Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than six days are
archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
 
Are you in the right place?

Click here to start a new discussion
Centralized discussion

Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Requests for comment

Click here to see requests for closures for requests for comment.
There are 54 requests for comment waiting to be closed.

Proposed topic ban for User:Basketballfan12

Background

Basketballfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning May 19, 2016, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#User:Basketballfan12_-_creating_non-notable_NBA_bio_stubs, Basketballfan12 has been flagged for their track record of creating biographies of non-notable sportspeople, which has placed an undue burden on the community to patrol, nominate, and discuss pages for deletion.

The following AfDs on Basketballfan12 created bios have been closed as "Delete":

Basketball-related:

Baseball related:

The following have been speedy deleted:

Multiple editors have reached out to User:Basketballfan12, but the editor generally not respond, with few edits to talk namespace, and user talk namespace edits generally limited to blanking their own talk page.

Since the discussion on May 19 was started, they have since created more new sports bios at Steve Brown (outfielder), Nate Fish, both of which are dubious of meeting WP:GNG with insufficient independent sources.

Proposal

Unless Basketballfan12 finally engages the community and addresses these concerns, I am proposing a topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc) by Basketballfan12. They are free to create pages in the Draft namespace, where other editors can move the proposed page to the main namespace. Basketballfan12 can request a lift of the ban once they have sufficiently demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that there are at least 18 other pages created by this user that are currently undergoing active AfD discussions (I will not link them here due to WP:CANVASSING considerations, but I thought this might be relevant information). Full disclosure, I nominated these articles (and many of those listed above) for deletion after finding that this user had created many articles that did not meet notability guidelines. This user has not shown up at any of the AfD discussions, nor interacted with me on talk pages and appears to have no interest in doing so, yet continues to create new articles. Unless Basketballfan12 interacts with the community and displays an understanding and a willingness to fully consider the notability guidelines before creating new articles in the future, I would support the above sanctions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that I missed that less than half an hour before my above reply this user did respond on one of the active AfD pages so I've struck the above comment about it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
For the record, it was Basketballfan12's first ever comment at an AfD, and it was an hour after they were notified of this AN discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern's a ban is too harsh, We will respond to all future questions regarding sources Basketballfan12 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Wait a second - who exactly is 'we'? Are you a paid editor or is this a shared account? Katietalk 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: Basketballfan12 made a comment at Talk:Nate Fish, an article that they created; curiously, Basketballfan12 refers to themselves in the third person when commenting on their own talk page about the Talk:Nate Fish edit: "The author made some comments on the talk page, justifying his notability."[1] Basketballfan12's words imply a group account; moreover; they haven't been very forthcoming here on why a topic ban would not be suitable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Basketballfan12: Unfortunately, your recent response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris was essentially to keep the article, but the AfD was closed as delete. There is still no indication that your view on notability is now in line with the rest of the community.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if @Basketballfan12: is a non-native speaker of English, which would explain the use of the harmless Royal we. Not having seen any of the articles (as they've been deleted), I have nothing to base their grammar on. What about the articles makes them non-notable? Are they regional of local athletes? I remember when I was starting out that I practiced by making articles of people who I thought were notable (they weren't). Fortunately, I had a mentor (my Dad - that's right, I'm a generational Wikipedian) who pointed out how they weren't useful to articles. The point is, the user might not be up to speed on how the collaborative environment works, and is focusing solely on output, ie. article creation. Would it be dumb to offer a bit of AGF here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: Judging by their edits, I don't think English is a problem, but @Basketballfan12 could clear up any misunderstandings by participating in this discussion. From what I can tell, the editor assumes that any athlete, even those from minor leagues, is inherently notable. Based off the volume of their article creations that have been deleted, allowing them to continue editing but limiting their creations to the draft namespace was my good-faith proposal. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bagumba: If that is the case (English not being an apparent problem, the subsequent use of the Royal 'we', and the apparent misunderstanding of notability plus the lack of necessary discussion), then I think a temporary block of the account is in order. Topic banning them isn't going to get their attention - AfD'ing the articles the user is creating isn't stopping them. I think that a block - for the good of the encyclopedia - will get them talking, if for no other reason than to say, 'why u do dat?' That the problem made it here makes the point of its necessity, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: A block would at least an attempt to address the long-term problem. Still, I'm AGF that their contributions are useful outside of their judgement on article creation, and a topic ban would still allow them to contribute and learn about notability criteria in the draft namespace.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Can we just remove privileges when it comes to article creation? Is that an option? That is probably by far the best option in my opinion, that way Basketballfan12 can still submit articles to AfC if they want, and work on other articles where they have been doing some useful work (i say 'they' because it is fairly clear that this account is being used by multiple people from several of the comments by Basketballfan12.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: There is no specific article creation "right" that can be removed from a registered user. A topic ban is the only option.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Basketballfan12 has created another article on a minor league player, which I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Drossner.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You might want to also check a couple of other articles: Michael Barash, Charlie Cutler. Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A little update. A few more have been taken to AfD. Note that of the additional 18 additional pages that this user created that have been taken to AfD (by me), 15 of them were closed as Delete (this is not counting the pages listed above). This user continues to create articles about non-notable topics despite clear warnings not to and is wasting valuable editorial time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest PROD As this case drags on without a resolution, Charlie Cutler, another minor league player created by Basketballfan12, has been PRODed by Spanneraol.—Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I believe that Basketballfan12's creation of an article for Steve Brown, regardless of his notability, was a WP:COPYVIO from [2], which has a GNU license which I don't believe is compatible with Wikipedia. I have tagged that article for speedy deletion if someone wants to confirm my analysis. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Support topic ban - I think a ban as proposed would be appropriate, since this editor has demonstrated a persistent lack of understanding of the criteria for creating articles. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Note the GNU Free Documentation License is a compatible licence for using content in Wikipedia, but of course its terms must be met: in particular, attribution. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      GFDL alone is not sufficient. GFDL and CC BY(-SA) are required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio speedy delete Steve Brown (outfielder) reported above has been speedy deleted by Vanjagenije due to unambiguous copyright violations (CSD G12).—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support proposed topic ban. Editor still has the ability to create drafts but at this point, it's closer to a refusal to pay attention to the appropriate standards and to correct their behavior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest AfDs closed as "Delete" Here's the latest round of AfDs closed as deleted on articles created by Basketballfan12 :

—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc). The evidence seems pretty overwhelming, and conclusive, at this point. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy has requested an unblock

You sock, we don't unblock. Max Semenik (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, since he is community banned, I'm bringing it here for review. He says

I would like to start out by apologizing for my disruptive behavior/sockpuppetry. My past actions were irresponsible and childish. I didn't know what I was thinking at the time, and wished now I hadn't acted in such a way that would get me blocked and banned from editing on Wikipedia. I admit I used sockpuppet accounts, and denied it, which was immature of me. If there is anything else you want me to do to get my ban lifted, please let me know. Thank you.

Anyway, thoughts or comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheREALCableGuy: - which accounts were your socks? SQLQuery me! 03:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Rather than just name his socks – after all, he could just name a bunch of blocked accounts and IPs – shouldn't TheREALFCableGuy show ownership of his socks by going onto each of their accounts and posting a comment in the sock's name on their talk page? BMK (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note two facts: (1) TheREALCableGuy has only been blocked since May 13, just a few days over a month. (2) The REALCableGuy has accounts on 16 other Wikimedia Projects, but only 1 edit to any of them (Simple English, in 2012). True, 5 of them are non-English projects, but it seems like TheREALcableGuy could have made some effort to show his good faith by editing productively on one of the other 11 projects in the last month. Really, we have nothing to go by here except the assurances of the editor that he's sorry and will behave better. Can someone speak to whether that is sufficient? BMK (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Uh, a month? He's been blocked since 2013... [3] Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed he has. My error, and thank you for the correction. BMK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Has he socked in the last two years? If not, that's good enough faith for me. If he has Muffled Pocketed 08:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Well on his talkpage he says he socked until April 2015 at least. I have no opinion on an unblock, that's just a FYI. Begoon talk 14:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but it would take a CU to establish that he hasn't socked, and, as we know, CUs on en.wiki are not allowed to do "fishing expeditions", an enormous hole in our security procedures. That leaves us where we started, with whether we believe TheREALCableGuy or not. BMK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you BMK... For clarifying the DUMBASSARY nature of the policy! What about at the user's own request, or with his permission? Then, similarly, if he gives permission, that's a good sign; and if he didn't- then it would tell us we wouldn't need to run it anyway- if you get my drift? Muffled Pocketed 08:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP:Checkusers says

On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted.

BMK (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kww:. Any thoughts? Doc talk 09:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Could WP:IAR apply here? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No, IAR isn't a free pass to being unblocked nor should it ever be, Just my extremely helpful 2¢. –Davey2010Talk 13:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think he meant IAR on the CU policy. Good luck with that. No CheckUser will run a check with no evidence of ongoing sockpuppetry, even upon user request. It wouldn't even accomplish what you seem to want it to accomplish, since CU can only connect accounts going back a small period of time, and they also can't connect accounts over dynamic IPs, proxies, etc. Further, we shouldn't fault a user for our own policies on CU, nor should we require a user to prove a negative (that they didn't sock). It's impossible to do that even if we had no restrictions on using CU, given the technical restrictions of such a tool (both those put in place by the WMF and the general limits that would apply even if the WMF didn't abide by its policies on personal data retention). This ban appeal should be evaluated on the merits of how long this user has gone without having a confirmed sock, how disruptive he was in the past, and whether he's likely to be a net positive going forward. ~ RobTalk 14:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Has the user indicated what positive contributions they would like to make? I tried to clarify the "socking" timeline on their talkpage. (IAR might just have been TPOD wondering if chipping in on noticeboards was ok after being advised not to. I think that's fine, but one lives with the results.) Begoon talk 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) After taking a look at the original ban, I'd support (see below) unbanning if a WP:1RR restriction and and topic ban on all pages related to television, broadly construed, were put in place instead (both indefinite). Such restrictions would give the editor a chance to show us that he can edit constructively in areas other than where he's caused problems in the past. Appeal available after 6 months of constructive contributions and zero 1RR or topic ban violations. Over a year without socking warrants another chance, so long as the user understands that plenty of admins have their cursor hovering over the block button in case he continues editing tendentiously or doesn't abide by the restrictions. ~ RobTalk 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the most important question here is whether there is any benefit to unblocking him. There isn't: when he was an active contributor, his contributions bordered on useless. His socking spree demonstrates that not only does he have nothing useful to contribute, but he is a dishonest on top of it. There's no upside here at all.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In looking through his past contributions, I see several positive contributions of uploading files that are still in use in articles years later. Scrolling to a random page in his mainspace contributions, the first major edit I found (a bolded green edit is what I considered major) is [4] which also looked like a positive contribution. That information also remains in that article today. I don't think this is someone who is so incompetent as to have no potential benefit whatsoever to the project. ~ RobTalk 19:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I ran into this guy frequently and blocked many a sock, and he may be surprised to find me supporting his unblock appeal. I'm half-tempted to bend (or break) the rules and run CU, but I don't really care. I see Kww sees no positive here, and Neutralhomer (courtesy ping, Homer--you deserve it for having dealt with him so often). I think he has positive things to offer, and I gladly believe him when he says he hasn't been socking. I also think that he's three years older than he was when we blocked him indefinitely. So yeah, let him come back. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose any use of a CU, support unblocking. We either trust that the person hasn't been socking or we don't. We should not be letting people return while we guess whether or not they have been lying. CU is not for double-checking people's trust and I don't like other people's privacy uses just for this kind of thing. Otherwise, it seems like the editor has admitted their socks and some useful contributions so I say give a second chance after a year of non-problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

::@Drmies: I think a checkuser should be ran on the original account to check the IPs that he previously used (and IP ranges) for any sleepers or any socks. Also a checkuser run on everything on this page. If there are none, then yes I would support an unblock, I think 3 years is enough time. Obiviously if he has been socking, then I can not support any unblock.

I believe, just as I was, that he should have an admin to watch over his edits and behavior. That way, if there are any problems, that can be nipped-in-the-butt right fast. Should he be unblocked, I support BU Rob13's 1RR restriction and TV related topic ban. I think that will keep TheREALCableGuy out of trouble and keep him from falling back into old habits.
Depending on what the checkuser of his previously-used IP addresses says, I am leaning toward Support, but right now I'm in the Neutral column. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01 on June 18, 2016 (UTC)
The question is, how much watching is needed. The prior editing problems was television articles content. If the editor returns and is reasonable in their approach from now on, we're all good. If they are disruptive again, then it's all over again. I'm neutral on whether to impose a topic ban on return but I can see the point. However it's been almost a year and a half so I'm more in line with returning and then dealing with topic bans if they are needed. It would definitely be something I support almost on day one if antics continue but I still say give a chance before that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought a CU was standard procedure for unblocking someone blocked for sockpuppetry (maybe standard offer or something), but I'm probably mistaken. ansh666 23:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ricky81682 With the problems caused by this editor in the past, I think a topic ban is needed and it can be revisited after 3-6 months of non-problematic editing. Remember, this editor was community banned, this wasn't just an indef block, it was a full-on ban. So stepping stones are going to be necessary for some editors/admin to allow this user to come back. I had to do the same thing and I was only indef blocked. TheREALCableGuy is going to have to prove himself the same way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:10 on June 18, 2016 (UTC)
Alright, on second thought, support unblocking with a topic ban from television articles and a WP:1RR restriction per above. We'll see from there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ricky, that's fine with me too. Homer, I didn't finish my sentence in my first comment (aargh!), but you got the ping--thanks for weighing in, and I appreciate your broadmindedness. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You're Welcome, thanks for the ping and letting me give my input. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45 on June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Man did I miss the call here. Glad to see I was wrong on policy and now oppose based on the editor's edits. As to policy, that's not for AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I reverted/blocked him a few times back in the day. At the time, definitely net negative, but there were some decent edits at least earlier on. Seems like he's owning up to his past, it was indeed a while ago, and that he intends to be constructive. Sounds like a great case for a WP:Standard offer. DMacks (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Support unblocking with conditions. That is, what other people have suggested, the topic ban and 1RR. 2013 is well in the past now and considering that not all of their edits were blatantly unconstructive, I think we should give him another chance. Omni Flames (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, IP logs are only retained for a short period (90 days?), and so CheckUser checks on accounts from several years ago are not possible. I don't like the "once bad, always bad, throw away the key" approach, which leaves no possibility for a return and is definitely not in the spirit of WP:Standard offer. I support allowing TheREALCableGuy back, and I'm happy with the suggested restrictions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Oppose unblock as per CU results below. Very disappointing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unban/unblock - This editor was blocked, then community banned for a good reason, and subsequently created literally dozens of socks over a three-year period, including one whose name mocked an editor who worked on enforcement in his case. Last sock was in April 2015. I'm saying a little over a year is too little time elapsed to prove good faith. Maybe in another year, with continued lack of socking, and the point about seeing a reasonable amount of constructive editing in the coming months on the other Wiki's, made above, is a good one. Jusdafax 16:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now As someone who filed the most SPIs on the user and initiated the CB request, I'm going to need to see the user seriously repudiate their past behaviors and take the initiative to understand our rules and guidelines before we give them the keys back. There has been no sign of them for a year, this is true. But they refused to work with and cooperate with any editors in any appreciable way during their original run here (it took a block to make them understand our copyright policies for userspace, for instance), and under their socks, were downright contemptible towards anyone reverting their edits. I also remember a few of those accounts personally attacking me in very crude and harsh terms. I would like to see more specific apologies and promises to respect copyright and differing opinions, especially understanding differing opinions about the Parents Television Council and children's programming policies and laws, before they resume editing here. At this point I want to see their communication with others involving the unblock before beyond a standard statement of apology before I'm bent towards one way or another. Nate • (chatter) 17:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Mrschimpf, was TRCG the guy who kept removing all links to CommonSenseMedia, or was that someone else? That would need to be addressed as well, I think. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It may have been @Cyphoidbomb:, I definitely knew about their issues with the PTC and any mention of FCC children's guidelines. Whatever the case, with the CheckUser coming back it's moot now; I feared it would because I've noticed TRCG-like behavior on some station articles of late but no true MO hits that compelled me to take them to SPI (it's helped that the PTC has pretty much thrown up their hands and gave up regarding Family Guy in these later seasons like most of the viewing public has, but I digress). But now it's confirmed and I switch to strong oppose of an unblock lift. Again, I want to see a long-term cease to articles in any form before the SO is offered (and I would still say it's open), and the CU showed that isn't the case. Sorry. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Oppose per CU note below - I suspect that this is a kid who, perhaps from growing older, has realized that he was acting like an ass, and wants to contribute constructively going forward. As far as any of us know, he hasn't socked since April 2015. If he was bent on continuing his disruption, why did he stop? I don't see a huge up-side to continuing to marginalize him. If he's allowed to edit and he starts up with the disruptive editing, he'll get indeffed soon enough. As for the community ban issue, I won't speak for Mrschimpf, who proposed the ban, but I do know that a few years back I thought that community bans would make it easier to combat vandalism--by going to AIV and logging "Duck of TheREALCableGuy, who is community banned". This was before I was aware that indeffed editors were "de facto" banned anyway. I participated in the ban discussion, but in retrospect, I would have abstained for "de facto" ban reasons. I noted in the discussion:
"I'm not an admin, but I support this ban. It's unfortunate because his factual edits tended to be solid, but he was notoriously uncooperative with the community, and he deleted any and all criticism from his talk page almost immediately without responding."
If we can get some sort of assurance that he will participate in discussion, deal with criticism better, (like, by responding to notices calmly and rationally instead of knee-jerk deletion) then I don't think it's unreasonable to drop the community ban. It's worth noting Drmies' comments as well:
"I'm the CableGuy's only champion here, I suppose, and a lousy one at that. Moreover, as is pointed out above, he's de facto banned with Kww hitting mass rollback, no doubt, every time he runs into him. I've tried to connect with CableGuy, always unsuccessfully, but--as is pointed out above--his edits are solid. What a shame."
Even Mrschimpf's proposal was hesitant:
"I never wanted to take it to this step as TRCG would have been good for the project if they followed our guidelines, but their refusal to do so has brought me to this step."
The fact that TRCG is talking, speaks loudly. If he is capable of expressing himself by describing how he'd do things differently, then I think he might be ready to come back. Blocks are, after all, not supposed to be punitive. I'd probably like to see him agree to certain stipulations about sourcing, edit-warring, and some broad plan for how to communicate better. Maybe as a condition, he's not allowed to delete talk page warnings for the next 3 months? And/or a stipulation that he has to respond to any user-generated notices and warnings? Seems like there's some way for him to demonstrate good faith. If we do unblock, I think we should be a little patient with him as well, since he's got a huge hill to climb ahead, and I'm sure we've all been in that position where we kept royally screwing up in front of the boss... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  CheckUser note: TheREALCableGuy has made a significant amount of edits while logged out over the past few months. Mike V • Talk 19:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To preemptively address some of the comments regarding the use of Checkuser, the global and local policies permit a check to be run in order to check for sockpuppet abuse and limit disruption to the project. Mike V • Talk 19:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to trust issues in light of the recent checkuser information. They have already violated the expectations of the standard offer. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 19:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per CU report. BMK (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - In light of the Checkuser report, I am switching my !vote from Neutral to Strong Oppose. I was willing to allow TRCG back, but with this new information, I can't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:40 on June 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose now due to the CU report, but I have serious concerns over the fact that CU was used here. Global and local policies do allow CheckUsers to check for sockpuppet abuse and limit disruption, but the only evidence of sockpuppet abuse/disruption here was past sockpuppet abuse/disruption. I cannot possibly state how strongly I disagree with the idea that past sockpuppet abuse/disruption serves as a license to check an account permanently. ~ RobTalk 00:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • You might disagree, but it is supported by policy. See Wikipedia:CheckUser. Also the check was in response to an unblock request. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Policy states "'Fishing' is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry." Where was the current evidence of abusive sock-puppetry here? Nowhere in the policy is a fishing expedition authorized due to an unblock request. In fact, requests initiated by users to check themselves are explicitly disallowed ("On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted"). ~ RobTalk 00:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
        • No credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry? Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive. It doesn't mention that the evidence must be current. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
          • We require evidence to be current to block an account. You're suggesting the bar is lower for CheckUser than blocking? ~ RobTalk 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
            • In this case, I believe there was legitimate grounds for the use of it. A concern that TRCG was still socking leading up to this unblock request. This would fulfil the requirements of Grounds for checking: CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to 2. Sock puppetry. Given TRCG's prolific socking history, there were certainly grounds for checking in response to the unblock request. Under the CheckUser and privacy policy section, 1. there was credible concerns of bad faith editing, which is generally how sock editing is usually viewed, 2. a request was made above by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for a CU, or at least a question was raised regarding socking, 3. TRCG's history of socking would in my view substantiate a need for a CU in this case and 4. in this case isn't relevant as no data was going to be revealed. There is no strict requirement that evidence of socking be "current". Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
              • This needs clarification. It is not trivial to set the precedent that CheckUser can be used at any time on an editor who has ever abusively used alternative accounts, regardless of how long ago that was. (To be clear, whatever the outcome of clarification on this, I'm not suggesting any action in response to this check. Mike V acted in good faith, and this is apparently a far more gray area than I think it to be in the community's opinion. I don't mean for any of this to read like an attack on him.) ~ RobTalk 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘*@BU Rob13: I believe there were two reasons for the checkuser being done. First, the user had a long history of socking. Second, many editors/admin asked for it to be done. Since this was a indef-blocked, community-banded, long-term sockpuppeteer, for many editors/admin, simple good faith just wasn't going to cut it. Proof that TRCG hadn't been socking was needed for many of us (myself included) to make a decision whether TRGC should be allowed back. Many were in the Neutral column without that CU. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on June 20, 2016 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) The ultimate authority on what is and what isn't CU'able lies with the m:ombudsman commission. Requests to the commission may take a while (the one and only time I know of someone contacting them it took somewhere between 2 to 3 months to get an answer) but they would be the final say on if this falls in line with the WMF's checkuser policy. If you really want a concrete clarification on this matter they would be the people to contact. Enwiki's policy can be more restrictive than the WMF's but it can't be less and since we don't know what the baseline is the OC would probably be the best ones to answer. --Majora (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While we may have to discuss the ramifications of the CU, what's done is done. The knowledge that a prolific sockmaster has basically lied in their unblock request when asked about recent socking is enough to void any smidgin of good faith, and there was precious little of it to begin with, that could have remained. Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If TheREALCableGuy keeps off the project for real, he may claim the SO. I'm not going to comment on the procedural propriety of the use of CU here, but will note that this is exactly, precisely the sort of task for which CU was created: To prevent people from blowing smoke about not having socked or edited while being logged out. Periodically the community gets into an almost frenzied habit of assuming good faith even to the point of refusing to recognize waterfowl with green heads and white bands around their necks. I believe that, at worst, the mistake here was to identify specifically that TheREALCableGuy was editing while logged out, rather than the bland statement along the lines of "Checkuser evidence indicates that TheREALCableGuy has very recently engaged in block evasion." The use of CU to, say, do a sleeper check of a known sockpuppeteer, especially given use of the master account refreshes the CU data for that master, is hardly controversial. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, he could say that, even though strictly they're different things. Muffled Pocketed 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob- This is not a matter of civil liberties. Wikipedia is a private website, and can do whatever it damn well pleases with the data it collects. If you don't like what it does, your option is to quit the website and not give it access to your data. Socking is a serious problem on Wikipedia, as any long-term editor knowa, and I, personally, am not predisposed to allow it to go on due to some sort of delicacy about whether it's "ethical" to determine if someone is a sock or not. The tools available to our functionari4w have been artificially limited by Wikimedia's rules, so when they're actually allowed to do something, the last thing they need is Wikopedia editors looking over their shoulders and saying "tsk tsk". My mantra is, and has been, "We're here to build an encyclopedia", and that means that anything that gets in the way of that is bad, most assuredly including socking editors who lie about their activities and still want to come back to edit. You'll excuse the expression, I hope, but "Fuck them". If they really wanted to contribute to Wikipedia they would have controlled themslves and not socked. My thanks to Mike V for providing the needed data, and let's close down this hullshit discussion about whether it was a legitimate use of CU or not. Any use of Cu which helps prptect Wikipedia is legitimate, by definition. BMK (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the problem of sockpuppetry, having filed dozens of SPI reports myself. The artificial limits you mentioned aren't really limits if not clearly defined and followed. CU balances the desire for privacy with the desire to mitigate disruption — a philosophy statement that is set out in the CheckUser policy itself. Wikipedia actually can't do whatever it pleases with the data it collects despite being a private website. Multiple states, such as Pennsylvania, consider a misleading privacy policy to be a deceptive business practice. When the WMF created a privacy policy, it created legal obligations that the project must meet. As I mentioned above, my comments are not meant to be an attack on the CheckUser, and I fully recognize he acted in good faith. Whether or not this use was a mistake can be discussed elsewhere, though; this editor's appeal is obviously going nowhere. ~ RobTalk 08:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, I don't think there's a legitimate concern there. Even in the states that like to rake service providers over the coals for weird privacy things, this is something done in order to ensure compliance with the ToU, by a high-level volunteer or employee. As I said above, the only real worry to be had here is that by pointing out the mode of block evasion—that it was by editing while logged out rather than via socks—might allow a person familiar with this case to do... something. And even then I think it's a moot point. We're not talking about some kind of privileged communication being leaked by a person with a special duty towards end users. And even a cursory review of the privacy policy makes it clear that CU technical data is retained and may be used for anti-abuse purposes, which, honestly, cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude discovery of outright lying by people seeking the lifting of a sanction, or for that matter exclude the prevention of abuse (i.e., the discovery that a sanctioned user is bypassing that sanction). In any event, this is not the forum for claiming a violation of the privacy policy. This is a thread about this particular editor's eligibility for an unblock, which given the information provided by the CU, is not going to happen. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
        • What exactly is the issue here? Someone who had a history of sock puppetry was suspected of sock puppetry based on that history. That suspicion became relevant due to the unblock request. People requested such a check based on relevant suspicion and a very real history. The check was done and the suspicions were proven true. This is well within my reading of our checkuser policy, not that this is the venue to resolve such things. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Query: Hi Mike, could I trouble you to please clarify something about the CU? I'm curious whether we're talking about rampant and consistent socking, or that the user made one or two edits. He's steadfast that he's not edited here since 2015, so I'm curious. Like, are we in the "maybe he honestly forgot that he might've tweaked a few things," ballpark or the "he's straight-up lying" ballpark? It's mostly for my own edification so I don't feel like too much of a tool for leaving a "You have disappointed me and your mother very much" note on his talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'd estimate it around 200-300 edits. Mike V • Talk 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've checked Cyphoidbomb's mother, and she's not disappointed at all. On a more serious note, HighInBC's comment just above is spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi-yooooo! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Question Mike V--were the logged out edits any good? Obviously that won't get him unblocked now, but it's something to take into account if there's another request down the road sometime. If he did some good editing and found himself liking it enough to ask to rejoin the community (even under false pretenses), that's more encouraging than if he was up to the same crap as before. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've never understood the notion that being chronically dishonest can somehow be mitigated by editing efforts. Now that he has demonstrated his unsuitability for the project one more time, why would you ever consider knowingly allowing him to rejoin it?—Kww(talk) 00:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur. While an individual's productive contributions to the encyclopedia are important, we can't rest on such first-order matters when there's an entire community attempting to do the same thing. Intentional failure to respect the rules acts to damage the encyclopedia, and while we can't point to an article that says "DICKS HAHAHA" for 15 minutes as a result of that damage, I doubt it's any less harmful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mendaliv, you wrote further up: "If TheREALCableGuy keeps off the project for real, he may claim the SO.". All I'm saying is that TRCG may have unintentionally given us some info about what kind of editor we'll get if that day comes and we let him back in. I'd be more inclined to take back a good editor than a lousy one, so I'm suggesting that if we can have that info then we can use it. Kww, the (informal) existence of the SO shows the community generally prefers to be less draconian about this stuff. I'm not worked up about it myself, as I think the project has much bigger issues to worry about in other areas. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Since it is clear that User:TheREALCableGuy's request for unblock is going nowhere, I move that the request be denied and this thread closed. That OK with everyone? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)

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

Thomas Pogge

Please unprotect Thomas Pogge, there is a strong consensus on the talk page of a half dozen editors and 200 philosophers voting for inclusion of the well-sourced information.

Against this, one editor, David Pearce, possessing a COI stands in the way. Unblock the page and restore the sources which were vandalistically removed by Pearce, leaving the article artifically froze in an embarrassing state of misinformation. Pearce, against 3 editors, reverted 7 times, yet the article was forzen in his version because of this laughable argument:

  • The Wikipedia entries of countless educators and academics from classical antiquity to the present could be spiced up with salacious material or varying degrees of (un)reliability. Would the Wikipedia entry on Socrates, for example, be improved by adding a section "Controversies: allegations of grooming teenage boys"? Rather than turning Wikipedia into a downmarket scandal-sheet, a Comments/Criticisms/Controversies section might do better to focus on the work for which Prof. Pogge is notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case. Our sources are numerous and reliable; our consensus is strong. End this travesty now and restore the deleted sources.Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, Sarah Virgin grossly abused administrative powers in freezing on Pearce's version when there are 6 against 1, Pearce has a conflict of interest, and no sources for his claims. This is truly outrageous; I have seen more just administrative decisions made in Stalinist Russia than her cowardly protection of removal of adequately soutced content on false pretences. Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my clumsy fingers... rolled back my mistaken archival. Also, this filing is quite ridiculous. Boomerang for incivility wouldn't be out of the question. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Personal attacks are likely to get you blocked, Eminent Jurist. Given the history of editwarring on that page, a few days of full protection are justified. Use that time wisely. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and take particular care in your sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I had gone and collected a few diffs [5] [6] but the point appears moot now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked Eminent Jurist for repeatedly abusing SV here and elsewhere. I'll post diffs on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick-D. I protected earlier rather than blocking after a series of reverts, but given the response I was starting to think blocking made more sense. SarahSV (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jurist has a point however, consensus on the talkpage is clear that the information should be included. While there are BLP concerns, the info can be sourced to more than one reliable secondary source (describing the Chronicle and Huffington Post as 'blogs' in order to exclude them is weak), and there are many primary supporting sources *including where the subject has addressed the issue*. Likewise there is the issue that Davidcpearce does have an interest that may/may not be verging on the COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    It's a BLP article, with contested controversial material - all Eminent Jurist has to do is start a civil discussion on the talk page and wait for a consensus (and I don't really see a conclusive one yet), rather than fiercely attacking everyone (for which Eminent Jurist has now had their talk page privilege revoked). If it is decided that the material should be included, then it doesn't have to be there instantly - it's far better to calmly discuss it for a little while first to try to get as wide a consensus as possible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And is (was) probably socking too: User:Anti Conflict Of Interest Crusader's only contribution with a half-hour-old acount is here, continuing the war. Muffled Pocketed 10:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"*Jurist has a point however, consensus on the talkpage is clear that the information should be included. While there are BLP concerns, the info can be sourced to more than one reliable secondary source (describing the Chronicle and Huffington Post as 'blogs' in order to exclude them is weak), and there are many primary supporting sources *including where the subject has addressed the issue*. Likewise there is the issue that Davidcpearce does have an interest that may/may not be verging on the COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)"

Those Who Protect Evil Men Are Complicit In Their Crimes just joined the fray. Considering the style, both wrt. user names and prose, I believe we are dealing with socks of Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I reiterate that (a number of) the points made are not unsound; this obviously 'was' a notable incident in the fella's career, and I think we've all learnt by now how apparant whitewashing can come back and bite the project in the arse, as it were. Can we not impartially assess the sources, weigh them, and insert the required amount of material? Whilst maintaining the protection- no edit-wars will occur, and we, as ever, will ne WP:NOTCENSORED... just how we like it Face-wink.svg Muffled Pocketed 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need full protection on the article? Drmies (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I added full protection for three days because it was a content dispute, rather than vandalism or disruption. There is at least one RS, but most of the information is in non-RS, including self-published sources, so it's something that will require editorial judgement. I'll leave a note on talk that if they reach consensus, they can post an edit request before the protection ends. SarahSV (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

IP range block?

User:Eminent Jurist is now editing logged out to continue their aggressive personal attacks. From User:2600:1017:b41b:4b66:496:49db:dbf5:b987 at User talk:Eminent Jurist (see here), and from User:2600:1017:b401:9d0b:e5af:8b73:4e6f:7582 at Talk:Thomas Pogge (see here). Can anyone who knows how to do such things work out if a range block is plausible? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've just worked out how to do a wild card contributions check, and here are the results for two ranges...
All edits clearly by our friend. I just don't know how to do the actual range blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked 2600:1017:B401:9D0B::/64 and 2600:1017:b41b:4b66::/64, Boing!. It worries me a little, though, that the user has access to both those ranges. Normally one need only block one /64 range for one IPv6 vandal. I hope it doesn't mean that they have a ginormous range, such as a /43 (which would cover both the IPs you give). Can't block that! Bishonen | talk 18:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. If they do have a really big range, I guess it's just revert and ignore. They might get bored, I suppose - or better, they might calm down and start talking civilly! They have used an IPv4 too, but it's a wireless dynamic IP that we can't range block either. Ho hum, what fun! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bishonen: The /64 rule-of-thumb doesn't apply to mobile IPv6 ranges. Unfortunately, mobile users can be assigned addresses from just about anywhere in the entire possible range, which in my experience, is always much wider than /64. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, dammit. No sooner do I imagine I've got my head round the "rule of thumb" than these complications turn up. :-( But thank you, DoRD.Bishonen | talk 20:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC).
That Verizon Wireless ISP has everything from 2600:1000:: to 2600:1017:FFFF:FFFF: FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF so there's not much you can do beside playing Whack-a-mole one /64 at a time. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we can count on Eminent Jurist calming down any time soon. Their hackles are up. Perhaps semi protecting their user talk pages and the article talk page until they've calmed down. Blackmane (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Russian IP removing apparently blacklisted links

I can do with some advice. I ran into 94.25.228.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP from St. Petersburg, Russia), whom I warned because on Guatemala City they removed some blacklisted archive link, but also content, without paying attention to what they were doing. I asked them about this, and found that they flipped a switch and returned as 94.25.229.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) right after I warned them. I blocked that one for disruptive editing (there are no explanations, no edit summaries); the next incarnation was 188.162.65.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and then 188.162.65.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'd like for someone to have a look at what this might be, what their interest might be in removing these archive links. I know there's a commercial interest in archiving stuff (we had this out here a while ago, with archive.is or something like that), but I don't know if that's what's going on here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I went through the history and reverted most of the edits, save for a few that removed non-archive links that weren't being used properly as references. I don't see any connection between the articles or the links, so I'm guessing that either it's someone who took an overzealous approach to removing blacklisted links and doesn't communicate well, or it's someone who knows that blacklisted links can't be added to articles and is trying to vandalize articles by removing blacklisted links so the edits can't easily be reverted. (Which doesn't actually work, since the blacklist doesn't stop the rollback button.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into it. Yes, reverting is not easy, I noticed, haha. But I think that the purpose isn't just to vandalize with the blacklist as a kind of cover; I think the content removal was just a kind of incompetence, possibly a linguistic incompetence as well. I was wondering, and maybe it's the folks at VPP or the technical refdesk who know this, if there's something exciting about this archiving business per se. And perhaps your first option is correct... Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Template:Blacklisted-links is confusing. It contains very little information about what to do, how to deal with WP:DEADREFs, or anything else. The "click here to request whitelisting" points at the template itself (again), rather than a help page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Referendum...

I'd like to ask the admins opinion on how best to ensure Wikipedia's coverage is accurate regarding this, and that during tommorow it's not vandalised before or after the polls closed. Pre-emptive protection has not generally been popular, but someone on the IRC suggested that enabling Pending changes on relevant articles might be advised.

It was also my understanding that any claim as to an official result, until it's formally announced in a reliable source, would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose any special treatment. An election takes place somewhere in the world virtually every day, most of them without any issues that can't be handled by normal RBI means. If it degenerates into vandalism and editwarring we can protect and block as necessary the same as we do for every other current event. (I don't know who told you It was also my understanding that any claim as to an official result, until it's formally announced in an a reliable source, would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons, but they were misinformed. We'll revert it as a matter of good practice, but Wikipedia is an American website and not subject to British law.) ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I know there is also nothing in British law that says such a statement "would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons". I am living in the UK at the moment and it is all very exciting, but it seems to me that claims of results after the polls close do no damage to anything outside Wikipedia, and claims of results while the polls are still open are certain to be removed very quickly by editors who have an interest in this topic. So I agree there is no need for particular concern. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I seem to recall a Biritish MP that got into trouble for revealing the result of Postal Votes before the polls actually closed got cautioned by police. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Not wanting to state the bloody obvious but Wikipedia is not an MP. The relevant legislation is RoPA 83 §66; unless you're included in (a)every returning officer and every presiding officer or clerk attending at a polling station, (b)every candidate or election agent or polling agent so attending, (c)every person so attending by virtue of any of sections 6A to 6D of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, (d)every person so attending in pursuance of permission granted under section 8 or 9 (observers at Scottish local government elections) of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (asp 14), you're fine. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that would be a person with privileged access to results not yet made public. I agree that people who have such privileged access to results would be best advised not to publish them on Wikipedia, just like anywhere else. But that would still be their problem, not Wikipedia's problem. Also, for common vandals and people using magical powers to predict the future, there is no such risk of legal difficulties. MPS1992 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment (Non-administrator comment) Pending changes might not be a bad idea on the logic that IP's can still contribute (all be it with a minor delay), it will give anyone experienced enough a chance to view before it goes live. Other options are protection which wouldnt be the right thing as we do have various numbers of useful IP editors who shouldnt be excluded any more so than they already are due to no fault fo their own. Or we can leave it be. Pending changes would make most sense to me but as it would be a bit of an IAR situation consensus should rule. Amortias (T)(C) 18:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It's already under a month-long semi-protection due to repeated vandalism by a sockpuppet who has a variety of referendum-related usernames (Create account Opinion polling for the United Kingdom EU membership referendum (talk · contribs) was the last one) so hopefully we should be ok. Number 57 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes Proposal

I propose that articles related to this topic are pending-changes protected, for 3 days. It will help the article stay objective, as there will most likely be many, many vandals who will target this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • It's already semi-protected until July so I don't think this is needed. Number 57 18:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure the editor proposing this is experienced enough to do so unfortunately. Agree with #57 in any case. Muffled Pocketed 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course he's experienced enough. You don't need all that much experience to make a proposal. I disagree with it, but there's nothing wrong with discussing it, as someone else likely would have made the very same suggestion. Please don't bite the newbies; this is why we have a problem with editor retention. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: That's ridiculous. There's no minimum level of experience needed to make a proposal, and you need to take a good look at WP:BITE. Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with PC in this little case is that it's designed for articles with low edit rates. The reviewers have to approve those edits and tomorrow they'll be overwhelmed if we change over to pending changes. I'm unwilling to change it. Katietalk 00:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Katie. Moreover, reviewers only look for obvious vandalism, which arguable comes primarily from folks who can't edit a semi-protected article anyway. PC won't keep the article "objective". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose any use of Flaggedrevs/Pending Changes in general, but even if I didn't I still think semi is fine to keep out the trolls. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I put an edit notice up for the article, hopefully that will alleviate some of the usual editorial issues we usually have to deal with over new of this nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Article looks pretty stable for such a big news story. I think there are plenty of eyes on this one without the need of pending changes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Need eyes on David Cameron too

Things are fucking up on David Cameron, too. For instance every time I fix something (consolidate refs, fix dates to British style), etc., someone undoes it. It's a free-for-all since he announced his resignation, even though the article is semied. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm....anyone against fully protecting this for some hours? Lectonar (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be semi protected already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes..it is, as SoftLavender stated above...but we have autoconfirmed editors chiming in all the time. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure full-protection is warranted as long as enough eyes are on it. The trouble is, there are far less British editors than American editors on Wikipedia (population differences), and so there are fewer eyes to go around right now (most Americans are asleep now; and I always see a huge drop-off in WP activity when Americans are asleep and Brits are active). If people could just put the article on their watch lists for several days and observe changes closely, then we'd be ahead of the curve. Coming in after a lot of bollocks has already been done to it is more unwieldy. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Uniformity of Affected Pages Request

Ok, its obvious that this is a political nuclear incident, however I would plead with the folks working on this to attempt to keep uniformity among the affected pages (like same level of protection, same expiration time, same generic notices on talk pages, etc). It does us no good to suffer articles schizophrenia right now, and I would like for things to be uniform enough that we can adjust protection of the effected articles or otherwise to picot to address the major issues that arise as this unfolds.

For the sake of uniformity, I note that following to be up to date as of my time stamp:

If anyone else finds an article that needs attention or has been protected, please note it here so we can all stay on top of it for the next few days. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the concern on Pound sterling, but so far the only edits to it in the last week are grammatical & formatting changes to ancient history and a tag which seems well-merited. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree strongly that United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union needs to be semi-protected. It has had a blizzard of activity. And someone needs to read through it carefully to see how accurate it is. (I'm not volunteering because I'm American and it's not my bailiwick). Put it on your watch lists, too, please, if you would. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Its been semi protected until July 1. I added an edit notice to the page as well, though I am gunshy about editing since its about a British/EU issue and I'm an American. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Jane Gazzo article

User:Satchett continues to remove sourced material from the Jane Gazzo article. Don't want to get into a 3RR situation. Help? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wikiklrsc: As the edit war is slow burning, I don't think 3RR (which is no more than 3 reverts per day, roughly speaking) is going to apply. The point of contention seems to be whether or not theweeklyreview.com.au is a suitable source to use on a BLP claiming Jane Gazzo's marriage and relationships to an otherwise non-notable person, and per WP:BLPSOURCES, if Satchett thinks the source is not sufficient quality, he is correct per policy to remove it. I think your best bet is to start a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your insight. One of the articles was a direct interview with Jane Gazzo regarding her new life as a mom and wife, so there's little wiggle room for misrepresentation or misinterpretation. We'll see how it plays out. BLP may be the correct avenue. Best. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2

The Sarah Marinos article is no longer a source of material for a footnote reference. It is no longer featured on the web. Hence deletion of this source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchett (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts. Second, sources do not have to be available online; deleting a source can be considered disruptive. Miniapolis 00:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with above. Article is archived in "At home with Triple M's Jane Gazzo", The Weekly Review, June 1.2015 12:57 pm, BY Sarah Marinos. It's all there online. Jane, her husband, and son, and lifestyle taking points. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe Satchett has stated that she is the article subject. While this is unverified, it does shed a different light on the issue. I would suggest that Satchett explain her objections to the material; if it's a privacy-related thing (and the name of a minor child who is not in any way a public figure is certainly a privacy issue), that should be taken under consideration on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Copied from BLP noticeboard. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bob. I am User:Satchett aka Jane Gazzo. Would appreicate [sic] talking [sic] off wikipedia re my entry as the noting of my husband and child is causing major grief. --- User:Satchett, June 24, 2016
What is your particular objection to the material being included? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a good question, Jane. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't known, but suspected, that the moniker "Satchett" was you, Jane. Online, of course, we can't prove it. :( Regardless, the article is archived on the Internet Wayback Machine, and isn't dead on the internet. That being said, if this unintentional addition by me originally has somehow caused you some issues, I can't easily remove it as there are other editors involved now. THE WEEKLY REVIEW (Melbourne) article by Sarah Marinos which was an interview with you seemed jolly enough, celebrating your husband and son and your new home and even the BBC 6 Music record box. Editor User:NorthBySouthBaranof has noted that if this information has caused you trouble, then please state it as such. There is a mechanism to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and get an OTRS "TICKET" for an issue and they investigate and then action is taken one way or the other -- removing it or leaving it in. See this article: Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team. See Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects for how to contact by email. (info-en-q@wikimedia.org). Let's get this fixed. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the arguable step of removing the information, albeit sourced and in public magazines, since User:Satchett who says she's Jane Gazzo says it's causing her family problems and issues to have this published in WP. I've asked Satchett/Jane (we can't currently prove Satchett = Jane Gazzo) to write to the Wikimedia Foundation by email and ask to open an OTRS ticket to look into this issue. And if they decide it's to be removed, then they can expunge all old versions with the information. To be clear, I originally added the information as informational and as a jolly addition of a husband and son. Most notable people on Wikipedia have this information INCLUDED as a matter of public knowledge. But if it causes harm, we must relent. But I leave that to admins and OTRS volunteers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
'Causing harm' is not a requirement for removal. Non-notable family member names are rountinely removed from BLP's unless they are significant to the subjects notability (which they rarely are). WP:BLPNAME clarifies "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Bolding mine. Its rarely the case that the third bolded section, when put to an actual discussion, results in names of non-notable spouses or children being kept in an article. Merely being reliably sourced is not enough, you also have to demonstrate its relevant to an understanding of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Good points. I took it out and we'll presumably leave it out for now, unless other editors decide otherwise. I really hope User:Satchett contacts the Wikimedia Foundation and they create an OTRS ticket to investigate this matter so that if it's a problem then the older versions can be actually expunged. Most celebrities/public personalities have children/spouse history/relatives included in their articles, even if they are not famous or notable. So it's not an unusual practice and this was in a magazine interview with Jane Gazzo in Melbourne, Australia and sourced accordingly. Best wishes and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about blocked editor

Few days ago User:Damianmx has been blocked for a reason of sockpuppetry, before his block he made many useful contributions, enlarged many articles, provided good sources and etc. After his block some users (e.g. User:Chipmunkdavis and User:LouisAragon reverted his edits without any discussion or revision were they useful or not. I talked to them about that according WP:EVADE Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. [But] This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor. You can see my talk page about that issue and articles' history involved in such reverts Russo-Georgia war and Georgia and also User:Chipmunkdavis's reverts history [7] from 19:56, 13 June 2016. I understand WP:EVADE as I wrote I don't know am I wrong and they are right or am I right and they are wrong, please help to solve this situation. p.s. User:LouisAragon reverted not only Damianmx's edits but also mine not providing any reason of doing that. --g. balaxaZe★ 14:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2/Archive, Damianmx is a sockpuppet account of Satt 2 (talk · contribs), the master account. If that's correct, every edit by Damianmx was an edit made in violation of the block on Satt 2. --Yamla (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And it looks like Satt 2 belongs to Polscience (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yamla Okay I understand that but then what and why WP:EVADE says: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor? I am in questions --g. balaxaZe★ 15:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It means it is optional and not required. If there are any edits you think of value you are welcome to take responsibility for them by restoring them. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edits by a blocked editor may be reverted, but don't have to be reverted. My personal opinion is that edits by people evading blocks should be reverted, because otherwise it encourages them to continue trying to evade their block. Not everyone agrees with that position, though. Wikipedia's official policy is that reverting edits is optional. --Yamla (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Any such restored edits, if contested, should be discussed on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I would say that goes for any edit. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but some think that those edits have to be removed without any further discussion and just simply revert everything, like this does user:‎Hebel here ► [8]. Please User:HighInBC, User:Yamla, User:Kansas Bear explain to him to undo his revert and let's revert all history until controversial edits of LouisAragon and after that choose what should be removed and will stay in the article. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand material added earlier by blocked users or socks, that has been removed, should not be reinstated verbatim without discussion on the talk page or consensus by other users. Therefore it is suppressed for now. Discuss first, reinstate later if the discussion allows for that. Not the other way around. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hebel: Do you read my comments? There is not only blocked user's edits but mine and others' LouisAragon hid that in his descriptions. That is not fair! You are reverting other users edits with no reason. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)~
User:Giorgi Balakhadze, see my Talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted, but once they are, they are! Looking at the content of the text involved cursorily however, I don't see any very striking POV issues. I think the issues involved can be reasonably discussed on the talk page of the article, which they should be because there is an aspect of block evasion involved AND because it will give other editors a chance to chip in, which is not so easy on a user talk page. I do think that's the first course of action now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, this issue is not only about those comments. As can be seen on their talkpage, Giorgi Balakhadze originally brought it up regarding talkpage comments, so there is I think a wider lack of understanding of our blocking procedures. CMD (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
CMD as you can read other users opinion I understood that policy quite well. Issue is that some users wanted to revert Damianmx edits even before his block but after his block they reverted only specific edits about specific topics not all of them... I won't afraid to say that some users try to use wiki policies only in favor to their personal POV.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No Giorgi Balakhadze, you apparently still do not understand the policy well. As I have told you before, the editor behind Damianmx has been blocked since 2010. There is no "before his block" regarding edits to be reverted. Personally I went backwards through contribution history until I ran out of time, but if you know of edits that have not been reverted, please do revert them yourself or point them out to others. Help would be appreciated. CMD (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Chipmunkdavis Stop your vandalism reverts (like here), in WP:EVADE and in discussion it is clearly said that you don't have to remove well sourced and 100% useful materials. Your actions are simply vandalism toward Wikipedia and its free knowledge. @Yamla: @HighInBC: @Kansas Bear: @Hebel: Please community stop this outrage--g. balaxaZe★ 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Reverting contributions from a blocked user is not vandalism. It may not be mandatory but it is entirely appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
CMD, I understand what you are saying. But apart from the matter at hand here, it should be allowed to start a new discussion about whatever text for the article on the article's talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Gerard von Hebel, I am unaware of any time I have complained about people starting talkpage discussions. If I have I apologise. On the other hand, it is not my modus operandi to describe changing the article to suit my POV as "a few corrections", edit war further, and then have the temerity to warn other users of 3RR and then ask them to observe the status quo. CMD (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors have different personal views about reverting the edits of blocked or banned editors. Some see it as important to revert in order to discourage problematic editors from getting re-involved in the project. Others feel useful content is positive, regardless of who placed it there. Both views are accepted on Wikipedia. Our policy on this is that reverts are allowed, and so it is not an admin issue when someone does revert the edits of a blocked user, unless this is in some way disruptive (such as restoring harmful material that the blocked editor had removed). As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it (ie. they have checked the sources to ensure what is said is accurate, is not copyright material, is not inserting unbalanced views into an article, etc). User:Giorgi Balakhadze, if you feel the material that Chipmunkdavis is removing is a net positive to the article, and complies with our guidelines and policies, then you may restore it. It is generally advised in such circumstances to let the reverting editor know what you are doing, and enter into a discussion with them as appropriate, but you only need come here if some issue arises out of your replacing the material that requires admin intervention. The first approach is to discuss and edit. If discussion breaks down there are dispute resolution venues on Wikipedia which can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SilkTork Thank you very much, finally I've heard something that is right. I will do as you have advised.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Be very careful about 3RR, even on an egregious sock, because detecting socks is sometimes hard, counting to 3 is easy. So you can easily be blocked by an admin for your edit-warring, whilst the sock is unchallenged. As SPI refuses to act on IPs, they are especially difficult to deal with.
There is no admin glory in nailing yet another trivial sock. But an established editor is a scalp worth collecting. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?

Please see the request at WP:ANRFC (which is where I'm watching). The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Now watching here too. I got a reply that the request for 3 closers "sounds weird" ... thoughts? I have no preference, but in a discussion above, some are saying that they prefer 3 closers for some RfCs, and this looked like it might be one of those RfCs. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Dank: Would this be a user right that users could request or something that all non-admins would be automatically able to do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15 on June 24, 2016 (UTC)
In the support section, no one is mentioning a userright. But they're drawing parallels to how things are done at WP:RM, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, so by analogy, different voters are going to have different ideas of how much clue is required among the NACs who do this kind of work regularly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I wasn't really sure and didn't want to wade through the entire discussion trying to find an answer. :) I think it's a good idea and will help in the long run. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on June 24, 2016 (UTC)
Btw, voting may or may not stay open in this one for a while. I'm not going to box it up for at least a week, but someone else might. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, apparently my request doesn't sound weird. Unwatching here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User calling me a Vandal

Hi, as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Morocco&type=revision&diff=721759820&oldid=721283486 I added valuable informations but it was undone by a some IP user not to forget he called the edit vandalism. we all know morocco went through ifrenid and maghrawid rule.
kind regards
Unstored Data (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Request DYK topic ban

I would like to request a topic ban for User:LavaBaron from Wikipedia:Did you know (shortened DYK) and all associated pages and processes. The problem is not that he or she introduces errors: this is a common occurrence at DYK, and most editors react constructively when real or perceived errors and problems with their hooks (the one-liners that appear on the Main Page) are pointed out and hooks get temporarily removed from the Main Page or the preparation areas to deal with the issues.

With LavaBaron though, the problems are not only too frequent (two articles he created were on the Main Page with an incorrect hook on 21 June 2016, and one article with an incorrect hook he had reviewed was set to go on the Main Page this week as well), but his reaction to the situation is very worrying. The discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Removed staircase hook from Main Page (first article), Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Aplets & Cotlets (second article), and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep area 3: the fourth installment. He also commented on two other discussions I started, Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep area 3: the village of Oxfordshire.

In the first discussion, it is best if you read it completely, no single diff will indicate the problem but in total it becomes very clear that LavaBaron is unwilling or unable to either admit that he made an error (which isn't a problem), or support his claims that he was right and why with precise sources. The only source he claimed as support was in this edit (which also contains the false claim that I demanded him to quit Wikipedia; a claim he repeated at User talk:Coffee): after I linked to that source and quoted the part that supported my reasoning and contradicted his claim[9], with a request to indicate which page or quote supported his position, he didn't: he didn't reply to that post directly, and when I asked again[10] and again[11], he only claimed that I was wrong and he was right without any explanation how or why, and finally gave some non-apology apology[12]. The article itself was of seriously below-par quality and should never have been proposed or accepted for DYK (my cleanup).

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

Instead of leaving it at that, he decided to escalate the matter by applying his failed standards to other discussions about problematic hooks I started. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat, I indicated how the hook was not supported by the refs given for it, with explanation of why (per ref).[13]. LavaBaron clamied that the hook was sourced after all and shouldn't have been removed[14]; but again gave no indication of where he found that information. I again asked him "what sources?"[15] but got no reply.

When discussing a hook he reviewed and which contained an error, his reply[16]: "I see no problem whatsoever with it". Not because it wasn't an error, but because it wasn't the main point of the hook.

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

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

  • oppose suggest Ritchie333's idea of a two way IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron may be a better idea LavaBaron (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since the only interactions we have is me pointing out DYK errors, and you defending them, I don't think such an interaction ban would be beneficial for WP. The only result would be that more DYK errors would get unnoticed. Fram (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Since you've only raised an objection to two of my 148 DYKs and DYK reviews, it's statistically unlikely that would occur (if, indeed, it has occurred at all at this point something, as you know, about which you and I disagree). Ritchie333's suggestion that you "drop the stick" [17] and a two-way IBAN be applied seems in the best interest of the project and community. LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Also an interaction ban would be ludicrous since Fram is one of the very few people preventing the error-ridden crap being visible on the main page. An interaction ban would effectively allow LavaBaron to continue to degrade the front page at their leisure. Given they have shown very little indication that they are in error (despite the overwhelming evidence they have been), removing LavaBaron from DYK until such time as they can demonstrate competence is the fix that actually improves the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Away from DYK, LavaBaron can't learn how to do better. I suggest that for a certain period, every article by LB needs two reviews, and an approval by LB needs a confirmation from a second reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's see: as you note, LavaBaron introduced the idea that someone ran 1.3 miles of steps in 1:44 (Mile run world record progression says that the record for one mile, presumably on flat ground, is 3:43.13). As you note with the award-winning: if sources A, B, C, D, etc say that someone has won an award (different award for each source), it's is obvious mathematics (WP:CALC), not a problem, to say that the person has won several awards (not good for DYK, which demands that the claim come from a single source, but not dishonest), but introducing such a claim based on sources that don't say this at all is a hoax, because presenting those sources as citations is a claim that the information came from those sources. Together with the unsourced claim that you're trying to get LavaBaron to leave the project (per WP:WIAPA, unsourced claims about bad personal behavior are considered personal attacks), these are sufficient reason for a significant block; the rest of the stuff you bring up is relevant to the topic ban idea, but I'm not going to offer an opinion there. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As Fram has noted that two of my 150 submissions and reviews (75 each) are, in his opinion (but not those of the promoting reviewer, apparently), lacking, it is probably germane and non-canvassing - since a TBAN is reflective of an editor's holistic contributions - to courtesy-ping editors who have reviewed my 147 other DYKs and DYK reviews to weigh-in for either the LB "Remain" or LB "Leave" campaigns. As per the note that's been on my user page for a week [18], I'm OOT ATM and am typing via phone, so can't ping everyone but will hit a few regulars, and leave it to Fram to ping the rest - @Cwmhiraeth:, @Epicgenius:, @Georgejdorner:, @Northamerica1000:, @Nvvchar:, @EEng:, @Coffee:. LavaBaron (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite. [19] 130.157.201.59 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as an alternative to a block. Making factual errors is common and easily corrected - that's why hooks are reviewed. But repeatedly ignoring requests for the most basic verification? That's not acceptable. Honestly, I don't really care how many DYK's LavaBaron has had approved - we don't (or shouldn't) keep score. But the fact that it happened twice in rapid succession is troubling. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is hardly the first time LavaBaron has had issues with DYK reviews, including approving problematic hooks. A few examples are this one, where the originally approved hook as stated does not appear in the article, one of many incomplete yet passed reviews, and this lengthy one with a disagreement that is reminiscent of the current one. There are more, but I don't have time to look for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. These issues date back to Oct 2015 this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and things have not gotten better. And his attitude is often snarky, which troubles me. When I flagged a number of reviews he did as inadequate, and listed them at WT:DYK as is standard practice, his response seemed to be that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of the much quicker route of just doing adequate reviews. He argued on those nomination templates about review details not being necessary. I ended up doing some of the reviews myself, out of sympathy to the nominators. When things weren't going his way, on the DYK talk page he tried to get RFCs going to do away with the very guidelines he didn't feel like following. And then there was a laughable (to me) "threat" from him regarding an issue that really had nothing to do with him. He just used the opportunity to try to bait me, I guess. I personally have stayed away from him since then, but being active in DYK, I have noticed the attitude problem with others that just never ends. And this is all very sad. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note LavaBaron has been blocked for reasons related to this thread. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a 1-month block that is currently being appealed by LavaBaron on his talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Admin note - Reopened this thread, as the block is currently in question. Any requests for a topic ban may continue freely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Block has since been rescinded. Blackmane (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I attempted to review the editors entire talk page history. It is long, and in some cases, I scanned rather than read in-depth. I see some things we would expect - minor short-comings early, pointed out and apparently not repeated. However, while the history is not pristine (whose is?) there's a gulf between identifying some shortcomings that could use some advice from experienced editors... and a topic ban. I am troubled by the Howe Street situation. There were too many warning signs to shrug it off as an understandable mistake, though I think "hoax" is quite an over-reaction. (I'm also troubled that the DYK was approved, but that's a matter for another venue). I don't think a topic ban is close to warranted, although I would urge the editor to take a deep breath and take on board the fact that bad DYK's on our main page are a black eye, and strive to be part of the solution, not the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm the editor who originally approved the Howe Street Stairs hook. As a catalyst for these events and for advancing poorly sourced or downright wrong information, I'm sorry. While reviewing the article for approval, I had some of the questions that Sphilbrick raised at my talk page but figured that I just wasn't understanding information that was confusingly worded (what qualified as a staircase or a flight of stairs, for instance). Of course, I should've asked for clarification instead of assuming that I would be the only one who had trouble with the article. I'll step away from reviewing others' articles on DYK for a week to get a little perspective and take my mind away from the process. In future, I'll go by the rule of trusting my gut–if I'm confused about something, it's couth to ask the nominator for clarification. I'm sorry to have played a part in this and thank everyone for their continued vigilance and good faith. All my best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Request Suspension of Discussion until July 13 - I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated for the following reasons:
  • (a) though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive [20]; I remain out of town and it has been extremely difficult for me to be pulled back into these issues ... it is virtually impossible for me to do a bulleted defense of a WP:WALLOFTEXT accusation. I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue.
  • (b) this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk. So far, most of the editors who have opined here are those who !voted "support" in that one. The core issue here deals with interpretation of written reviewing criteria of DYK, and it is a long term issue involving a vocal minority and a less active majority, that latter including myself. In interest of balance, since this is a similar TBAN proposal to the recent failed one, editors who participated in the majority of the last one should be notified it is being re-run at ANI. It is beyond my bandwidth (figuratively and literally) to do that while out of town.
  • (c) on top of all this, this TBAN has attracted the attention of the sockmaster of 11+ socks [21] tightly coordinated to a professional WP sanitizer operating on the Frank Gaffney article. For several months I have been the subject of a coordinated railroading effort by a professional sanitizer due to my singular efforts fixing and de-sanitizing the Gaffney article, which have been denounced by Gaffney himself on C-SPAN (the first in a flurry of socks and IP editors who will soon land here have already done so, in the form of IP editor 130..., above). Doug Weller can confirm the veracity of this situation if asked. I have, on holiday here, had to deal with such malicious and persistent vandalism at my Talk page since this TBAN was opened that my Talk page is now in lock-down and protected by action of Huon. To expect me to simultaneously defend myself against (1) a TBAN that has attracted (and will soon be attracting more) socks and IP editors to stuff the ballot box, (2) a (successfully retracted) bad block, and (3) Talk page vandalism from a professional full-time firm, is just far too much to process during a time period I was supposed to be "dark". As an occasional, part-time contributor to WP, I can usually avoid railroadings, but even I can't deal with three trains at once.
  • (d) immediately after this TBAN was opened I was blocked for 30 days sans warning or caution (on the same charges leveled in the TBAN) - blocking someone immediately after opening a TBAN on the same topic castrates their ability to mount any defense or explanation. Even though a heroic outcry from fellow Wikipedians resulted in the lifting of the block after less than 24 hours, it burned through the short time I have free to deal with this; I will be unable to access the internet again after this post for at least several days
LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is IP 130.157.201.59. I encourage LavaBaron to provide the evidence he claims to have of a relationship between myself and any "sockmaster" or "professional sanitizer" or "professional full-time firm". There is none. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [22] LavaBaron (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As a contributor, I'm reluctant to close this myself, but in view of LavaBaron's comment, I think it would be wise to close this for now, and revisit, if necessary after 13 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I would first like someone to post a link to the discussion referenced by LavaBaron above, "this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk." I can't immediately find such a proposal (and can't remember being involved with one), and if it happened, then the fact that another editor (me) now also starts such a topic ban proposal points to a continuing problem and is an extre reason to have the ban, not a reason not to have it of course (as the current proposal is for current problems, not an attempt to get a different result for already discussed issues). We can suspend the discussion, but I'm always wary of people who have time to respond for days and many posts (even inserting themselves in other discussions with me, a strange thing to do if you don't even have the time to properly defend yourself in discussion about your own actions), but then no longer can reply the moment it becomes clear that a restriction seems to have support. Avoiding restrictions by being unavailable is too often misused. Impose a topic ban now, and let LavaBaron start an appeal when he has the time to do so properly. Fram (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Fram I think what he is referring to was not a TBAN, but two editors wanted him to be "warned". Click on this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and the wording is "I propose that LavaBaron should be given a final warning that further slapdash reviews will lead to a ban (of an initial month's duration?) from submitting or reviewing any further DYKs." proposed by Prioryman. LavaBaron opposed, and BlueMoonset supported it. But as far as I know, that's all it ever was. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
        • ErrantX and Jakec seemed 2 reject idea NE "slapdash" reviews were occurring but didn't !vote (presume on grounds that can't !vote to warn someone 4 something not happening?) - sry for brevity, typing from phone LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - in the above, an anonymous IP 130.157.201.59 wrote (in regards to LavaBaron) "A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite". I think this comment needs to be ignored and even considered biased. The off-site link the IP provides connects to a tirade on Reddit.com, which character assassinates LavaBaron. Clicking on the Frank Gaffney "Before" and "After" links and the same for "Center for Security Policy" links shows a previous status and the current status of both Wikipedia articles. It appears the "Before" in both instances was most likely POV editing by an Anon IP as discussed here: --> [23].
The Reddit.com tirade also links to this that discussion in an attempt to put LavaBaron in a bad light. However, providing this link does the opposite and shows a side of LavaBaron that is in agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. LavaBaron intiates a thread at a Wikipedia discussion board questioning the IP's POV editing and even takes a stand against the IP later in the discussion - that resonates with standing up for editing according to Wikipedia standards. It is very different from the LavaBaron who has engaged in problematic editing at DYK. Maybe someone can provide insight into this matter? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow us to call a defense analyst a "conspiracy theorist" and the think tank he heads an "Islamophobic hate group" and how does this possibly pass BLP? I see a slew of hit pieces that came out when Gaffney became Ted Cruz's national security advisor. They all crib from the Wikipedia page which is LavaBaron's opinion which is a curated selection of opposition opinion pieces. Wikipedia established BLP protections to prevent this from happening. Compare the handling of Frank Gaffney's BLP to that of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Is BLP a Wikipedia policy or not? The prior promotional state of the pages does not justify breaking BLP and NPOV as badly as is humanly possible. LavaBaron's work is like replacing the description of John Oliver as a "comedian" or "TV host" with whatever nasty names Ann Coulter decides to call him in her next column. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [24] LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the above commentary, and then the background information provided by User:Fram via the provided links, I think a DYK topic ban for LavaBaron is warranted. From Fram's comments and the DYK admin participating in the discussions that involved a number of DYK editors I can see that it is very important to have accuracy be the norm at DYK. User:LavaBaron seems unable to see the need for accuracy via sourcing or as a norm and so on. He also continually defends this position in discussion after discussion, and seemingly attempts to talk his way around the issues. I think LavaBaron needs to take a time out from DYK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Errors are fine. We are all human. Sticking by your errors when people point them out to you? That is not fine. Refusing to even reply when asked for proof? That is definitely not fine. At this point in time, I have no confidence in LavaBaron's ability to contrib to DYK in an error free manner. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban is the only alternative to protect the integrity of the main page. As a side note, I also oppose the suspension of this thread as LavaBaron has already broken his promise (I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13). --Majora (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated" - my simple request was rejected, so I will not cede my right to speak on my behalf - at great personal expense & inconv & no ability to mount an effective defense via mobile phone edits ... to recap: OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page, I was silenced by an (admitted) bad block [25] for first 24 hours of discussion doubly ensuring i couldn't speak on my behalf, & we have probable socks !voting in this thread - after all that my only simple req. was for a suspension of disc until i could get 2 a comp. & off my phone and it was rejected by OP - this monstrous pile-on is utterly shameful LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
When you stated above " though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive " I let it pass because you added "I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue." because, while it sounded cynical, you could aalways claim that you meant what you wrote. It now turns out that you were indeed cynical: "OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page". No, OP (me) started a discussion on the 21st (about one DYK hook, not about a TBan) because that DYK was only promoted the 19th (a Sunday, and I very rarely edit on Sundays) and hit the mainpage the 21st, the day I noticed it and started the discussion. The second one was also on the main page the 21st, and the third one was only promoted the 23rd. Meanwhile, you still found time to incorrectly criticize the pulling of another hook, and responded freely and at length (but without much substance). The TBan discussion was started here the next day, the 24th. No special delays were made, no effort to catch you when you were unavailable. The actions I took wrt your DYK hooks are actions I take all the time when problematic hooks hit the preps, queue or mainpage, regardless of the editor. I don't first check their userpages to look for their availability. Fram (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Huge backlog at WP:UAA

If some admins can please go to WP:UAA, it would helpful. There is a large backlog of user-reported cases, with some sitting there for the past three days. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: when I left the GLAM Boot Camp, I went straight into the hospital for an unscheduled triple bypass and am still here. I'm starting to catch up, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Heroes needed for WP:AFD

At WP:AFD, we have 10 day long backlog, which is highly unusual. There are may be a dozen of discussions, but most of them are difficult, and may take a lot of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone will add the relist template to them all and it'll go away for the short-term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of them have been already relisted twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
For non-admins hoping to help out: most are either clear deletes or really complex closes, so I'd leave it to the admins. Good luck, ansh666 06:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like AFD has been cleared up to the 19th. Great job, everyone! Nakon 00:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification question on topic ban

EllenCT is informed that their request below is a violation of their community imposed topic ban. Whether she wants to appeal or not is not predicate on the RFC. She may appeal at her discretion but until the community vacates the topic ban, per HighinBC and KrakatoaKatie's comments below, EllenCT is warned that any further breaches of the topic ban, in the community's view, will result in blocks. this is a bold close, please feel free to revert Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

I had agreed to refrain from appealing a recently unjustly imposed topic ban pending the outcome of ongoing RFCs, but then one of the people involved in the topic ban discussion closed the RFCs out of process. Am I entitled to ask that the RFCs and their articles' dispute tags be restored in hopes that the RFC process will preclude the necessity of an appeal, and because the early closure was particularly improper because I had agreed to abide by the topic ban without an appeal pending their outcome? EllenCT (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No one asked you to refrain from filing an appeal. In fact I am sure most people involved would rather you get it over with. So phrasing it as 'your agreement' is disingenuous. Secondly, those were not properly formatted RFC's and had zero chance of going anywhere since the material involved was directly the cause of why people voted to topic ban you. A less kind AGF person might think you deliberately threw them up in your usual tactic of attempting to draw out and prolong the process. If anyone actually wants to salvage something from them and open a proper RFC without your POV-driven and misleading input, they are more than welcome to. However it is irrelevant to you because you are banned from the topic. So no, you are not allowed to comment on non-existant RFC's on a topic which you will no longer be editing. Rather than dropping the stick as multiple people have advised you to, your response is to grab it with both hands and keep swinging. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
They were not formatted improperly. I've seen dozens of successful RFCs formatted identically, and they already had comments from uninvolved editors who you have effectively censored by your out-of-process closing. EllenCT (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Which you cannot discuss because you are topic banned from economics. Suggest you go away, read WP:BANEX then drop the stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I have read it. I am interested in administrators' opinions on the question. I am not restricted from commenting on the out-of-process RFC closures, as far as I can tell. See WP:GRAVEDANCING#Spotting actual gravedancers. ( EllenCT (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Since disputing the RfC closes is neither reverting obvious vandalism, nor appealing the ban itself – the two exceptions listed at BANEX – I agree completely with OID, you are forbidden to discuss them. If you disagree, please cite the language in BANEX that permits you to do so, considering that the RfC are certainly part of "economics, broadly construed". BMK (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. A broadly construed topic ban means you cannot discuss that subject anywhere at all on wikipedia, unless your edit is exempted by WP:BANEX, which this is not. You were already advised of that on the talkpage of this page when you combined this request with some strange request for a "link" to aid off-site co-ordination, (or something). You then proceeded to add to a closed discussion to rehash the same question. I don't think this will end well if you continue this way. Incidentally, nothing in your GRAVEDANCING link applies to anything that actually happened here. Sadly, that reinforces 2 things: firstly that you relentlessly wikilawyer to the death, and secondly that you disingenuously introduce links which don't actually support your position in any way. These things were fundamental to your topic ban. HTH. Begoon talk 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) First, one does not "agree" to a community placed topic ban one "abides by it" or ends up site banned. And this is not a legitimate clarification request just because the word was used - it is a continuation of the same behavior she was banned for, a total inability to let go and move on.

    My strong opinion here is that EllenCT should refer to the first law of holes and move on to another topic area. From the results of the just closed community topic ban discussion my impression is that the community is exhausted with her inability to drop the stick and there is a strong likelihood the regretful next step will be a site ban. JbhTalk 19:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost moved to suggest such a siteban, since, in essence, we have here multiple violations of the topic ban. But it's a new ban, and we should offer a limited amount of time for the editor to get used to/assimilate it. So I won't suggest that right now. Begoon talk 19:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agreed to abide by the topic ban and refrain from an appeal until after the RFCs ran their course. Closing the RFCs out of process under those conditions, after I have made that statement of my intentions concerning appealing, seems absurd and the same as gravedancing to me. Asking whether the out-of-process RFC closures were proper is not discussing the topic of the ban. Again, I am interested in administrators' opinions on this clarification question which I am allowed to ask here per WP:BANEX. I am trying to avoid an appeal, which I expect will not be necessary if the RFCs were allowed to run their course with the proper dispute tags. EllenCT (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard anything anyone said above? Begoon talk 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone cares if you appeal or not. Your appeal will go to the same community that banned you. There is no other recourse except for ArbCom, and I wouldn't expect you to find any relief there. BMK (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I think its best to file an ArbCom case about the problems in the Economics topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought so too, at one time, but at this point, with a newly minted community topic ban in place, ArbCom is most likely going to reject any case request in favor of giving the topic ban time to have an effect. That's what usually happens in situations such as this. For the same reason, I would expect any appeal to ArbCom from EllenCT to be rejected, as there was nothing untoward about the discussion that ended in the topic ban, and there's been insufficient time to judge whether the ban has been effective or not. BMK (talk)
Yes, but with EllenCT out of the picture there things may look fine in the sense of no editing disputes boiling over to AN/I or elsewhere, but there may still be problems with the way the economics articles are edited. So, I think it's best to keep an eye on these articles and if there are problems then an ArbCom case could be considered (with or without EllenCT taking part). Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay EllenCT final warning. This RFC is under the scope of your topic ban. You are not to comment on the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, this includes declaring an RFC on the subject to be closed out of process. A few people have already told you this but since you want an answer from an admin, here is your answer from me an admin.

You say "I am not restricted from commenting on the out-of-process RFC closures", well yes you are as it is part of the topic you are banned from. If you continue to discuss the topic you are banned from then a block will be forthcoming. You need to leave the entire topic to people who are not you, if something unfair is happening then someone else will notice and do something about it. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you're just dying for an administrator's opinion, I'll give you mine. I sincerely hope you listen to the words because you're on a very short gangplank here of your own creation.
You started those RFCs, they were malformed and weren't going anywhere, and they were closed without prejudice as to their reopening in a correct form. Anyone is free to make another RFC except you. If new RFCs are created, you're not going to be editing them since you're topic-banned from the area. There was no 'agreement' on your part nor was one necessary, as this was a community decision – one in which all editors participated, not just administrators. You've been repeatedly warned to stop picking at this scab, to drop the stick, and to step away. You seem to be unable to hear that, so hear this: if you ask this question again, I will consider it a violation of your topic ban and block you accordingly. Katietalk 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tangent

NB: This is a tangent; you don't have to read this.

A "properly formatted RFC" contains three elements:

  • the {{rfc}} tag, ideally with one or more categories;
  • some question or other statement, to give respondents some idea what you want them to comment on; and
  • a date stamp for the bot.

There is a very large gap between "a properly formatted RFC" and "a useful, productive, and/or wise RFC". Having looked at the disputed RFC, I believe that it was "properly formatted". Whether it was useful, or wise, or moot, is a separate consideration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

RFC about mass-listing expired RFCs for formal closing

An RFC is underway about behavior at WP:ANRFC, and so far, there has been a notable lack of participation by admins. This seems a bit odd for a discussion about how to regulate an admins' noticeboard. So here's the link: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RFC: Require participants to add to RFC listings, and I hope to see more of you, and your practical ideas about how to improve the situation, there soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Overdue speedy delete from two days ago

Done by Maile66. Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

A speedy delete on Bob Bryar was requested almost two days ago. This was for the AfC Draft:Bob Bryar to be moved there. Suggested to also remind User:LaMona (as the user was the one to comment on the draft and request the speedy delete) to perhaps complete the AfC process. Sekyaw (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Bob Bryar and the accompanying talk page have now been deleted. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Maile66: And I've undeleted the relevant old edits. You don't just blast over 1,500 edits out of the water like that. Graham87 10:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. A similar situation happened just a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Speedy deletion from 3 days ago. Sometimes there are good reasons why pages have been sitting at CSD for a while, it's not always as simple as just hitting delete. I'm also unsure why some people are currently so keen on 'closing' requests like this recently once they've been actioned. If nothing further needs to said then it can just sit there. Otherwise, there are times when follow up is necessary. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for telling me about this. I shall certainly be more careful in the future. My apologies for this. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this. If the AfD was to redirect to the band's article because "as often with drummers, this article is not notable" (wtf...why all the drummer hatin'?) isn't that essentially a decision to delete? In these cases, if it had been deleted, then would that also require an undelete & histmerge? I'm just trying to understand how attribution is necessary in this case, unless the draft article took info from the pre-redirect article? Rgrds. --64.85.216.112 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • As the creator of the draft and newly created article, this also confuses me a bit. None of the info was derived from the pre-redirect article and was done from scratch (mainly because the pre-redirect article was really bad in my opinion, in which I decided to make a new one to show his notability). It seems that the old edits don't seem that relevant to the new article. And sorry if coming here to close the speedy delete was wrong and if I should have waited before following up on it. Sekyaw (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not that the attribution is required per se; it's more the principle of the thing. The older edits can be safely and harmlessly kept behind the history of the new article, and there's no reason to make them inaccessible to non-admins (which is all deletion does). If they had overlapped in any way, I would've moved them to a subpage of the talk page. The result of a redirect close in an AFD just means ... redirect the page, nothing else. Graham87 15:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet heads-up

From Wikispecies Over at species:Wikispecies:Village Pump, there is a discussion about User:Stegana who is evidently a sockpuppet of User:Stho002, who has caused many headaches at that project. It's not necessary to take any action at en.wp yet (and we're discussing what we need to do there) but this user has an account here as well. @Stegana:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dragon City articles

I've warned GabrielPintabona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) about creating many pages with the same content for the game "Dragon City", but could an admin delete the duplicate articles? Feinoha Talk 21:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:NeilN. Feinoha Talk 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I've also had to block GabrielPintabona as the creation of articles was continuing unabated. --NeilN talk to me 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Appealing a Past Offense for a Clean Start

Hi. I recently created a new account with a new name, since this one was created when I was back in high school and reflect my immaturity if you will. Shortly after creating that account I remembered that I had a topic ban from a long time ago. FYI, before I realized that I only added bullet points (as in the symbol itself) on two pages where it was missing. So, I checked for Wikipedia Help pages to see what is the right thing to do. I realized that while we, members, can have a Clean Start, we still need to take care of past offenses. I consulted with the administrator that issued the ban which I figured was the most direct way of knowing what to do.

My consultation with the topic ban admin here and here. Per that discussion, I chose AN for going forward with it. My goal is to have a complete clean start. I was supposed to do this long time ago but work and life in general got in the way. An empty Sunday afternoon seems to be good enough to give it a try. I looked for a template about such a process but couldn't find one.

Looking back at my history, the topic ban was issued somewhere mid-2010. I believe I appealed it at least twice (1 and 2), which both failed. Since it's been so many years I can't really rely on my memory at all. I'm as much of a stranger to it as the next person. So, everything I can say about it will be based on my User contribution page. There isn't much I can say as well. If I've offended anyone in any way that broke the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia back then, I am sorry. I'd like to have the chance to move on with a clean start. There isn't much I can add to that as I believe that's the essence of it.

If I'm missing any information that should have been here, or any action that I should have performed, please let me know. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Unless I'm missing something... your first problem is that it appears your still subject to an indefinite block by the Arbitration Committee on your old account... @Risker: @Guerillero: @Hersfold: Was that sanction ever lifted? Monty845 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

He was indef banned from Armenian Genocide topics to be sure, and that was 6 years ago. I hadn't , to the best of my memory seen any SPI's on him, his contributions show no posting of anything related to his ban. I'd say give him a chance, especially in light of how many years have passed. KoshVorlon 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Not so relevant question. What's an SPI? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    WP:SPI. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, gotcha. Thanks. I never ever made multiple accounts in my life if I wasn't leaving the older one for good. If there needs to be an investigation I can provide the necessary information for that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with regard to the block, but my question is whether we can, or whether that is something only the Arbitration Committee can do in light of the block message. Monty845 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: If everything you've posted above is accurate, I doubt that anyone will try to stop you from registering a new account because you edited immaturely in one topic-area six years ago. The problem is that since I assume you don't want to publicly link your old account to your new account, there is no way for this noticeboard to reach a final resolution. The solution is for you to e-mail the Arbitration Committee using the instructions here and explain the situation to them. You might also want to explain whether you actually want to edit again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, and if so what you will do differently now from in the past, or whether you are just raising the topic-ban to make sure you are compliant with the clean-start guidelines. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, that was never mentioned to me before. I've been considering whether I would publicly reveal my older account or not though. Would that make a difference here? Nonetheless, I don't really have any immediate plans to edit in that particular topic, though I would like to be able to in the future. I'm usually a minor edit person at best. Most of my edits were about adding a bullet point here and there (as in the actual bullet point symbol) or fixing syntax and stuff like that as far as I remember. I would prefer to bring an important or considerable edit to people's attention in the Talk page and then go forward with it. That's pretty much what I learned especially in the controversial topics. I might as well do what you propose. However, I would prefer if it could be dealt with here. Is that decided by consensus here? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

JWilson0923 and The Zeitgeist Movement

User blocked for 1 year per general sanctions & this discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

The Zeitgeist Movement is under general sanctions. JWilson0923 has been notified of this. [26] Despite this, he's been caught socking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JWilson0923/Archive and is today reverting multiple times, characterizing good faith edits as vandalism and implying others are socking. [27], [[28], [29] Asking for a WP:1RR restriction or topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 22:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't "sock pupetted" anything and I suggest you get your IPs in order before you make such accusations. You are a failure as an admin if you continue to allow one lone editor have its way with a page about a respectful organization. How any admin can sit by and watch what you allow on the ZM page is unreal. I will stop editing and now move to have you questioned as an admin with any integrity. JWilson0923 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You have been blocked as a checkusered sockmaster. The article has plenty of eyes other than Earl's on it. --NeilN talk to me 23:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block. 1RR and topic bans is not enough and certainly not going to fix anything in my opinion. The socking alone should have been enough. If not that then the aspersions and personal attacks certainly are. The page is under ArbCom restrictions. Block and move on. --Majora (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block - obvious WP:SPA operating in bad faith to turn the article into a puff piece. Would pull the trigger myself, but I'm involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Could block based on edit warring and personal attacks alone. GS isn't even necessary. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I have this article on watch and I was suspicious about some of these reverts, but I wasn't entirely confident about engaging editors about it. I would also recommend some sort of monitoring for the article from at least two admins. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with the above, yet another SPA, BMK (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard Offer request for Wackslas

Hello, I am submitting a Standard Offer request on behalf of Wackslas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Wackslas has requested the Standard Offer through UTRS Request #15994 and has provided the following rationale: "I want to be unblocked because I've waited nearly 8 months now and also I've put forward a few suggestions on improving articles while I've been unblocked. And they should copy that onto the noticeboard.". I have no opinion regarding granting or denying this request, aside from a confirmation that Wackslas is eligible for the Standard Offer as the last reported sockpuppet was from October 2015. Please discuss and let me know what consensus develops so that I may notify Wackslas. Thanks, Nakon 00:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty slim rationale to hang an unblock request on - basically, just time served. Don't we generally require the editor seeking on unblock to talk about what they intend to do, and perhaps even show some history of uncontroversial editing on another Wikiproject? This really seems like "OK, I've waited for 8 months, so that's enough, let me loose." Would someone please post the discussion in which they were blocked? BMK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with BMK. Not much that would convince me to support an unblock. Blackmane (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock - unless something more comes down the track. BMK (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to note that while the user has indeed been blocked for a good length of time, he has repeatedly trolled helpers on various IRC channels and has been told this will be taken into account when applying for an unblock. Really, the "eight months" means nothing given he is still disrupting various offwiki processes. — foxj 00:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel

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

Stadscykel notified
Coffee notified Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy unblock: Terrible, terrible, block - one of the worst I've ever seen. No warning given at all, no way of the editor to know what was expected. The editor in question made a single edit, was warned, but then got slapped with a block after not doing any more. User:Coffee has some serious explaining to do. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sppedy unblock -with the exceptions of likely bots working at high speeds, sockpuppetry, legal threats, and blatantly bad usernames (none of which apply here), we absolutely never block an account over an edit without the user having been warned and having continued the bad edits after the warning. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: in fact, the wording in question was previously discussed on that page, and Stadscykel was, in fact, merely adding back the consensus wording. StAnselm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

Either you didn't know there needed to be a "clear and substantial consensus", or you actually think 3 editors with no experience in enforcement actions constitute one... either way, those aren't acceptable answers and I don't think you should be making administrative decisions in this area. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The block can't be a DS block as the editor was not aware per awareness and alerts. Per Awareness and alerts
"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:
1.The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
2.The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
3.The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."
--Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions, which is the relevant policy when dealing with page restrictions. Page restrictions have a different warning system than other DS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee:, that page also says "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." Is there any reason why you failed to log this at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2? StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The page restrictions were logged, and one can easily see that in the section. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the page restriction, but about the sanction. But I think you're right - the sanctions don't have to go in the log. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
While you were allowed to block him under page restrictions, you were not allowed to make it a DS block without the editor being aware. Since it's not a DS block, any admin can unblock per normal unblock rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Waggers: You should voluntarily reinstate the block until there is consensus. I'm aware of at least two admins that were desysopped specifically for reversing an Arbitration Enforcement block out of process. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on. There's a reason why that wording was chosen in the page restriction, and I'm literally the only active enforcement admin I know of on these articles. Perhaps if you reviewed the many months long discussions that have gone into religions being, or not being, in the infoboxes you'd understand why such a seemingly trivial edit was block worthy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: I know and you know of the long discussions about these candidates and about religion in infoboxes. The point is that Stadscykel clearly didn't. If you wanted to "discuss this with the editor," then as an uninvolved enforcement administrator (which I appreciate), you had every right to discuss it with the editor. You accomplish that by discussing it with the editor, that is, by posting a note on his talkpage explaining what the issue is and how he should edit differently. There is no reason to believe he would not have taken your guidance into account in future editing. Even in discretionary sanctions areas, blocking should very rarely, if ever, be the administrator tool of first choice in response to good-faith edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't write the requirements for page restriction warnings, ArbCom did. If you feel that an editnotice is not sufficient, you need to take that up with ArbCom and get them to change the policy. But, right now, the policy states that an editnotice is all that is needed. Whether their edits were good-faith or not is something I refuse to presume, that's why the warning was made so absolutely clear. If the editor had shown that they intended to discuss such edits in the future, (which what the restrictions are intended to force on these articles), then yes I would have unblocked them myself. But, I didn't even get a chance to do that before logging in today to see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Obviously you and I disagree on what would have been the best approach to this situation. Rather than repeat myself or even amplify, I'd be interested what others may think, particular admins with experience in contentious areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee:, I really you need to step back from things here. The fact that you can't see how your block was out of order is very disturbing. As I mentioned above, the edit was actually in accord with the specific consensus on that page. Even if Stadscykel had read and understood the warning, he might still have gone ahead. He did not make any reverts; he did not make a controversial edit contrary to consensus. He was not given a warning. Instead, he was slapped with a 48-hour block. As I said, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that you can't see this, won't apologise, and won't back down. And that makes me wonder whether you should be making any blocks at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh go find some other pot to stir StAnselm. You literally say this every time I have a block review, and it's getting old. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, I'd forgotten about previous interactions here, but now I see that I said in 2013, "I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy." Also in 2013 was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#User:Coffee, which was also about your misuse of the admin tools. I think they were the only ones, but they do suggest a pattern. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And if nothing, what should the community do about it? StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The honest answer, getting past your hyperbole, is that I need more admin support on these articles. This could have easily been avoided if I knew another admin would be online to enforce the page restriction when I logged off. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but it seems like this sort of thing could easily happen again, and that's not an acceptable outcome. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It won't happen again if more admins start volunteering to watch these articles (which have been subject to abhorrent violations, which caused the restrictions in the first place). It's really that simple of a solution. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that these and related articles have been subject to "abhorrent violations" does not, by any possible rationale, justify blocking for inadvertent minor violations (much less for edits that arguably are not violation at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I would have likely handled it without this even making it to AN, this block was for purely preventative purposes - nothing more. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The block was a monumentally bad one, as sanctions should not be applied to a good faith editor making one edit that it is reasonable to assume they might not have known was controversial. Speaking to the editor on their talk page to explain the problem should have been the first step here, not stomping straight in with a block to stain their untainted record. Also, I find Coffee's complete inability to hear what multiple experienced editors (including a number of admins and an ex-arb) are saying here - such intransigence reinforces the bad image of admins that so many people have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not that I don't hear them, it's that we disagree on our approaches. Like I've said above, if more admins volunteered to be enforcement admins on these articles I wouldn't worry about having to block for first offenses at all (outside of obvious libel or vandalism of course). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Trying to blame others for not being there doing the same work, and claiming that that forces you into blocking for good-faith first offences, is shameful - do you really have no sense of self-awareness here? Your block was wrong and your continuing arrogance in defence of it is wrong, it's as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Not blaming anyone, just stating a fact. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
          • You're saying "If X, then I wouldn't have to do Y", where there's a very clear consensus among your peers that Y is wrong and you should not do it regardless of X. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus and accept your mistake. That is not how admins are supposed to behave. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking over Coffee's block log, a see a similar (but slightly different) situation happened a couple of weeks ago - User:Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. What makes it different to this situation was that Aaaaaabbbbb111 had introduced a (presumably) controversial edit here, it was reverted without comment or discussion here, and then Aaaaaabbbbb111 reinstated the edit with a reference. For this, Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. I realise that this comes out of an ArbCom decision, and the talk page warning is a strong one, but again there is no evidence that Aaaaaabbbbb111 even saw the talk page. This sort of blocking has got to stop. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Further comment: In any case, I really don't think Coffee is blocking "according to the rules". If these blocks are made per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, then the rule stated there must apply: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Now, does the warning that appears when you click "edit" count? Apparently not: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months... the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Wait? Isn't the article warning an alert? No, it is specifically defined as follows: these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message... is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. So there you have it - Stadscykel and Aaaaaabbbbb111 did not receive the necessary DS warning. Am I wikilawyering? Perhaps. But what Coffee is doing is against both the spirit and the letter of the rules. The only question that remains is whether we should ask ArbCom to rule on this. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel's comment

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

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

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

  • The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  • The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  • The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
Obviously, neither of that applies to me. Which brings us to the following point:
  • "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware [...]". The application of "arbitration enforcement" to me was never allowed from the beginning, and User:Coffee's reference to the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal is therefore invalid - I was never allowed to be sanctioned from the beginning. Because of this, Coffee's idea to "reinstate the block until there is consensus" cannot be seriously considered.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Thanks for posting this long note, Stadscykel. These edge cases can be hard to deal with, and we sometimes screw up. I think everyone is sorry about the way this turned out. It seems that User:Coffee was technically following "the rules" as written, even though, in hindsight, everyone can see a better way to approach it. Rather than sanctioning Coffee for making the effort to work in a complex and dispute-prone area (and it is very hard, with people ready to scream at the slightest less-than-perfect outcome), I think it might make more sense to fix up our procedures. If we don't address the gap between "the rules" and "best practice", then this sort of thing will just happen again in the future, with the only difference being a different admin and a different article and a different editor being completely surprised by a block. With your recent frustrating experience, I would not be surprised if you better understand the importance of preventing a recurrence of this situation, than anyone else in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I agree that a clarification of the rules is needed in that case, for example it would be logical to assume that there should be a clear list of violations for which blocks without an initial warning can be issued, otherwise editing any article e.g. on Eastern Europe (another "area of conflict" according to the rules) turns into a minefield for new editors. My problem here though is Coffee's unwillingness to recognize their wrongly (as per opinions on this page) issued block, instead it has been suggested by them that my block should be reinstated. Stadscykel (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I am entirely open to discussing anything about the merits of the block itself, but it is simply not correct to state that sanctions were not allowed. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions (the relevant piece to that ArbCom policy) clearly states: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. ... Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The policy page does not state anywhere that the "Page restrictions" section somehow invalidates the rest of the page. Besides, if there's an explicit consensus prohibiting the addition of the religion field, it should have been mentioned in the mentioned template, Template:ds/editnotice. The idea that stating "Religion: Presbyterian" in an article stating as a matter of fact (Donald_Trump#Religious_views) "Trump is a Presbyterian" should be seen by any editor not aware of the previous discussions as "potentially contentious" is ridiculous. The rest of the page says e.g.:
  • "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion"
  • "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict"
  • "[...] administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum"
  • "For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans"
As far as I understand from the page, the section you mention simply allows the administrators to choose to which pages the rules descripted in the rest of the policy would apply. I see no source confirming that the rest of the policy is invalid in this case. Stadscykel (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, that's just plain wrong. Stadscykel was not allowed to make uncontroversial edits without consensus. Quite apart from whether or not what he added was "controversial", and whether he not he was aware of various previous discussions, there was indeed explicit consensus to include the words, per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11# Donald Trump Religion. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware here. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of that page cannot override the total community consensus that was established at the village pump to depreciate the religion parameters. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, once again this raises the question as to how Stadscykel could possibly have known all that. But religion parameters are still, it seems, allowed in some infoboxes (under certain conditions), so there is no reason to believe that the local consensus is being used to override the total community consensus. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that. Just saying that perhaps the best course of action would be to actually enforce the community wide RfC and remove the parameter from the infobox options. That way, this "contentious" edit would be technically impossible in the future. --Majora (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, we have a parameter in the template with a capital punishment for use? A big red button with an obscure, hidden instruction, "Do not push!" ??? That sounds like an ANI waiting to happen. <Joke>Let's leave it in the template and see how many others we can catch! </joke> Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: The language you cite still leaves some room for interpretation. In my view, the key phrase is Editors ignoring page restrictions.... In my view, to ignore a restriction requires that you know of the restriction's existence, and violate it anyway, thus ignoring it. To me, this fits with the general design of discretionary sanctions, which require prior knowledge of the existence of the sanction. That said, I can also see how you could interpret it differently. In fact, the definition of ignore includes both interpretations, though according to Wiktionary, yours is obsolete. Perhaps Arbcom should clarify the language to avoid this type of issue. Monty845 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no serious ambiguity requiring clarification. An interpretation suggesting that an editor may be blocked for a first-time good-faith edit made with no knowledge that it was in violation of any policy or sanction would be so contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that no one can have intended such an interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
NYB as you well know, this place has a lot of rules, and it is difficult to make broad pronouncements that don't have an exception here or there. For example, your broad pronouncement that we could never possibly intend to block an editor for a good faith edit without knowledge of a violation of policy sounds eminently reasoanble, except... it isn't true. If a brand-new editor creates the user name XYZ corp and edits XYZ corp, they get blocked. No notice, no warning no anything except a block. And it appears we intend to do this as it happens every day. I clean up after literally hundreds of these cases. They get an explanation which is often not understood. You and I both know why they are blocked, and know it is not a big deal but they don't know that until I do some hand-holding. My point is that we do impose rules that sound reasonable, then have actual cases that follow the rules and we realize we need to rethink the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Well, that's obviously a different situation from what I have in mind, but I take your point. (I happen to think that the way in which we interact with new editors in the circumstances you describe is very troublesome, and I've said so for years, but let's not divert this discussion in that direction.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The relevant part of the username policy is: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." I assume you are talking about the above section, however the policy does not provide for blanket blocks of promotion/corp usernames that edit the 'corp' article. Merely creating a username "DavesHardware" and editing "Dave's Hardware" absent problematic editing is not blockable by the policy as written. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Page restrictions are limited to "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." Coffee has at least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for random content restrictions, not less. Very disturbing that the interpretation was no notice about the list of "certain content" needs to be provided. --DHeyward (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on User:Coffee

Cannot be done here. --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

  • Support as proposer. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not We don't restrict admin tools. You have a problem with Coffee? Take it to ArbCom. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - don't think I've seen a blocking prohibition be requested against an admin! The issue has been discussed here, and I will echo Majora's comment above that if you would like to take this further, please contact ArbCom -- samtar talk or stalk 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not realistic This is not how we handle things. If you think you have a case take it to arbcom. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll withdraw this proposal, and possibly take the issue to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • See now I thought (hell, hoped) we were finally getting past the need for hyperbole in our discussion above, and then I see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm totally uninvolved here, but I usually always follow discussions that I find interesting across the three noticeboards (AN, ANI, ANEW), and that what I've been doing here. Coffee was not acting in bad faith, so I don't believe any sanctions against them or even an Arbitration Committee case are warranted. Let's all just move on and go on about our business. If something like this ends up happening again, it can be dealt with then, but mistakes happen—though note I'm not saying anyone made mistakes here—to the best of us and bringing out the pitchforks over something like this is rather unproductive. If something of this nature, for anyone, becomes a pattern, then yes, start off with a discussion and go from there; however, if it's just little mistakes every now and then, it's really no big deal—though just to make it clear again, I'm not saying anyone here made any mistakes. Amaury (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not just the mistake, of course - it's the inability to see that it was a mistake that puts other new and inexperienced at risk. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose No way. It's either ArbCom or nothing. Blocking is a fundamental tool for admins. Coffee was acting in good faith, there is no reason. I'm not sure if it was a mistake at all, or the right thing to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back to basics

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

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

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

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

A mystery with alerts and messages

  • I am an admin. At the top of any Wikipedia page is, in this order: my name, then an "Alerts" clickable with a number, then a "Messages" clickable with a number, then other stuff ("talk" etc).
    • If I click on the alerts clickable, I get a list of my alerts; the number is how many alerts I have which I have not read yet. OK.
    • If I click on the messages clickable, I get a list of my messages; the number is always "99+". But if I click on it, I get a list of messages, and at its top right corner currently the text "49 notifications", not 99 or more; and I have already read all these 49 messages.
    • If I go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anthony_Appleyard , I still get the 2 same Alerts and Messages links. This time, clicking on the Message link shows currently 38 messages, not 99 or more. But at other times this Messages link gets the first 100 of a long list of messages which seem to be every message passed in Wikidata, not only the messages concerning me.
@Anthony Appleyard: Check User talk:Timtrent/Archive 31 § Notifications for a possible solution. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please help out at CFDS

Can some more admins please help out at WP:CFDS? WE have unhandled requests going back more than a week. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New Tool to Help Transfer Files to Commons: MTC!

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

When I open it, it asks for username and password. Is it looking for my WP info, my Commons info, or something unique to the program? BMK (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: It's asking for your WP info. -FASTILY 22:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Danke. BMK (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lui Morais

Could an admin please unprotect Talk:Lui Morais so a talk page can be created. --Racklever (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is protected on meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist but I have created a page for you. Please check if the page is a spam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Archived without admin ruling

This discussion was archived without ever being actioned by admins- the consensus seems to have been for a topic ban, but we need an admin to rule on it, or unarchive it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed. I would unarchive it and close it myself but I was involved in the discussion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer : Drmicrocap

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

First of all, Drmicrocap is a sock of Drofmicrocaps (talk · contribs) who was blocked for making legal threats. Shouldn't the original account be unblocked rather than this one? More importantly, his serious and persistent BLP violations on Daniel C. Ferguson under both user names mean that he should be officially topic banned indefinitely if unblocked. He should not be unblocked on the basis of agreeing to a voluntary topic ban. He seems to think that it would simply be lifted at any time in the future upon his request. I am the one who dealt with his edits (and was the recipient of his legal threat). In my opinion he should never be allowed near that article or associated subjects again. I note also that he doesn't seem to have any other subjects in mind which he plans to edit. So why does he want to be unblocked? Before he was blocked, his edits under both those accounts were entirely to Daniel C. Ferguson and related subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Appears to be an SPA in dispute with a living person, created an attack page about that person, appears to not understand the BLP policy, issued legal threats... - think we can safely decline his contributions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty much my impression and why he must be officially topic banned if he is unblocked. Admins should look at the contents of the original attack page he created to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading just a bit, I found this: different topic, but the same problems as noted above, - how would we know the attitude changed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's the same topic, Gerda. He was making the bizarre claims about Daniel C. Ferguson to the admin who had deleted the original attack page. I am also less than thrilled with this SPA with a pseudo-legal username who re-added a spurious net worth figure to the infobox last year and never returned. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I just did some heavy culling on Daniel C. Ferguson - a good half of the article was about Newell Rubbermaid and completely irrelevant to the biography. Not being familiar with the notability criteria for business people, no comment on his notability. I also un-orphaned it and removed the 'short lead' template as it accurately reflects the body of the article now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Newyorkbrad, the original account Drofmicrocaps was registered on 4 October 2012 and blocked on 28 November 2012. The second account Drmicrocap began editing on 7 February 2013, i.e. 3 months after the block. This was not "lost password". This was block evasion. Otherwise I agree with you. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Total agreement with NYB. BMK (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Until info relating to point 3 is provided as well as a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. This can only be appealed to the community and will not be lifted upon request. Any support, from me at least, requires both points to be fulfilled. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Reblocks are cheap. I agree that banning him from Mr. Ferguson will be necessary; if it's true that he's the real power behind the throne for the LDS Church, and capable of choosing apostles at will, other editors can always add sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reblocks are only cheap if admins are willing to apply them without making the community jump through hoops to justify them. The rule of thumb should be that even a hint of improper editing or behavior from an editor recently unblocked with the standard offer should be enough to send them back to the woodshed immediately. That's generally not the case, we usually have to have another one of these AN or ANI discussions to convince an admin to do what should have been done automatically right off the bat. Until that changes, reblocks are not "cheap", they're a drain on the community's time, energy and patience. BMK (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Blackmane and my comments above. Any support for an unblock would require both a credible description of what he plans to contribute and a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blocked per NLT - I don't see the threat rescinded, so we could stop here and say that they should remain blocked on this point alone. That is defacto is our policy. Socking, and honesty concerns per @Voceditenore:, and @Newyorkbrad: as well. And as per BMK, blocks aren't free. I see every reason to leave this user blocked / banned, and no net positive here. SQLQuery me! 06:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Squeak, said the wheel

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=727630305"