the heavy drama and grave-dancers off TRM's talk page to keep things from going further south for everyone involved [79]. So maybe GW did indeed make the correct call. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't really what I was getting it - rather I was saying with perhaps a little more forethought, GorillaWarfare might have thought "hang on, if I do a long block and lock TRM's talk page, I'm going to eat shit for it on ANI. I probably don't have time for that. What's another option that calms down the disruption on the Arbcom case that doesn't mean I eat shit at ANI? Hmmm....." And now she's protesting that she doesn't have time to deal with this and real life is getting in the way. What on earth did she expect? Like chess, it's sometimes a good idea to look 3-4 moves ahead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That requires a ... remarkable level of assumption on your part. Where, exactly, has GorillaWarfare said that she doesn't have the time to deal with this? (Please don't tell me that you, too, are referencing the need to sleep and take a cat to the vet for a couple hours.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I'm getting it. Let me give you a practical example : recently I blocked My name is not dave for going over WP:3RR - he went over the limit, and a block was the best and fairest option out of all I considered (IIRC I personally agreed with his edits, but as an admin you can't take sides). I also anticipated that, as an experienced editor, he would have something to say about it, so I made sure I was around for the afternoon to listen to it. In the end, Oshwah got to the unblock request first, but the principle holds - as soon as I got a note along the lines of "oops, yeah, went over 3RR, sorry" I would have unblocked anyway. The point here is that I didn't block without making absolutely sure I had the time to deal with any fallout afterwards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd reiterate what The Ed17 said: can you point to where I've said I don't have time to deal with this? If I have, I sure don't remember. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why carry out an action that in all probability was going to cause re-actions/problems if you were having to leave for an appointment and would, therefore, be unavailable to promptly respond to queries? That is what infers "not having time". SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, I blocked TRM at 23:13 on 25 September. If memory serves, I was online until about midnight my time (4:00 UTC). The first talk page message I got about it was at 7:51, which would have been almost 4am for me. From the way you worded this it seems like you think I blocked and then almost immediately left—the appointment was the following day. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, GorillaWarfare, so it was the following morning that you didn't have time to check anything before going to the vet appointment? That still infers you "didn't have time" though, doesn't it? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Like many Wikipedians, I have to sleep, work full time, and care for my pet. Next time I make a block, should I be sure to take a week off from work and hire a petsitter? We're not talking about someone who made a block and immediately logged off, or made a block and then left for a week-long trip with no internet access. I made a block, stayed online for over four hours, went to sleep, went to work, left work early to take my pet to the vet, and then logged back on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you did not have time, which is what you were claiming was not the case above. Now, if you'll forgive me, it is Friday evening in the UK and I now have things to do in real life too. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is rather enough about GW's cat. Admin accountability does not require that admins must respond immediately to every situation that may present itself whilst we go on with our actual lives, nor does it require admins to be available 24 hours a day just in case something happens. GW responded promptly when she was able to do so. That is all that is required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree on this point. It would be one thing that if GW placed the block knowing they would be without internet accept for 1-2 weeks immediately afterwards. Not being available for a few hours to a day after a block (even knowing one would be gone) is completely fair and reasonable as long as they responded in a reasonably timely manner from that point (as did happen). --MASEM (t) 17:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clearly we have very different ideas of "having time"; I'd thought most people accounted for normal sleep, work, etc. in their interpretations, but apparently not. Anyway, enjoy your evening! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a salient point here - you blocked a long standing editor with multiple FAs under their belt for two weeks with all avenues of communication disabled. Nobody asked you to do that. Can you not see how that might be controversial, and you might get disagreement and argument over that? You should, as you were dragged to Arbcom last time you pulled a similar stunt. If you don't want to be picked apart, do not do controversial stuff like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course I understand that it's controversial, and nowhere have I said that I don't want criticism. In fact, I've said the opposite: that I welcome people to discuss the action, and that I'll respect the outcome of such a discussion ([80], and at least twice more since). What I do not agree with are folks implying that I should have forgone sleep, work, and a veterinary visit for my cat in order to respond to inquiries immediately at any hour. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"In other words, you did not have time, which is what you were claiming was not the case above." That is not true. If you believe it to be, please provide the quote and the diff. Softlavender (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec)GorillaWarfare, since you have time to deal with this, could you perhaps, you know, deal with it. There clearly is no consensus for your action, and you were under no obligation from the arbcom restrictions to add that protection. It is a nuisance to good faith editors like Gerda Arendt above, and there is no history of this being necessary with previous blocks. So there is no justification to let this protection continue any longer. Fram (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also no consensus to undo it, and my understanding is that she said she would undo it if there was consensus to do so. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had been planning to undo the protection when this discussion was fairly unanimous against it. Now that a fair amount of folks have expressed opinions either way, I'd rather have an uninvolved party evaluate the consensus. Whatever they decide, I will respect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I just cannot piece the rationality of this move together. Are editors like Gerda really the devil in disguise ("oh yes you are"), making preparations to dance all over TRM's grave whenever he is blocked? No. They want to work with their colleague, and express support for him. I have read the comments above -- no one is indispensable -- but some editors don't just see each other as another slab of meat ready to be replaced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would you think that the talk page protection is a personal reflection on Gerda? After all, when someone's talk page is bombed with vandalism and needs to be semi-protected, we don't take that as a reflection on all IPs and unconfirmed editors, do we? It's just a necessary action taken because of the behavior of some. It's been explained what has happened in the past on TRM's talk page when he's been blocked, and that the remedy was imposed to prevent that from recurring again. That's no reflection on editors who may have legitimate and non-disruptive business with TRM, although they suffer from the remedy, just as the good IPs and unconfirmed editors do during vandalism semi-protections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The rationality is probably worth taking up with Arbcom in a clarification request. They're the ones who offered it as a remedy, and it's obviously contentious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that given the response here, and the degree of misunderstanding displayed by !voters on both sides of the aisle, a clarification from ArbCom as to the purpose of the remedy, and their feelings about the application of it, would be helpful. As you say, the best route would be for someone -- perhaps one of the participants who have been most adamant;y opposed to the current use of the remedy -- to file a Clarification Request with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Close

Come on now. For or against, we don't need anymore !votes just an admin who will box this - we all know what the above means - and I would close it but then someone would perhaps say I can't unprotect it. So, just close, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is overturning an arbitration enforcement action. It needs at least 24 hours discussion. Flash decisions on arb enforcement actions are great ways to get sanctioned for reverting an arb enforcement action without adequate discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I don't think that's in the rules - and no there will be no benefit to anyone or the project leaving this open, I am sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:Blocking policy requires a clear, substantial, active consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn. It's not clear that a discussion can be clear if flash closed before the truly uninvolved editors (e.g. those not watching TRM's talk page or related discussions) can notice the discussion and comment. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support closing this insanity now. Every minute this continues is another blemish on the committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I second what BU Rob13 said. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ks0stm:, are you fucking serious right now? You're an Arb. You're !voting? You can't say it's in your capacity as an "editor" when the subject you're voting on is party to a current Arb case. TRM is too forward about how bad this current committee is but, damn, he's not wrong. Capeo (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Capeo: I already said in my vote to accept that case that I would functionally recuse from aspects of the proposed decision, if any, that address TRM or his conduct. I still plan to do so. Further, for what it's worth, just because I'm an arbitrator doesn't mean every comment on an administrative situation is in my capacity as an arbitrator. The same goes for my checkuser and oversight roles, too. After all, I'm a regular editor like you, just with a few extra roles I also perform. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Can't? Where does it say that he can't? – Nihlus (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm:, then you shouldn't "functionally recuse", you should just recuse. The idea that you're going to be impartial to one party while voting to maintain restrictions on another party is, frankly, preposterous. And, yes, because you're an arbitrator "doesn't mean every comment on an administrative situation is in my capacity as an arbitrator" except when there's a friggin' case going on dealing with a party you're voting on. How is that hard to understand? Capeo (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"The idea that you're going to be impartial to one party while voting to maintain restrictions on another party is, frankly, preposterous" I can, and I will. TRM may grind my gears in the wrong way, but I've pretty much never interacted with Arthur Rubin, and the fact that the situation that brought about his case involved TRM won't compromise my ability to judge his conduct neutrally. It's not as if I think someone gets a free pass for breaking policy just because they do it towards TRM. Futher, there's precedent for partial recusals, so it's not as if I'm doing something unheard of in that regard. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Guess it's time for the community to fix the Committee if you won't police your own behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest "fixing" something that is actually broken instead? Ks0stm is entirely correct; partial recusals are allowed and do not cause any problems. There are places where arbcom policies could be improved, but this isn't one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering how much work it takes to get the Committee to even accept a desysop case, I think it's entirely appropriate to talk about making structural changes to how arbitration works on Wikipedia. What we're seeing here is a symptom of a far more serious disease. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior by an arb. Talking about making structural changes to how arbitration works on Wikipedia is fine, but you are hanging your coat on the wrong coatrack. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon here: there's nothing in this case that screams "systemic failure", just a normal application of a discretionary sanction by an admin. If GW is at fault (which I don't believe she is), it's her fault, not that of the sanction or the committee that put it in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you can call something that elicits such broad-based, reasoned outrage as you see above "normal" is exactly why I call this a structural problem in the arbitration system; why it is a symptom of a far more serious disease, as I stated above. Sitting arbitrators should not be blocking or unblocking parties to cases where they are active at all. Where there is misconduct within the scope of an ongoing proceeding is one thing, but for an arbitrator who is supposed to be an impartial finder of fact to undertake actions outside the scope of and unconnected to the active case with respect to a party is simply unacceptable. It's high time to put the illogic of ends justifying means to bed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No. There is nothing reasonable about "outrage" here. Yes, the admins, including arbitrators should block people during arbitration cases for breach of remedies. It only makes sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I said "reasoned" not "reasonable". As in there is reasoning involved. That you don't personally find it reasonable is immaterial. As to your belief that arbitrators can function as any other administrator in any context, I find disturbing, and frankly indicative of the structural, and perhaps cultural, failings I hint at above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, partial recusal is allowed, but as I said to GorillaWarfare, why not simply just recuse instead? There are easily enough Arbs to take the case and you don't run the risk of someone turning round later with "Well, of course you would vote that way, because ...". Isn't it simply more trouble than it's worth? Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone above voting "no": why is full protection necessary, and not standard talk page access revocation? That it is allowed by the Arbcom case is not a justification, there has to be a specific reason why full protection is chosen here, and I haven't seen that yet. Fram (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Presumably to prohibit grave dancing or other such behavior, though to be honest I'm not 100% for sure. I'll defer to others who may know more about why full protection was chosen for the remedy. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Pre-emptively fully protecting a talk page to prohobit grave dancing? Deal with the editors who act thus instead perhaps? Fram (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I can see an argument to be made for that, I suppose. Might be worth bringing up at WP:ARCA. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
        • This is an abnormal remedy for an abnormal situation. In the past, TRM suffered from gravedancers and rather inevitable blow-ups as a result of them. It is obviously not optimal to allow that to continue, nor is it optimal to revoke TPA to TRM while allowing the gravedancers (often unblockables themselves!) to proceed without TRM even being able to respond. In light of the history, I support the remedy as-is. I usually would not in less extreme circumstances. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
          • If the purpose of the remedy is to prevent gravedancing, then it must be intended for TRM's benefit, not to punish him. It should therefore be a matter for him whether or not such a protection is applied, and he wants it to be lifted. WJBscribe (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Grave dancing is easily dealt with by blocking people and if needed semi-protection. Not full protection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
          • BU Rob13, there are very few actual unblockables (if any). There are some admins who had a habit of swiftly unblocking some people no matter what they had done, but in most cases this hasn't continued and in the end results in a desysop for that admin and either a long block or a long "voluntary" resignation for the "unblockable" anyway. Anyone, whether member of ArbCom, admin, co-founder, FA contributor, bot magician, ... can and in most cases has been blocked or otherwise restricted. Fram (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
            • "[T]here are very few actual unblockables (if any). I actually laughed out loud. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
              • I wanna laugh too. Who is unblockable? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                • I used to be, until I forgot making my regular payments to the slush fund. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • You should have used the payroll deduction option, I've heard it really makes a world of difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • Don't worry, admins get membership in the unblockable group free of duty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Off topic

• This is slightly off topic, but regardless the outcome of this discussion, I was wondering if anyone would oppose if good faith edits (at User:The Rambling Man or other places) can be pasted to User talk:The Rambling Man? I think it would be a reasonable step forward. Alex Shih^Talk 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course the No !voters would oppose it. How is that a "reasonable step forward"? The TP is locked to prevent activity on it. Softlavender (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that's not a very good "way forward". I commented upthread that Arbcom must have had good reason to allow preventing all edits to the page, rather than normal TPA revocation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That comment was predicated on this being an ArbComm decision, but GW has clarified it was done in an Admin capacity and not discussed with ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In her admin capacity of enforcing an arbitration decision. It's the arbs' decision to allow the page to be fully protected as enforcement which I think should be clarified, especially because Arbcom hasn't attached any conditions to that option at all other than admin discretion. I had a pretty quick look through the case workshop and proposed decision pages but I don't see anyone explaining why such an unusual restriction is necessary. It just looks to me like it was dropped into the proposal and nobody objected. I'm not very familiar with the background but I get the sense from this that "everyone knows" there's disruption via TRM's talk page when they're blocked (from them or from others), but if this was such a huge issue that long-term full protection of a talk page was made available as a remedy, it should have at least been mentioned in the case. I can't find it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It appears to have been copied from an earlier case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited. – Nihlus (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Further, the proposal was drafted by Roger Davies. – Nihlus (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion between the closing and the posting of the closing statement

• Ymblanter, You've indicated that a close "might" be coming, and you've been editing since then. On the basis that Justice delayed is justice denied, could you close this appropriately please. Dragging it out further only increases the justifiable frustration many people are feeling over this. When closing, could you also please indicate which members of ArbCom you have discussed your close with, and the substantive points of those discussions. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  It will be a multi-administrator closure, and I am currently waiting till my colleagues in North America wake up and react to what I sent them from my European time zone.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I did not discuss the substance of the closure with any ArbCom members, nor am I going to do this, though I had some technical communication with two ArbCom members (one of these exchanges is available at the bottom of my user talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for being so clear. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Ymblanter: while you are waiting, and for the sake of transparency, please indicate the names of all the admins who are involved in this "multi-administrator" close and also disclose the names of all the others it has been discussed with together with the platform(s) used. Oh, and the name of the second ArbCom member you have discussed it with. Further, would you please clarify/confirm whether you were asked to "close" this? If so, by whom? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  No, I was not asked to close this. The two other closers will be KrakatoaKatie and Primefac, and the other arbcom member I had communication with was Ks0stm. Not sure what you are asking about platforms, and which platforms, but I did not discuss the closure with anybody else.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  By platforms, I mean was it discussed via email, IRC etc, so please confirm, as I believe all actions on Wikipedia should be open and transparent. Also how was it decided who would be your fellow closers and, again, by whom? In one of your responses below, you state "we feel ....", who is "we"? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Everything was (and is still being) discussed by e-mail, ideally one of us will just post the text of the closing statement. "We" means the three closers. For the rest, I am afraid, you want to know too much, but I am not from the "admin cabal" or "IRC crowd" assuming these exist. I think my track record shows that it is impossible to force me to do smth I disagree with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't get why it would need to be a multiadmin close. The ruling authority is clear, the polling is clear. There is no consensus to modify the sanction. Period. There are some legitimate concerns, there are some questions about whether or not it was really necessary, but nothing that demonstrates abuse of power by GW, or that her actions were outside mainstream admin actions. Additionally, nothing was introduced to demonstrate the situation has changed since the block. In cases like this, where the community does not speak in one voice to overturn an otherwise legitimate sanction, the sanction stands. As always, this may be appealed directly to Arb. You are welcome to use that as the opinion of one uninvolved admin if you really need multiple admin to close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  The multi-admin close is needed because we feel that there are sides who are not going to accept a singe-admin close, with adding more drama. Concerning your reasoning, I do not think I want to discuss it here because the discussion itself is closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd disagree with that, Dennis. The pure stats are 35-21 (if you count a "leaning oppose" as "No") in favour of removing the talkpage protection. In percentage terms that's 63-37. Even if that's not "consensus", it's certainly leaning towards it. Of course, like any discussion, the important point is how convincing those arguments are, which is what the admin needs to decide. On such a controversial issue, I think leaving it on the shoulders of a single admin is not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• We're hashing out the language right now. We should have this posted in just a bit. Katie^talk 13:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, is the protection of User:The Rambling Man also going to be part of the discussion? Alex Shih^Talk 13:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's not part of the discussion above, but we're mindful of it. Katie^talk 14:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Those peppering the closers with questions and simultaneously asking for immediacy may wish to consider picking one or the other. The more questions they have to answer pre-close, the longer the close will take. I'm not saying don't seek accountability, but it's not quite fair to ask them to be doing two things at once. Many of your questions may be answered in the closing statement, and if they aren't, you can always ask them after. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning towards consensus isn't the same as consensus. When changing/overturning an admin action that is clearly allowable, clearly within the exact letter of policy or Arb ruling, I think you have to have a very clear consensus. There isn't a convincing claim of misuse here, it is all about preference. I would be loathe to overturn an action with less than 75% under these circumstances, as there isn't any showing of error or poor judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 30 September 2017 (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.

Dubious image(s)

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.

---

Posting this here because I'm not sure of the intricacies of Commons. If I have suspicions about the copyright status of an upload (but can't prove it with Tineye etc.) where is the best place there to raise the issue, as opposed to straight out nominating it for deletion? (the image, incidentally, is File:Wu_Yifan.jpg). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I find reverse image search on Google to be a great alternative. I show a few hits on there for that image. – Nihlus (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - Tin Eye can sometimes be a bit limited. It found nothing for me on this one, but I get several google results, like Nihlus. Google Image Search often finds more than Tin Eye. For firefox or chrome there are extensions to add a right click Google image search, or you can drag images to the Google search box. With this one I'd probably just nominate it for a deletion discussion - the user's other uploads seem similarly suspect. -- Begoon 13:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2017 (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.

AIV help

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

---

Could we get someone to swing by AIV, need some blocks, including one proxy IP that is very disruptive. Home Lander (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, already cleaned up at this point--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Backlogged again; currently 12 reports. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 20:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Caught up again. I'll try to keep an eye on it through the evening, the vandals are busy today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2017 (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.

Disruptive IP

User:87.150.30.229 needs to be blocked, as he/she is vandalizing articles randomly. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, I see 2 other IPs which did the same thing today - 86.237.67.33 and 49.174.129.81. Any idea what's going on here on these 3 addresses? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proxy IP.27s constantly undoing recent changes might be related. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Petty

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 I have all admin eyes on this article please? He's apparently died, but the sources officially confirming death seem to be very thin on the ground right now, and I've already had a full protection overturned by another admin. The talk page is being flooded with protected and semi-protected edit requests. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

CBS were the first respected US outlet to confirm it - once they did so everyone else has followed suit.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, reading down the list: Rolling Stone, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, TMZ, People, Miami Herald, New York Daily News, Billboard, USA Today, Orange County Register, The Guardian... I think there's no doubt about it, unfortunately, so I'm going to archive this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Not so fast, my friend, looks like not all editors agree and think he's not actually dead yet..... if people are going to carry on edit-warring over this, we might have to do something. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Silly me, I thought that when dozens of non-fringe, reliable, mainstream media outlets had reported someone as being dead, people would pretty much go along with it. What do they want, a personalized copy of the death certificate mailed to their homes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

CBS has retracted their story that he's died, so it isn't as crazy as it would first appear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I guess not. Let me take a break to cleanse the albumin from my visage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

LAPD is probably too busy dealing with the phantom USC shooter to confirm that some random celeb (no offense to him or anyone else) died, not that that's their job anyways. Busy day in LA. Thanks to Bearcat for full protection. ansh666 21:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are now conflicting reports in equally reliable sources. This is now appropriately handled in the article. bd2412 T 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just sad, and listening to some old favourites :-( Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this a content issue? Either way, perhaps this is a good time to note that, by policy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we should not be trying to beat the AP or CNN in reporting news. Let the journalists have a chance to sort out the news before including it here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we strive to be accurate in categorizing a person as living or not. bd2412 T 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Damn. Just when I thought this week had its fill of shit news :( Time to listen to this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:49, 3 October 2017 (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.

Misuse of tools by Fram

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 had several run ins recently with Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with him accusing my of bad faith[81], but when asked for evidence, supplying only reasons why he thinks my position is wrong

He has also and deliberately inserted comments[82][83][84] into the head of an ongoing RfC instead of in the comments section where they belong[85][86]

Today he used his tools to revdel[87] a comment of mine that, I believe, falls under fair use, claiming that I violated a copyright. I dispute this; the amount of material reproduced was not substantial (less than 0.1% of the work, which consist of 1347 pages). Recent court decisions have tended to treat text-only transcripts of individual comics as fair use in cases where the author failed to file a DMCA takedown request. My edit only reproduced the text, when the images are clearly the valuable part of the work. It was non-commercial did not adversely affect the potential market for the work. It afforded electronic access for vision-impaired disabled patrons who could not read the work in its original form.

Fram also reverted and revdeleted a completely unrelated comment of mine that could be viewed as being indirectly critical of his prior behavior.

I am a big boy and can handle whatever insults and disruption Fram throws at me, but is is not fair for him to follow me around use his tools against me when he is WP:INVOLVED up to his elbows. Even if I did violate a copyright (which I dispute) he should have asked an uninvolved admin to deal with it, rather than using the tools when he is so heavily involved.

I am asking that the Administrators settle this among yourselves. If that doesn't work I take this to ArbCom as being a situation that WP:AN cannot handle. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request that the unrelated comment about throwing bombs and setting fires to dumpsters be immediately restored while we discuss the alleged copyright violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure that removal was accidental during the cv removal. No comment on the appropriateness of the cv removal itself, but I've restored the bombs bit. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am asking that the Administrators settle this among yourselves. If that doesn't work I take this to ArbCom as being a situation that WP:AN cannot handle. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Guy Macon, Fram said something to Izno at User talk:Magioladitis: here is the FU message containing put-downs and stuff (or maybe I mischaracterized it). What do you think? George Ho (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's a mischaracterization. It does appear to bear only tangential relation to Guy's concern however. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Not giving an opinion on the case itself, I do not think we as administrators "can settle this between ourselves". It could be that one of us decides that the case has merit (in which case it has to go to ArbCom anyway), or one of us decides it has no merit, but we do not have any way of collectively decide on the case rather than just give opinions and wait until one of us acts (or the topic gets closed as being stale).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So, posting a clear copyright violation (the complete text of this) is fair use now? Your claim that it is only "less than 0.1% of the work, which consist of 1347 pages" is laughable: following that reasoning, you may post the complete lyrics from a song by e.g. Bob Dylan, because he has created so many songs that this is only a small fraction of his work. "Fram also reverted and revdeleted a completely unrelated comment of mine that could be viewed as being indirectly critical of his prior behavior." No, I revdeled all version of your talk page that contained the copyvio. Your previous flivolous AN posting, the above section "Proposed topic ban for Tom94022" is still on this page, but you don't seem to have learned anything from it. "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." I would suggest that you withdraw this section as well if you don't want to be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG on the way out, both for drawing attention to your copyright violation as for coming here wasting everyone's time yet again. Fram (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Judging solely the copyright question: The way that comic is formatted (namely that by paging back and forth the name seems to change as well as the story) suggests to me that that these six panels are meant to be one work. So copying the quote wholesale is pushing the limits of fair use quite a bit, at a minimum. The other revision that was deleted also contained the text, so the fact that an intermediary edit was caught in the revdel is unfortunate coincidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: I'm going to stay out of the copyright and involvement issue. But I see the unrelated paragraph you're talking about, which he also removed, I assume by accident. I can repost that to your talk page if you'd like, to prune one complication. To prune another complication, User:George Ho should be instructed that this is a thread about resolving a specific incident, and he should not complicate things with "here are other unrelated things Fram did wrong" posts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nevermind my offer about the unrelated paragraph thing, I see User:Primefac did it already, which was probably the more efficient thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Only to comment on the copyright issue : While the entire "work" may be 1347 pages long, at one point the comic in question was published as a single one-off comic. While a transcript of the speech balloons is not the full work, it is definitely far more than 10% of the one off comic, and I believe Fram was right in rev-deling it as it would not fall under fair use. No comment on any other of Fram's actions. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Eh. I think the copyright rationale may be incorrect, but not a misuse of tools. There's a difference between an admin action that's arguable or even actually incorrect, and an admin action that's a misuse of the tools. I see no abuse of discretion here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It might be the wrong decision, but it's definitely not an abusive one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • What is the difference between posting the full lyrics of a song or the full text of a comic like this? Never mind that for fair use, you need to use the copyrighted material as necessary illustration of some own text, not as a section on its own. Fram (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      • For the purposes of copyright law, I honestly don't think either would be a copyright violation. For the purposes of Wikipedia policy, which has always been way, way more conservative for a variety of reasons, you might have a point, but frankly I think the point cuts against the policy as showing it as needlessly restrictive. But whatever. I still think it wasn't an abuse of the admin tools. You don't need to be right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think Fram was correct about the removal of the quote: WP:FAIRUSE says that only brief verbatim textual excerpts are acceptable outside of article space, and as the full text of the comic, this was neither brief nor an excerpt. It also says that There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia: what the courts may say about fair use is not the only, or even the primary, thing to consider here, as Wikipedia policy is deliberately more restrictive than what the law says. Fram was justified to remove the content; I'm not really convinced that revdel was necessary, but it's SOP for this sort of thing so I can't say it was an abuse of tools by any means. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Let's assume for the sake of argument that there was a copyright violation. I can always pursue the issue at the appropriate noticeboard if I decide to dispute the issue. My assertion is that Fram is involved in a dispute with me and that we have had some harsh words, so per WP:INVOLVED he should ask another administrator to deal with any infractions I commit. Right now I feel that he is watching my edits and waiting for a chance to punish me for disagreeing with him.

INVOLVED says "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." I don't think anyone has a serious doubt about whether Fram has strong negative feelings about me, and he certainly has had a recent past conflict with me.

Those who know me know that I bend over backwards to follow our policies and guidelines, and when warned I immediately stop what I was doing whether I agree with the warning or not, and often undo all the edits in question while we discuss it. I have over ten years with a clean block record, because a block is never needed. If I make a mistake a warning is all I need. I do, however, expect the warning to come from someone who hasn't been involved in a dispute with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that obvious copyright as well as BLP issues supercede most behavioral policies, that INVOLVED or other things like 3RR become exempted for. If I was in a heated argument with an admin over content, and I used the text "You and I both know that John Q Smith clearly killed his wife" - with zero sourcing - I would see no issue with that other admin redacting that text immediately regardless of their involvement. Now, if they followed that up with a block on me for violating BLP, that's a completely different story and where INVOLVED is key. Same would apply to a clear copyright violation. Fram removed it under a pretty strong argument it was a copyright vio, but that's it. Fram didn't block you, and thus stayed out of the INVOLVED issue, at least with respect to that redaction. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just to comment, individually published serial comics are discrete pieces of work for the purpose of copyright. They retain the individual protction even if published in a single volume. Where examples are used under fair use to demonstrate style etc, the usual is one or two cells at most. We couldnt reprint the entire lyrics of 'What do you got?' by Bon Jovi because just because it was never released as a single and only forms a tiny part of their recording history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• I see no misuse of told by Fram. Fram used the tools in a reasonable interpretation of the policy here. If consensus ends up that Fram's interpretation was in error, than it still isn't misuse. The discussion of whether the action should be overturned is distinct from whether Fram acted wrongly. I see zero evidence that. So, on the issue at hand in the title of the thread, I see nothing. --Jayron32 21:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Am I not making myself clear here? It is possible for an administrator to make a correct decision but still violate WP:INVOLVED if his correct decision involves someone who he is engaged in a dispute with. That is the clear language of WP:INVOLVED. Are you claiming that the policy doesn't say that? There is zero reason why he could not have handed the decision off to another, uninvolved administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not making yourself clear at all, because if what you actually wanted to do is file a complaint for misuse of the admin tools, then you would go to the appropriate forum for doing that. On the other hand, if you wanted therapy for being somehow personally wronged, and to get self affirmation in the most public place possible, then you would go exactly here. GMG^talk 01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the case for violating involved here at all. Are you claiming they are involved because they have interacted with you before? Because that's a rather low threshold...--Jayron32 01:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Above, Guy Macon quotes this from WP:INVOLVED:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

but he fails to quote this from the same page:

In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

Because I am not an admin, I cannot see the material that Fram removed, but the consensus of the admins posting here -- who can see that material -- appears to be that Fram's removal was warranted, or, at the very worst, was perhaps mistaken but was not an abuse of tools. That's what Guy Macon came here looking for, an evaluation by admins about whether Fram abused his tools or not. He's received his answer, but, unfortunately, it's clearly not the answer he wanted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand what you're going for Guy, but I don't think you're right in this case. Removing copyvio material is in the same vein as removing edits by banned users or blatant BLP violations. This purges any taint of WP:INVOLVED in my view, even if I don't agree with the copyvio rationale. The only way you'd convince me, to be honest, is to show that the removed content not only didn't violate the copyright policy, but that Fram removed the content knowing that it did not violate the copyright policy. If Fram had a good faith belief that the content violated the copyright policy, then I don't think you have a case here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence of misuse of administrator's tools by Fram here. Guy Macon, you should first try much harder to discuss and negotiate this type of thing on a one-to-one basis, instead of bringing this stuff to noticeboards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv, No, I do not have any evidence that Fram did not have a good faith belief that the content violated the copyright policy. And it appears from the consensus above I was interpreting fair use differently from those who responded. I also found the argument posted by Masem to be reasonable and compelling. Please close this as being withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Range contributions has arrived!

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T163562
Resolved

Almost 13 years after it was first requested, MediaWiki now allows you to query for IP ranges, and right at Special:Contributions where you'd expect it to work. This supports IPv4 and IPv6. For example, see Special:Contributions/2601:401:503:62b0::/64. It does not support wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*), but the gadget many of you use will continue to function. The native contributions list will simply be shown below the gadget's results.

There is also a new interface message shown when you are viewing an IP range: MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon-range (which is empty at the time of writing), as opposed to the normal MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon message you see when viewing a single IP. One more important note is that Special:DeletedContributions and Special:Log do not support IP ranges -- yet!

If you are a fan of the XTools range contributions tool, which gives you various WHOIS information and sorting by IPs, you may be interested to know there are plans to introduce something similar in MediaWiki. That's probably many moons away from completion, but feel free to follow that task for updates. We also have plans to add a IP range calculator to core. If you have any ideas regarding that (should it be shown at Special:Contribs, or as it's own Special page?) please share your thoughts.

If you notice anything is off with the data, things are slow, other weirdness, don't hesitate to comment at phab:T163562, create a new ticket, or ping someone at Community Tech.

Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Very useful! Thank you! --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome as always MusikAnimal! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I commented below, but I think a separate page for the rangecalc would be good. It should still be kept in the CU interface, but it would seem odd to put in on the contribs or block pages, given the relative rarity of the need to calculate ranges while at either of those two. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic news. I suspect everyone will soon come to wonder how they used to manage without this! WJBscribe (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Any plans to expose the equivalent query via the API; ucuserprefix is not the same. MER-C 12:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C: Good call! I've created phab:T177150 — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work! And yes, having a range calculator built into MediaWiki would be lovely. I'd suggest a standalone special page would be the best place for it so that it can be found when it's needed but it's out of the way when it's not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:ANRFC

Good day! There is a significant backlog at WP:ANRFC, and I am trying to get 2017 Catalonia attacks closed. I have been closing the simplest AFDs and other discussions, to no avail. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• We're nearing the end of September, and we still have two move reviews open from August. I know its already on ANRFC, but this is significantly overdue for what is supposed to be a weeklong process. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 August. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Take away the spamming by Cunard, and I'd be happy to help. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  We don't expect admins to deal with spammers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What does "spamming by Cunard" refer to? (Serious question.) Looking at his contribs, he has closed more than 45 RfCs since June: [88]. He's not an admin, but he's helping with the backlog. (I haven't examined his closes.) So unless that was a jest, or something is wrong with his closes, I don't understand this comment. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: It presumably refers to the fact that Cunard has, historically, spammed ANRFC with many postings of RfCs which do not need closes or have died out without anyone seeking a definitive resolution. Looking at ANRFC, 15 of the 30 discussions there were listed by Cunard. I suspect he was a participant in none of them (or perhaps a very small percentage). This is an improvement over the past, when he would list 20-30 per week, but still not good. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oooh, an admin backlog, you say? @Ymblanter: - get to it, son. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Come on, let's not do this again :( Alex Shih^Talk 07:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ask an admin who begged the community to get the bit to actually do some backlog clearing? Seems pretty reasonable to ask someone who wanted to clear backlogs to have one brought to their attention. I'll even thank him, if he does a good job of it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you back that claim up with some proof? I'm not seeing any begging here; I see a dual nomination by two highly experienced administrators; nor do I see any promise that he would "clear backlogs", he stated "I try to help with backlogs", something he had already done prior to the RfA: [89]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Curious Lugnuts, do you really want to have a frank and open discussion about whether the community feels your contributions to AN are a net benefit and should be allowed to continue? We can have that discussion. I'd rather not honestly, but I do imagine it would very quickly reach a strong consensus. So we can if you would like. GMG^talk 11:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Such a discussion would be beneficial to the community. I'll dig out some infamous diffs when someone is ready to start. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• • While his comments aren't helpful, I can understand thelm being pissed off by an admin recently coming here whining that they didn't get enough thanks for doing some admin cleanup work, and other admins supporting them in this circle-jerk "we are not appreciated enough" boohoo. All good contributions to enwiki (and Lugnuts makes more of these than most of us) should be appreciated, but begging for a thanks is simply pathetic. Fram (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'd love to help with the pending move review from August, but it so happens that I was the review requester! (totally forgot about that in the meantime) I do think the situation has been settled in the meantime thanks to a parallel discussion about Lhasa that has been closed. — JFG ^talk 13:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Las Vegas Strip shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a little vandalism/BLP stuff already, and more eyes would be appreciated as people on the US east coast wake up and see the news in a few hours. Thanks, ansh666 09:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, so I'm going to get my apparently ultra-left-wing jew-hating ass out of there, so more eyes on the page for BLP vios please. Article seems locked down and okay but talk page could use some cleaning possibly. Thanks, ansh666 20:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ultra-left-wing jew-hating ... Isn't that kindof a contradiction in terms? I mean... is that a thing? GMG^talk 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Semites come in a depressingly wide variety of flavors, so yes, that can be a thing. In particular, there's a troll that's been hanging out on WP lately who believes that all liberals are, by their very nature, anti-Semites. I've been called several versions of "libtard jew-hating scum" in the last month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Isn't that kindof a contradiction in terms" Unfortunately, it's not. Antisemitism comes in all sorts of despicable shades of vileness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See Doctors' plot, for example, and Antisemitism in the Soviet Union#Under Brezhnev as well. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article and blocked 1 edit-warrior to date. Please feel free to give me a heads-up about issues there, although I can't promise to respond rapidly. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Admin Confidence survey results related to tech tools

Hello :-)

The Anti-Harassment Tools team reviewed the feedback from the Admin Confidence Survey and did a preliminary analysis of the comments related to tech tools. We are sharing these results today so that the English Wikipedia community can begin discussing the results.

In two weeks the Anti-Harassment Tools team will release more preliminary analysis about the survey comments related to policy, training, and reporting methods.

Again, thank you to everyone who participated in the survey. Whether you participated in the survey or not, we are interested in your thoughts about the results.

If you still would like to provide comments privately to the Anti-Harassment Tools team, you can email the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Help us decide the best designs for the Interaction Timeline feature

Hello all! In the coming months the Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to build a feature that we hope will allow users to better investigate user conduct disputes, called the Interaction Timeline. In short, the feature will display all edits by two users on pages where they have both contributed in a chronological timeline. We think the Timeline will help you evaluate conduct disputes in a more time efficient manner, resulting in more informed, confident decisions on how to respond.

But — we need your help! I’ve created two designs to illustrate our concept and we have quite a few open questions which we need your input to answer. Please read about the feature and see the wireframes at Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline and join us at the talk page!

Thank you, — CSinders (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ernst & Young

User:Smartbot2017 has three times added claims to the Ernst & Young article stating that Ernst & Young <please don't repeat the potential libel here> (see [90]). I have no idea whether this claim is true or not, but the claim is unsourced and clearly libelous. I have removed the claim twice but do not wish to get involved in edit warring. Dormskirk (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the content and warned the editor again not to add this. If this keeps up, you might want to look into WP:3RR as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for having a bot-like name. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bugger that - I've indef blocked for clear potential libel, I've rev deleted and I've requested oversight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

impolite language used by User:WWGB

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:WWGB used impolite language against me in his post here. He was previously chastised for a personal attack against me here, given that he was already warned, I think a ban is justified. The original post where he made the personal attack against me can be found here --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:37, 5 October 2017 (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.

2017 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission nominations

Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on this year's Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission until 13 October 2017. For information on what this role entails, please see the introduction to the nomination page. Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ultraman Geed/Kamen Rider proxy group

Over the past month, I have blocked the following IPs as proxies:

• 187.58.65.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Poco da Pedra, Brazil)
• 201.90.120.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
• 213.233.57.135 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Rome, Italy)
• 189.90.32.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Imperatriz, Brazil)
• 186.226.38.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Concordia, Brazil)
• 200.229.194.154 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (São Paulo, Brazil)
• 179.95.82.85 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Goiânia, Brazil)

They are listed in order based on their first edit, oldest to newest. They seem to focus on articles relating to Kamen Rider and Ultraman Geed. The articles they share may be viewed here.

I do not know if there is an older master here, so I wanted to let others know of this. GAB^gab 20:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I'll offer this. I've seen this user editing since before I became an admin over ten years ago, using literally thousands of IP addresses. Just at random I'll give an example from 2007: 123.111.230.141 (talk · contribs). I've never seen their edits undone to any meaningful extent. There is probably only one person who know if there's an older account, which I don't think there is, and that's Ryulong, and he's banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy violating topic ban

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

---

User Jojhnjoy has a topic ban for automobiles and units of measurement. About a month ago, the ban was violated (link), which resulted in a warning (link). Another violation has just occurred (link), so I request that admins consider further action. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The first edit was a correction of a protected space (I forgot the "&" symbol). Obviously a beneficial edit. The second edit was reverting an IP that removed a source from an article. I would consider that beneficial as well. I did not add or modify any units. Therefore, I doubt that any action is needed. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BANEX, neither of those are 'obvious' vandalism. 'Constructive' is irrelevant. You are banned from any automobile related edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing sources from articles is obvious vandalism. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't, when the edit was clearly made as a mistake as a result of attempting to make an improvement. Hence the 'obvious'. The reason you are under a ban is that your judgment cannot be trusted on automobile related articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Also repeatedly blanking a section [91] [92] on flathead engine. I hadn't noticed this topic ban before - I'd seen the units part, but not the broader automobile aspect. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The section I blanked was original research. A more detailled explaination can be found on the talk page. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. WP:BANEX is explicit about when you can make edits regarding the subject. You are not allowed to determine content issues on articles related to automobiles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• So what? There is a topic ban, there is no exclusion within that for making a "constructive" edit.

As to this specific edit, the reason there is so little discussion with you over its content on that talk: page is that you demonstrated on the units issue, and by gaining this topic ban, that it is impossible to discuss any such issue with you. There is just no point in wasting other editor's time in trying to engage with you over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we clarify the scope of the topic ban here. Does it extend to talk: page discussion of the banned topic? I believe it does. I believe it ought to, as his behaviour over the units issue was just as disruptive there. In which case, is it time to make this clear, and to start striking through continuing breaches of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Its as broad a scope as you can get. "indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind". There is no wriggle-room in that (excepting those covered by BANEX). Any edits means any edits on any page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flathead engine Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Review of NAC of 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.

---

Can an admin take a look at the close of Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?. It has been raised on the closer’s talk page alreadyby two editors (User talk:Francis Schonken#Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?) without any resolution.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, also see the comment I just posted above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Premature_closure. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:CLOSE "3.if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion." I cant see an editor has made a compelling argument, but if multiple people are asking for it to be re-opened due to wanting further discussion, then its a valid reason to re-open an early close. I think its a waste of time, because there are currently problems that are unlikely to be fixed in the near future. But hey, WP without fruitless discussion would be... reddit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Wrong forum, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: WP:AN is the proper forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion from WP:AN/I to AN. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think WP:SNOW was the best option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I also think it was premature, and think it should be reopened, also since the closer seems to have strong feelings on the subject matter. Agathoclea (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As it happens, no, I don't have strong feelings about the subject matter. Don't know what made you think that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#Template:Cite_Q certainly give the impression to me that you are against the use of Wikidata data. But if that is not the case then it certainly should be no problem for you to reopen the rfc. I for example have had no chance in its short life to comment on it. Agathoclea (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Nah, that was about references (yes, I have strong feelings about WP:V – don't you?). References aren't the issue here. My reasons for operating a WP:SNOW close were entirely different. Re. "...had no chance...": you had dozens of edits since the RfC opened. Rather seems that you didn't because you didn't: nothing that indicates that you would have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
        • As noted above, multiple editors have made good-faith requests for it to be reopened. If you're right that there is no chance of a different outcome, the cost of reopening will be a little wasted time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
          • As quoted above, I might reconsider for "editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion" (emphasis added). None of them have done so thus far (further discussion didn't seem their objective). Closing early might be undone if further discussion would be useful: even the editor quoting that guidance above thought further discussion in a reopened RfC would have little chance of adding something useful to the (already extended) discussion, if I understand their quip correctly. Otherwise the outcome of this WP:AN will decide (which is not in my hands). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, I have more that I want to discuss there, particularly as I disagree with a number of the statements made there this week. I was hoping to spend time doing that over the weekend. I wsn't asking for it to be reopened just because I disagree with the outcome... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Repoen - The RfC was only allowed to run for a few days, and enough editors have expressed concern over the early close for the closer to take one for the team, undo the close themselves, and graciously save us the misfortune of having an extended time wasting discussion about whether reopening a discussion would be a waste of time. It's really not that big of a deal. Also I strongly object to the notion above that there is any discussion on Reddit that is fruitful. That is an outlandish claim and one that certainly needs to be backed up with diffs. GMG^talk 17:36, 6 October 2017 (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.

2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

• Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
• NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an oversighter.
• Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an oversighter.
• There'sNoTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser and oversighter.
• Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee also welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:

• Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions in July 2012, is reappointed as an oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of this permission.

For the Arbitration Committee
GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Topic ban on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (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.

---

We have some serious trouble at this AfD; my assessment is that User:Paulmcdonald is trying to bait User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat into saying something that will get them blocked. This AfD does not need more than 34, 34, or 21 contributions from these three editors. Personally I have no opinion on the notability of the topic, and while I am convinced that the initial fault for this conflict lies with only one of these three, I think it's best if all three are prevented from editing the AfD. I ask the community to just drop a quick couple of YES votes here, because this AfD is going to run for a few more days and I don't want to block anyone, or see anyone blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me: I'll happily walk away from it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I agree not all three were to blame for the way it's turned out, but they've all surely said all they possibly can that's of any constructive value - and I think it's looking really quite intimidating to anyone else wanting to offer an opinion. (I'm neutral on the notability this time round). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• I was asked to walk away from the discussion earlier today and did so. I'm not baiting anyone. I admit that User:SchroCat and I did get stuck in WP:WABBITSEASON. I do not believe I made any comment to User:Cassianto at all. I agree that the discussion has long turned to the worse. But a "topic ban?" I'd like to know what I did wrong if that's the result. I do believe that other editors have been harsh and uncivil.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not looking for a discussion here; I am happy to hear you walked away. A topic ban would only apply to this current AfD. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Is a WP:SNOW close of “no consensus” an option? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• If that is what you see in there, of course. I don't think that an IAR solution of a merge to that list article is valid at this time, but I haven't looked at all the arguments. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• You could certainly make a defensible argument for it, but I suspect it's much less drama/controversy if you just let the clock run out, and then make the no consensus close. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly an option, see one recent case here. Is it advisable? GMG^talk 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm both involved and not an admin. While I strongly support the close at Stephen Paddock (and feel a similar close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_Las_Vegas_concert_shooting would be reasonable), I don't think an early No Consensus close is necessary here (and necessity is the standard I would support; it would be more per WP:IAR than WP:SNOW). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be an odd decision to retain the article, given a clear consensus to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher a month ago, and a very dubious DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26 which should never have been accepted. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a snow close of "no consensus", especially since there is actual consensus to delete the article. I don't think the drama caused by one editor should be rewarded with such a close. Let the community continue the discussion since the three editors of interest here have either voluntarily walked away or have not written any additional comments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking as to procedure rather than the merits of this case, it would seem that the AFD would fall within discretionary sanctions being it is an AFD on a BLP. That is a big hammer to swing, but it would seem that it is possible to unilaterally ban someone without further community input, although I doubt it is necessary here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible for this thread moved in this diff to be moved back into the main discussion and maybe collapsed before closing the AfD. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? The removal may be debatable, but I don't see anything pertinent to the AfD there - it's all meta. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban if the badgering continued. However, two of those named have above said they have walked away and if that continues the envisaged topic ban might not be needed. That can be evaluated in, say, 36 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• This is, unfortunately, not the first time I have seen Paul McDonald trying to bait other AfD participants into an outburst. I'm glad both participants have agreed to walk way though. And I understand SchroCat's general frustration; it seems that, to get an article kept, you only need to "win" one AfD and then the article is safe forever. But to get a bad article deleted you need to "win" the AfD, then it sneaks back somehow via a dubious DRV, so you have to succeed at AfD2, which will probably end up at another DRV, and so on potentially indefinitely. This one is clearly heading for another delete consensus, so I do NOT support a non-consensus snow close. Reyk _YO! 11:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have never tried to "bait" anyone. Please refrain from such accusations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• The Vintage Feminist, You have already commented on this thread, so you are aware I have agreed not to post to the page again. I therefore find it highly inappropriate for you to try and continue a discussion on that page, knowing I cannot respond. Why are you trying to provoke me into responding further, or was this just an attempt at cheap point scoring? Can I suggest that you remove your comment entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know you can't respond but you can read, my comments were for information purposes only. There is nothing provocative in my comments and they do not require a response. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, so it was just cheap point scoring then. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Glasshouse? Bricks? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What an odd comment. Can you point out where I have posted to a thread where someone is unable to reply without threat of action against them? I find TVF's comment on the AfD thread to be indefensible, and if he's not baiting (which he says not), then it's just cheap point scoring. Would you prefer me to break my word here and reply to his comment on the AfD? - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

sanctions for one user

• I think we need a discussion that focuses on User:Cassianto, who has sought opportunities to undermine arguments for civility in the AfD discussion.  While SchroCat just says that he "PMSL" to describe his concerns about his civility behavior being brought before ArbCom, User:Cassianto says he "can't wait" to be brought before ArbCom.  He is pretty much requesting a block and daring anyone to block him.  I suggest that a one-week block is the appropriate path forward to protect the encyclopedia, with a warning that further one-week blocks can be expected when needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment The phrase "to protect the encyclopedia" is insulting to an editor who has produced as many FAs as Cassianto. If this is your aim, try doing some page patrol. I thought the agreement was meant to end the issues at the article's AfD discussion in a peaceful manner. It appears that the pot which was being stirred there has just been brought here. We hope (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• My stance isn't that far from Cassianto's: any filing at ArbCom would hve been closed down and thrown out fairly quickly. In other words, there is nothing from which to "protect" the enyclopadia. Youshould probably get to grips with the point tha the use of "naughty words" does not equal incivility. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No, you need to just let it go. Sometimes people are are not very nice on Wikipedia, and some offend more frequently than others. It's generally best to let civility issues go unless they are extreme. To be sure, there is a line, but I do not believe Cassianto crossed that line in the AfD in question. You've given a strong impression of being too eager to take editors to ArbCom, and that impression will torpedo your efforts to get sanctions enforced. I had to learn the hard way from my experiences as AutomaticStrikeout, when I tried to play a civility cop far too many times. I had good intentions, but in the end my efforts had a tendency to further escalate the problems. If another editor is regularly rude/arrogant/pompous etc., other editors will see it for what it is and evaluate the editor accordingly. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2017 (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.

Arab Israeli conflict

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 protect Operation Summer Rains and Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict because New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab Israeli conflict related page Newbot17 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Newbot17, requests for page protection are made at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2017 (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.

Altering, striking out etc.

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

---

It seems all that is going to be said has been said, so before it gets archived by a bot, can an uninvolved administrator please look over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments and close it. -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (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.

Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please look into user Dr. K. abuse of editing moderator powers on Reincarnation 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.

---

I was working on adding a mention to Zalmoxis on the Reincarnation article and was adding citations and I got a message saying I am vandalizing and that my editing privileges will be removed. I think this is a mistake because I was honestly trying to add valid knowledge into the article.

Zalmoxis is mentioned as being a pupil of Pythagoras by Herodotus and like Pythagoras taught a form of soul transmigration or metempsychosis and multiple source Roman and Greek over the course of hundreds of years apart attest to this. These are not fringe theories but actual historical mentions from actual historical figures. Zalmoxis is also thought to have died and resurrected after 4 years. I think Zamoxis' connection with Pythagoras and his teachings deserve a passing mention in the article. Note that both Reincarnation and Metempsychosis "See Also" make reference to Zalmoxis article as related reading (added by other users).

I started a talk see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reincarnation

According to Edit Wars article the correct procedure in people who disagree on edits should talk it out in the Talk section which I am completely open to but the user by the name Dr. K. who removed my edit seems to think of himself an authority on the subject and there is nothing to discuss and in fact the tone very condescending and borderline threatening accusing me of perpetuating hoaxes and that I will shoot myself in the foot if I mention this to admins

"Please be my guest but be also advised about WP:BOOMERANG. Best of luck. Dr. K. 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)" if I mention this to admins.

"No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)"

I ask an admin to have a look into this issue because I believe this user is claiming a monopoly on knowledge and rejecting people's edits out of personal ideas and he is not an authority on this matter and should be open to discussing ideas that he disagrees with. I would like to make a formal complaint against this user (Dr. K.) and this methods of monopolizing my edits (and perhaps other's edits) on the article. Trollworkout (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing here. One undo by user:Dr. K Dr.K. and an unconstructive edit warning. There's a thread open on the talk page. I see no reason at all for this to be at ANI. Meters (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am here to defend my honour . I am not a hoaxer and my intent on this site is genuine. Dr. K. has painted me with a bad brush trying to accuse me of malicious intent this is unfounded and incorrect. Sure maybe the quality of my articles is not the best but I am not here with malicious intent. I am here to defend my honour against this unprofessional attitude accusing me of being a bad person which I am not. Thank you for your understanding and is all I had to say. I came here to help out not to spread hoaxes or vandalize. Regardles what you think of me of if you block me or not I am here with genuine intent and that's final. I tried to defend my honour and image but I guess everyone is siding with him so thank you for your consideration and time. Trollworkout (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've notified Dr K. since Trollworkout did not. Meters (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I had Dr. K and Dr.K. mixed up. Meters (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trollworkout:, there's nothing actionable here, Dr K was correct to revert your edits. Your sourcing was insufficient for the information you presented, and you also presented ancient mythology as fact. This might be a language barrier, is English your first language? In any case, I would recommend reading WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:RFB. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The actionable part is his accusation of me of promoting hoaxes and vandalizing. This is not true. While ok my article's quality was debatable the problem was his reply very condescending and is hoping you guys gonna side with him and make me "shoot myself in the foot" that is my report will backfire . He doesn't want to admit he was wrong to call me vandal and to threaten to remove my editing privilege. My article might be weak but I am not a vandal or a hoaxer. He must publicly detract his accusation and remove his comment from my personal profile. This is why I am here. Not only the quality of my articles but he accused me of being someone I am not and when confronted he simply brushed me off and not willing to discuss this. His attitude is terrible and unprofessional and is very actionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) More importantly, looking at Trollworkout's contribs, it seems clear they don't understand what is and isn't encyclopedic. WP:UNDUE applies here, and to the other edits they have had reverted. If you are going to add a lot of material that is clearly contentious, it is fine to add it once but it is usually smarter to start on the talk page and get a consensus, to avoid reverting and silly posts at WP:AN like this. Dr. K didn't call it vandalism in the summary, btw, he used a template for "unhelpful edits" that contains the word. Probably not the best template in this situation, but hardly worth getting worked up into a lather over it and certainly not worth sanction. Mr. Troll, while you are at it, please read WP:BRD. It may be an "essay", but most admin and most in the community will enforce it like it was a guideline here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies however my image is still affect as being a hoaxer and vandal now. I have started a talking discussion instead of re editing the entry but the user continues to accuse me of being a hoaxer with condescending remarks and refuses to discuss. My incomplete citations are not reason enough to delete entire article and call me a hoaxer or a vandal and threaten me to remove my editing privileges. He has clearly stated he believes me talking to you guys will backfire and make me get banned. In fact he is hoping you will site with him. I am not a hoaxer or a vandal. I might have made a mistake but my article was incomplete and it was deleted before I could finish it. Regardless of the quality of my articles I believe his accusation of me being a hoaxer and a vandal is unfounded and unwillingness to discuss this further is disrespectful and unprofessional. Trollworkout (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe an admin with higher power must resolve this because he is unwilling to cooperate. For a moderator with admin privileges this is incredibly unprofessional. I did not get bothered that my article was erased but that I was called a hoaxer and a vandal and threaten to remove my editing privileges . This is unfair and unprofessional. I must request an admin look into his behavior and response and make him retract my accusation of me as is affecting my image. Is public slander. He must be willing to retract his message and show professionalism Trollworkout (talk)

Dr. K is right. Talking here will backfire and get you banned; your contributions have issues that need to be addressed, and pretending that they don't will not help you. I'm going to explicitly suggest the boomerang WP:NOTHERE / WP:CIR block for User:Trollworkout now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have edited an article and the quality was questionable and I was accused of being a hoaxer and vandal. This is accusation us unfounded. I am not a hoaxer or a vandal and he must publicly detract his statement as it's affecting my image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I thank everyone for their helpful replies to the OP and I wish to make a comment. When the OP made an edit that included the text: Zalmoxis himself died and came back to life and taught everyone that nobody really dies but rather they simply become different people in a different place., I AGF'ed that he was competent and that he understood what he was writing. The text, as entered into the article, was patently a hoax, ergo the hoax/vandalism warning. If I had considered that this editor is incompetent, then perhaps, I should not have warned him at all. But his editing does not show clear signs of incompetence. The only other option is to consider that he is trolling. But who would think of such a thing? Dr. K. 22:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Reincarnation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)" First of all unconstructive is not even an English word and second notice you said appears to constitute vandalism keyword here being APPEARS. That is you removed my article with no definite proof that is indeed vandalism. The simple truth is you just didn't know anything about what I just added namely Zalmoxis, Zalmoxianism and you automatically assumed is nonsense without even bothering to verify or discuss it the person who added it and why. When I challenged you on it you decided to flame me with a condescending tone like I'm in power you listen to me type of attitude. I respect power but only when is well deserved. I am sure you do a great job but in my case you did my great disservice as I spent precious time to create those additions that were instantly discarded like trash. This is not an Encyclopedia where everyone can edit that's for sure. IS more of a knowledge monopoly of administrators who threaten to ban or remove any entry from people who don't respect their power. Is about power not about knowledge. It took me 2 days to realize how things go around here. Sad that I used to donate to this site. Your attitude is pushing contributors away doing great disservice to this site. Anyway thank you for your time and taking time to reply. Good day! Trollworkout (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• (1) Your edits were properly reverted by Dr.K
• (2) Dr.K's edit summary was justifiable
• (3) If you want to edit Wikipedia, grow a thicker skin
• (4) If you want your edits not to be taken for hoaxes or trolling, change your account name
• (5) You're wasting everyone's time here by repeating the same arguments ad nauseum
• (6) If you're looking for an apology, no one can force Dr.K to apologize
• (7) If you don't have anything more to say, stop posting here

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking in my capacity as an admin, I couldn't put it any better than Beyond My Ken has. Nothing is going to happen to Dr. K. If you were wise, Mr. Troll, you would drop it and simply not comment further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless the editor has a side gig providing physical training to mythological creatures, Block under some combination of WP:NOTHERE/WP:POINT/WP:CIR/WP:USERNAME/"False Outrage" until they've chosen a new name, they've agreed to respect consensus, and they've learned that this was not a major slight on their "honor". Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2017 (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.

Deliberately abstruse discussion

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

---

Could some fellow admins please look at these edits? An experienced editor, Drmargi, is trying in good faith to communicate with another editor, an IPv6-hopper, and the IP editor has taken to rambling, incoherent screeds. At first glance I was reminded of this site, which generates generic, incoherent rants. I'm a bit unclear on what, if anything, should be done here, from an administrative perspective. The deliberately abstruse discussion doesn't seem to be focused on resolving the dispute, rather it seems like they're just soapboxing to hear themselves ramble. Ideas? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

They have a nubbin of a point (from their perspective). In that they have an argument to not describe something on Wikipedia because it does not accurately convey the situation. Essentially the difference between physical coercion, and mental coercion as 'forcing' a party to take a specific action. I don't know if English is their first language, its also possible they are an intellectual/academic with a narrow viewpoint compared to Wikipedia's broad one. Everything they have said could have been said in a fraction the words and more clearly, which is usually a result of an academic background. Or language barrier. Also my eyes are bleeding. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Lol. Any thoughts for how I should handle it? Should I ignore it? Should I post a request that they use condensed comments? It doesn't seem to be moving the discussion along, rather, just confusing people, so it's unclear how it is constructive from a trying-to-achieve-consensus perspective. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think about it. It's pretty stupid that I came here for advice. I did nothing out of the gate. I'm so stressed... Let's consider this closed from my perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(EC)A swift 'no' and a rolled up newspaper. More seriously, the article is a summary of the TV series/episode, which understandably takes artistic license with history. In common language the use of 'forced' in the episode guide is warranted. The actual situation is a bit more nuanced. The relevant historical article does not use the same harsh language. I would go with 'Dear editor, your concerns have been noted, however this is a work of fiction which may not reflect the reality of the time. We use 'forced' here because it is justified by the episode, we don't use it at the historical article because the situation is covered in more detail.' Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, there are really two issues from my POV: the issue of the editor imposing his/her personal definition of "force" and the issue of the sheer volume of words designed to baffle me with bullshit, frankly. He's playing word games, not arguing in good faith, as the addition of two new threads arguing additional word-nits shows. However, my little problem has intersected with a much larger one being handled in other thread, which has lead to the IP being blocked, so I'm a happy camper for the moment. My thanks to @Cyphoidbomb: for his help. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:51, 7 October 2017 (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.

(Still) Admin Arthur Rubin

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:Arthur Rubin's repeated use of unfounded accusations (aka lies) about other editors was brought to ANi on July 30/17. [93] He was site banned by the community but the site ban was lifted as an Arb Case got underway. Two and a half months later Rubin remains an admin and ArbComm is still dithering over a decision with a few Arbs failing to participate at all [[94]] ArbComm has no other active cases so it's not like they are swamped.

Rubin still displays a userbox declaring himself an Admin on English Wikipedia and a category saying the same. Rubin did not participate in the case after acceptance, itself a failure of ADMINACCT. He continues to edit, mainly reverting editor after editor who are unlikely to want to fight an Admin.

Any lowly sditor would have been blocked for this conduct with little or no discussion or due process, but an Admin is extended 2.5 months of process involving some of our most experienced editors. For example, Rubin stripped my meager tools without notification or discussion yet it takes a huge process to remove his. A respectful editor would have handed in his tools long ago, and certainly after a ArbComm majority voted to remove the tools.

This case illistrates a better system of desysoping is required. One solution might be "if an ArbComm case is brought against an Admin that could reasonably result in desysoping, the Admin tools be removed by ArbComm as a matter of course pending the outcome of the case." That is in line with how a user's tools or editing ability is stripped and stays stripped until an appeal or case is concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Uh, what? We don't strip an editor's editing abilities while an ArbCom case against them progresses in the vast majority of cases. They remain unblocked until sanctions are passed. The majority of the work of ArbCom and functionaries does not happen on-wiki, so we have no way to tell if they're swamped or not. Give them another week; the case will be finished soon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know if we're "dithering"--it is possible that Rubin stripped you of whatever tool you had without much thought, but these decisions we have to make are quite weighty. Stripping an admin of admin powers is a hard and painful thing. As you may have seen, some of us were prompted to make up our minds; we are pondering and deciding, and in the meantime we thank you for your patience. Your last solution is, I predict, not going to gain much traction.

  (After ec with BU Rob:) One of the things we've been working on is the CU/OS permissions. For some of us (by which I mean the ones who are doing the real work, especially GorillaWarfare and Callanecc, for instance) that involves a lot of paperwork. What else...we're dealing with CU usage and privacy, we got a couple of block appeals, a username issue or two, a clean start question, and many of us have kids. One of us is building a house. Another is flying through Indonesia via helicopter. But a decision in the Rubin case is imminent, that I can tell you. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of us are busy in real life and we could all be using our wiki time more productively than using such a long and exhasting process to get to a solution. @BU Rob13 a blocked editor remains blocked until a successful appeal (the process) is concluded. An Admin keeps their tools until the process is fully exhausted. If it were standard practice to suspend Admin tools during legit investigation process Admins might be more careful with tools and more willing to participate at ArbComm. It might also speed up the ArbComm process by injecting some urgency on the side of the accused. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2017 (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.

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Caste rules and BLPs

Hey, I need a quick refresher on Wikipedia policy/guidelines on Indian caste identification for BLPs. Isn't the threshold for inclusion that an article subject has to self-identify as ___ caste? Am I imagining that? What's the relevant guideline? Though WP:CASTE reinforces that there's SOMETHING serious about caste identification, the relevant community/ARBCOM decisions are missing from the instruction sheet. 1) I need to know the relevant thingy, and 2) can people more familiar with the caste issue please update at least the more prominent warning templates to include clear explanations and links to relevant policies? Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#List_of_members_of_X_caste. Self-identification is required. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Thanks for the info. Wow, that's a lot of stuff to read. What about for dead people? Same deal? They'd need to have self identified somewhere? Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Sitush/Common#Castelists summarises. No need for self-identification for dead people but BLP applies to recently deceased and we also have to be careful regarding caste-affiliated website claims etc. Personally, I'm not even very happy about using news sources for it: it is rarely of much significance and the Indian media in particular seem to grab a lot of filler detail from Wikipedia, creating a circular situation. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• For those who may be unfamiliar with BLP and why its applied to caste. The Indian caste system is bound up in large part with ethnicity & religion. You belong to X caste, you are assumed to belong to Y ethnic group. And vice versa, you belong to Y ethnicity, well you must be X caste! So if it helps people to understand it, a simplified way of dealing with it is consider 'caste' as 'ethnicity' and treat it the same way under BLP you would treat ethnic groups. EG, require self-identification from living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please delete my old .js pages from my previous user rename

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.

---

My account was renamed in June 2017. Please can these redirects be deleted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Batreeqah/vector.js&redirect=no
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Batreeqah/common.js&redirect=no

Thanks! – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but it's done. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk page ARB sanc notice update

Can someone uninvolved, update the talk page at Talk:Hurricanes and climate change with "Ds/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long", since it is covered by those sanctions, and there is currently what appears to be an edit war going on. Also I appreciate any efforts to settle the current content dispute (see talk newest section). Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that the notice has to be added by an admin, and the add seemed straight-forward to me, so I done did it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

However, a editor stating in this edit summary, "Not the way DS works.", removed the notice. After moving the page, I've re-added the notice. Can an admin clarify if adding this notice to the article can be done by editors? prokaryotes (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be placed by an "uninvolved adminstrator". However, this one seems uncontroversial, and I will re-add it if it's removed again. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for placing the template, but I'm having some difficulty finding at WP:AC/DS anything which restricts the placement of a DS/alert template to "uninvolved administrators". I see a number of things which are specified for uninvolved admins, and I see that any editor can tell another editor that DS are in effect, but I don't see the specific restriction of the placement of the template to uninvolved admins. I'm probably just missing it - can someone point it out to me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see anything on point in the doc for Template:Ds/talk notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Because its merely indicating an article is covered under a topic where ARBCOM have authorized discretionary sanctions. It is not imposing any. The absence/presence of the notice does not make the article any more/less subject to having discretionary sanctions applied against an editor - which relies on them being notified. Its generally best practice to have it on all talkpages related to articles covered by discretionary sanctions - if only to prevent people who claim they were not aware of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Will go hunt through the dusty backrooms of Arbcom documentation, but I reckon BMK/OID are right, these article talkpage notices don't (shouldn't) need to be added by an admin. In any case, as above there's nothing remotely controversial about flagging that this article is within DS for climate change. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

While at it, is it correct that the article talk page notice is an alternative for a user talk page template notification, at least when the editor participates on the talk page, or after pointed out? prokaryotes (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: No. Notification requirements are at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware and do not mention article talk page notifications. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

What GoldenRing said. Regardless of any notice on an article talkpage, an editor needs to have either received a topic-applicable DS alert on their usertalk or met the other (less common) requirements outlined here. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think placement of these notices is limited to administrators; the entire topic of climate change is subject to discretionary sanctions by direct virtue of an arbitration remedy (here); these talk page notices serve merely as a courtesy notice to editors and have no effect on enforcement of the sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A notice is a notice, not a sanction. Any editor can place it. This has been discussed before many times. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. prokaryotes (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I would add as a matter of nuance, that it's usually better to have it added by an uninvolved admin anyway, because A) it usually avoids these kinds of mix ups over a widely misunderstood policy (or lack thereof), and B) it's usually better to arrange for some uninvolved admin to watchlist the page and keep an eye out for potential problems. There's often a difference between being technically correct and practically correct. Contrary to popular belief, being technically correct isn't always the best kind of correct. GMG^talk 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That does not seem "practical", it seems "pro forma" - the hope and purpose of the warning is to head-off potential problems before they begin - it cannot be as effective in doing that, without being placed there by whoever happens to see it belongs, asap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's practical to the extent that an uninvolved admin is within arm's reach. If not, having another uninvolved experienced user add and watchlist is a close second. Either way avoids the impression that it's being used to score some kind of rhetorical points, which is an easy assumption for folks in a charged discussion to make. GMG^talk

• Suggestion I've just added the DS notice to Soil carbon feedback, Climate engineering and Arctic sea ice decline, and while i would prefer an automatic bot driven update to these pages, I think it can be considered as uncontroversial when adding these notices, as long there is no ongoing content disput. Hence, factoring in above suggestions, during an ongoing dispute an admin would be the prefered entity to update these pages accordingly. prokaryotes (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks to all for the clarifications and suggestions here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel needed ...

... on English people (edits plus edit summaries). The edits in question are the ones that removed some 70K bytes each. I have requested semi-protection at RFPP since it's an IP-hopper, so feel free to do that too... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Took care of the edits I believe. Let me know if I missed one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Revdel'd and protected. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: I found revdel-worthy edits (edits plus edit summaries) on Tamils too: [95], [96], [97]. There might be more but they're not easy to find since the IP-hopper has a huge net to hop on. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    • re-opening. On it. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Kannada people is also under attack, though it's PC1 so it's being caught. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Lingayatism too, but the edits there were revdeled in September, and the article is protected. So it has obviously been going on for a while... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
          • This is a regular sock, Jimbo and I are favored targets and more recently Ms Sarah Welch. He's been at this for many months. Usually just revert, protect and block, I think Bishonen's blocked a couple of IPs of this charmer too. If this can be added to an edit filter that'd be good, sort of like the Digitalravan thing. —SpacemanSpiff 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Yep. Some 3 months since their anger and disruption has been intensifying! This is a hopping IP. Thanks for the revdels. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:Inside the Valley

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.

---

Posting on behalf of the blocked user:

Have already admitted my misconduct before - the reason for my block is, I used multiple accounts (without formally declaring it), which was found later when I used one of that a/c for edit warring and was caught by a check-user. Followed by further accounts (socks). I regret & understand my mistake and I would like to start again productively. Charles Turing was my predominantly used a/c and the name by which I am commonly known to my fellow colleagues. I mostly edited articles related to Indian film industry and Kerala. I have developed two lists into FL status and two articles into GA, & some others close to achieving it. I would like to continue contributing productively by adhering to the principles here, please grant me a probational unblock—review my edits, run periodical check-user or even impose restrictions, until you see me fit.

CU shows no activity on the IP addresses used by Inside the Valley beyond their own edits. Last active socks are too stale to check. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose lifting the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Support: I previously declined an unblock request here. Given the likelihood this user has indeed refrained from all editing for six months and appears to understand the problem with multiple accounts, I support the unblock request as per WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(Adding concurrence to one account restriction)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support They appear to get it, and understand the reason for the block. The fact they are willing to accept whatever restrictions would be placed on them, without argument, speaks to their sincerity. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Would also support a 1 account restriction. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't see why not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support with one account restriction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support with one account restriction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 6 October 2017 (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.

Conduct unbecoming an Administrator

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 few concerns with how Admin Swarm handled a recent interaction with an editor. Two editors were engaged in a policy and content dispute over a problematic, newly created category template. One of these editors decided to file an AN/I report against the other editor, requesting a topic ban. Within just minutes after this AN/I report was posted, Admin Swarm implemented an account block against the accused editor (me), claiming "(Edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing; see ANI report.)" So I followed this link to AN/I to see this Admin's reasoning and discovered that Admin Swarm had made a misinformed assessment and was not fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation. Since I had been instantly blocked and could not access AN/I, I instead provided additional information for him to consider on my Talk page, and asked if he would then please review his admin action with me.

• Per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

All I got was silence. Just in case the ping-utility didn't work, I pinged and asked again. More silence. I even asked if he would at least give me the courtesy of informing me that he has received my communication. More silence, even as I type this, while he continues with his other activities on Wikipedia. If I have misunderstood our policy and I have no reason to be concerned, could someone please explain it to me? (PLEASE NOTE: I am not addressing whether the block was right or wrong here; my concern is about the complete silence regarding the queries about an admin action.) In addition to this refusal to respond to a query about an admin action, Admin Swarm also made an unprovoked personal attack by claiming there was "strong POV-pushing associated with this user's behavior. This aggravating factor was handily present." I asked Admin Swarm if he would please provide the diffs and evidence that warranted such an attack.

• Per WP:WIAPA: "What is considered to be a personal attack? Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

Again, the only response I received was silence. If I have misunderstood our policy and I have no reason to be concerned, could someone please explain what I am misunderstanding here? (PLEASE NOTE: I make no argument here about whether the "comment on behavior" was right or wrong, until I see the 'evidence' that provoked it; my concern is about the violation of WP:NPA and the complete silence regarding the queries about an admin action.) And finally, when another editor suggested that I be conditionally unblocked to allow me to respond to the allegations and aspersions being hurled at me at AN/I, Admin Swarm responded, "You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I."

• Per WP:Block policy: "Users may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block."

I suppose Admin Swarm could be genuinely clueless about this fairly common practice of allowing accused editors to defend themselves in real time. However, given the above two examples of Admin Swarm's aversion to discussion, I must admit my good faith has been exhausted when I consider why he also might not want me engaging in discussion in my defense at AN/I. If I've misunderstood our blocking policy regarding this, please explain it to me. You can find all of my failed efforts to communicate with Admin Swarm starting here: on my Talk page; and you can find the full AN/I thread conducted while I was blocked archived here: ANI Thread. Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

---

• Whatever sort of resolution you seem to be after, it is highly unlikely you are going to get it. I suggest you drop the stick and go take a break for a bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The resolution I seek? (1) For Swarm to respond to my request regarding his Admin action, and also his "POV-pushing" remark. And (2), for clarification regarding whether I've interpreted the above policies correctly (both wording and "spirit") or misinterpreted them. As for your "drop the stick" comment, I suggest you either offer productive commentary that helps to resolve issues keep your unhelpful comments to yourself. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Xenophrenic: Could you please desist from edit-summaries such as this; you may not like the advice you have been given, but is is certainly not trolling, and accusations like that are firmly within WP:NPA territory. — fortunavelut luna 16:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose you are right, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, but that was a one-off. I do know better than to put anything questionable in edit summaries, as I can't redact it, but the frustration from the above discourse got the better of me and carried over here. Apologies to Only in death; I'm sure you meant well, but "taking a break" is probably the worst option I can consider right now. I'm hoping instead to see productive resolutions to all of the above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Good chap, nice one. — fortunavelut luna 17:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Xenophrenic: pings don't always work and some users can turn off the notifications. I have no idea if Swarm has done so, but I do see that you did not try to write on their talk page. Talk page posts trigger a different kind of notification, and maybe Swarm would have responded if you had done so. You're also required to post such a notice when you start a thread about a user on this noticeboard: the instructions in the big orange box above the editor say that the use of "pings" is not sufficient. Please do that now, and then see if Swarm responds. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I will notify them on their Talk page of this discussion immediately. As for my previous notifications of Swarm to my requests, I used the "ping" utility, and I used the "User:" notification function, and he was alerted by other editors at the AN/I discussion that I had responded to him, and he had posted a comment at my user Talk page (which is when most editors put the page on their Watchlist), so I feel fairly confident that he was aware of my many attempts to communicate with him. As I was blocked at the time, there was no way I could visit his Talk page. But hey - technology can be a funny thing; I'll wait to see what he says. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, brother. The situation was self-explanatory in the ANI complaint and my response to it, you were edit warring and beating a dead horse, as you are now. Nothing was preventing you from shooting me an email, or coming to my talk page, which you didn't do, so spare us the ridiculous rogue admin implications. The block was justified and accounted for. Accountability isn't the issue. You disagreeing with it is. Swarm ♠ 18:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You say the "situation was self-explanatory", and I say there was more to it than that; and since I was actually involved in it, I might actually have a clue. Are you saying that since you felt it was "self-explanatory", I didn't deserve an explanation or justification for your Admin action, despite my several petitions to you? Are you saying I didn't even deserve a response to my request to simply let me know If you will not be commenting further? And now that I formally complain about such treatment, you say that I should have emailed you, or waited until my long block expired and then visited you at your talk page? Do I understand you correctly? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Are we really discussing a review on a block that expired 35 days ago? --Jayron32 14:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, we haven't arrived at a "review on a block" yet, which I certainly wouldn't file (Spoiler alert!) before first discussing the block with the blocking Admin. What we are discussing here is WP:ADMINACCT. The issue isn't stale, but was delayed a bit first by my interaction with Admin GoldenRing, and then by news that Swarm's attendance here would be strained in the aftermath of hurricanes in the South East US. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Though I don't know if there's anything to be done at this point, the events were certainly less than ideal: an ANI thread is opened against Xenophrenic; 30 minutes later, Xenophrenic is blocked for two weeks; the next day, Xenophrenic responds in detail to challenge the basis for the block and the allegations at ANI; after a couple days of no response, Xenophrenic pings; after a couple more days, he files an unblock request; none of these questions, comments, or challenges received any response at all, as far as I can tell, until a procedural decline after the block expired. This seems like fairly standard ADMINACCT business, no? (the responding to queries about admin actions and/or justifying them beyond what's in the block template).

Regarding The situation was self-explanatory in the ANI complaint and my response to it, if the complaint was self-explanatory, Xenophrenic's detailed response to the accusations should be relatively easy to shoot down. You're not obliged to rehash/repeat every little objection someone brings up, but even a terse response to what he wrote would've been better than nothing. As it stands, it looks like within a half hour of the complaint being made, you made a judgment about a situation and didn't feel it necessary to take the blocked person's point of view into consideration. I would understand that in the case of a vandal or if it were an uncomplicated 3RR issue, but it wasn't either.

Again, I don't know that there's anything to be done at this point aside from a trout, but it's a shame to see this simply dismissed based on time (is the statute of limitations for people to get over what they perceive as an unjust block, being entirely ignored for two weeks, only a month?) or pings (if you're making blocks, that seems odd that it would be acceptable to turn pings off unless you're very good at watching pages -- doesn't seem like this was the issue, though). Anyway, that's all I have to say about it. Not ideal, but unlikely to result in much. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case, then yes, that is a problem: If a long-standing user contests a block with a reasonable defense, they are entitled to a reasonable response in a reasonable amount of time. What we do going forward, given that the block expired a month ago and that nothing can really be changed, is to perhaps admonish all involved in ignoring the requests to in the future do better. So please everyone, do better. We do owe it as admins to be able to explain our actions, and reasonable requests to explain them at the time are not onerous. Still, on the "what do we do now to fix the problem" is "there's nothing to fix anymore. Sorry!" Just do better. --Jayron32 15:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A reasonable response was provided by the blocking admin in the ANI report. "This would be a typical block for continued edit warring". This is Xenophrenic's block log. A 2 week block was lenient in the circumstances. No further explanation was necessary or required. The only defense is a credible argument they were not edit-warring. I have yet to see one put forward. Even those editors vaguely supportive in the discussion do not deny they were edit-warring. Xenophrenic's continuation at this point is just being disruptive. They had an explanation for the block. Its unarguably within the remit of the admin to give given their history and actions that caused it. I repeat there is no outcome to this that will make Xenophrenic happy. Since they have declined the advice I gave earlier to willingly drop the stick, I am now suggesting they are told to and this report is closed. ADMINACCT has been more than satisfied. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. That was not a "response", as it was made even before I returned home and discovered the AN/I thread and the associated spurious block. There has been no response, which is the basis of this complaint - no, seriously, go read it. As for your personal conclusions and comments about whether the block was valid or not, and what you "have yet to see" or completely fail to see, or whether my "history and actions" justified the Admin action or actually did not -- none of this is germane to the issue at hand. Have I declined your "advice"? Of course, as I find it uninformed and unhelpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a post-block question asked; even if the response had been "Look, I explained this already in the ANI report, please read it again" would have been sufficient. It is expected that blocked people will often ask for clarification, and it is not unreasonable to expect a response, no matter how terse. I agree, if Xenophrenic had repeatedly pretended to not understand once he was answered, that would be one thing. No attempt, however, was ever made to respond even once. That's very different. A single request for clarification is not unreasonable, and should be responded to promptly in some manner by some body, whether the blocking admin or anyone else. The proper response to the first request for an explanation should not be "nothing". Of course, people sometimes refuse to "get the point"; I don't see that in this one case. I do agree, however, that 35 days later is past the dead horse phase, which is why I said the proper response at this point is "do nothing"; not because Xenophrenic wasn't entitled to some answer back in late August, but because at this point there's no possible remediation. In the future, all admins should be reminded they are required to at least acknowledge reasonable questions; even if only to direct the blocked person to the rationale (if such rationale is sufficient). Ignoring all attempts at communication is not acceptable. --Jayron32 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: - To be clear (and I really should have indicated what I see as a "fix to the problem" in my original post), I'm not looking to have Swarm stripped naked and marched around the Village Pump while the community shouts Shame, Shame, Shame. I outlined above three issues, and the 3rd one I'm fairly certain will be handled differently by Swarm in the future. That leaves his refusal to discuss his Admin action (a long block), and his refusal to discuss his accusation that an editor is editing to strongly push a POV instead of NPOV editing. Swarm's only response here is to insist his reasoning is so "self-explanatory" as to not even warrant a response to my disagreement. So I must beg to differ with your conclusion, Jayron, that this is a "dead horse" issue. To the contrary, it is less than 24 hours old. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Forgive me for not taking these accusations seriously but this just seems a little disingenuous. So I didn't see someone ping me. My bad. But seriously, nothing was stopping them from actually contacting me. You know, like we did before pinging was imvented? But instead, they come here, after all this time, with a completely manufactured controversy about me ignoring them, in spite of them making no actual attempts to communicate with me after they tried pinging. Again, I fully stand behind the block as justified and accounted for. That's it. Swarm ♠ 22:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Swarm, I think we can all AGF and accept that you missed his pings, and didn't simply disregard them – mistakes happen. But, also assuming good faith, can you not see things from Xenophrenic's point of view? Really, this whole thing could probably be resolved immediately, if instead of a flippant "My bad", you offered a sincere apology. How difficult is that? You'd earn a shitload more of my respect if you did, instead of digging your heels in. A little bit of courtesy goes a long way – especially here on Wikipedia, where it seems to be in short supply. Mojoworker (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely and utterly disagree. That would require ignoring the gravity of this situation. It's no light thing to bring somebody to AN/I, particularly to make a spurious bad faith accusation of admin abuse, with a sensationalist section header that will attract as much drama and attention as possible. Surely you understand that it's hard to be sympathetic to someone who's publicly accusing you of malicious intent in the most dramatic way possible, when in reality they made no sincere attempt to address the issue with you in any way. This user could have done something as simple as posting a talkback on my talk page. Or a single sentence asking why I didn't respond. But they didn't. Why? Why would they rather go through all this time, drama and effort, before posting a single sentence on my talk page? It doesn't make sense, unless they wanted the drama. And that smacks of typical block vendetta that we have to deal with when we block someone, and I'm not in the habit of accommodating that. This user has a penchant for grudges, as evidenced by the situation that led to the block, and in my view this is the very same problematic behavior manifesting itself. Sorry, I'm not playing into it. Swarm ♠ 17:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC).

Yes, I can see your point as well. It's a bad situation all around. I hope the way his unblock request was mishandled is a rarity – it could easily be misconstrued as admins closing ranks. The whole thing saddens me. Mojoworker (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think User:Swarm gets pings very well (testing). Relying on a ping is not a good idea with any user. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am able to receive pings, as I assume every user is. I can't confirm whether these pings worked because my notifications don't go back that far. They could have just been buried in my notifications, or accidentally marked as read. Regardless I can't guarantee I'll catch and respond to every ping I receive. I'm far too busy both on this project and in real life. To demand perfection in this regard would be foolishness. If you need to talk to me, just contact me directly on or off-wiki. It's not that hard. Swarm ♠ 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Need for timely unblock reviews

I have not reviewed the merits of this dispute. However, I am troubled that an editor posted an unblock request on August 27, which was closed as stale on September 7 (11 days later) because the two-week block had just expired with no administrator having reviewed the block. Unblock requests, even complex ones, are a high administrator priority and I hope this degree of delay was an isolated instance. (I have stayed away from contentious unblock reviews this year because of the possibility they will come to arbitration, but perhaps I ought to reconsider that.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This, essentially. Thanks for the reminder. I'm off to work through that backlog myself. --Jayron32 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've done my best to clear out or at least respond to anything substantially older than 1 week old. I hope that helps. It's a good reminder that we should be, as admins, checking in to common backlogs to stop things from getting out of control. --Jayron32 20:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I haven't looked at that particular backlog in some time. I'm part of the problem and I'll make more of an effort to address unblock requests going forward. A Train^talk 16:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron, for clearing the queue, and A Train for acknowledging the problem and pledging to help do something about it. I know I'd be hopping mad if my unblock request had been mishandled the same way. Is this another clarion call for RfA reform? I fear things will only get worse as time passes. It's a shame that User:Huon didn't pass on to other admins that the unblock request was languishing. As I mentioned above, this could easily be misconstrued as admins closing ranks, which does our overworked admins a disservice. But the fact the ball was dropped in this instance saddens me. Mojoworker (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Fully agree. Swarm ♠ 23:01, 11 October 2017 (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.

File:Electricity Supply Board (Ireland) logo.png

I have updated and then rescaled ESB logo per their request at Ticket:2017100610009671. Please remove old revisions of the file. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but we have automatic systems that take care of that. I've done one bit manually; the rest will be processed by bots in due course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remember this tag for my future uploads. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Working toward correcting Issues with article The Marketer (Building)

Admin Team, I was working with another admin to keep a page from being deleted. But have since had my thread removed by the admin. Can someone please help me resolve a page being deleted that I do not believe should have been. I am willing to put in the work necessary to make sure the page meets the standards required by Wikipedia. The page was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marketer_(Building)Arachlow (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Arachlow

I completely agree with the deletion. The page was spam from the very first sentence onward. "The Marketer is four floors of forward thinking"? The building MIGHT be notable, but is needs to be rewritten from a completely neutral viewpoint. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing the underlying content, It's been deleted for unredeemable Advertising. It would require a fundamental rewrite. In the future you can try using Articles for Creation to start building the page so that you can get guidance as to how to improve the page prior to being in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also I observe the prose that you, Arachlow have added is quite... flowery. Please review WP:COI and determine if you have something you'd like to declare regarding The Marketer (Building) and Empower MediaMarketing (the company that built the building as it's headquarters). Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Making further observation that after the above was observed the user removed content they added earlier today to support the usage of the Marketer building. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) User has put a pseudo COI declaration on Empower MediaMarketing so I think that wraps this issue up. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

62.151.64.39 and WP:COMPETENCE

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.

---

62.151.64.39 (talk · contribs)

A stream of unwanted and unconstructive changes, with plenty of warnings. Some are trivial, the non-trivial are factually inaccurate. I'd raise this at AIV, but AIV doesn't seem to handle COMPETENCE any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've put a "stop this now or I'll block" note on their talk page. I'll keep an eye on their contribs, and if they ignore that, I'll block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted another totally unnecessary edit from this user. [98] – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:59, 12 October 2017 (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.

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because it is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

We hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference desk discussions

'Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς.' Of possible interest, now as much as the future. — fortunavelut luna 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Link amended to point to correct venue. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Link still wasn't going to the right place so I amended it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage anyone reading the straw poll to pay extra attention to the threaded discussion section. I have been moving threaded comments out of the Straw Poll and intro the Threaded Discussion in response to an editor who really, really likes to WP:BLUDGEON. If we allow him to insert replies into the straw poll section, that section will quickly become a huge mess with that one editor's comments taking up over 90% of the space. The downside is that there are some really astute comments that may be missed if the reader doesn't read the threaded comments section. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just one? There are at least FOUR editors that you're refusing to talk to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART and victim blaming

I made a tweak; I know, I'm being bold... Please see the talk page for my concerns and my reason for the tweak. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:SummerFunMan

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.

---

Posted from the appelant's talkpage:

"Hey guys, I've been itching to get back into good standing and correct errors here on the Wikipeda wherever I might see them. It's been way longer than the half-year waiting period to enact the standard offer; in fact, it's been almost three (3) years. So let's say that if I had waited for the originally prescribed 6 months, and you, the reviewer of this request, were to have said that you felt like you could only trust me if I had paid the price with even more time for some interesting reason, like say... 2 more years, and then even another reviewer said something like, "Nahh, he still isn't sincere enough; let's have him wait another half a year," then I've waited both of those periods out already too. So I've done my time and then already done it again and then some, and then even some more, and really am doing my very best to be very sincere with you now, I promise.

Now, as you may have already seen that the blockage information here states, I was blocked for sockpuppetry instead of being patient enough with the prescribed discussion process back then as I will be now, and this is my master account.

I understand that playing by the rules requires us to do bold/revert/discuss cycles with normally only one account instead, or only with multiple accounts when given permission to have them and we have declared that they are our alternates, and I agree to play that right way (not abuse multiple accounts). But I don't think I have a good excuse for an alternate account yet. I would like to learn why they are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay?

One thing you may remember the standard-offer guide saying is that apologies aren't necessary; just an ownership of your past wrongdoings and a sincere description of how you'll improve your actions from those in order to do your best to help improve the project, which is what I'm doing my best to show you here right now.

When I read articles of interest here, sometimes I notice errors, as any good reader does. I used to be able to correct them immediately. Sometimes I see places where such-and-such thing could be more specific, or more general, or less wordy, or whatever, and want to take the appropriate actions to clean those problem areas up so that they actually make sense and read how an encyclopedia should read. And of course I want to clean up vandalism whenever I see it too. Then I also know there are places that aren't really erroneous or unclear, but for whatever reason, just don't follow a certain style of flow, namely, that they don't match the prescribed style from the manual. So that's when I'll try to match the article to that style.

But there can be times when another editor or few don't agree with the changes I've made, even though I think the improvements should be obvious to them. Back in those days, I'd just use a sock to try to take on more consensus weight. Right? But now I'll do things the right way. So instead of socking, I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and then request other editors to discuss the problem so that we can find an agreeable solution. I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on, with the kindest wording that I can think of to try to help other editors stay willing to keep discussing with me until the concern is resolved, just like I'm doing my best to do so right now.

I hope that my attempts to explain things thus far--especially the comparison between how I sock-puppeted before and how I'll do my best to follow the rules now by following the expected boldness/reversion/discussion cycle--will show you that I really am being sincere and do want to play the game without cheating, and now deserve to be unblocked in order to prove that to you by resuming my making of improvements to this project."

Please see the page history at User talk:P004ME2 for additional context. When I ran a CU for that appeal, I found no other activity beyond these two accounts. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose lifting the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose See here: [99]. The user had been socking as recently as the rejected appeals above on the P004ME2 account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: What is that diff supposed to show? A blocked editor editing their user talk page from an already blocked account isn't a reason to oppose, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It's honestly stupid vandalism, and adds to the fact the user isn't here to work constructively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per RickinBaltimore. Patient Zero^talk 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per BU Rob13. — fortunavelut luna 14:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• There's a link to the SummerFunMan sockpuppet investigation on User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" - is this the same user? Peter James (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm always one for giving people another chance, so if there's been no recent socking (and I don't see any sign that there has - the unblock attempt at the long-blocked sock P004ME2 really doesn't count), then I say let him back and try again. We have little to lose and potentially a lot to gain if he becomes a productive contributor - and as they say, blocks are cheap, so I don't see much risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - 100% guaranteed to be a timesink. Stupid graffiti on user talk page while blocked. Requests unblock of User talk:P004ME2 because they prefer that name. Reams of wikilawyering on sock's talk page. Whether this should be a block that lasts another couple of years while they mature some more, or this should be an infinite block because they are never going to mature, I don't understand the expected benefit (any expected benefit) that would outweigh the obvious cost now. Suggest declining request, removing talk page access, and allow an OTRS request to restore talk page access in 2 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if User:Master of Puppets, User:Yunshui, and User:JamesBWatson would like to estimate the amount of time they've spent dealing with this person the last 3 weeks? "Outweigh the obvious costs" is not a rhetorical device; there are real, concrete costs associated with dealing with people like this, and those costs increase dramatically when they're unblocked and allowed to goof around sitewide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would tentatively oppose this standing offer based purely on the request reason. I've done my time (not a valid rationale), I would like to learn why they (multiple accounts) are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay? (shows inability to distinguish illegitimate use of multiple accounts), I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on (Really? WP:GAME?). I don't think the user still understand the reason why they were blocked, and the subsequent response by the user on their talk page just further consolidates the point. Alex Shih^Talk 18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I am not overwhelmed with confidence that this will end well based on their own statement, but it has been three years and everyone deserves a second chance. Blocks are cheap, and many eyes will be on them, ensuring a fast block if needed. Given the two options, unblocking is more likely to produce a positive outcome, but just barely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• SNOWpose - the appellant, as they have been dubbed, has continued the behaviour that got them indeffed in the first place. I also have the exact same concerns as Alex Shih regarding their appeal. I want to believe its sincere, but, I just don't think it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Current Socking

• It's been confirmed via CheckUser evidence that SummerFunMan has been editing while logged out in recent months. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• I have confirmed this result also, and add it's been across several months. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not sure how I missed that when looking at the P004ME2 appeal, but I've just taken another look and the likelihood of a relationship with the User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" IP sockfarm is pretty evident. On that basis, I'm going to close this discussion and convert the block to a CU block instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:03, 13 October 2017 (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.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of জঙ্গলবাসী

Can somebody please create this category? Could the creation of such categories be automated? Rathfelder (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder, an older account was found, the cat is now at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bishal_Khan. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The bengali username was real good!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddly User talk:Devsharma Bajpai showed up on my radar this morning after an odd posting at the village pump. I don't speak hindi, related? Apparantly his usertalk is poetry.. I don't generally believe in coincidences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regretably, I fail to spot any coincidence.I have sufficient knowledge of both Bangla and Hindi and there apperars to be neither any account-name-similarity or contribution-similarity.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, perhaps you can find out what Devsharma wants then :D I will drop it in your lap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death:(edit conflict)Anyways, Bajpai looks to be the usual sub-continental editor, eagerly wilful to use WP in self-promotion.His t/p post would read:--Devasharma Bajpai from Seetapur, Uttar Pradesh, is the brightest doyen of Hindi literature.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• This has not solved my problem, which is existence of the red category attached to User:Nidhi Tumar which I am not allowed to create. Why can the template not create the category? Rathfelder (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Our software just doesn't work that way; only human edits (and edits by bots, which MediaWiki can't distinguish from edits by humans) are able to create anything. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

IMvHO, it would be useful if The Rambling Man was granted the template editor privilege to allow him to fix errors that appear on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Granting such a privilege would mean that the associated templates would need to be dropped from protection at admin level to protection at template editor level. Doing so would mean that other template editors could also assist in the maintenance of the Main Page.

This is an issue which, I feel, should be discussed rather than an admin boldly going ahead and doing it. I've asked TRM whether he would like the privilege, and he says he would. For all his faults, he is not a vandal and I feel it would be safe to grant him the privilege. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

TRM informed of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I can think of a few other editors that regularly post to WP:ERRORS that it might be worth granting the right to as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand I do not know any reason not to do this user right change. On the other hand mainpage templates are cascade protected and can only be edited by admins, not template editors, so it might not work for the proposed scope. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, but I share the same concerns as JoJo Eumerus above. While I have no doubt that TRM will use it correctly (he's a brilliant content contributor), I'm not sure the proposed scope will be accessible. (consider this a support !vote). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's a technical issue, then that can be discussed at the appropriate venue once it has been agreed that the proposal has consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Xaosflux was the last person to cascade protect the main page (after an admin account was hacked and unprotected it), so he would be a suitable starting point to suggest if it's technically doable or not, and if there are any risks. I would further suggest that any changes to the Main Page's protection should get a firm consensus here and also be publicised at the Village Pump, possibly by an RfC. We don't want somebody to turn up a month later and yell "why wasn't I informed?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything on the main page is under cascade protection, and that won't be changing. It's possible to drop things like the DYK Queues down to TE protection, but that would be it. Further, TE guidelines for granting includes no behavioral blocks in the past 6 months. I see no reason to deviate from that here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There you go! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As you say, BU Rob13, it's a guideline, not something that has been set in stone. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Everything on the main page is under cascade protection, and that won't be changing." - what policy covers that? The main page has been around far longer than TE protection. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: From a technical standpoint, we can only cascade full protection. This is unchangeable without giving all editors access to protection up to the level that they have access at (e.g. any TE could TE protect any page by transcluding it on the TE cascading protected page). See WP:CASCADE and Bugzilla:8796. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ack, looks like it's technically impossible, and short of Plan B we're stuck:-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Supposing TRM was granted TE privileges, could he edit the template for tomorrow's OTD? Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is is technically possible to allow cascading full protection and cascading template editor protection, but not cascading semiprotection and cascading (anything else) protection? Also, @BU Rob13:, I think it's worse than that, the policy to me reads that any TE could FULLY protect any page by transcluding it on the TE cascading protected page. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right actually. I misread. It's completely technically infeasible to cascade TE because the cascaded protection is always full. I doubt the WMF will change that in the software. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Deja-vu - didn't we already have a discussion about TE-protecting DYK a few months back? I'm pretty sure we did. Back then, there was no support for it for various reasons. Imho, if we consider this, we should consider this outside TRM, because other prolific DYK contributors such as Cwmhiraeth would benefit as well. And I think WP:VPP should be the correct venue to discuss it. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You said 'prolific' when a more accurate word would be 'error-prone'. There is little point in giving TRM the authority to fix problems, if you also give the same to the very people who cause them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot on! But then, since when did Wikipedia ever solve its problems without creating more :) — fortunavelut luna 10:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that we should discuss the proposed change to how we protect the relevant pages first in a general context, then the grant of TE to those that would need it. This affects more than one editor. WJBscribe (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• If we're talking about making software changes, the logical step to me is to unbundle the ability to edit and protect pages from the other admin tools, and then hand the new user right to all our OTD/DYK/ITN regulars who would not qualify for adminship. Both common sense and technical reasons suggest that reducing protection levels is not the way to go. I've no issues with giving TRM the user right, it's just that it doesn't seem particularly useful to him at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  If we want to implement a way for non-admin regulars at the main page processes to edit the main page directly, this is the correct conversation to have. If we want to have it though, we need to fire it up as a full RFC, complete with WP:CENT posting, and the whole nine yards. This also might not be the most appropriate venue (a village pump is probably better.) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oh no. I predict a front page full of cricket items. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  It's hard to talk about unbundling page protection without unbundling the ability to block. Not having the latter ability would lead to editors using the former inappropriately as their only way to directly control disruption (rationale along the lines of WP:Relist bias). I'm generally supportive of unbundling, but unbundling protection alone would worry me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be totally unprecedented to create a separate protection category of "main page protection" similar to templates, to step down from full, and allow editing for a select group of non adims. GMG^talk 13:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely would be unprecedented to create a new protection level intended for a single page, but more importantly, it would be unfeasible without substantial changes in how cascading protection works. Cascading protection is always full, even if you cascade off of a semi-protected page, so everything transcluded on the main page will always be fully protected unless we get rid of cascading protection entirely (which we will not do for obvious reasons). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would not be opposed to this on the merits, but as noted above, I think this would change a WHOLE lot of ways the main page works in terms of protection of the various templates and the usual way we what is basically an admin-level provision. If it were as simple as "grant someone permission X and they could do it" i'd be fine with that. The discussion above leads me to think there are doubts that it is that simple, and if so, we should probably have a discussion as to how to implement such a policy first. If I am mistaken, that is, if it is as simple as "flip a switch and he can do it" then please correct me. --Jayron32 13:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically its not a real problem. The question is 'should we?' I have zero qualms about letting TRM fiddle around with the main page to his hearts content. I have many many qualms, a qualmcano, about letting lots of the editors involved in DYK at the finished page. Apart from the inherent conflict most of them have with chasing credit for getting their stuff on the front page, the DYK archives are absolutely full of quality-control issues. You don't let the people causing problems have control of the keys. Without some sort of decent vetting process beyond the usual nepotistic 'this admin thinks editor X deserves the right' applied to many user-rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle I think the idea of devolving, ever so slightly, some of the rights to edit the main page is a good idea. And more specifically TRM, setting aside his recent controversies, is one of the best editors we have for all things main page, especially ERRORS. Unfortunately my command of tech pretty much peaked with the advent of the electric typewrite so I am going to have to defer to our more tech savvy editors as to the practicality of the suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there is another way around this. Would it be technically possible to allow an editor to edit a specific page/template through the normal protection when said editor would normally be excluded from editing said page/template? This could also work in reverse to exclude an editor from a specific page/template when they would normally be able to edit it. Could be useful for reducing disruption by certain editors. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its called being an admin ;) (short version, that's part of the admin rights). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Only in death, you seem to have misread what I wrote. Have italicised the important bit to make it clearer. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No I got what you meant. To edit through any normal protection you either need a user-right that allows you to (template-editor etc) or be a member of a group that has those rights auto-granted for that particular protection level. Short of being an admin, those particular pages would need to be shifted away from cascade protection which would only allow admins to edit them. As the page inherits the protection from above - you would need to take it out of the protection tree or create an entirely new user-right - effectively unbundle the particular user-right from the admin set in order to allow non-admins to edit through it. Granted I don't think its inherently bad allowing certain editors to edit through various protection levels, its just in this particular series of pages there are a number of issues coming together. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've asked whether or not this would be technically possible at WP:VPT#Editing through protection. No point running a RFC until we have the answer to that one, is there? Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Alsee has come up with an interesting solution. Have subpages of the templates that TEs can edit, with an admin bot tasked with copying over to the actual templates that make up the main page. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Isn't this similar to what's being done at DYK already, if the queues were TE protected? Not sure how similar system can be implemented in ITN though since it's always changing. Alex Shih^Talk 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm all for it. I'm speaking as an editor/admin here, not as an Arb, and not having discussed this with my fellow arbs. Note: all the technicalities involved aren't so interesting to me; the principle, that TRM has been good to the front page, is what matters. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• It would take some seriously funky stuff to make this useful, but I'd note that cascading protection doesn't appear to apply to a user's own .js pages; if one's .js page is transcluded onto a cascade-protected page, one will get a warning about the page being cascade-protected, but still allow the page to be edited, even for a non-admin. To illustrate, I applied cascading protection to User:WK-test/sandbox, which transcludes User:WK-test/sandbox.js and User:WK-test/sandbox2; WK-test was able to create and edit sandbox.js, despite not being an admin account and the page being subject to the cascading protection, while sandbox2 was full-protected as usual. Probably too janky to be effective, but in theory this could be used to make user-by-user exceptions to cascading protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that TRM was recently blocked in service to an ArbCom remedy. If a experienced user cannot restrict themselves from gegging into problematic issues, how much trouble do you think they could get into willfully? I express my "No" opinion on this request per WP:TPEGRANT The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying. ArbCom enforcement blocks are effectively the Red-est letter behaviorial blocks there are. If TRM can keep their nose clean from September 25 2017 + 6 months, then we can re-investigate. Otherwise I don't see the benefit to the community of fixing these errors sooner vs granting a permission to an editor who prima facie does not meet the requriements. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You are utterly missing the point of this thread.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on the general principle posted at WP:VPP#RFC: Proposal to allow Template Editors the ability to indirectly edit the Main Page and listed on CENT. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (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.

Village Pub

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 warning that article talk pages are not to be forums. But discussion of life in general can generate ideas that can be edited to Wikipedia.

Therefore, unless it is illegal, I have started Wikipedia:Village Pub and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_Pub

If you think this is not permitted, do not get mad. Just let me know. Happy Editing! AGrandeFan (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM? Also, perhaps with a glance towards WP:BIAS, it doesn't look much like a pub on the Falls Road, you know :p :D — fortunavelut luna 22:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case, isn't the old social working element of WP a perennial proposal? Or sumfin like that anyway... — fortunavelut luna 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

1 in 3 new pubs close before a year is out... Primefac (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of keeping it, per WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM, but if it's going to be kept, it needs a different name, as it's too similar to WP:Village pump. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good point; I don't know what to think about the idea of having such a page, but yes it ought to get a different name. Maybe go with the Wikinews idea and call it WP:Water cooler. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• No - We already have the ref desk that we can't get rid of. The last thing we need is another enclave of exception to WP:NOTFORUM. Best case scenario is it gets popular enough to have behavioral problems the community can't address because you've already violated one of the fundamental tenants of the project. GMG^talk 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry but WP:Village pump already covers all that is needed, including an idea lab. The problem with starting a chat forum is that it would encourage people to focus on chatting, and those people will assume that the procedures that apply at other webforums also apply to pages on Wikipedia, with a likely increase in the noise-to-signal ratio. There is also WP:RD where too much chat occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

While we're here, can we also discuss getting rid of the RD as being a time- / resource-sink. Or, in the spirit of these things, can we discuss holding a RfC to discuss getting rid of the RD as being a time- / resource-sink...? Vis á vis, the Augean stables... — fortunavelut luna 00:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What's to discuss? Start an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and advertise it on WP:Centralized discussions, and away we go! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• No: as duplicate and unnecessary (as much as I'd like a drink). WP:Water cooler would be a better title indeed if it was ever going to be kept although the initials would be synonymous with water closet (!) Alex Shih^Talk 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm sure WP:WC would love to take a break and have a pint; I'm sure we could usurp the redirect Primefac (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  The thoughts of referring newcomers with the lines of "Have you checked our WP:WC? It's a great place to relieve yourself from the stress of editing Wikipedia." ... I've proposed the pub for MfD. Alex Shih^Talk 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  "What the hell kind of pub is this? The beer is watery and smells funny." --Calton | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, we have IRC, if you want to chat to wikipedians without being strictly on topic then bumble over to #wikipedia-en on freenode. (disclaimer: important stuff is disscused there sometimes). Dysklyver 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: That just links back here atm — fortunavelut luna 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

O sorry you need to see Wikipedia:IRC and look for the channel #wikipedia-en. Dysklyver 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Or use #wikipedia-en ^connect. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why not?  Volunteer Marek  23:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• No - We have entirely too much social media grade activity as it is. We are a collaborative project, which means some side discussions are expected and tolerated. Having a place to do nothing but that, is not a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Is there a practical benefit for this? Real world for business corporations do sometimes have company celebrations and company holidays or company parties and the like; perhaps there is some (morale? socialization?) benefit of having occasional chat fora as opposed to solely business oriented fora such as ANI or the Village Pumps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (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.

Possible decade-old hoaxes

I came across this after another editor (Slashme) did so. Neither he nor I can find what he is talking about (I've searched the pages at Category:15th-century Russian people, but none seem to contain the hoax). Is there a way of searching contributions in general (i.e. not by a specific user), or some other way of finding these supposed hoaxes? Thought this should be posted here as the person has said he'll be adding more such hoaxes in the near future. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The other possibility, of course, is that the post itself is the hoax, since some of us would probably bend over backwards trying to figure out exactly what was posted by this guy. If it's a wasted effort, then their opening statement ("my hobby is fucking with Wikipedia") would be fruitful. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility, but if there's even the slightest chance it's real, it should probably be investigated. Hoaxes are not to be taken lightly. The post looks credible. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

He wants to fuck with Wikipedia? Can we get him a job on the board, keep it in-house...? :p — fortunavelut luna 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I also considered the possibility that it's a meta-hoax, and the details are clearly not trustworthy, but it's definitely credible enough to warrant investigation. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There were no cardinals until the 18th century in Russia (Cardinals is a notion from the Roman Catholic Church). If someone can run a search on Russian personalia before 1700 which contain the word "cardinal" I can take care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Aleksei Shein contains the words "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" - and also has this "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica" - wondering if this is it? AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit adding this was the only one ever made by an IP. AusLondonder (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @AusLondonder:, I removed the cardinal, he was clearly not in his place. Shein is actually an important figure in Russian history, and it is a pity that the article is based on the 1911 source. I will see whether I can find smth better.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Exact same edit made by similar IP also in 2009; this time to a 16th century German religious figure. This sad little fucker calls this a hobby apparently. AusLondonder (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The "cardinal" is mentioned in this self-published book available on Amazon, apparently what that guy means about it being in a book. AusLondonder (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I did some googling to see what turned up and after a lot of sleuthing found quite a few hits. This is in addition to the one in the Shein article.

• Removed by User:Andreas Philopater and was present from the time of its insertion in 2009 by 209.203.104.177, until today.
• Also removed by Andreas Philopater today. Inserted in 2009 by 63.173.58.164.
• Inserted by 64.129.196.204 and removed by DivermanAU in September this year.
• Found this one by 204.212.10.124 in 2009, but picked up in 2014 by Parvulus scholasticus
• And this one by 24.63.31.232 in 2008 and removed this April by 2a02:8084:20:b900:fdb0:a516:7555:fafe
• This edit by 24.127.231.98 in 2008, removed in 2015 by Concord.
• Added in 2012 by Iamthecheese44 and removedby 86.69.180.220 in 2015. In this case, I think it was because Iamthecheese44 read it in the Countess Ina Marie article, who was spouse to Prince Oskar, and thus matched the info up.

Just doing a Google search of "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" and "Wikipedia" shows that this hoax has extended to a number of other sites that use Wikipedia's articles. Also, they were using {{1911}} not {{1885}}, which was to throw us off the trail. --Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Carrite: There are apparently "6 fresh edits". Perhaps there's something to be said to closing off Wikipedia to IPs. It would still be the encyclopedia anyone can edit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  They could have registered a throwaway account instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we need not only to ban IP editing but to implement some sort of significant hurdle for registration, such as solving a captcha and providing a confirmed email address. Instead for some reason WP romanticizes being The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Vandalize.™ Carrite (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I just tried to check the recent changes for the 6 fresh edits, but it only shows the last 500 edits, so we'll be lucky to see anything from more than about 10 minutes ago there. Is there any other way to find them? Adam9007 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I just spotted a mention of him on Polish Wikipedia. Is this the same? (add: another one on Italian Wikipedia) Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been using PetScan to try to find these 6 edits, but have no idea where to begin looking. Adam9007 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Would an edit filter perhaps be useful to stop any new insertions? ansh666 21:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm really impressed! Great work. --Slashme (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a few mentions in other languages, which I've cleaned up or asked editors there to help with. --Slashme (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK queues empty

If anyone here would like to "do the biz". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

FYI on needless blocks

This morning I was blocked "until 2020" because the CenturyLink internet provider did not inform me that they had changed my IP address and I needed to restart my receiver to get onto the new line. This scary experience, and needless effort on all sides, could be avoided if those who are involved in blocking the line realize it may be only a changed IP on the provider's part: give the guilty editor an option of restarting his/her receiving box before panicking. (Your system interpreted the old address as something you don't allow: I forget the name for it since all evidence of this affair is at my old, inaccessible IP address.) Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, are you familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY? Basically, it sounds like you were reassigned to an address that either was subject to an autoblock (to prevent a blocked editor from editing while logged out) or that had formerly been an open proxy. If it's an open proxy, you're correct that we might want to add such a notice, but with autoblocks that would be a bad idea — we don't want you to get around the autoblock if you've already been blocked, so people who don't know how to get around it shouldn't be told. If my words remind you of any of the circumstances of the block, it would help if you mentioned it. Finally, please note that you can use {{unblock-auto}} if this situation ever happens again. This template should be linked in the block messages; if it's not currently, it's time to add it. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for going over this. No I'm not familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY and though I have an MS in math I keep wanting to write (and see) Wikipedia for Dummies pages! As to the {{unblock-auto}} I believe this is what it told me to save on my talk page, but I was unable to save anything there. Next, my understanding from the CenturyLink technician is that I was using a discarded address which got me in trouble, since I didn't know to restart the receiver and so connect to our new IP address (I just heard that we did go down to a cheaper CenturyLink package). If I understand you correctly, you don't want to tell editors to restart their receiver since this may educate them on how to evade a block. @Nyttend: Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want to tell them that if it's an autoblock, i.e. they're using an IP address recently used by another account that's been blocked. However, it would be good to include such instructions (or a link to them) in the block message used by User:ProcseeBot; if you're using an IP that was identified as a proxy, either it's no longer a proxy (so it shouldn't be blocked anymore), or changing IPs will mean that you're no longer attempting to use a proxy. By the way, you're not the only one falling victim to blocking problems — while investigating your situation, I accidentally blocked myself and couldn't reverse the block without help :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've added a link from MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext to the unblock template. ProcseeBot's block rationale uses {{Blocked proxy}}, which gives unblock instructions quite clearly but doesn't address redoing your receiver. However, I don't myself understand how this is done, so I don't want to add any instructions there. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I may be out-of-date but I believe the software used to list the blocked editor when auto-blocking, I had a good attempt at trying to explain to the Foundation that this was a serious breach of privacy, that could be avoided or at least reduced, which is why I remember it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, it still does. When I autoblocked myself just now, I was logged in as Nyttend, but the autoblock message said Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked... Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Procedural unblock" template

I declined Draft:Template:Unblock procedural recently, mostly because we already have {{unblock}} and {{unblock reviewed}} (and {{Unblock request declined}} was deleted at TFD) and because I didn't see much of a reason to have another unblock template. However, just because I wouldn't use it doesn't mean others wouldn't. Bringing this up here since it's (clearly) an admin issue.

So I guess the question is - do we need a template that gives a "procedural close" of an unblock (i.e. a very specific instance of declining an unblock) as opposed to just declining using the standard decline template? Primefac (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a big user of procedural closes. I often do so when a user is complaining about an IP block but does not include their IP address. I typically word it something like, "Procedural decline only. You did not include your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find your IP address using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS." Note that WhatIsMyIP uses ads, so may not be the best choice. For the record, I have no idea who runs that service and am completely unrelated with them. Note also, I add the user's talk page to my watch list; people sometimes follow up just with their IP address rather than a new unblock request. So, anyway, yeah, I'd use a template like what I just outlined. How useful it'd be to others, I'm unsure. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest http://myip.dnsomatic.com/? Absolutely no ads there. —Wasell^(T) 19:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I, too, like the idea of a procedural template. When someone makes multiple unblock requests and those requests get declined, it's routinely taken as a solid indication that we need to cut off talkpage access, or at least it's seen as a good indication that future requests should be taken with a grain of salt. For this reason, when running across an unblock request that's malformed, I generally don't decline it — I nowiki it (and give an explanation of course), lest a later admin think that it's an outright rejection. There's a big difference between This request doesn't deserve an unblock and There's a good reason why I shouldn't unblock you, but it's unrelated to the merits of your request (especially when there's a technical problem preventing unblock, e.g. Yamla's situation where we need to know an IP address that the user didn't provide the, or when user simply forgot to specify an unblock rationale); the former is a rejection based on the user and the latter a decline based on the situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

PS, see the BlackAmerican discussion several sections below this one. Right now, this user's talk page has five unblock templates — three that were rejected and two that were declined on procedural grounds, basically because the user's gotten a checkuser block that mustn't be overturned merely by an admin coming along. When your request is declined because Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request, it would be nice if there were a template different from the one used to reject your request because You have been using this account to evade blocks on other accounts. The fact that you have got away with it for months does not make it acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I like the idea of a procedural close template too - I usually nowiki them too, and that's not entirely satisfactory. Maybe one with a "What you should do next" section? In many cases it should be obvious what to do next (like "procedural close because there's a new unblock request"), but with things like the BlackAmerican one, some guidance is needed - and, of course, what might seem obvious can be surprisingly not obvious at all to newcomers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected redirect issue

Hi
This issue is about a rude subject, it is a genuine issue which I can't send to RfD due to page protection, not an attempt to stick rude words on WP:AN.
I have noticed an issue with a redirect Shit hole. Why does it point to the totally unrelated Asshole?.
The defintion is: according to the Oxford Dictionary Shithole - noun vulgar slang. An extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place. ‘this place is a shithole, I hope you know that’.
It seems to have nothing to do with its current target. Dysklyver 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I can post it at RfD on your behalf, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Shit hole in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, there are 2 good ways to handle the tagging of such redirects: Either leave a notre on the RFD discussion (and a passing admin will fix the issue), or leave a {{editprotected}} request on its talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the latter is that redirects don't often have extant talk pages at all, so you'd have to create one, and thus we get into the same blacklisting problem. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is only an issue for blacklisted titles, not those which are either directly protected, or protected via cscade protection of a transclusing page. Most often, the protection is done directly. And there's always the opion of leaving a comment in the RFD discussion - this may end up delaying the earliest possible close by 24 hours, but many are closed late anyway. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Long-term abusive behaviour by user FrankCesco26 and recent abuse of checkuser 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.

---

User FrankCesco26 recently opened a sockpuppet investigation of a number of IPs that I used (as an unlogged editor) on another version of Wikipedia (specifically the Italian one) to notify Italian readers about the fact that he (FrankCesco26) was moving his problematic activities on Italian Wikipedia after having been blocked here on English Wikipedia. Given the fact that there was no behaviour against any of Wikipedia's rules from my part, and there was no abusive behaviour whatsoever (since I didn't create the semblance of a consensus by editing as different IPs or as different IPs and "Wddan", but I used the different IPs on different articles and never edited as logged-in "Wddan" on Italian Wikipedia), I think that FrankCesco26's report has to be intepreted as a mere provocation moved by pure retaliation, and therefore as a severe abuse of Wikipedia's regulations.

I ask therefore that FrankCesco26's abuse be appropriately punished.

This episode is just the latest (and I hope the last) one of a long chain of abusive behaviours by the reported user. The reason why I reverted his edits on Italian Wikipedia (see 1, 2, 3, 4) is that he was reproducing precisely the same edits that led to a block on English Wikipedia last June, that is to say the utter expunction of a source he didn't like from the article "Religion in Italy", and its replacement with another source of his liking, unduly mixing it with another source which is utterly incompatible and ignoring the consensus that had formed around the established version and data synthesis. His bad-faith motivations were debunked by user Ita140188 (read discussion) and he was blocked by admin MSGJ after having been reported by user Iryna Harpy, who also witnessed his bad behaviour.

Later in September, he was reported again by me for erasing sources he didn't like from a number of other articles about religion. The result was another block by admin EdJohnston. The checkuser report against me comes as a retaliation after my September report and the fact that I notified, unlogged/as an IP, his bad-faith edits on Italian Wikipedia.--Wddan (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm allowed to reply to these for I am not an administrator but I think this is something best left to WP:AN3. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no edit war going on this time, but mere provocative behaviour and abuse of Wikipedia tools driven by retaliation. So, this is a general case and I am not sure it fits 3RR reports' section.--Wddan (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Then WP:LTA is the place you're looking for. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have opened the case.--Wddan (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I got blocked for not having followed the 3RR, and I already paid for that.

You openend that section with your IPs in order to finish your purge of the sources you didn't like[100] [101] [102] (against the consensous [103]), after my block. I opened a legit sockpuppet investigation because you used a very unfair use of socks, insulting, provoking and ridiculing me [104] [105] with two sockpuppets. You also obstinately continued the edit war in the Italian Wikipedia ([106] and [107], again against the consensous[108]). So stop, this is not a good use of sockpuppets, I think it's a valid reason to report you for the WP:NPA. Also, I never insulted or provoked you, the only things I did is to remember you to use a Neutral point of view, thing that you often forget. There is no need to remember my blocks, I already paid for that.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:LTA is for tracking longtime sockmasters; we use it to study their past socks so we can more easily detect future socks. The issues at hand here are totally unrelated to LTA, so I've nominated this page for deletion. Please restrict your discussion of this situation to "ordinary" project pages like this page. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Counter Proposal: Close with no action

I see here a call for "punishment" for previous history between these two users. I see a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, I see a spill over from other language wikipedia to here. Therefore I propose: Pending a significant reformulation of this request, this petition for punishment should be closed in 24 hours as no action with prejudice . Past dirsurption was sanctioned and the majority of issues appear to be "I want more punishment for my opponent". Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2017 (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.

Concerned about mental health of an editor

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

---

I've just reviewed an AFC submission that looks to me like it was written by someone with significant mental health issues. I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, which is obviously designed to protect WP, but is there nothing we can do to assist the editor? A message on their talk page "Have you taken your medication?" presumes the person has medication to take, so is probably quite inappropriate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Is there a reason you didn't provide a link? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: There's nothing we can do, and further, we should avoid such comments when dealing with editors who are making crazy claims since they could be interpreted as personal attacks. Just focus on the content. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BU Rob13. I did not provide a link to avoid victimising the editor concerned. I have already declined and tagged the draft for G1 Speedy deletion without any further comment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Mandruss. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: (Ping[109] not received, and I don't see any of the usual explanations for same. Confirms my suspicion that pinging is not 100% reliable.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a known problem with pings. See Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Not receiving pings, which suggests a fix will be in place on Monday and details a workaround. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 15 October 2017 (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.

Merger of Education noticeboard

Hello all, for anyone interested in participating/closing the discussion, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Propose to close/merge Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents to this noticeboard that could use some attention. Thank you for you time! Alex Shih^Talk 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 rangeblock

I just blocked this range, based on the last two IP addresses at Super Mario Land. I cannot find a "damage calculator" for IPv6 addresses, so I'm dropping this here in case someone wants to tell me I blocked the entire SE USA or whatever. Ferret, you have run into this person too, and there's a ton more IPs (I suppose you can drop down the rabbit hole with this list). In other words, if these or others aren't included in the range I blocked and it needs to be expanded, go ahead and jump on in. I'm trying to learn this stuff. Oh, DoRD, I was trying to impress someone in the car the other day, editing from my phone, and guess what--ran into your rangeblock again. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yamaguchi, you too... Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• This was my first run in with the user, noticed because they hit multiple articles on my watchlist. Once I saw they had four warnings already and how extensive, I blocked and started cleanup. (Thanks to all the others who helped revert). For anyone who hasn't looked yet, the IP edits the leads of articles and removes the usual article title formatting, Nihongo templates, etc. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• The /67 on the end is better off being /64 (although in this case it did the job). Effectively, with IPv6 a /64 address is usually one editor. You only need to worry about blocking the entire USA when you get to /32 or below ;-) Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Black Kite beat me to it. Tweak your block to a /64 instead of /67 and you'll be sure to get everything that guy can access at the moment. Stick to blocking /64s and you'll be absolutely fine with collateral. You made a rangeblock! I'm so proud of you! :-) Katie^talk 19:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh thank you Katie! This means a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yep, what Katie and Black Kite said. Non-wireless broadband is almost always parceled out as a /64. And Drmies, that serves you right for trying to edit without logging in. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• The "67" came out of this rangeblock tool...it's linked on Meta...hold on...this tool. Just saying. Thank you all for your help. I was surprised to find this was a fairly prolific vandal, doing his business over a few days. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a poor workman who blames his tools :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The tool did its job correctly - it identified the smallest range containing 2 specific IPs. That a larger range should be blocked is not something the tool is designed for. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Arthur Rubin has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arthur Rubin case closed

Range blocker needed

Hey range blockers, if any of you are around right now, I got a huge-ass list that I need some help with. Please drop me an email or carrier pigeon, or hit me up on tindr. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Email me (or just post it here, if I'm going to block it it's not exactly secret). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks--I'll email, instead of posting here and showing my ignorance of range technicalities. :) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Nihlus, thanks for your note--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Harassment

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.

---

If I am being harassed by a fellow Wikipedian, where do I report it? Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, it would go to WP:ANI, generally. If this is the preamble to an actual request I'll shift it over there. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, given that Nihlus seems to be simply giving you some good advice you don't want to hear, rather than actually harassing you, the place you go is probably nowhere, either that or perhaps away form the keyboard for a few minutes to grab a cup of tea and calm down a bit. GMG^talk 15:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks. Will report him here shortly. @GreenMeansGo: Its not the thing that I don't want to hear him is the numerous warnings and their tone that irritates me. Imagine if your talkpage will be bombarded with contradicting information. One user says yes, you can welcome editors the other says no not in this way and then when you decide to try to warn vandals no you need to welcome them in some fashion. Get the point?--Biografer (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But you are not being harassed. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Question has been asked and answered, no need to make a big deal out of it before we make a big deal out of it at ANI. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I predict this will go swimmingly for OP. GMG^talk 16:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am being harassed. Just take a look here. We are on the verge of discussing it civilly, but now I am accused of harassment, which happened because he provoke all this war of words. At least I believe that he harassed @Rich Farmbrough:. Going to people talkpages simply to get his point across is harassment. Inviting all the editors to gang up on me, is in fact, harassment too. And yes, lets go to AN/I and try to solve it there, because I am completely fed up with editors that gathered here to prevent somebody to make an edit that is no big deal, to be honest.--Biografer (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to know when the line between being a well meaning pain-in-the-butt crosses to harassment. I am pretty sure that Nihlus means well, and they do make some valid points (and some invalid ones). I agree with Biographer that they aren't made in the most constructive way, and this is really most of the problem here. I suspect that it will be hard now for Nihlus and Biographer to engage constructively, and would advise them both to leave each other alone. I also suspect this advice will fall on deaf ears, but I hope not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

I've asked Biografer to leave it for now and I'll look over it and have a talk to them tomorrow about it, and they seem happy to go along with that. And yes, I definitely agree with your advice that they leave each other alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm more than capable of editing constructively after heated moments with editors; I get over things very quickly. Just ask Primefac and GreenMeansGo. @Rich Farmbrough and Boing! said Zebedee: I'm not fond of the assumption that I cannot engage constructively or the recommendation that I leave a user alone merely because they've made a mess. Nihlus 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, someone should have notified me of this discussion. Nihlus 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for agreeing that you should probably leave Biografer alone now is that your well-meaning efforts aren't working - so how about you leave it to me now, tomorrow? (And yes, someone indeed should have informed you - I'm sorry I didn't realise you had not been informed.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to pass the buck; however, it should be noted that eight editors have made similar comments on this user's talk page. This is not something I was going rogue on. Nihlus 19:25, 16 October 2017 (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.

George Mason University

I just deleted a slew of essays in user sandboxes, complete with GMU honor statements and essay-for-college headers. Has anyone else run across this before? Is there something I don't know but should? Is this a perennial issue and could you direct me to relevant discussion? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Might want to ask over at the Education noticeboard if someone more involved with educational outreach has a point of contact with GMU to see if this is part of an actual course (and if so, if there's some way the educational outreach people can help the course instructor). — /Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Would welcome input at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#George_Mason_University. — Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• We are not interested in the "GMU Honor Code" - it cuts no ice here. If a page is a copyvio it gets zapped, honour code declaration or not. But these were not copyvios. I have zapped them as classic student-essay forks of existing articles. Let the teacher who suggested them, declare themselves here and be roundly criticised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. I will continue to U5 the things unless otherwise directed.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Could an administrator please block my old doppelganger accounts?

Title explains it all, really - the accounts are as follows:

• Chessnaught555
• Chesnaught55
• Chesnaught5555
• Chesnaught
• Ches0555
• Chespin555
• Chesnought555

The reason I would like these accounts blocked (indef and TPA please, so "hard block") is because I obviously no longer go by the name of Chesnaught555, thus making these accounts pointless. I do have doppelganger accounts based on the username "Patient Zero", which IIRC, I have gone by since May 2016, but please do not block these ones. Thank you in advance to whoever does this for me. Patient Zero^talk 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac! Patient Zero^talk 08:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican

Statement from User:BlackAmerican

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 plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page (which is extensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_players_(M) ). I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih. I have passed a checkuser to prove that I have not been sockpuppeting. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. As can be seen by the AN, there is bad blood on the part of TGS towards me. I have been blamed for a number of things including his own sockpuppeting. [110] where extensive proof by multiple and him being lectured about it [111] . I will not engage him or others and will stay away from situations that could cause me to be reblocked. I do ask that we be banned from interaction from each other or going into articles that the other edits at. People go to jail and after time they learn their lesson. Why is time treated differently as a punishment here? Not editing on wikipedia for 6 months has taught me that it is a gift to be here and I will not take it for granted.

In conclusion, I will abide by the terms of the standard offer and be a better editor. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC))

@TheGracefulSlick, Alex Shih, Ad Orientem, Blackmane, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Od Mishehu, Mendaliv, Dlohcierekim, and Dennis Brown: Just a ping to everyone who has commented so far to make sure they know this is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

User:BlackAmerican was given a Checkuser block by User:Ponyo in January, and requested a Standard Offer unblock in July. Ponyo said "I don't support an unblock request at this time. That being said, if the community consensus is that more rope should be extended, then I won't stand in their way", but it's dragged on and the request was declined simply because no admin had addressed it.

There's a new request now at User talk:BlackAmerican#Standard Offer, and some resolution to it is needed. So, Community, do we support or oppose an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - In the strongest possible terms. If anyone needs a refresher, BlackAmerican is CrazyAces489 -- the same user who harassed me, wasted the community's time for months, and never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't). When CrazyAces created content, he never adhered to the advice of several experienced editors, deflecting it with the excuse "I create so others can contribute". I promised CA back in January I would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. Instead he avoided the issue and eventually went back to blaming others. He is a total timesink who I am convinced is just here to troll us one last time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @TheGracefulSlick: Do you have anything to say in response to CrazyAces489/BlackAmerican's accusations that you were multiply voting with socks to have articles deleted (for example, using User:ALongStay)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee no disrespect but why? Where is the relevance? I admitted to my mistake, apologized to those affected, and I hope after a year removed from the incident that I have proven I am of value to the community. That, I believe, is the major difference between me and CA, and why I am still editing today.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Just for clarity for others considering this, as it does seem like an issue of contention between you. Oh, and for the record, I'm staying neutral on the unblock question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: (edit conflict) I am against standing offer to this user based on several concerns. The user have submitted several unblock requests back in July/August, basically repeating the same short and vague rationale about having served the time, which is never a valid rationale without valid supporting arguments. I am all about giving rope to blocked users, but it's really difficult to justify these ropes when the competence/clue is simply not there. The current request is pretty much identical again to the previous request, despite of being nearly two months apart, and despite of being told to rewrite the request. Alex Shih^Talk 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support mostly per ROPE and my belief that permanent banishment should be very rarely imposed. That said, this editor has a problematic history and I would support a speedy re-block at the first sign of serious trouble. Also the editor needs to be put on notice that if they are re-blocked that the next a standard offer that gets serious consideration will be on the day after they start building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem is this the type of person you want to give another chance? And yes, if you have doubts, that is CA. Ask Bishonen and you can confirm that is one of the few IPs he used to evade his first (or second?) block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah...no per Alex Shih. Blackmane (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In light of their updated unblock request， I'd be willing to change my !vote to somewhat support. When an editor makes a SO appeal or even a regular appeal of an indefinite block the community expects a clear course of action on what they intend to do should they be allowed to return and how they intend to avoid the previous behaviour. I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced but probably just enough to give a bit more rope. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion on the merits or otherwise of the appeal. But can the Graceful Slick withdraw and strike their comment ("Strong oppose") above? I'm not sure it washes particularly well to !vote against someone for socking, etc, when one has done precisely the same thing for much the same reason; viz to win an argument. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 06:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To be totally fair, GS has already explained a critical difference between herself and BA - namely, admitting one's own actions, taking responsibility for them, and apologizing to anyone affected. GS said that CA never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't), and that she would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak oppose (see below) per Alex Shih. An unblock under WP:SO is not something that is automatically earned based on the expiration of time. The requestor's statement of why a SO unblock should be granted, as well as any interaction with the reviewing administrator, are at least as important in considering whether to grant the SO unblock as is the passage of time. This is because it is usually the only way we have of measuring the requestor's current maturity and understanding that what he or she did to earn the block is not to be repeated. The burden is on the requestor to show that a SO unblock is merited, and I do not believe this editor has satisfied that burden. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, a procedural note: I believe if this discussion closes as anything other than unblock, the indef converts to a formal community ban per WP:CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe you are correct as per Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community", and any future unblock request would need to be referred back to the community. And that is how I would close it if there is no consensus to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated my !vote to a weak oppose following the statement by BA above. It's fairly contrite and hits a lot of the points I mentioned earlier. To be sure, I'm fairly on the fence here, but the space wasted on discussing TGS's conduct keeps me from crossing over to support. People on Wikipedia aren't required to like one another, but we're expected to keep it professional. The "counteroffer" of an interaction ban doesn't move me either; had BA demonstrated the requisite maturity and understanding of why his past actions were unacceptable, I would honestly have thought an interaction ban to be unnecessary. And, of course, the focus on the passage of time is unhelpful. We don't want to know how long it's been since you were blocked; we want to know how you've grown in that time, either as a person or in terms of editing elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it. Sorry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• 'poor idea' In reviewing the user talk pages, I see no indication now that user will not continue to edit problematically.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: To add onto what User:Mendaliv said re: BA's "current maturity and understanding [...]," in December I inquired about the relationship to the previous accts here to which their response was to delete the question (plus quite a few other notices) and respond on my dynamic-IP talk page that "My old ex-roommate, took me to a edit-a-thon in Harlem. and showed me how to edit. That is the furthest of my relation." They show promise re: creating stubs, but their writing ability isn't quite there yet; nor is their integrity. Sorry. rgrds. --64.85.216.137 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• No as the interests of Wikipedia are simply not served with this individual having access to writing. The history is such that I doubt an unblock will ever happen. Some people simply do not have the right temperament nor ability to work with others that is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• No Nothing on the user's talk page shows me that they are here to edit constructively. Alex Shih nails it right on the head. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - BlackAmerican unsurprisingly your latest statement brings me no assurance. I don't have any "bad blood" with you; I just wanted you to accept responsibility for your actions. I told you several times: spell out what you did wrong, volunteer to submit drafts to AfC, and create for quality, not quantity. But even still, whether it is an act of defiance or ignorance, you are blaming others and putting an anomalous amount of emphasis on my behavior from over a year ago. I believe you have a fixation on me evident from the number of sockpuppets and IPs you controlled to harass me but you need to change your attitude hastily -- this SO request is your last chance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• change to support after reconsidering I think an IBAN between TGS and BlackAmerican is needed. IMHO, TGS, please drop the stick.23:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim what stick? I was pinged back to this discussion. Is it not alright to clarify I have no animosity toward CA despite his harassment? Please take more time to consider the situation before making such a comment. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with Dlohcierekim that you ought to drop the stick and leave this to other editors. I am concerned by your comment above, where you say, I just wanted you to accept responsibility for your actions. I told you several times: spell out what you did wrong, volunteer to submit drafts to AfC, and create for quality, not quantity. . . . this SO request is your last chance. The reason I find this statement concerning is because of the focus on satisfying your demands. I presume you don't intentionally mean it this way, but it comes off as suggesting that you should be given satisfaction prior to the lifting of BA's ban. This would not be correct. It is not your standards against which we measure BA's improvement, it is the consensus of the discussants as to what is reasonable. On top of that, you're downright wrong that this specific SO request is BA's last chance; BA could absolutely request a SO in the future after this one is rejected. While BA's conduct is his own responsibility, if it looks like your conduct is inflaming his, I think it would be proper to consider a two-way IBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv they weren't demands. They were considerations for a successful unblock appeal. And I honestly thought if this SO failed, a cite ban would be the next step hence my "last chance" remark. I am not going to have my intentions wrongfully interpreted nor am I accepting any responsibility for "inflaming" his conduct. That comment is totally out of bounds; my actions never "inflamed" him to joke about my deceased brother, to create poor content, and evade his block. Do whatever you want with CrazyAces, BlackAmerican, Negroleaguehistorian, or whatever he wants to go by, I am done here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You may disagree with me, but it is for the best that you step back from this discussion. Thanks for doing so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that TGS is unfairly poisoning the well, by [Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]] (which another admin stated he has done in the past) [112].. He stated that this comment was me [113] right here [114]. This is not me and is no way connected to me. This isn't the first time he is blaming me for things that aren't me (Now that I think about it, the first IP is strikingly similar to an IP chain used by CrazyAces: see here. He is well known to be stalking me before and after his block around Wikipedia, including AfDs. I do not recognize the second IP however.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)) [115] and has been lectured about it. (No, but I will advise TheGracefulSlick to refrain from pointing fingers at CrazyAces when we all know it's not CrazyAces. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)).
I am simply asking for a Wikipedia:Standard offer, which states "Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." I have done all 3 the requirements and have behaved well for a while now. It also states "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." TGS has asked for apologies for something that I haven't done and influenced the vote as shown here "Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)" SO does not require apologies, but I have accepted responsibility for what I have done not for things I have not done "I should have never engaged these individuals and kept on creating articles such as Camp Van Dorn Slaughter, John W. V. Cordice Martha Boto Bretagne (rescue dog) William Warrick Cardozo Free Bleeding Movement Giichi Arima William E. Robertson Jimmie McDaniel 1961 NCAA University Division men's basketball gambling scandal Friendship College and more" [116]. I have also stated that TGS and I don't interact to him directly. [117] . What else can I do to prove that I will be an asset? Why have an SO if someone follows the rules of the SO and as contrite but still won't be given a fair shot? BlackAmerican (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

• Strong oppose. I was initially indifferent, perhaps leaning support, but the ongoing comments focusing on TGS suggest that this editor hasn't let go of past disputes. They're focusing on editors and making baseless claims about those editors. (In particular, it's not "casting aspersions" to note you've been disruptive in the past. That's a fact.) I don't see anything good coming from unblocking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree, this last response isn't a good sign. Had BA come back and taken the higher road, ignoring or mostly ignoring everything TGS said, I could've looked past a lot. Engaging like this has torpedoed BA's case, at least in my eyes. I'm not as concerned about the misconception that a SO is just a matter of not socking for six months and promising to be good. In fact, these are seen as necessary conditions to a SO unblock, not sufficient ones. The decision is highly discretionary in the end. I don't think BA's arguments on this point are evidence of an entitlement attitude, just a misunderstanding of policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 17 October 2017 (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 protection of templates

Due to a recent wave of severe template vandalism (permalink), I've ran a query to find all unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that had over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter. I can make MusikBot report unprotected templates that meet this criteria, but there is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions which reports templates that aren't template-protected. We should probably regularly keep an eye on that. You can use Twinkle's P-Batch module to mass-protect, first pasting the page titles on any page (such as your sandbox). Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this MusikAnimal! Primefac (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

+1. Thank you MusikAnimal. Alex Shih^Talk 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding my thanks too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work, MusikAnimal. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MusikBot's dad! —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing your script aparently ignored is pages protected using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - anything with a "noedit" flag is protected even if it exists; ajnything with a "autoconfirmed" flag is semi-protected, while anything without is template-protected. So semi-protecting Template:Taxonomy/Eupitheciini, for example , was unnecessary. Please also keep in mind that anything transcluded in a cascade-protectred page is fully protected; human judgement is necessary to determine if this transclusion is permanent (in which case no protection is needed) or temporary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. I did not know about some of those features! The title blacklist has precedence (you'll see its warning instead of the page protection warning), correct? If so, is there really harm in the redundancy? Should those items get removed from the title blacklist, or if the cascade-protection of a parent page is lifted, the templates will still have 1,000+ transclusions and hence should probably not be completely open. I might argue that having them protected just-in-case is worthwhile, but anyway I can probably get Twinkle to check for cascade-protection, and looks like there's an API endpoint to see if it's on the title blacklist. I appreciate the feedback (and unexpected praise!), this was simply an effort to plug up these vulnerable loopholes of the project that allow for massive disruption. Any page can be unprotected without consulting me :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those protections. Even if currently redundant, multiple layers of security are desirable. It appears WP:High-risk templates is the only guidance for when something higher than semiprotection should be used. I suppose we will wait for further attacks before contemplating further protection but semi is a very easy hurdle. There is no need to unprotect templates merely to attain anyone can edit purity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

While you're protecting articles a lot of pages relating to Australian Education or Mangoes have been targeted by users from lots of different locations (probably some school craze, I'm still in secondary school and a lot of people nearly worship them). These might need cascade protection and a system to suggest edits, at least until the craze dies out. TomBarker23 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer

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.

---

Sleep > Wikidrama. Try it some time

Some eyes and/or block(s) may be warranted at the situation at User talk:Biografer#Aspirations... Also, I don't really like being called a _________. We have got enough of this drama. Sorry, Boeing. Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he saw my previous welcomes to other editors and decided to appreciate my hard work (I treat it as such).--Biografer (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And as for drama (drama which was caused by Nihlus by the way, not me), I don't appreciate this tone directed at me here. And as for @Boing! said Zebedee:, he and @Rich Farmbrough: are the only good editors here who understand me. I feel sorry that Rich need to endeavor this hatred on this site. :( Its always the good editors who are subject of guilt.--Biografer (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, I wish you'd held off on your welcoming until we'd had the chat I planned - as I just said on your talk page, I'll be busy for 2 or 3 hours now, but maybe it might be better to wait and see how this pans out here. But one thing I will say now is that "You can block me, for what I care. I will create a different account and will continue" is absolutely the wrong way to respond here. (Oh, and it's Boing, not Boeing - I'm springy but I can't fly. ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I removed it for my own sake.--Biografer (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN against making semi-automated welcome messages may be necessary. Spamming thousands of welcome messages in the way Biografer is doing isn't helpful to the encyclopedia; some of the recipients appear to have made reasonable contributions but others have not (e.g. Zach9999 (talk · contribs) and Chris Paul (talk · contribs)), I would expect the template used to distinguish between these. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This would be a good time for Biografer to agree that they're going to be more careful going forward and only welcome users who have made good faith contributions, rather than welcoming users indiscriminately. Hint hint. GMG^talk 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Considering that you are new too (I decided not to welcome you, because I didn't knew what to expect from you at the time), I would like to say that while Zach9999 and Chris Paul did some unconstructive edits, they stopped after the first warning. What would you all say about that?--Biografer (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

clerk note - power~enwiki has been here since 2009 Primefac (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My account dates to December 2003, but I've only been an active editor since April 29 of this year. I'm not sure I believe that he recalls deciding not to welcome me, the only batch of welcomes he has around then was on April 23. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case you were definitely welcomed back in 2003, long before Biografer had a chance to do so themselves. –72 _(t) 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are issues with Biografer's conduct, but I'm also shocked by the message Winged Blades of Godric left on his talk page. That's very out of character for you, Godric. You basically taunted him. The comment clearly wasn't going to de-escalate things. I do not think any action is needed right now. It will be the next time you mention Nihlus to deflect from your own behavior, Biografer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:--Yeah! On some retrospection, the first line was harsh.Apologies.But, that being said, I was tempted to write it seeing his illustrious t/p and in-general behaviour towards everybody who objected his methods and a stubborn objection to stop his welcoming(s),( even temporarily, at least until, he had a conversation with Boing) and felt that we were far past the point of any de-escalation.I also feel that there is a very real need to T-ban from his welcoming sprees, having read his justification of welcoming LTAs at this difference and his in-general behavior at this edit and his previous retaliatory welcomings which led to a warning from TNT.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Biografer: Twinkle has templates for welcoming users whose contributions are non-constructive. You might consider using those. I am a fan of {{welcomelaws}} whenever I warn users for copyright violations if they don't have a talk page. There are also {{welcomevandal}} and {{welcometest}}, which might have been more appropriate in the above cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Well, if I will toss them around like crazy, you wont like it either. I know that as soon as I started warning vandals, I again got into the hot water.--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: And in your opinion, the way how Winged Blades of Godric taunted me is civil. It's a shame if you think so. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that human editors are supposed to use some measure of thought when it comes to their edits. If we don't, then our editing literally falls under exactly the same policies as editing done by bots, and as others have pointed out, having a welcome bot has been proposed and failed to find consensus many times. Someone doesn't have to be a super duper editor to get a welcome, but it's best to check and make sure they're not an outright vandal. I normally welcome any editor who starts out with good faith contributions, even if those contributions get reverted for being less than helpful. But if someone is an outright vandal, your time and attention (because who knows, you could be the only one to catch it for hours or even days) should be spent warning them, explaining why their edits are nonconstructive if they're receptive to an explanation, and escalating to WP:AIV if necessary. The reason you got into "hot water" is because welcoming vandals tends to run counter to the efforts of editors who are active trying to discourage them. The easiest way to avoid hot water is to get out of the pot, not fight to stay in it. GMG^talk 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Understood. Now, if Nehlus would have explained it to me in the same way as you or @TonyBallioni: did, non of this AN/I thing would have happened. :) PS: I'm not blaming Nihlus for my edits, I blame him for conduct which was rather cold and unwelcoming toward me as a new editor. The thing is, is that when Rich showed up, he gave me a tip (which maybe wasn't as helpful), but he at least was kind enough to explain it in a less provocative way.--Biografer (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect, but if you're gonna be hanging around vandals, you'll probably end up with a lot thicker skin before it's all over. That may be part of why some of our more experienced vandal fighters sometimes might come off harsher than they intend. We just want you to use your efforts in ways that are most productive, and can't be mistaken for running counter to the efforts of others. But you should take seriously that, having popped up on the radar twice here in as many days, if problems persist, it is very likely someone is going to start seriously pushing for a topic ban from welcoming anyone at all, and it seems increasingly likely that they'll get it. That's just more hassle for everyone, when the easiest thing to do is try to fix the issue and carry on. GMG^talk 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, Biografer is approaching WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE territory as it has been explained numerous times how to welcome users properly, when and where to welcome users, and how to warn users when they vandalize pages. He has responded with personal attacks, aspersions, deflections about how he is the victim, and WP:POINTy and inappropriate welcomes of users all because he got mad. I'm surprised he has not been blocked yet. His talk page is flooded with notices about welcoming users and he still does not get it, either by choice or incapability. Regardless, either one is problematic. @Winged Blades of Godric: Those messages were a little uncalled for and a massive trout is needed for them. @Biografer: For once, take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming other people for your shortcomings. Also, stop deflecting your inability to take criticism by disparaging me or my comments as if I was the only one who mentioned anything to you. You had numerous people explaining the same thing to you over the last three months; I just happened to be the first one who refused to buy your excuses. Nihlus 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: OK, ok. It just happened that when you came, you were like the last straw. I don't think I was pointy, and I think me and you just misunderstood each other. Its human, right?--Biografer (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: I understood you clearly, which is exactly why I made the comment above. Nihlus 18:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Well, I hope nobody minds if I will write some stub articles here about notable subjects? Any objections? At least that will prove that I am here to contribute (should have done that before to be honest). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking to prove you're here in good faith, maybe you can improve Government or Architecture? That said, I'm not worried about your good-faith, just your ability to respond to feedback. Lobbyists4Good (talk · contribs) looks to be an invalid username promoting a non-notable organization, maybe you should have commented on some of that? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: OK. So, user Lobbyist4Good wrote an article in a sandbox, therefore I believe that he is exempt from being warned because maybe he is just doing test edit (and found a rather good place to do it). A lot of our users do test edits on articles themselves resulting into vandalism warnings and blocks. The safe place, if you don't know what is acceptable under your (our) policies, is to write it in a sandbox. As soon as the article will be completed, it might be considered for AFC. If the AFC editors would agree that its a fairly notable subject, then it will be moved to main space. Sounds OK thing to do in my opinion. Any questions about my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious violation of WP:ORGNAME. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Not if the AFC editors decline it. I seen that some people post their articles to AFC and then get either accepted or declined depending on content.--Biografer (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the link? "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)." power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Geez Louiz! I was assuming you were referring to the content of the article, not the user. Yes, his username is promotional (I should have reported him, sorry). Plus, I got confused it with WP:OR.-Biografer (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure your word is enough. I think a topic ban of welcoming users for a couple months should help. This can be voluntary or community placed; however, both are equally enforceable with blocks (WP:PROBATION). Nihlus 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Of course, trust was never thought to a Wikipedian before. Got it. As for @There'sNoTime: comment regarding As I was pinged - you all need to cool off, I am rather chilled right now. We talked here and it seems like everything is fine... Don't you all agree?--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After a fun-filled trip to Morrisons, I came back to User_talk:There'sNoTime#Talkback. Godric, as I posted on your talk, don't prod things too hard eh? Biografer, take some time to cool off, and if you want some advice on what to do (welcoming, contributing) leave a message on my talk and I'll give you a hand -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow @There'sNoTime: Where do you live that there are Morrisons instead of Walmarts?--Biografer (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The most United of Kingdoms - anywho, and I mean this sincerely and with the most respect I can muster after queuing for half an hour to buy food, I think this discussion would be better served by everyone disengaging and doing something else... There's plenty to do -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: In these least United of States, I waited half an hour for ramen... GAB^gab 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Where in the world do you live where buying a Ramen is creating long lines? Either way, I was waiting in line for 2 hours to buy a game on Black Friday.--Biografer (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh, I really wanted to try to help Biografer in a friendly way. But no, you couldn't wait and you had to escalate it to the drama boards. Biografer might be still learning things, and some welcoming might have been less than ideal. But I can understand why Biografer is feeling under fire here, as I see some warnings and tellings-off that are out of proportion to the relatively minor issues we're looking at here - and I can see why they might be feeling as if they can do nothing right. As for posting welcome messages on talk pages of vandals - hey, I do it too, usually in addition to a warning (and I've been here for around 10 years and an admin for 6). I usually only do it when it's minor vandalism - probably a youngster just having a play, that kind of thing. But I hope it makes people thing "OK, I got caught with that bit of petty vandalism, but they're welcoming me if I want to be constructive" and it might help turn someone round - and if not, it's done no harm. Come on people, get off Biografer's back a little here - or at least, just tone down the aggression a bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  That ignores my original point of indiscriminate spamming of welcome messages to the tune of 24,000 times. We're hardly being aggressive. The problem is Biografer continues to dig a deeper hole with each comment he makes. Nihlus 19:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  I offered to help with that, but I didn't get a chance. Even if he wastes time welcoming thousands of people, what actual harm has been done that needs such urgent attention that I couldn't have been allowed the time to try and help? Lots of people shouting the same things at him over and over again wasn't helping - can't you see that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Let's get one thing straight: you didn't get the chance to help because of his actions, not mine. I can clearly see that Godric's comments were unhelpful to the situation, as I made that clear above in my initial comment. However, I'm firm in my belief that we are now beyond the point of helping or being able to see any improvement in his edits. Nihlus 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  So you get to decide unilaterally that there's no hope and that I am not allowed to try to help. Lovely. Sometimes this place seriously pisses me off. I'm giving up for the night - if you lot don't get your pound of flesh, or if someone with more sense see fit to close this, I might try to help Biografer tomorrow - but I can't do that while trying to fight off a mob at the same time. (And please, there's no need to ping me - I know where this place is.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Where did I unilaterally decide anything? I gave my viewpoint on the matter as a member of this community and someone who has already tried to help this individual out before. Not a single person has told you that you cannot try to help out this person, so your mischaracterization of this situation is rather odd. Nihlus 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Okay then guys, might be worth wrapping this one up eh? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Would support such wrapping. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC).
  

  Ooh, wrapping, its almost Christmas -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Wrap. GMG^talk 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I will report to you There'sNoTime) if I will have any concerns regarding welcoming. In fact, (if a block wont follow) I will go on Wikibreak to give you some time to cool off. I would like to thank @Boing! said Zebedee:, @TonyBallioni:, @GreenMeansGo: the closing admin @There'sNoTime: for civil discussion regarding my issue, and especially @Rich Farmbrough: who is becoming more like a brother to me.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)in @There'sNoTime: for civil discussion regarding my issue, and especially @Rich Farmbrough: who is becoming more like a brother to me.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @There'sNoTime: No, I don't support it as nothing has come out of this yet. We will be right back here in a couple days when Biografer resumes. Nihlus 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Completely unethical on you part.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  WP:SPADE. Nihlus 20:39, 17 October 2017 (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.

Discussion about paid editing and blocking etc

Administrators may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Statement from a paid editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Am I being overly sensitive?

I'm editing with others in a tv article, The Gifted (TV series). While it seems kinda piddling, one of the actors in the series is Asian. The character this Asian portrays is a (lavender) Caucasian in the comic book from whence the series is derived. The last time the same comic book character was portrayed was also Asian.
The problem started when a quote was used by a contributor was parsed to suggest that the series actor was cast because she was the same race that the film actor was. The larger body of the quote is pretty clear in that opening opportunities for Asians in Hollywood allowed both the chance, not 'she was cast because the person prior to her was the same race, too.' While Whitewashing in film is a very real thing - something that the actor being quoted is very vocal about, she credits the presence of other Asians in both tv and film media with the chance for both herself and the previous actor to be cast.
The crossroads is that the few editors arriving at the RfC seem to want to portray the showrunners as racist goons inserting one Asian for another, thinking no one will know the difference.
I decided to come here to ask for a few more editors with exposure to these sorts of problems of race and parsing interpretation to come visit the article and offer insight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me to be to be accidental prejudice. There's a song somewhere that goes "Everyone's a little bit racist..."

It isn't serious, but maybe comment that this might cause offence and revert it. Thanks for bringing this up. If this downspirals into an edit war, mention it here and I will take full responsibility for the idea that started it. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible FL error?

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.

---

Does anyone know why List of awards and nominations received by Zara Larsson has the FL star on the article although it was never nominated for FL? It was just created today and was never nominated for FL. Is this a mistake and if so how can it be corrected? Jith12 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that the editor grabbed an existing article as a "template", which happened to be a featured list, and didn't know to remove it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It was cut-and-pasted from Zara Larsson. I don't know why the FL-status, but I'll take it as an error or a mistake by the editor who created the article. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Zara Larsson is on my watch list so I saw the copy and paste. That is how I found out about this new article. How do we remove the star though? After a brief read, I don't think it is quite ready for FL yet. As far as I know it isn't just a line of code that you can remove to remove the star. Jith12 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Removed. It's just a case of getting rid of {{featured list}}. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2017 (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.

Racist image

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 we delete this obviously racist image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:African_woman_slave_trade.jpg ...almost sick of this black business ? prokaryotes (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests for files hosted on Commons happen on Commons, but being racist/offensive isn't itself a reason for deletion (unless it holds no educational value). Could always suggest removing from the articles in which it's used? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) It's a Commons image, not a Wikipedia image. (2) One doesn't do the present (or the study of history) any favors by deleting evidence of bad things that have been done in the past, and pretending they never happened. Many bad things were done, and we need to keep them in front of us as object lessons, not sweep them under the rug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the image for historical purposes. An obviously unsavory image to lay your eyes on, absolutely, but it is history and we still need to learn from the mistakes of our past. The most harmful thing we can do with this image, and almost any other image similar to it -- with a few exceptions of course -- is remove it from our memory.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is agitation against the slave trade, not support of it. Rmhermen (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the pages where the image was placed it clear that the image was an attack on slavery and was actually a reference to accusations that British Captain John Kimber murdered a black slave on his ship, which was one of the incidents that lead to the Slave Trade Act 1807. So in short, the image was not racist in intent, and even if it was, it's relevant to several articles so should not be deleted.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Page creation protection: Extended-confirmed

Hey admins, is this a new standard: to set protection on repeatedly recreated spam pages to extended-confirmed, rather than sysop? Just wondering because I see it as an option, though I've continued using sysop but haven't been an admin all that long. If the protection is set to extended-confirmed, is the creating user expected to consult with the protecting admin prior to creating a page through the protection? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have exact parameters on what protection to use in such cases. I generally don't do it as I think that extendedconfirmed is being overused - although I don't perform that many protections period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not a new standard. Just use your own judgement.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I want to say I've done this once, on an article title that had been deleted a few times. I've not fully thought it out, but it seems it could be useful in limited circumstances, where an admin wants to disallow one particular person (or their socks, or just new people) from creating the same problematic article, but trusts there is a chance a real article is possible with an experienced editor. It just saves the step of the experienced editor having to ask permission from the protecting admin, etc. Again, most articles wouldn't get this, but some titles could arguably warrant this level of protection. Or as Ymblanter says, just use your own judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Dennis' perspective. I don't think it's normally a good idea (spammers can get up to EC with a little effort), but I agree that it can be good for combating sockmasters when an article might be warranted. So in other words, "don't do it most of the time, but don't think that it's automatically a bad idea". Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2, closed December 2016, established that admins can use ECP page creation at their discretion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Geisslerlieder

Moved to Wikipedia:Help desk § Geisslerlieder

 – Alex Shih^Talk 05:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Email-blacklist and MediaWiki:Email-whitelist

MediaWiki:Email-blacklist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and MediaWiki:Email-whitelist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are apparently new (a few months) blacklist pages for email addresses that are used for problematic mails/signups, but it doesn't seem like their introduction was documented anywhere on enwiki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: see mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist it is new "core" functionality; I'm not envisioning it is going to be used much on the English Wikipedia - primarily because email addresses are secret here. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering if some onwiki documentation on how they work - or even just a soft redirect to the MediaWiki documentation - is warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement unblock request by User:Sport and politics at AN/I

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 unblock requests for arbitration enforcement blocks should usually be copied here or to WP:AE. However, since there's already a discussion about the block at WP:AN/I#Block by John, I have copied Sport and politics' unblock request there to keep the discussion about the block in one place. Huon (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (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.

Complaining about an administrator

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 I please be pointed in the right place to make a formal complaint about an administrator. Many thanks Sport and politics (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the big banner here, it looks like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the right place to start. TheValeyard (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A discussion there has already taken place, on a general issue on the issue at hand. I though would like a more formal process beyond simply making a general complaint, where the grievance is aired to the whole community. The complaint I wish to make is very formal and relates to a very specific issue, and airing it on the general An/I noticeboard, would not, in my opinion, be appropriate. This is because it would potentially not remain focused on the issue being complained about, as it relates to specific issues with one user. I am conscious as well to not want to deny the other user formal due process, or a right to reply. Sport and politics (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC or ArbCom would be the process to formally discuss it outside ANI. If the admin is open to recall, that's another option. If it's already covered by an Arbitration ruling, Arbitration Enforcement is the proper place. Be sure you know what you are asking for before taking it to those fora. --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look in to the options as listed above. Sport and politics (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• This specific issue was opened as a sub-thread to your thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying_block_by_John Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• If there is a specific incident that requires immediate attention, ANI is the place. If this is a complaint about an Admin's conduct in general or regarding a specific action you feel was not justified, then here (AN) is the place if after discussing it with the admin concerned you are still unhappy. That's if you feel any discussion here just requires a slap on the wrist. If you are aiming to get an Admin's tools revoked for misuse, there is no point wasting time here as functionally that's unlikely to happen - so you might as well head to arbcom. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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

I ask for the article Stefano Sottile to be restored

The article was propsed for deletion without any motivation and without warning me in my talk page, me which I was the author, by User:Geschichte on October 13 and deleted today. Indeed the athlete is enciclopedically because he respects the 4th criterion of notability for athletes: «Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships.»WP:NTRACK, because he won 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics, see ths Template:Footer IAAF World Youth Champions High Jump Men. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored it as a contested PROD, but having a bit more than one line of content would be nice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ok, I will look at the page and with the new appointments I will do my best. --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Jo-Jo Eumerus same question and same modus operandi of the User:Geschichte for Georgiana Iuliana Anitei. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Undeleted, but complaints about Geschichte not informing you are better off on User talk:Geschichte for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

tnx again :) I did it, but he don't... --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

Per Proposal 5 of the RFC, this RFC has been moved to a subpage. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Transfer of Jeermud to CnocBride

A couple of months ago I recently transferred my old account User:CnocBride to User:Jeermud. About 3 weeks ago I lost access to Jeermud and due to the fact I had no email registered I could not request a password change. So that left me in a predicament, I decided to recreate my old account CnocBride (which I'm using right now) and I wanted to continue my work from there.

I would like the administrators to please transfer all data of Jeermud over to my current account of CnocBride. Thanks!

CnocBride (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Admins cannot do anything about such a situation. Only way would be to ask for some kind of transfer on Phabricator in some way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

At one level, I understand why we permit people to create an account without associating an email account. However, if people choose to go that route, and I find it hard to be sympathetic when it leads to problems. I don't want one second of developer time devoted to working on this when there is so much to do, especially when we're talking about under 300 combined edits. It isn't worth it. If we learn any lessons from this, is that we should provide stronger warnings to people who fail to register an email, making it clear there's nothing we can do. I go further — we probably ought to send out an annual message to the registered email reminding them they should confirm that that email is still valid, so we can avoid the myriad of requests associated with "I no longer have access to my registered email." Apologies to the OP if this sounds harsh, but I see requests sent to OTRS almost every day by people who can't remember their password and can't reset it. Maybe we need to have a better system.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Recovering long-time 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.

---

Hi everyone, I used to be a pretty active Wikipedia contributor for about a decade, but took a long hiatus where 1) forgot my password, 2) lost access to the recovery email I have on file.

I'd love to resume contributing to Wikipedia, and would much prefer to use the old account I have rather than the new one, but I can't use the traditional recovery method. Is there any way admins could grant me access to my (still existing) account if I provide my expired recovery email address or anything of the sort?

Thank you! --166.241.162.40 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not start a second discussion on another page when you already have one open, see prior request linked above. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 26 October 2017 (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.

TheValeyard Personal Attacks, Uncivil communication, and Edit Warring

TheValeyard made a personal attack in Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) in the discussion Please restore label of "far right" and "businessman" to Alex Jones. The remarks below appear here and below.

• I'm not confused by anything, really, nor are other editors who have reverted the changes made by you over time. You pop up on this talk page, make the same arguments that fail to gain consensus, then disappear. What do you have to offer today that is different from 2 October, 30 September, or 24 Sept? TheValeyard (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

These claims have nothing to do with the discussion and are there to make a personal attack. Not that I find it relevant to my report but it is also untrue. The dates the user mentioned match up with my edits from this discussion Alex Jones Politicial. In which case, I made a change and got partially reverted. A couple of other users reverted after I tried to source it more thoroughly, so I stopped per rules and I looked into the archive to find the same thing had happened in the past. I noted it in the Talk Page because it kept happening. So I find it untrue because I never pushed for a consensus. I just left it as it was and noted that it was re-occurring and why I thought it should remain. All the user's comment is designed to do is inflame the situation not further discussion. Note I did make a here in the article around this time but it was after this user posted.

The user is also somewhat edit warring lately in Alex Jones (radio host) in recent edit on claiming a consensus but I don't really see one here. As the poster saying 'It is obvious to me the powers that be wish to maintain a certain visage with this article and my input is not appreciated. I will not press the matter' doesn't seem like a consensus and other people still contesting it in the discussion.

My remarks were not meant to be condescending but simply to point out something that I thought was incorrect from the various times the user posted about 'reliable sources'. However, regardless of my intent it does not warrant a response that sololy makes a personal attack and does not discuss the issue. Not only does it attack me but it derails the discussion to an area where the talk page might as well be a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentcreator (talk • contribs)

It is hard to make sense of this, given that text from the conversation has been manually copies and pasted here. This user has raised the same or similar points 3 times in the last month, and I posed the question as to what has changed since the last time. Whatever this is is is certainly not ripe for a noticeboard revue, and from what I can tell from the banner that pops up when one posts here, this isn't even the right venue. TheValeyard (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to transfer to ANI or other appropriate place.. Contentcreator (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok even though the copy paste was separate I removed it so not sure how that affected your ability to make sense of it. You bring up points with no examples and comparisons. You then posted complaining about the page name not making sense even though there was an anchor that made sense |here. It is rather clear based upon examples I have given you that the page name does not always make sense and we have anchors for that reason. You are trying to be inflammatory. Contentcreator (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm having problems with you being biased too "TheValeyard". LiberatorLX (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Note for others; comments like this one from this user is the sort of thing that I and several other editors have been dealing with tonight. Looks like he was just banned, thankfully. TheValeyard (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving "NLL San Diego" to "San Diego Seals"

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.

---

Someone tried to move the "NLL San Diego" page to "San Diego Seals" but its not working. San Diego Seals should be the new page name since the team now has an identity. Can you help fix this problem? Thank You..

Roberto221 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Roberto221: (Non-admin comment) Done Nightfury 09:52, 25 October 2017 (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.

Ethnicity of historical figures

There are long-standing disputes regarding the ethnicities of Ibn al-Haytham and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. I'm not sure if any administrative action can help to permanently resolve these disputes, or if Wikipedia has any policies that are relevant here. Regardless, these pages probably should be watched by more admins. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The solution at Jabir ibn Hayyan may help. In that case there are references supporting both Arab and Persion ethnicity. A consensus was reached on the talk page at one point to include both and a comment to that effect is included in the code at the talk of the article. Periodically an editor will come by and remove one or the other of the ethnicities, and then is reverted by watchers. It is hard to pin down ethnicities in the Islamic Golden Age, since the culture was Islamic and scholarly work was written in Arabic and people from many backgrounds other than Persian and Arabic came to cultural centers. In the present day it is important to some people that these scholars be labelled only Arabic or Persian, so you will always have editors making changes. Including both if possible makes the situation a bit easier. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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

---

There is currently a backlog on WP:AIV.

About a 5 hour gap between oldest and newest report. 1 hour gap between newest and last-responded-to report. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (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.

Duplicate simultaneous RFC

• September 9: An RFC was opened[118] at Talk:Plimpton 322.
• October 9: That RFC expired,[119] but has not been closed yet.
• October 18: A second RFC on the same issue was opened on the same page by another user.[120]

I request any uninvolved individual immediately place a procedural close the new duplicate RFC.

It would be beneficial, but not immediately essential, to evaluate consensus on the issue for a full closure. Alsee (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been no consensus so far, however the editors opposing inclusion of content are the most active at that page. I wasn't aware of the previously made RFC, and since it is considered expired would ask to keep the new RFC up, and close the expired RFC. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ping involved editors: Nine-and-fifty swans, 9and50swans, Sasuke Sarutobi, Barryriedsmith, Garald, Jimmaths, 128.68.56.38, David Eppstein, Wcherowi, Salix alba, Staszek Lem, Alsee, ScrapIronIV, Keira1996, 80.72.90.183, Tigraan, EEng prokaryotes (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  prokaryotes, why would you ping everyone to come here? We do not want to start a debate of the Plimpton issue on this page.

  This is a purely procedural matter. You didn't realize there was an open RFC on the topic, fine, a simple mistake. We don't run duplicate RFCs on the same issue. We close the duplicate, and any responses on the new RFC should simply be considered as additional contributions on the original discussion. Alsee (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the previous RFC had just two editors involved, and is sort of buried in the vast spaces of the talk page. I see no reason to take this AN post here in regards to RFC not as a wake-up-call to ping editors who have previously engaged in relevant discussions. Ofc, it would be prefered to comment on the current RFC (not the expired), and may be someone wants to chime in here at AN, and add to it. prokaryotes (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The first RFC has been closed.[121] However the closer is hesitant to close the duplicate RFC[122] because the initiator has suggested they may challenge the close. This has been through an excessive number of Article_talk sections, accusations of "a conspiracy", "suppression", attacks against administrators, and wild accusations of COI against editors opposing inclusion, an RFC, NPOV/noticeboard, twice to ANI, and it has failed every time. And now a simultaneous-duplicate RFC. The WP:FORUMSHOPing is way overboard. Can someone please place a procedural close the duplicate RFC? All-but-one of the responses on the duplicate RFC are respondents from the original RFC. Alsee (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit War/Harassment between User:Mike Littlejohn & User:Digifan23

There is a constant amount of edit warring between the two users and harassment coming from User:Mike Littlejohn. Mike has constantly vandalized Digifan23's userpage after a conflict between the two of them. -glove- (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't caused any disruption since receiving his most recent level 4 warning, so I don't intend to take any action. I'll keep an eye on him; if he causes any further disruption he'll be shown the door. ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

::Checking again there seems to have been something that happened again that made Digifan23 report Mike on ARV, although I also saw Mike apoligize to Digifan23 on their talk page, might be worth a look. -glove- (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Checked the edit that Digifan23 reported them for and it doesn't look like vandalism? These two users seem to have it out for each other and might be best to have an interaction ban and/or topic ban to keep them apart? -glove- (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind that, blocked due to checkuser -glove- (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for RFC review

Recently a RFC was closed here, with concluding that there is consensus to exclude a reliable sourced study. However, while that RFC was already expired, and because it was posted within that discussion without sub section heading, I've missed that RFC, and started a new one. Meanwhile one of the recent opposers supported my RFC, and I did not commented in that RFC, which when factored in means that there isn't a consensus to exclude that source. Hence, I ask to reopen that RFC, to either factor in the newly made RFC comments, or to open it another few days to offer involved editors to comment. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The commentary in Science magazine, by actual experts of Plimpton 322, wasn't previously discussed, instead opposers cited a polemic opinion piece. However, the Science article basically says its mathematical robust, but speculative. The closer himself wrote on his talk page "The close tie in the number of people supporting and opposing the disputed content is indicative of no consensus." (Yet MrX closed with consensus to exclude.) The source is authoritative (published in Historia Mathematica) If we factor in all editors who commented in regards to the inclusion, there is what appears to be a majority for a mention. Literally every news outlet covered the story. People posted several times on the talk page, perplexed why the article doesn't mention the new theory. prokaryotes (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of TBAN

I have been helping on many articles on Wikipedia: University of Paris, Sorbonne University, Sorbonne University group, Paris 1, Paris II, Sciences Po, San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University. I was subject to a long-term abuse regarding one of those university and I made an ANI request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

I see now that there is a special page for WP:LTA, and it explains why admins were not used to such a long list of examples of abuse toward me. It led to a difficulty to see the issue. Because I also showed the last disruptive edits from the user (last three links), he was topic-banned on top of having a warning, but the discussion was closed with a topic-ban (not an IBAN) for me too, and from all French academic institutions, in spite of the fact it was recognized that I clearly improved the articles.

I was mentioned in the close with the other user as topic-banned for a poor english and a difficulty with Wikipedia policies. I find difficult to see where I violated such policies or I could not interact with other users correctly. Here are the recent discussions I had on talk pages (except with the long-term abuser and in the recent context of the TBAN or ANI request):

• Talk:Sorbonne_University_(group)
• Talk:Pierre_and_Marie_Curie_University#.C2.A0UPMC_is_the_name_since_2007
• Talk:Sciences_Po#Partners_in_lead

Regarding content of articles, I always respected consensus, for example (among many) with that recent edit where I reverted to the consensus to a phrasing I voted strongly against, in a RfC I initiated. Another example of conciliatory attitude: KPBS: Revision history

In spite of the fact I always answered politely to very strong personal attacks from the other user, due to the difficulty to clear out the situation, I would understand an interaction banned with him (even though I think I would need to report future abuse from him). But a topic ban seems at very least really exaggerated.

After the close, the other user came out with a diff from April [123] that would be ambiguous. I do not think so, because the sentence "On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being" is in the criticism section, so it was clear it was a criticism, but anyway, I corrected the possible ambiguity only 4 days later [124]. It would be very unusual to TBAN, 6 months later, a user for one supposed ambiguity that he corrected himself 4 days later. That diff being brought forward by another user so much time later because of the discussion regarding a WP:LTA he had committed.

Thank you.

--Launebee (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• To my knowledge there is no LTA case page on any of the editors involved; I think the reference to LTA is merely an accusation that XIII's conduct constituted "long term abuse" towards OP. It has been ten days since the TBAN was instituted, and only four days since Launebee's last thread about XIII was closed at ANI (link).
  This appeal is directed towards the discussion that instituted the TBAN, rather than claiming the TBAN is no longer necessary because Launebee's conduct has sufficiently improved. Because Launebee doesn't raise any new concerns that could not have been raised during the original TBAN discussion, I oppose lifting the ban. The underlying TBAN was put in place to give both XIIIfromTokyo and Launebee the opportunity to edit productively in other topic areas. Launebee, from all appearances, has spent the ten days since the topic ban was instituted trying to continue the dispute with XIII. I don't think we should reward this behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The LTA is a reference to the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo. I made a new ANI request because there were new attacks, and at least Calton thought it was not improper to raise so soon a new issue. This discussion is not about my dispute with XIII anyway.

Indeed, it is an appeal, so I am not claiming that something changed, but that a TBAN was not justified in the first place. --Launebee (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Because you could have presented all this information during the initial discussion but failed to do so, I see no reason why we should revisit the topic ban discussion. I see no error in the consensus that imposed your topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The ANI request was about the LTA and personal attacks, the discussion got blurred and the TBAN was not properly decided.

1. An admin cannot impose a TBAN, and I see no mention of a consensus. (He had only one clear support.)

2. Even if a TBAN could be decided, there is an appeal procedure precisely to check things again.

--Launebee (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the first point in this appeal that you're challenging the consensus; above you merely protested that the discussion did not consider certain matters that you failed to bring up. In any event, the TBAN was rightly decided. The discussion remained open long enough and the consensus was clear. Consensus is not a matter of voting, and there is no quorum. Even then, there were at least three in support of the topic ban, including the proposer, and the only opposition gave no rationale. You were properly topic banned, and should remain topic banned. If anything, your conduct since the topic ban was imposed is clear evidence that you should be topic banned. I encourage you to edit Wikipedia in some other topic area so that you can become a productive member of this community. You could edit in just about any topic area: civil law, the French language, literature... just so long as you do not edit in violation of your topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - It seems that the TBAN was implemented because you and XIII were warring over French university articles. Thus, the reason for the situation is one of combat: you and XIII couldn't get along and sort it out among yourselves. So, going back to ANI about XIII doesn't really support your case. Infact, it argues against it. Also, it seems that, at least with you, your dispute with XIII is getting in the way of contributions from both you and those involved. Because of this, I think that there should be the addition of a standard IBAN so that people can contribute productively. Also, I think that the IBAN should have to be lifted before the current TBAN, to see if you will fight again. Hopefully that can help things. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that an IBAN would be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, thanks for your take on this, but I beg to differ. "We" were not warring (except a long time ago), he was attacking me repetitively, as you can see in the ANI threat, and, outside of the context of this ANI where I exposed things, I never attacked him in such a way or another. It seems unfair to me to TBAN me because I have been for one year unjustly accused of antisemitism and homophobia, and I dared bringing this to ANI. It would mean that any victim of shameful attacks on Wikipedia should beware before going to ANI, and it would be some kind of victim bashing. I made a new ANI because within 2 days I was already attacked again, and it was closed, not because there was no new attack toward me, but because the majority (notCalton) wanted to let the other user some time to calm down. You can see in the links I provide my constructive attitude on Wikipedia, and you can see that I never answered the other users' attacks by personal attacks. --Launebee (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the TBAN per RileyBugz, though I would also oppose placing additional sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Compiling DIFFS from username AND IP account for AE/DS filing.... is this outting?

Today I started compiling some diffs to make an AE complaint on a page subject to DS. The edit history strongly suggests that the ed in question repeated their pattern both logged in, and at other times, not logged in. I only suspect the username and IP are the same person. How do I document the DIFFS in a way that provides full info in the filing and yet stops short of inappropriate conduct on my own part? My only interest is prevention of future problems. Help please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If compiling diffs in this way puts one in violation of the OUTing policy then I am forced to conclude that the policy might need improvement. Be careful though, I have seen editors get banjaxed horribly for errors in this area. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Diffs per se are not outing and neither is a compilation thereof: They only indicate that an IP and an account have similar edits, not that they are actually connected. If the diff is of someone inadvertently giving away non-public information then it could be considered outing to raise it in a public noticeboard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)