→Additional Review Request: correction |
Only in death (talk | contribs) →Personal attack by Coffee in edit summary.: new section |
||
Line 401: | Line 401: | ||
* I have been asked to delete a page, and I did so: see [[User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Expectations (Bebe Rexha album)]]. I was then asked to protect it against being re-created, and in the instructions I found a link to [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection]]. This rule seems to have been changed; as this rule stands now, what is the procedure in getting permission to protect a deleted page against being re-created? My work so far has largely been in history-merging and in attending to the speedy-deletion category. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
* I have been asked to delete a page, and I did so: see [[User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Expectations (Bebe Rexha album)]]. I was then asked to protect it against being re-created, and in the instructions I found a link to [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection]]. This rule seems to have been changed; as this rule stands now, what is the procedure in getting permission to protect a deleted page against being re-created? My work so far has largely been in history-merging and in attending to the speedy-deletion category. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
*:I went ahead and full-protected it from recreation. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
*:I went ahead and full-protected it from recreation. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Personal attack by Coffee in edit summary. == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete Should still be here]. Short explanation - Coffee does not know what a BLP violation is and accusing me of making one, when I'm quite hardline when it comes to enforcement of the BLP is a personal attack. |
|||
Longer explanation: Recently ITN ran (another) Trump story about recognising the capital of Israel etc. ITN decided not to run the subsequent UN vote where almost the entirety of the rest of the world told him where to go. Supposedly the comment at ITN about it continually running Trump's racist and divisive statements is a BLP violation. Despite it being trivial to reliably source that Trump makes racist statements, supports racists, re-tweets racists, promotes racist political policies etc. About the only thing you couldn't easily source if pressed would be 'Trump is a racist'. Which is a good thing I didn't say that. It certainly is not a BLP violation, nor is it worthy of hiding over 300 revisions with an edit summary that indicates I have done something I have not. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:01, 2 January 2018
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike
(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders
(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 24 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 35 | 44 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States
(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion
(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires
(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 15 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?
(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal
(Initiated 118 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season
(Initiated 112 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive
(Initiated 98 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 23 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles
(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 18 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests
(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#New article
(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2018 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:
- Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:
- Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
- GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
- Keilana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining OS)
- Kelapstick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
- Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2017 at their own request:
- Checkuser: Casliber, Keilana, Kelapstick
- Oversight: Casliber, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin
- Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
- All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Casliber and Kirill Lokshin at their request.
- All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of GorillaWarfare and Drmies at their request.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Every November/December, I consider running for a seat. But, my refusal to hand over personal info, gets the best of me. Oh well, I wouldn't get many support votes anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what personal information you think you are expected to turn over GoodDay, you don't even have to provide committee members your real first name if you don't want to. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Kelapstick: I believe he is referencing the requirement to identify to the WMF. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- You haven't had to provide any personal information to the WMF in at least two years (it was a requirement when I became an oversighter, but not when I joined the committee). It has all been converted to signing a non-disclosure-agreement. It's all covered at Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information, even the identification noticeboard at Meta has had it's name changed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I won't sign anything. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well that is clearly a different reason than handing over personal information, which was the reason you said you would not run. Regardless, whatever you wish to do or not do is of course your prerogative. This is not the first time I have heard people saying they don't want to run because they don't want to email a copy of their identification to the WMF (which in the past was used to verify age, then destroyed), a practice which is no longer used. I just want to make sure that people understand that they no longer have to do that. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I won't sign anything. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- You haven't had to provide any personal information to the WMF in at least two years (it was a requirement when I became an oversighter, but not when I joined the committee). It has all been converted to signing a non-disclosure-agreement. It's all covered at Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information, even the identification noticeboard at Meta has had it's name changed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Kelapstick: I believe he is referencing the requirement to identify to the WMF. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what personal information you think you are expected to turn over GoodDay, you don't even have to provide committee members your real first name if you don't want to. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- At least we can't blame Putin for this result. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Wordpress subdomain blacklisted
The below note was posted on the Commons admin noticeboard:
A notice to admins that I recently globally blacklisted
files.wordpress.com
due to a ferocious and broad WMF-wide spambot attack. There will be consequences with that while it is blacklisted. I am unsure whether it is just a temporary measure, or whether it is has anything more than occasional inconvenience. At the moment there seem to be about 4000 links to that domain (special:linksearch/*.files.wordpress.com, 2000- links and special:linksearch/https://*.files.wordpress.com, 2000+ links). If this blacklisting is seen as not acceptable to Commons needs then we should whitelist some or all of the sub-domains in Mediawiki:spam-whitelist. If you are prepared to wait some days to see whether the spamming stops/has stopped then we need do nothing. Look forward to hearing your opinions, especially in light that it is not an authoritative domain for source files. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Since we host a lot of files, I figured there ought to be some note here. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Some recent spam has had several wordpress.com links on a new page. If it's just this type of spam an edit filter may be possible. Peter James (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think the benefits of this will almost certainly outweigh any harm. Links to this subdomain are often either spam or copyright violations. They are very rarely going to meet WP:RS, and if they do, they will probably have been published elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions enforcement review
I would like to request a review of Coffee's enforcement of discretionary sanctions concerning an edit I made to Presidency of Donald Trump (diff), together with an edit made by El cid, el campeador (diff). Both of us feel the instant imposition of blocks and the subsequent logging of our "transgressions" at the DS log (diff, diff) were unusually harsh. Both of us are experienced editors, yet we both misinterpreted the "letter of the law" concerning the sanction. Neither of us have ever been sanctioned before. It is our view that while we recognize we both made a mistake, the matter could easily have been resolved with a simple warning. Our hope is that following a review, you will consider rescinding the notations in the DS log and (if technically feasible) modifying our block logs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just as a procedural note, someone may want to consider tweaking this archive which included the open sub-thread that seems to have led up to this thread being opened in turn (or consider formally closing it if that seems appropriate). GMGtalk 15:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks both on the merits and procedurally as the blocks have expired. There were clear sanctions violations by both of you and Coffee enforced them. The fact that he was willing to sanction experienced editors should not have any impact on this at all. It is experienced editors who are most often affected by discretionary sanctions. You both clearly violated the sanctions and were blocked accordingly. This was well within the discretion of the DS system. Just because Coffee has made mistakes that got a lot of attention here recently doesn’t mean his actions in this regard were mistakes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have just informed Coffee of this discussion. A bigger, redder box may be in order. No comment on the merits of the complaint. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks - I'm afraid you clearly reinstated challenged material, and El cid clearly made more than one reversion per 24 hours. This is highlighted in yellow when you edit the page. This does not mean I have no sympathy for your plight, and these blocks don't change the fact you are both highly valuable here. However, Coffee's blocks are well within reason. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect that would somehow challenge Coffee's right to make the blocks. I'm just saying that in this particular case, warnings would've achieved exactly the same purpose and I would hope administrators would prefer to use preventative, rather than punitive measures. Coffee even said as much on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- "I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect" <-- well, I for one very much wish that this thread, or something, had a "chilling effect" on Coffee making these kinds of blocks. He's been on a sanctioning spree that's been getting out of control. He's made at least three (not counting the blocks here) bad calls - all extreme over reactions - in the past ten days or so. This is not going to end well, and having Coffee "chill out" before it gets worse is probably the best outcome here. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- And it was a valid block that expired before he lifted it. It was not one that I would have made, but it was fine within the DS system. As it expired without being lifted, I'm not seeing the point of this appeal. You were validly blocked, and it was logged. It expired. You're now aware of the sanctions in this area, and you also have been sanctioned for violating them, so keeping it in the log makes sense. I'm aware that I have been one of Coffee's defenders since he has returned, but that is because he generally does do the right thing and of late it seems like people are trying to put every action under the microscope. If he had acted in a way that was outside of policy here, I'd be willing to say it, but as it stands, he didn't in my view. I'd also like to emphasize like 78.26 that this in no way is saying that you or El Cid are not valued contributors here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not of late, TonyBallioni. Coffee's admin actions are always backed by policies and guidelines but that doesn't mean they use the best judgement in making them. Even before they went on break I had my issues with at least a couple of them, serious enough that I said something (no admin is going to agree with every action another admin takes but this is almost always shrugged off as a judgement call and nothing is said). With this situation, Coffee made a technically valid block but I don't think your "of late" clause is accurate. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- NeilN, I was saying of late because after his return of course everything he does is going to be under the microscope. I don't think that is fair, but we know it is going to happen. Coffee takes a hard line on AE, which means that some of his actions are not going to be popular. I think he might want to consider taking it slower because of the microscope effect, but that doesn't make him a bad admin.As I said, I would not have made this block because I personally weigh things like whether the eventual appeal would create more disruption than the block prevents, but like you said, Coffee was backed up by policies and guidelines here, and that this is nothing like the previous thread with Volunteer Marek despite what has been claimed below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- No one is saying he wasn't technically allowed to make the blocks. And you're wrong about the comparison to Marek: he was ABSOLUTELY "technically" allowed to do that as well. Arguing that the "consensus required" tenant is somehow more tangible than the "behave civilly" tenant is silly in my book, and not really central to the argument anyway. The point of this review is that while the community acknowledges that these sanctions are inherently discretionary and will vary somewhat as a result, the community absolutely DOES NOT agree to be governed by an admin that acts Trunchbull-esque or clearly displays a wanton attitude toward our expectations of his behavior. Scjessey's block (and Mareks, and the exchange that led to this) demonstrate spectacularly bad judgement that other admins (including you, Tony) avoid by thinking with cool heads and keeping the needs of the encyclopedia first. I understand you have a history with Coffee that helps you see the best of what he is capable of, but right now that's not coming through. He is a HUGE negative to the encyclopedia right now, and something needs to change. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I called on him to voluntarily rescind the Marek action, and you are wrong: I don't have a personal history with him. I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break. I am able to see the controversy that is caused, and I think there are some legitimate criticisms (in the Marek situation, a 1 day topic ban was sure to cause more drama than it solved). At the same time this review accomplishes nothing: the block was technically good, the users are unblocked now, and all it accomplishes is to let people pile on about an admin doing what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia. Especially since in every one of the situations involving AE actions of late, he has either rescinded the blocks when asked to or offered to do so. I don't think that an appeal of an action that is no longer in effect and that was sure to turn into personal drama about Coffee is a positive for the encyclopedia. As I said above, this isn't personal: I was never friends with Coffee before his break. I just also don't like seeing pile-ons and will speak up when I see it happening regardless of who the user is. I think there may be valid critiques of Coffee, but those are best handled in talking to him directly and not by an appeal of a valid action that has lapsed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- " I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break" <-- As I mentioned in the previous thread, I have no idea about any profiles of his break, high or otherwise (I have caught up a bit on it in the meantime, but I'm still hella confused and out of the loop), it is simply his actions that are problematic. I think best thing would if Coffee voluntarily stepped away from administratin', particularly in the discretionary fashion, the American Politics area for awhile. Note that he's throwing out these sanctions over relatively minor incidents - believe it or not, a few IPs or fly-by-night accounts aside, there's not all that much going on in that topic area right now (prolly cuz holidays, but still). Most of these sanctions are just simply not necessary and they screw up the normal editing and consensus building process. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Look at the way Coffee uses a user's history of blocks in his arguments about why discretionary sanctions are warranted to understand why this could be viewed as "severe" by the editors on the other end of this. So what the blocks have expired? Does the bad judgment that led to the blocks also have an expiration date? Will the editors with these silly blocks on their records be subject to escalating sanctions by another judgement (either deserved or undeserved)? Surely you understand why "sweeping this under the rug" would be a net negative for everyone involved. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This review does serve a purpose: revealing the community's expectations for admin judgement when using their most serious tool: blocking. Perhaps the tide will change, but so far, there's a pretty strong signal that admins are expected to use restraint and discretion before blocking editors, and not simply apply black-and-white thinking. In another instance, Coffee sort of considered an alternative to blocking before he blocked Casprings, by giving him 10 minutes to self-revert this edit (see user talk:Casprings#December 2017). In my experience, Casprings would have gladly self-reverted without complaint if give a reasonable opportunity to do so. He did not need to be blocked. If this review does nothing more than showing Coffee that he needs to recalibrate his approach, then it will have been worthwhile.- MrX 19:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh come on! How people manage to maintain their cool with this admin should be met with the awarding of barnstars all around. "You have 10 minutes?" Look at Caspring's response, and you can get a feel for just how absurd this action was. How is this acceptable behavior? 172.56.21.117 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- That is a stupendously stupid block - even if technically correct that it is 'allowed'. It is not 'required'. Firstly that ridiculous consensus required DS has already caused problems like this, where it promotes a first mover advantage. Secondly blocking someone for 24 hours, 24 hours after the offense is completely pointless. BLOCKS ARE PREVENTATIVE NOT PUNITIVE, and a quiet word to Scjessey would have sufficed. Blocking with 'be told!' is overkill. This is not the first knee-jerk admin action Coffee has done recently and I think its time for a comprehensive review of their fitness to be an Admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Bad blocks - The purpose of Arbcom authorized discretionary sanctions is to quell disruptive behavior like edit warring, personal attacks, and POV pushing, so that we can focus on improving the encyclopedia. We are not a bureaucracy that is required to slavishly apply prescriptive remedies, otherwise admins would be required to block in all cases where page restrictions are violated. Imposing harsh penalties like blocks on volunteers editing in good faith is profoundly discouraging, harms those editors' reputations, and creates a chilling effect on everyone who wishes to edit these articles. Past behavior should have been given more consideration and a polite warning placed on these users talk pages as is common practice among many highly respected admins.- MrX 16:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Postpone. User:Scjessey, If you had remembered to notify Coffee about this request, you would have seen a big notice atop both his talk page and user page saying he’s away until January 13. Would you have gone ahead with this request at this time? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unnecessary. We already know that Coffee endorses these blocks. Also, he didn't say he wouldn't be available until January 13.- MrX 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please quote the explanation he would have given here. My question to Scjessey stands. (The notice says, “Coffee is away on vacation in Indonesia from 24 December 2017 until 13 January 2018 and may not respond swiftly to queries.”) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good question. The message does not say Coffee isn't able to respond, just that responses will not be a swift as usual. If that were not the case, I would agree postponing was fair; however, I don't think postponing is necessary in this case as long as due consideration is given to Coffee's response time (if responses are needed). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please quote the explanation he would have given here. My question to Scjessey stands. (The notice says, “Coffee is away on vacation in Indonesia from 24 December 2017 until 13 January 2018 and may not respond swiftly to queries.”) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unnecessary. We already know that Coffee endorses these blocks. Also, he didn't say he wouldn't be available until January 13.- MrX 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Horrible block but technically sound -- That you can do something does not equate to that you shall do something. This ain't a bureaucracy where blocks are made after 24 hours of violation of a certain clause, just because they ought to be. And, then, AGF et al. Winged BladesGodric 16:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Bad blocks, and not the only recent bad admin action/poor judgement, either. See [1]. Others have complained as late re: similar behavior from this admin - just look at the comments in the linked AN discussion. This is not an isolated incident. The following comment may be controversial and will probably be criticized, but perhaps, because of how and why he was "on break" for months, Coffee's return should have been addressed differently and with some monitoring? What we're seeing now in the way of his judgement certainly seems to speak to a need for...something (different than the status quo). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder why you aren't logging in with your actual account and are, instead, being a coward. I fully admit I have a long block log and a history of edit warring, my last block being delivered by Coffee. That said, my comments regarding his recent actions have nothing to do with that block. My concern is for the harm he's doing by what appears to be a misuse of the power of the tools -- both to the editors he's sanctioning and blocking, his reputation, and the trust editors need to have toward administrators. Someone pegged it very nicely above: what Coffee is doing leaves a chilling effect and dissuades editors from editing. Certainly, that's not what admin actions are supposed to do. When that kind of thing happens, we all lose. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Qualified Endorse Blocks This looks like it falls well within the guidelines for a legit block and that means it's a judgement call. I am not seeing anything that suggests that this was outside the bounds of reason. That said, I don't think I would have done it. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Excepting those situations that obviously fall under the broad heading of NOTHERE I tend to take a very restrained approach to blocking. To my mind anything other than a NOTHERE block should be a last resort, done only after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and where there is a strong likelihood of continued disruption absent a block. I don't think this situation meets that test. But again it is a judgement call and I do believe that this falls within the guidelines under admin discretion. And to be fair, I have been criticized a few times for my reluctance to drop the hammer in situations where others thought the need was real and immediate. [To block, or not to block. That is the question.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would go so far as to request Coffee not admin in any ARBCOM DS area. He has shown time and time again to give out blocks that are not really necessary, even if they may be appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Which is evidence of someone just wielding power because they can rather than someone trying to prevent disruption because they need to. Definitely NOT what admins are supposed to do or are entrusted with when given the tools. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say "technically allowed", because truly preventative blocks can't be unnecessary yet still be appropriate. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Support Coffee in this particular matter based on these particular facts. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if every clear violation of discretionary sanctions results in some amount of administrative action. The point of having rules is to ensure equality. Discretion is fine when the matter is unclear, and it is also fine even in clear cases as to the degree of administrative action. But more discretion than that guarantees inequality. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Edited18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Aren't administrator standards of behavior and appropriate use of the tools what should be supported rather than individual administrators? Your "Support" !vote sounds more like you're approaching the issue as if it's a popularity contest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying with the edited and underlined commentary above, Anythingyouwant. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let's wait until Coffee returns - As someone who had Coffee strip his editing privileges (and later reinstated, though without apology or explanation), it might sound odd for me to suggest this. I think that Coffee, making certain blocks immediately before his holiday was a stupid, stupid move; you just don't do that if you aren't going to bearound to defend those actions - you. just. don't. That said, others here have said that the blocks, though malformed, solved the problem. While I think that suggesting that its all fine because it worked out is like saying that murdering 11 million people is a great way to open up the housing market.
Coffee should have the opportunity to defend his actions, and clearly needs to. While it absolutely sucks for those affected by those actions (and there's little to be done to recompense those affected if Coffee is found to have taken bad action), I think we have to be fair, and allow Coffee the opportunoty to solve the problem that he has created. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd agree if Scjessey was asking for Coffee to be desysopped: he's not though. He's asking for an assessment by the rest of us to determine if there is consensus to get the not-so-great blocks off of his "permanent record", as it were. We don't really need Coffee for that (and if there is any question about what Coffee might think about it, it might be helpful to take a look at the linked archived section). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks as procedure and note that best practice is difficult to determine. As others have stated, these blocks are sound and are within the letter of policy—this is not controversial. Whether the implementation of these blocks reflected best practice (and good judgment) is less clear. If I had been monitoring the situation, I would not have blocked El cid, el campeador. The violation there was technical—a simple note letting him know that he should not revert a second time to enforce the discretionary sanctions would have sufficed (in my judgment). Another issue raised is that the blocks came 24 hours after both editors had stopped editing the article. Late blocks often appear to be punitive rather than preventative; however, late blocks are often made in order to deter future disruptive behavior (WP:BLOCKP). This is another area where Coffee had to make a judgment call—making judgment calls often appears arbitrary. My reading of Coffee's response to Scjessey was that Coffee was attempting to be consistent with his procedures for discretionary sanction offenders. Consistent standard operating procedures reduce the arbitrariness of discretionary-sanction enforcement, though it does tend to lend an air of heavy-handedness. Personally, I would tend to err on the side of arbitrary lenience, but it is not clear that this is the better approach.
- Regarding the request for relief from Scjessey by a modification of the editors block logs or DS log entries: (1) The block log cannot be modified. The only way your block log could have an additional note added to it is by an administrator blocking you again for one second with an explanatory note. I doubt that another administrator is willing to do this without Coffee's agreement, though we have yet to hear from Coffee on this matter (and I doubt he will do this). (2) The DS log is both there to log violators and to log administrator actions, so I do not think it would be appropriate to rescind the note. It would be possible to add a sub-item linking to this discussion when it concludes--which there will likely be consensus to do. Malinaccier (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Scjessey:, re. block logs being unchangeable, this indicates otherwise. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Malinaccier: and @Scjessey: More evidence that the block logs are INDEED changeable [2]. 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. Everyone knows that the block log is technically changeable via revision deletion and/or oversight. It is long standing policy that that would be considered misuse. Any admin doing so would be risking a lot. And besides, there isn't even consensus that this was a bad block to begin with. --Majora (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- If it wasn't your intent perhaps mind your wording next time, but the gist I got from your note is that you absolutely believe it can't be modified, and I linked to a longstanding admin who says otherwise. As far as consensus: this was a bad block. Almost every non-admin commenting has said as much. As for the admins themselves: almost none say they would have performed the block, though admit it is "technically" sound (yes, those were ironic quotes based on your last comment). This block violated the spirit of the trust that the community places in admins... Perhaps there's an argument to be made about DS in general, and I would certainly be interested in that. It doesn't change the crux of the issue here, though, which is that
twofour+ editors were blocked, banned, or had special permissions removed based on one admin's poor judgment. 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Where do I even start. First wikt:technically has more than one definition. Technically as in based in the facts and technically as in software. Perhaps you should pick up on the differences? Second, just from counting (yes consensus isn't a vote blah blah blah) there are eight people who say they endorse the block and five who say it isn't (one of which actually lands on both sides saying it is a bad block but technically correct). As for non-admins or not, that has nothing to do with anything. Just like we allow IPs to voice their opinions with the same weight we allow non-admins to voice theirs. Everything as the same weight. Then, going by actual arguments, and not counting (which consensus actually is) there is pretty clear consensus that the blocks were perfectly within policy. Ergo, not anywhere near the level that would require breaking rev'del policy to modify the block log. If you want to change policy there are plenty of avenues to do so. This isn't one of them. Stop getting off topic. Stop complaining about how the policy is written and use what is currently accepted. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- If it wasn't your intent perhaps mind your wording next time, but the gist I got from your note is that you absolutely believe it can't be modified, and I linked to a longstanding admin who says otherwise. As far as consensus: this was a bad block. Almost every non-admin commenting has said as much. As for the admins themselves: almost none say they would have performed the block, though admit it is "technically" sound (yes, those were ironic quotes based on your last comment). This block violated the spirit of the trust that the community places in admins... Perhaps there's an argument to be made about DS in general, and I would certainly be interested in that. It doesn't change the crux of the issue here, though, which is that
- You sum up my thoughts better than I could. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just add that I think that is an excellent exposition of the situation (both this specific one and DS in general). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- The fact is that, recent events aside, if more admins were actively watching the American Politics pages and preemptively blocking DS violations, we would not have a small number of POV editors disrupting the area and driving long-time solid contributors away from this topic area. AE is a zoo just like ANI and the purpose and intent of DS has been vitiated by the unwillingness of Admins to enforce sanctions against obvious and persistent disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Reluctantly Endorse blocks as within DS policy. I'm torn by things like this, because I seriously dislike the way DS violations are often handled, and I think there are too many heavy-handed authoritarians working DS. That's largely why I steer clear of DS - because it frustrates me the way too often a good editor who has made a minor mistake gets blocked (or whatever) when a friendly word could have achieved so much more and left people a lot happier. Did Coffee deal with this in the best way? Not by a mile, in my view. Would I have made the blocks in question? Absolutely not. But Coffee's action falls within the currently-accepted range of options he had at his disposal. (And I just want to add that this does show good faith.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Bad block - Coffee's blocking of both editors was punitive to say the least, Yes both editors reverted after 24h however there should've been a stern warning from any DS-enforcer or another admin beforehand .... IMHO this was a bad block by far. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Commute to time served Enforcement is preventative. We make judgements based on overall contributions as well as technical violations. There is no indication that continuing the sanction will protect the project. We don't need "examples." We certainly don't need sanctions on editors that now clearly understand why they were sanctioned. This is not a referendum on Coffee, it's an assessment of whether sanctions are required. They are not. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- The blocks no longer exist, so I'm a bit confused. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Malinaccier: I appreciate your explanation of why it isn't technically feasible to amend my block log, and why it isn't appropriate to remove the corresponding entry from the DS log because of its dual purpose. Irrespective of the outcome of this review, I accept it will not be possible to get "relief" for what has occurred (although I cannot personally speak for El cid, el campeador, of course). If the ultimate outcome of this review is just to encourage Coffee (and other administrators) to more often issue warnings before pulling the block trigger on matters concerning discretionary sanctions, I will be satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- As would I. Or maybe just, oh I don't know, ask questions? That seems easier than trying to squeeze toothpaste back into the tube. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks. It being "harsh" is totally irrelevant in my view. Technically, you broke discretionary sanctions. It is what it is. Mistakes happen and there really isn't a whole lot that can be done since the block was completely within currently accepted policy (which of course can always be changed if need be either through an arbcom amendment or via community consensus at the pumps). We expect (or at least I expect) that admins will follow and apply currently accepted policy evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Which is what happened here. There really isn't much anyone can do anyways. Block logs are permanent and striking it from the DS log page would just remove a useful link back. You are both still valued editors in any case. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks: There was no abuse of discretion here. Just because we wouldn't have blocked ourselves doesn't render the blocks improper or abusive. That's the nature of discretionary sanctions: The sanctioning admin is given great deference. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - a lot of the trouble here is caused by this ridiculous "consensus required to undo any kind of edit" provision (I know that's not what it says, but that is what it amounts to in practice). Which of course was invented by Coffee. This DS has been subject of numerous AE reports, it's confusing as hell (which edit is the one being challanged and which one is the challanger?), it's easy to game, it's easy to trip up over, it just fuels the WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area. All of this has already been said at WP:AE by editors and admins alike. Somewhat unsurprisingly, editors who edit tend to hate it, admins are split with some for, some against. There's enough "for" that the sanction has not been removed or rescinded. Some of the admins who are "for" argument is simply that it'd be a pain in the ass to remove it since Coffee has slapped it on so many pages - which is a particularly lazy, stupid, argument. Anyway. After my latest run in with this piece of bureaucratic dog poop I've been considering starting an outright "petition" or RfC on the "consensus required" sanction. Because of lack of time (holidays and all) I haven't gotten it together. Furthermore, I actually think it crucial that admins who administrate at WP:AE do NOT provide input - the petition should be limited to editors who actually edit the topic (which does include some admins, like User:MelanieN. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone who's reasonably active in the topic area, whatever their POV, ideology, religion, favorite OS, feelings about the last Star Wars movie, hates the provision. Which means that most likely it really is a very bad idea. Might around to it soon. In the meantime, the bureaucratic machine and love of silly, counter productive rules-for-rules sake, marches on. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- It takes all of a 20 minutes to throw together a RfC. An hour if you really need to think about it that hard. Or request a clarification from ArbCom as to the exact nature of this area. All of which is prescribed in normal proceedings. Seeing as post-1932 American politics is incredibly large it is logical to think that an enormous amount of articles falls under this DS. As for Coffee "making things up". No. That is part of the policy as well. An admin is allowed to impose prohibitions on the addition and removal of content as they see fit per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page restrictions. It really seems like you are on more of a crusade against Coffee than anything else. And limiting anyone from participating in a RfC is really not going to fly. Everyone gets their say. That is how Wikipedia works. --Majora (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- To "throw" one together, yes, maybe 20 minutes. To do it right takes a bit more work. Like diffs and past statements from WP:AE, WP:ANI, article talk pages, user talk pages, all the sanctions and why they were problematic etc. And all that takes a lot of time digging through histories. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer doing it right rather than doing it sloppy (and in fact, I'm not sure if RfC is the best way to go).
- And yes, Coffee "made it up". I didn't say he wasn't allowed to do it. I said he "made it up". And just because "he saw fit" that does not in any way, shape, or form, imply that this was a good thing.
- And no, I'm not on a "crusade against Coffee" (nice attempt at poisoning the well there, by the way). I'm on a crusade against a stupid restriction.
- "You are complaining about how policy is written and then say that you don't have time to change policy" <-- Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm complaining about a policy (more precisely a discretionary sanction, not a policy), because it's a bad one, and yes, I don't have time to try and change it right now. What's confusing about that? Volunteer Marek 05:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not have any particular comment on the block here, but I intend to open a thread here about Coffee's use of the DS remedy "consensus required", when he returns from vacation. Kingsindian ♝
♚ 07:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:AC/DS is not policy and it does not have a "nature" that can't be altered. It is a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process. The idea that it should give admins the freedom to do anything they please is troubling. WP:ADMINACCT is still a thing. WP:AC/DS#guide.expect is clear that such sanctions should foster an environment of following policy and the purpose of Wikipedia, and preventing editors from gaming the system. That is not happening here. We have a broken editing restrictions slapped (sometimes preemptively) on multiple pages, by an admin who stays around long enough to block good faith contributors, and is then absent for weeks or months at a time. On top of that, the SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks that cause about 90% of the disruption use the editing restrictions to game the system.- MrX 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: I feel compelled to correct your misunderstanding of discretionary sanctions, if not for your sake then at least for the sake of anyone reading this in the future. AC/DS is authorised by the Arbitration Committee under its authority under the WP:Arbitration Policy, which enjoys very broad consensus among the community. Further, the procedure was reviewed and overhauled in a review a few years ago which saw wide participation from community members. It is used in topic areas plagued by disputes and partisan or disruptive editing, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and allows admins to take swift action to deal with disruptive editors or prevent disputes from getting out of hand. You may disagree with its application, but to say that it's a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process [to] give admins the freedom to do anything they please is simply not an accurate statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: It may be authorized by the Arbitration Policy, but that doesn't make it a policy itself, so I believe my statement was technically correct (see what I did there?). I was not aware of a review and overhaul a few years ago. Is this it: WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? If so, I'm not finding the wide participation. If not, would you mind linking the correct discussion?- MrX 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: It's not a policy in its own right, but it derives its authority from the ArbPol. Further, discretionary sanctions are authorised for individual topic areas as arbitration remedies. There's not really anywhere to go with questioning the legitimacy of discretionary sanctions. You'd have much more success starting a discussion about their application by admins. And yes, you got the right review (that was longer ago than I thought, I'm getting old!). It's a bit of a trail of breadcrumbs, I grant you, but the discussion took place on the talk page and is archived on subpages, starting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review/Archive 1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: It may be authorized by the Arbitration Policy, but that doesn't make it a policy itself, so I believe my statement was technically correct (see what I did there?). I was not aware of a review and overhaul a few years ago. Is this it: WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? If so, I'm not finding the wide participation. If not, would you mind linking the correct discussion?- MrX 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: I feel compelled to correct your misunderstanding of discretionary sanctions, if not for your sake then at least for the sake of anyone reading this in the future. AC/DS is authorised by the Arbitration Committee under its authority under the WP:Arbitration Policy, which enjoys very broad consensus among the community. Further, the procedure was reviewed and overhauled in a review a few years ago which saw wide participation from community members. It is used in topic areas plagued by disputes and partisan or disruptive editing, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and allows admins to take swift action to deal with disruptive editors or prevent disputes from getting out of hand. You may disagree with its application, but to say that it's a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process [to] give admins the freedom to do anything they please is simply not an accurate statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, if we had an RfC tomorrow to do away with discretionary sanctions all together I would strongly support. It's a backdoor way for ArbCom to unilaterally rewrite our policies on blocking and banning, it creates an ungodly complex bureaucratic labyrinth that's nearly completely indecipherable for new users, mostly seems to just send drama to AE instead of ANI, when AE is mostly just a more annoyingly formatted version of ANI anyway, mandates the use of BITEY templates that come off BITEY no matter how carefully they're used, and as often as not are used to stifle open discussion and bold editing as anything else. When they're used unilaterally (as everyone who is want to complain about AE is quick to wish for) it often comes off as daddy meting out spankings (as in this case), especially when it's admins handing out comparatively seemingly arbitrary sanctions to editors who are not seldom every bit as experienced on the project as they are. It's an open invitation for gratuitous public wiki-lawyering, because it's apparently the only place on the project where we collectively care much more about the letter rather than the spirit of "policy", even though, as pointed out above, it's not really policy at all, but rather a pronouncement from ArbCom, that has the effect of policy, despite coming from a body that is explicitly forbidden from unilaterally changing policy. To make matters worse, they rarely go away, even in instances where they haven't been used in several years, ensuring that when they eventually do get used, it will probably be from an admin who's never applied it, and a user who didn't even know it existed until they were given a nice BITEY template sure to do nothing but escalate the situation anyway.
- This right here is exactly what you get when you turn sysops into authority figures rather than consensus enacters who mostly make unilateral decisions in cases where the action is so obviously warranted that a discussion would largely be a waste of time. We'd all be doing ourselves a favor if we collectively decided to ignore discretionary sanctions all together, and that goes for everyone, not just sysops. GMGtalk 15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. The discretionary sanctions in general are helpful. Only that one by Coffee is definitely not helpful. This is an entirely new type of editing restriction unilaterally invented by Coffee. I do not think that inventing new types of restrictions and modifying DS templates by individual admins has been intended and authorized by Arbcom. Making new template is not just an ordinary sanction to be applied to an individual contributor or a page. This is something a lot more significant. Template:Ds (linked to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) only lists templates authorized by Arbcom. I think every new template for DS (or any significan modification of such template) should be either approved by Arbcom or by consensus of WP:AE admins. That one was not, and everyone can see what had happen. This can be a matter of clarification. Here is link to latest AE discussion initiated by Kingsindian. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, it was closed nearly a month ago. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think its a positive sanction and that the other options are actually much more susceptible to gaming than it is, but that's neither here nor there for this thread. We've reached consensus to change that template to include parameters so it is not the default. We just need to implement that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- According to this restriction, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This is not a helpful restriction for two reasons. First, it is frequently not obvious which consensus exists on the article talk page (a de facto consensus frequently exists even if this is not an officially closed discussion). Second, it may be not obvious if an edit represents insertion of new material challenged through reversion (the content could be included long time ago in the stable version of the page, removed some time ago, recently re-included, and then "challenged through reversion"). I do not think there are such concerns in the example leading to this complaint/thread. That was an obvious violation. However, many other cases previously discussed on WP:AE were not at all obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just to summarize, I think one needs a confirmation by Arbcom or a consensus of admins on WP:AE to create new types of sanctions. They should not be unilaterally invented and implemented by individual admins. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Redacted)
- Back history. You're close to another block. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anyone care to collapse this? A lad insane talk 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't support Coffee's action as they seem to have created more disruption than they protected. I would just comment that the support in this thread for his action when he returns to editing will possibly strengthen his resolve to continue in the same vein, resulting in more disruption more threads of this kind in the future. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The blocks were quite proper by the letter of the law, but poor blocks by the spirit. For a good-faith editor with no track record of disruption in the topic area, a stern warning would have been sufficient, followed by a block if the warning was not heeded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- While this is not really the place for this as it is further discussing the merits of current policy I feel it is food for thought in the eventually RfC that I don't doubt will come about eventually. If we allow admins to go by the "spirit" of policy then it leads to uneven enforcement and confusion as to what would actually occur (if I get caught by admin A I'd be fine but admin B I won't). Uneven enforcement is much worse in my mind than what has currently occurred. As I said above, I expect admins to enforce our rules evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Failing that leads to stratification of editors. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I couldn't disagree more. When we're dealing with good-faith editors who have slipped up or lost their temper, any admin action should be the minimum necessary to restore order. In some cases, a warning or a gentle reminder is enough; in others, blocks or topic bans might be necessary. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions. If they had been intended as system of fixed consequences for certain actions, ArbCom would have said as much. But such would be anathema to the idea that blocks etc are "preventative" rather than "punitive". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was going to say what HJ Mitchell said above but he has said it clearer. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- While this is not really the place for this as it is further discussing the merits of current policy I feel it is food for thought in the eventually RfC that I don't doubt will come about eventually. If we allow admins to go by the "spirit" of policy then it leads to uneven enforcement and confusion as to what would actually occur (if I get caught by admin A I'd be fine but admin B I won't). Uneven enforcement is much worse in my mind than what has currently occurred. As I said above, I expect admins to enforce our rules evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Failing that leads to stratification of editors. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say expectations of administrators and role of administrators lay out this spirit quite well within the law. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction.
is as much the letter of the law as the letter of the law that allows these blocks. So isthe severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction.
. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, @Galobtter:. Much of the disagreement in this thread reflects the incompleteness of that page. I see no definition of Discretionary Sanctions. I see no clear differentiation between "sanctions" placed on an editor, "sanctions" in the sense of editing restrictions per page/topic, and "sanctions" in the sense of the broad restrictions imposed via an Arbcom ruling. One of many resulting ambiguities is the unresolved question as to how the annual topic-wide DS notice on a user talk page would warn the editor as to which articles and which unique restrictions apply to a contemplated edit. But most importantly, to return, is there any place where a definition of Discretionary Sanctions is published on WP? Perhaps I just don't know where to look. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I noticed when you endorsed the block Coffee gave me, you did not weigh in on the fact the block was given 29 hours after the violation. Given that the edit I performed was quickly reverted and then there was no further violations by anybody for over a day before Coffee then came in and swung his hammer, do you still think it was a good block? The long period between action and reaction is what troubles me here, because it was clearly a block of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did. I would not have made the block myself (I am not generally one for making behavioral blocks of experienced users, especially in that time frame), but like Mendaliv says, just because I wouldn't have done so doesn't make the block outside policy. I also think that Majora's statement above is worth considering: Coffee tries to apply the policy and sanctions consistently to all users, which I think is commendable, especially in a field as contentious as arbitration enforcement. Combined with the fact that the sanctions are expired now, there is no reason to alter the DS log. I do think Coffee should take some of the criticism on board, but I think the people who are all but claiming he has gone off the rails are making things out to be much worse than they actually are. There is a good faith way to read these sanctions, and Majora has provided it. When read that way and in light of policy and all the other factors, I see no case for amending the DS log. I also stress that I still think you and El Cid are valuable contributors and that these blocks do not change that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, when I opened this thread I did not mean it to be a "Coffee pile on" or anything like that. It just bugged me that the blocks had been issued for no apparent reason other than to punish two useful editors for minor transgressions that were already well into the past. I am not familiar with Coffee's work as an administrator, but if this is truly an example of him trying to be "consistent" with enforcement, then I think his general approach to this kind of thing is in dire need of scrutiny. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Additional Review Request
I would also like to submit my block for review. I made this revert [3] after reading the edit summary about wikilinks but seeing the wholesale removal of material. I therefore reverted an logged off. User:coffee left this warning [4] and followed that up with [5] . I had logged off and did not see either warning before I was blocked [6] . He unblocked me after a request [7] . Casprings (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just gonna be blunt, giving a user ten minutes to comply with an order is stupid to the point of being an abuse. I think Coffee needs to slow down or even stop. This is not the sort of judgement I like from an admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The block was lifted and he noted that he
Fully trust Casprings will hold to their word.
You honestly can't find a more gracious unblock than that. You were aware of the sanctions in the area, and clearly violated them. I think the 10 minute warning was what has raised the most controversy about that block, and I'd encourage Coffee not to give time-limited warnings in the future because I think there is a rough consensus among administrators that they aren't particularly effective, but if he had blocked you without giving a warning he would have been fully justified based on the page level sanctions. People might not like the consensus required sanction, but it has never been overturned at any of the appeals raised against it, and it still must be followed. I don't see anything to review here given that Coffee lifted the block and the block was for a clear sanctions violation closely following when the sanctions occurred. Tl;dr endorse the block, and there is nothing to review here since it has been lifted and that has been noted at the logs. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- You're right. Casprings should be grateful he was blocked, so he could be unblocked with such cordiality. *insert eye roll*. I used to trust your judgment, Tony. I sincerely thought I could turn to you as a lowly IP if I ever got into a rub. Your inability to see what is at issue here really disturbs me. Please take your admin hat off for a second to try to understand where these editors are coming from, without defending another poor decision based on technicalities. If anything, the fact that Coffee wielded that 10 minute timer around should elucidate his punitive, not preventative mentality behind the block to you. Cliff notes version: it a'int so great. 24.96.130.81 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you still feel that you can come to me as an IP, because I would take your concerns seriously, just as I take your comments now. I try to judge all situations based on the evidence and the circumstances, and that includes if need be defending unpopular admin actions, just as I will stick up for IPs when I feel they are being mistreated. I do get the concerns, and if you look at what I have said in these threads, I acknowledge that people have concerns with Coffee's actions, and I think he should take them on board in the future. That does not mean that the blocks were bad: they were within discretion based on the policy. I think the 10 minute warning was a bad idea. He shouldn't use them again in the future. That doesn't mean that the sanctions weren't clearly within policy (they were as there was an unambiguous sanctions violation), nor change the fact that he quickly unblocked and made a comment reflecting positively shows that he did take the concerns of blocked individual into account. What I do not like seeing here is that we are asking for sanctions to be amended after the fact when they clearly were within policy, which seems to have been jumpstarted by one sanction being overturned against Volunteer Marek. Especially considering Coffee isn't here to defend explain his actions. There is a difference between expressing concerns that an admin might need to take it slower on AE actions and overturning valid actions that I might not have personally done. I think the latter makes the already difficult to manage discretionary sanctions system even more difficult to work in for administrators, and goes in line with SPECIFICO's comments above. Coffee should take into account valid criticism here, but that is not grounds for overturning an AE action. I hope that better explains my position: it is not saying that there are not things to look at, but that removing sanctions from the log that were validly imposed and have already lifted does not seem like a good standard to set, and would make DS more difficult to work in. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Arbitration enforcement administrator comment (aka Coffee - still on vacation) - I will take all of the above comments, criticisms and concerns into account as is my duty to do so. Enforcing Arbitration rulings is by far the most difficult task on this site for administrators, and indeed many admins won't even touch the area for fear of being taken to this board or any other stress inducing forum. However, I am always fully willing to explain my actions if need be. In this case the actions are exactly what they look like: 1. a 24 hour block on Scjessey for violating what is known as the "consensus required restriction". A process which is explained in detail on the talk page of the article, and which users are warned about in the editnotice prior to making their edit. 2. a 24 hour block on El cid, el campeador for violating the 1RR restriction, which is likewise warned about and explained. - I did not make these actions lightly. These are indeed long-standing users in our community, and it was not a move I took any enjoyment from as such. But, being long-standing in the community is not an exemption from our Arbitration Committee's decisions to reduce bad conduct on the site. And both editors had conducted themselves in a manner that was prohibited on the article by the discretionary sanctions system. So therefore they got the same blocks I would have placed on Jimbo if he had done the same thing. - What concerns me here however is that it appears that Scjessey (and this may just be pure coincidence, but it doesn't rub me that way) deliberately decided to make this noticeboard request when I was going to be offline. I'll explain how that makes sense right after I ping Jack, whom also was asking about my planned absence. @Jack Sebastian: While what you're talking about is likely the incident that I barely remember between myself and the former President of Wikimedia Australia and another sysop who used to be active (and who also regained their tools fairly quickly after the incident) I'm not sure it holds relevance here (I get how they can be seen as related as I was an administrator, but I don't believe my tools were ever used by the other editor in that incident). However, I will briefly explain that the decision made about 8 or so years ago by the way, way back ArbCom was done per the standard procedure which existed back then, wherein administrators could regain their tools - if stipulated as such by Committee ruling - after contacting ArbCom via email instead of requesting an RFA. As ArbCom felt another RFA was not required (due to my tools not ever being abused during the 24-48 hours the password was maintained), I simply asked for them back once I had been granted a high level clearance in the U.S. government, since I felt that showed I could be trusted to not act like an idiot again - which was verifiable (the clearance... not my idiocy of course, haha... that's still to be determined by the court of public opinion) - and ArbCom agreed, that since I knew I had been a complete idiot at the time and had given my word I wouldn't ever do something like that again, that I could have them back. - Back to the thread at hand: I asked Scjessey if they wanted the restriction lifted from their record entirely right here. This offer is what I commonly extend to first time offenses if the user states they are willing to adhere to the standards required going forward. This user simply ignored this offer, but said the block had expired and they didn't think they had done wrong, but they might have. Which is a worrying statement for anyone in my shoes, as such "gray area" replies makes it nearly impossible to tell if the user will continue the behavior. As such, I did not re-post my offer nor strike the action from their record (at WP:AC/DSL). They could have contacted me further... they did not. They also did not post a notification to my talk page when they opened this thread. Something I find hard to believe they were not aware is required. Perhaps others see what I see here: a blatant attempt to have a review of an administrator's actions without them being present. It's not that I hold issue with doing so, I just hold issue with not contacting me in any way to have the record changed before they came here... when there was literally ample opportunity to do so. I did all I could to make sure my absence would happen in such a way that continuity of administration would run smoothly in this area, which is why I had been watching both user's talkpages after the blocks (which were set to expire before my flight out of the country). El cid did not even make an unblock request (well Scjessey didn't either, but they at least commented after their block) nor express any concern that I can see before their block expired and did not contact me at any point to complain about the action. If they had, I would have gladly discussed it with them. I wouldn't have lifted the action however, as this was not their first edit-warring block (even though it was their first AE block for edit-warring). To the rest of the concerns, as I said, I intend to take them to heart. And I always welcome constructive criticism at my talk page. And I am always, always willing to change my action if someone can show me where my logic has failed (or even if an admin just truly trusts that the user won't commit a similar violation again - preventative > punishment). ArbCom has left us with a difficult task, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make difficult actions just because I'm about to make a trip. I didn't ignore the fact that I was about to leave nor not take the trip into account when making the blocks as I said above, but simply having a life outside of the site I volunteer for should not be cause for peeling back good, policy bound administrative actions that need to be done to maintain proper editing order. - I am willing to take any further questions you all might have, but be advised I will be offline again within the next few hours to travel and for more transiting tomorrow upon awaking. This trip had been in the works for the past year... I could not change the date of the wedding I was invited to participate in by the groom (especially when the Secretary of The Cabinet for the President of Indonesia was attending, among other dignitaries - and even more so, when the actual President is expected to be attending the second wedding I'm in transit to tomorrow). I truly wouldn't just go offline for just any trip when I'm working in these areas, I assure you. I fully hold myself to the standards expected by ArbCom, which is why I informed the Committee to expect my absence. Happy New Year to all! Please ping me if you reply. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Casprings block (which I just noticed is apparently also mentioned in a recent part of this jumbo thread) was perhaps hasty if viewed as some sort of punishment but I don't believe this can be seen as the case from a prevention stand-point (which is where all blocks should be made from in my understanding); I don't believe it was in error, as a clear violation actually occurred. The 10 minute requirement was simply an olive branch... not something I even needed to do (and apparently might have actually caught less flack if I had just blocked immediately, which is really confusing for any AE admin), as the Arbitration Committee has permitted immediate blocks if the user has been made aware of the active sanctions (which to my understanding they fully had been alerted per procedure on their talk page within the last year) and still violated page restrictions. However, I did indeed reverse my action once the user informed me that they would comply in the future, in exactly the manner as the offer I extended to Scjessey. I am more than willing to answer questions about this action as well (here or at my talkpage). But, I currently believe this action holds up to scrutiny as well. If not, I will gladly change how I enforce in like manner in the future (it is my understanding that an active ARCA is supposed to be clarifying this particular type of action for AE admins like myself at any rate, and I can assure you I will follow any motions decided upon exactly as they are decreed - as I have always striven to do). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I really think the consensus required provision should have been lifted during the last discussion at AE. This had a lot of support but no one was eager to lift it until Coffee is persuaded as the imposing admin. I think DS are important to keep things cool in a contentious areas, but consensus required has usually cased more problems than its solved, like we are seeing in this discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Only the Arbitration Committee can change that wording now as I will not be, since I have seen how well it works at Donald Trump (as almost every editor there has confirmed... even some who have gotten sanctions levied against them). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I really think the consensus required provision should have been lifted during the last discussion at AE. This had a lot of support but no one was eager to lift it until Coffee is persuaded as the imposing admin. I think DS are important to keep things cool in a contentious areas, but consensus required has usually cased more problems than its solved, like we are seeing in this discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Coffee: I absolutely did not know you were on vacation until another editor noted the fact in the thread above. Moreover, I simply forgot to notify you I had opened the thread, and even apologized for it as soon as someone mentioned it. You are completely off base with my motivation for opening the thread, and I would hope that going forward you would assume good faith. I had basically accepted the matter and moved on (as I indicated and then reiterated). Later, however, I was "pinged" by this edit from MrX and it got me thinking about the circumstances of my block, with the long delay before blocking in particular. I mentioned it here, and was told I should start a different discussion. It was only after I consulted the other editor involved that I decided to open this thread. And since you mentioned you consulted my block log and found an eight-year-old block to point at as additional justification for your action, but evidently didn't think my unblemished record since that time was relevant, I am entirely convinced I did the right thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: First, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here if you so ask. But, that brings up a totally different question: why didn't you make a single attempt to contact me before coming to this noticeboard (especially) if you thought I was active, when I had already offered to lift the action if you promised to comply in the future (which includes understanding what you have to comply with as I mentioned above). The block was preventative and always will be. Second, I'm not sure if you read what I wrote correctly, but I said there were no actions that I could find of yours that I took into account, which is why I extended the offer at all: it was a first time offense. I took El cid's block log into account (not yours), when deciding to not leave an offer for El cid, as it held a very relevant piece of data within about 3 or so years time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
IP block needed
59.125.188.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs). The obvious evidence per WP:DUCK is that they keep adding unsourced personnel to albums, always using the name Richard Madenfort (diff). Richard Madenfort was deleted via G5 due to the above user creating it multiple times. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- ETA: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
... if anyone fancies dealing with it, mainly bot reports.
- I will leave my standard note that AIV is never actually backlogged. All of those reports had been reviewed and not blocked. No one feels like declining or getting yelled at for being "weak on vandals" so most people just ignore the bad or borderline ones. A report sitting stale for more than an hour or two is a de facto decline. No comment re: UAA, because I don't work there and don't really know how their backlog works, but it likely isn't something major: if they were actually causing disruption, they would likely also have been reported to AIV and blocked anyway. There is rarely a need to make a thread reporting backlogs in either. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Re: AIV - Or we're waiting to see if more activity takes place. --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thanks for adding that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- If two hours is a de facto decline, then it would make sense to have a bot go ahead and remove reports that are stale for more than a few hours? Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd likely let it be a bit longer in case there was an actual case where like NeilN said, we were observing to see if it continued, but in general, I think the bot clearing after X hours would be a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Care to take a rough guess at an appropriate value for X? I'm thinking 4-8, but I've done very little with AIV. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Realistically you want to set it at the outside edge of an editors editing window. So assuming vandal gets up, vandalizes, goes to work, comes home and vandalizes some more, goes to sleep - 8-10 hours will cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd go with 8-10 hrs. If it hasn't been acted on by then it can reasonably be called stale for AIV. But if we are looking at creating some kind of auto decline I would also add a note suggesting ANI as an alternative in the event that the nomination was not something that could easily be identified as vandalism or persistent spamming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say 8 hours would be very safe. SQLQuery me! 02:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I originally said 4-5 on the assumption that if the disruption continued, it would be back at AIV in a second. I have no problem with 8-10 though, and I'd prefer it be on the shorter end of that scale. I'd opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Bot_to_clear_stale_reports. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know I say this every time someone complains about the AIV backlog, but you can greatly assist us administrators if you provide some details if it's not an open and shut case. Particularly where you have editors messing around with markup, changing genres/labels/years active, it's alleged block evasion, or if it's an LTA, it can be difficult for a "cold" administrator to work out exactly what the problem is. Keep in mind that the admin reviewing your report probably will have no idea about what you're talking about, and format your report accordingly. This will mean it can be dealt with a lot faster. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
- And if I can offer an example of what I mean, Sidaq pratap has reported 160.202.36.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for "vandalism after final warning". The IP's talk page is a pretty simple progression up he ladder of warnings, but the IP's contribution all seem to be adding television programmes to lists concerning various Indian TV channels and production studios. Is this "obvious vandalism"? Perhaps they're nonsense, I do not watch Indian TV so I have no idea. Some of them have references though which looks valid. I do not mean to pick on Sidaq pratap specifically, since this kind of report is pretty common, but it's also very difficult for an admin to dissect. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
Cary Grant RfC help please
Since I'm part of the discussion, would someone who isn't move this comment to survey? Also-there's a comment re: mandatory freezes can't be done by RfC. The editor who started the RfC is a blocked proxy, so he/she can't change it. Not sure where this leaves the RfC itself because of the wording, but thought I was told a freeze couldn't be done by RfC some time ago. Thanks! We hope (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Help Wanted at AFC
Sorry to intrude on everyone's Holiday week but the perpetual backlog at WP:AfC is getting really bad. There are currently near 2500 drafts awaiting review. Any experienced editors (this is not reserved to admins) who can lend a hand are encouraged to do so. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
More U2's please
User:Train2104/sandbox contains a list of talk pages for nonexistent users. I've gone through and checked them all to remove things that should probably be moved/redirected instead, could an admin d-batch them? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. Well. I didn't see this before posting on 78's talk. Uh... where did these come from? Because I have at least a few on my watchlist for reasons unbeknownst to me. GMGtalk 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I on the other hand thought somebody reaaly wants more Bonos in the world... :o >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Some appear to be from account renames. In some cases leaving the redirect is appropriate after a rename. — xaosflux Talk 18:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. Well. I didn't see this before posting on 78's talk. Uh... where did these come from? Because I have at least a few on my watchlist for reasons unbeknownst to me. GMGtalk 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Multiple failed login attempts
I'm getting more than 10 failed login attempts on my account a day. Any other admins being hit so heavily? Stephen 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I occasionally get hit, but not everyday. When it happens it's a lot of attempts.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- We'll soon be able to see IPs from failed login attempts. That will hopefully improve things. The functionaries have been getting hit with this issue lately. ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Will all editors be able to see those, or just admins? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Same question -- "we" meaning CUs, admin, or the users concerned by the failed logins? FWIW, I've also been getting hit, and have had reports of others as well. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- We'll soon be able to see IPs from failed login attempts. That will hopefully improve things. The functionaries have been getting hit with this issue lately. ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Gregory Lauder-Frost
I've noticed Gregory Lauder-Frost, currently a redirect to Conservative Democratic Alliance, has been apparently protected from editing since 2008, after a controversial edit history and legal threats from the subject (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance). I'm wondering if it is worth opening a can of worms to discuss a stand-alone article, assuming WP:NBIO is met. Lauder-Frost has been described as "a former leading light of the Conservative Monday Club and a well-known figure within the British far-Right" in 2013,[1] and a "well-known champion of traditionalist causes" in 2015.[2] He made news back in 1992,[3] and was profiled in 2013.[4] He has had significant involvement with several notable groups, including Conservative Democratic Alliance, Monday Club, Western Goals Institute, International Monarchist League, and Arktos Media. Regardless of one's opinion of such groups, this is further evidence of notability. Note he also has extensive coverage in the (non-RS) Metapedia. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Holehouse, Matthew (8 August 2013). "Jacob Rees-Mogg's shock at dinner with group that want to repatriate black Britons". The Daily Telegraph.
- ^ Charles Arnold-Baker (30 July 2015). The Companion to British History. Taylor & Francis. p. 1747. ISBN 978-1-317-40039-4.
- ^ "Tory who kept right on stealing cheques". HeraldScotland. 27 November 1992.
- ^ "Gregory Lauder-Frost exposed: The Tory fringe group leader with Nazi sympathies". The Independent. 9 August 2013.
- Pinging @JzG:--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- And @Alison:--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The main issue is that Lauder-Frost is not prepared to accept a biography that includes his criminal conviction. I am fine with a WP:NPOV biography that includes these, and his neo-Nazi sympathies, but consensus in 2008 was that notability was sufficiently marginal as not to be worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's still very much around, and editing. Any time I pop back here, it's clear that he's been sanitizing article around British conservatism, the far-Right, and BLPs that he's connected to - Alison ❤ 02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- You mean the troglodyte Nazi-sympathizing embezzler? He certainly deserves an article now. Ping me and I'll be happy to help. EEng 03:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive discussions on Stanley Kubrick talk page
The bludgeoning on the Stanley Kubrick talk page with regards to the infobox is continuing, this time by another editor who has started another discussion, so soon after the last formal RfC, despite being pointed to the archives. This is becoming a joke.
To date, there have been 12 attempts to force a box onto this article, despite there being a clear consensus not to have one. The article, on average, is receiving one discussion every couple of months from random people/socks stoking up the same old subject and trying to involve the same old people.
This is beyond disruptive and the latest discussion, as given in the last diff below, needs to be archived before it too gets out of hand. This was the first discussion which was followed by another. Then when that was unsuccessful, another one was started, followed by the first RfC, which favoured no infobox being added. Apparently, a consensus can change after a few months, so a second RfC was started, followed by a survey and then another dicusssion. When that failed, another discussion was had, followed by another, and another, oh, and one more. All of that, as well as the result for the second RfC, resulted in a consensus of "no infobox" and we were again lulled into a false belief that we were able to finally get on with our lives.
Oh, but wait, what's this? It's another discussion, this time started by someone who has a mere 16 edits on a two year old account. This latest discussion needs to be archived as it is only going to gain momentum before a thirds RfC is started. This makes a complete mockery of the RfC process and is sucking everyone's time out of being able to improve other areas of the encyclopaedia. CassiantoTalk 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Are you sure about the links? My device could be the one to blame but the first RFC seems to have been procedurally closed and the 2nd one was a No Concensus with very specific ideas about a future RFC.Also, a RFC can consist of many sub-discussions. I think it would be best to propose a moratorium on the talk-page (something of the sort at Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 6#RFC: 612-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions) and get a concensus for that. Winged BladesGodric 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think the "first RfC" is somewhat irrelevant bearing in mind there was a second. Who cares; the salient point is that these discussions keep taking place and it's becoming disruptive. CassiantoTalk 10:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unless your device is the fine rolls :p there's probably no need for all the "abbs." Just op. ed. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 09:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- abbs??Winged BladesGodric 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- abbreviations; "RFC", "proc.", "NC", "T/P". Etc etc. WP:TMAIYPPCUFTFC (too many abbreviations in your post, please consider using full terms for clarity). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't conversing with newbies:) Anyways, amended per Integer's wishes Winged BladesGodric 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- abbreviations; "RFC", "proc.", "NC", "T/P". Etc etc. WP:TMAIYPPCUFTFC (too many abbreviations in your post, please consider using full terms for clarity). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- abbs??Winged BladesGodric 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The second RfC ended in "no consensus" rather than "consensus not to have an infobox". I agree with Godric above- if you really find this annoying, propose a moratorium, otherwise you've got to accept that every-so-often, a newbie will stumble across the article, and ask why there isn't one- that's a natural part of not having an infobox on such a popular article.
- Jayron32 made this salient point last time round, which I'll repeat here again:
New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious
. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- A "newbie" (the user who's started the recent discussion has been around for two years, so is not a newbie) should be advised to go to the archives, read them, and respect the outcomes of previous discussions. That's happened and they've stuck two fingers up to any kind of archive referral. CassiantoTalk 13:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user (my emphasis on the part. phrasing) to me! And, my evaluation is not based on his' being registered two-years back.Winged BladesGodric 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: No, I'd bet the opposite. Plenty of editors are "drive-by editors" and it appears that User:PheonixDev is exactly that. Hell- some our recently elected arbs are long absence returnees, if everyone just screamed "SOOOOCK!" at every returning editor we'd be missing the vast majority of our community. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're the first one using the word "sock". We hope (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @We hope: ***cough, cough***
AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user to me!
from Godric above is pretty explicit isn't it? There's no other way anyone could construe that comment. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)- No-it's YOUR mind who's made that connection with the remark-the remark as written is that this isn't a new user and it's been left at that by the original poster of it-original research on your part. We hope (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cassianto used sock in his opening statement. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @We hope: ***cough, cough***
- You're the first one using the word "sock". We hope (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: No, I'd bet the opposite. Plenty of editors are "drive-by editors" and it appears that User:PheonixDev is exactly that. Hell- some our recently elected arbs are long absence returnees, if everyone just screamed "SOOOOCK!" at every returning editor we'd be missing the vast majority of our community. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user (my emphasis on the part. phrasing) to me! And, my evaluation is not based on his' being registered two-years back.Winged BladesGodric 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- If a moratorium is possible, why was this comment made at the Cary Grant A mandatory freeze on infobox RfCs cannot be enacted via RfC. RfC? We hope (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- A "newbie" (the user who's started the recent discussion has been around for two years, so is not a newbie) should be advised to go to the archives, read them, and respect the outcomes of previous discussions. That's happened and they've stuck two fingers up to any kind of archive referral. CassiantoTalk 13:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @We hope: moratoriums are definitely possible- see Talk:Trump, Talk:Hillary Clinton for example. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe we have to explain this to you, Jcc, but “not a new editor” may just mean someone who used to be an editor, and are now retuning under a different guise. Do you even know what a sock is? CassiantoTalk 15:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- From someone who just removed a condescending remark aimed against them, you seem to be dishing them out to others. Yes, I know what SPI is thanks- my contributions will show I've helped to expose a UPE ring or two. Do you even know what UPE is, Cassianto? Maybe I'll have to explain it to you... jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe we have to explain this to you, Jcc, but “not a new editor” may just mean someone who used to be an editor, and are now retuning under a different guise. Do you even know what a sock is? CassiantoTalk 15:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @We hope: moratoriums are definitely possible- see Talk:Trump, Talk:Hillary Clinton for example. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a moratorium at the article-in-question. The repetitive calls for an infobox there, are quite tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe try putting an {{FAQ}} at the top of the talk page explaining why there isn't an infobox first? It's unusual for a well-developed biography not to have infobox, so it's not surprising that uninvolved editors keep bringing it up. Jumping to a 'moratorium' seems extreme and unfair; WP:STICK doesn't really apply when it's different people raising the same point in good faith. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Cassianto seems to be seriously misrepresenting the situation. First of all, the RfC closed as no consensus. Second of all, there hasn't been that constant discussions like he's saying. All those "survey" and "threaded discussion" that he's saying are all part of the second RfC. Since the RfC, 11 months ago, there has been only one discussion - this one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC) It looks like there have been 4 discussions. One in 2015, One in 2016 15 days before the 3rd attempt which involved one main RfC, and now this 4th discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I saw the links to parts of a same RFC but did not check the precise timeline.If Galobterr's one is reasonably correct, in that case,I think a moratorium is not yet necessary.A FAQ pointing to the 2nd RFC will be sufficient.But, one year is a rational timeframe to restart any discussion esp. since the closer gave some specific ideas to be tried at.Winged BladesGodric 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's no misrepresentation regarding the disruption whether it's an RfC or not. "I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop yet another set of reverts over the infobox. As Graham Chapman once said, stop this, it's silly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC) No mistaking who the cheerleaders of the disrupion are either. We hope (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- An RfC that closed as no consensus (snow oppose would be disruption) is disruption? Seriously, you seem to regard as if its 20-1 against there being an infobox. Ah, so raising an issue 11 months after it closed as no consensus means someone is a cheerleader of disruption? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying the issue came up twice in 2017 plus the RFC (which started in 2016 finished in 2017) rather than once plus the RFC (which started in 2016, finished in 2017)? Okay fine. But where's the high level of disruption you're referring to? Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the OP exaggerated the disruption, Nil Einne. As others (Joe, Jayron) have said above, the fundamental thing is that it is unusual, from the standpoint of a new user/rare user for an established biography to not have an infobox- thus we shouldn't be surprised if every few weeks someone tries to add one, or discusses it on the talk page. What we shouldn't do is jump to report them on AN, or scream "LOOK IN THE ARCHIVES YOU FOOL" back at them. Instead, we should politely refer them to the RfC, which resulted in no consensus to add one, and explain to them that on this particular article, the editors decided not to add one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not referring to the results of the RfC-this is a general disruption which isn't confined to Kubrick. You appear to be stalking Cassianto. We hope (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I commented on two infobox discussions which reached AN. If you seriously want to, launch an ANI. The same could of course, be said for you. You seem to have spent the whole day replying to all my comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Go ahead take me to ANI because I could give a crap. There's no point in even TRYING to edit anything anymore with all the conflict.We hope (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, of course I'm not going to launch an ANI against myself. Or are you going to claim those were my words, until someone corrects you? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't give a flaming f in Hades. 17:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)We hope (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- You do, however, appear to be treating the discussions on infoboxes as a WP:BATTLE against other editors to be won or lost, not a discussion, as illustrated by this comment ("Sometimes these discussions work- like on Kristen Stewart for example, and sometimes- like on Kubrick- we lose some.") Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- So you think this is constructive then? The battleground mentality is not being perpetuated by me alone, but sure, take me to ArbCom. I don't know why, but I had thought better of you- as if you'd take the time to actually read the talk pages, where you'll see this isn't one sided. Anyhow, this isn't how I imagined spending my day, so I'm going to gracefully withdraw now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was constructive - I was simply pointing out the language you were using which IMHO isn't helpful either. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- So you think this is constructive then? The battleground mentality is not being perpetuated by me alone, but sure, take me to ArbCom. I don't know why, but I had thought better of you- as if you'd take the time to actually read the talk pages, where you'll see this isn't one sided. Anyhow, this isn't how I imagined spending my day, so I'm going to gracefully withdraw now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- You do, however, appear to be treating the discussions on infoboxes as a WP:BATTLE against other editors to be won or lost, not a discussion, as illustrated by this comment ("Sometimes these discussions work- like on Kristen Stewart for example, and sometimes- like on Kubrick- we lose some.") Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Go ahead take me to ANI because I could give a crap. There's no point in even TRYING to edit anything anymore with all the conflict.We hope (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I commented on two infobox discussions which reached AN. If you seriously want to, launch an ANI. The same could of course, be said for you. You seem to have spent the whole day replying to all my comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not referring to the results of the RfC-this is a general disruption which isn't confined to Kubrick. You appear to be stalking Cassianto. We hope (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the OP exaggerated the disruption, Nil Einne. As others (Joe, Jayron) have said above, the fundamental thing is that it is unusual, from the standpoint of a new user/rare user for an established biography to not have an infobox- thus we shouldn't be surprised if every few weeks someone tries to add one, or discusses it on the talk page. What we shouldn't do is jump to report them on AN, or scream "LOOK IN THE ARCHIVES YOU FOOL" back at them. Instead, we should politely refer them to the RfC, which resulted in no consensus to add one, and explain to them that on this particular article, the editors decided not to add one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's no misrepresentation regarding the disruption whether it's an RfC or not. "I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop yet another set of reverts over the infobox. As Graham Chapman once said, stop this, it's silly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC) No mistaking who the cheerleaders of the disrupion are either. We hope (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I saw the links to parts of a same RFC but did not check the precise timeline.If Galobterr's one is reasonably correct, in that case,I think a moratorium is not yet necessary.A FAQ pointing to the 2nd RFC will be sufficient.But, one year is a rational timeframe to restart any discussion esp. since the closer gave some specific ideas to be tried at.Winged BladesGodric 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why not simply add a FAQ to the talkpage, explaining why the article doesn't have an infobox and with links to the relevant discussions? Then it's the matter of a few seconds to answer any editor, whether good faith or otherwise, that raises the situation. We do this on other articles where te same questions arise over and over again (i.e. Muhammad with reference to images, or Homophobia with reference to the meaning of the word). Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- In reponse to this earlier comment of Cassianto's:
"and we were again lulled into a false belief that we were able to finally get on with our lives"
I think if Cassianto is looking for someone to blame for that mistake they need to look a little closer to home and realise that they can't keep making their problems everyone else's problem. I, for one, do not care in the slightest whether or not Stanley Kubrik's wikipedia page has an infobox on it. It is madness for Cassianto to try and dictate that their arbitrary dramasbecome wikipedia policy. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Are you going to post a diff of me trying to "dictate that [my] arbitrary drama[s] become wikipedia [sic] policy?" Or are you doing what everyone else in the other argument seems to be doing and casting wild claims of nonsense? CassiantoTalk 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- You appear to be trying to get the administrators to instate a ban on people talking about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrik's wikipedia page [sic] which is what I was referring to when I said
"it is madness for Cassianto to try and dictate that their arbitrary dramas become wikipedia policy"
. It was new years eve, and I wasn't exactly sober, so it is possible my language slipped a little and what I said doesn't really work as a sentence. It's not so much your drama that I think you are trying to make policy, it's a a specific arbitrary rule that can only make sense in the context of your drama, which you seem to be expecting the administrators of this website to have an intimate understanding of. Perhaps I went too far in stating "dramas" rather than "drama". It's a mistake that I always try to stop myself from making where I lazily conclude that some particular event is part of a larger pattern of events. In this case I do not have a second instance to hand to demonstrate you requesting the administrators enforce a similarly arbitrary rule so I have struck the "s" from my previous comment. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 20:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- You appear to be trying to get the administrators to instate a ban on people talking about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrik's wikipedia page [sic] which is what I was referring to when I said
- No I'm not, I'm asking an administrator to cast an eye over yet another infobox discussion and for them to give an opinion on this, the umpteenth attempt to overrule a quite obvious consensus. Maybe they could be the ones to add a Q&A in the edit screen explaining why this article is without an infobox, as has been mooted about here? I find it hilarious that if I went about repeatedly starting RfC's on certain articles that had problematic infoboxes, asking whether they were needed or not, every six months or so, I would quite rightly be in the shit for it. But because this is the other way round it seems wholly acceptable. Aside from Black Kite, their silence, here has been deafening. CassiantoTalk 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- There was an editor who started RfCs and disruption whenever he wanted to change the wording of a biography to suit him. He was banned from Stanley Kubrick, banned from Peter Sellers. He was also active at Charlie Chaplin and Marilyn Monroe. Just 2 of his Chaplin RfCs. The last visit to AN/ANI resulted in a topic ban from all biographies for his disruption-why is this oh so much different from that? We hope (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Cassianto, This is misrepresentation: "attempt to overrule a quite obvious consensus"? What consensus? The RfC 10 months ago closed with no consensus. That is your existing 'consensus'. Administrators are expected to be able to read consensus, and they are. You just don't like what they are saying. A moratorium is only going to happen if you can establish an existing consensus for no infobox. Currently, you don't have one, you just have a status quo and no consensus to change it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Again, it's not up to me to find an infobxless consensus as there has been a "silent consensus" in place for some time now. You think I'm presuming by saying that ten months ago, the RfC closed as "no consensus for adding an infobox", but you're also being as equally presuming by saying it closed as "no consensus for it to be deleted". So, if the last RfC closed as "no consensus" for neither, what do you expect it to have? Obviously it has to have either one or the other? Oh, and did you see my compromise below? Tell me what you think about that? CassiantoTalk 21:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to post a diff of me trying to "dictate that [my] arbitrary drama[s] become wikipedia [sic] policy?" Or are you doing what everyone else in the other argument seems to be doing and casting wild claims of nonsense? CassiantoTalk 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the user in question here, and honestly I am sick and tired of Cassianto's constant harassment of me over this matter, and has extended to far beyond this matter. This man has so far responded and disparaged me on every single thread on the talk page for several days, and then took it to the next level by raiding MY talk page, and now here he is disparaging me here too. This man is beyond immature, and a quick google search shows I'm not alone here. So I'm putting a request in for either a temporary or permanent suspension. This cannot be the model that Wikipedia allows to be the standard. PheonixDev (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Harassment? You came to the Kubrick page first! I didn't repeatedly approach you, asking for you to post there. Also, this is a discussion. Therefore we discuss things. You cannot hold me as a harasser when you are willingly taking part in that discussion. But now that you've told me you find me to be harassing, I will not engage with you further; but please, if you have to post here, do not mention me, talk about me, ping me, or insinuate things about me. You've made your opinions pretty clear how you feel so there is no real reason why you should still be here. I have to, sadly, as as I am the OP and the problem is still very much obvious. CassiantoTalk 20:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- PhoenixDev has made four edits to articles, the last more than two years ago. [8] This user re-appeared within the last two days in order to argue about infoboxes, be confrontational and create drama, attempt to bludgeon editors who actually produce high quality content. His contributions are "the model that Wikipedia (cannot) allow to be the standard" imo.Smeat75 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This man has so far responded and disparaged me on every single thread on the talk page for several days
... So I picked a random edit of yours: "extremely inflated sense of self" and "There's a lot you do that most would consider not right". Well, I've had my dose of irony for one day. To put it to you bluntly, Cassianto has dedicated time and effort to constructing complete and reliable articles for the encyclopaedia that have been read by thousands of readers. So far, of your meager twenty edits, all you've done is wind a constructive contributor up with comments that are unacceptable: like this one and the one I linked above. Without editors like Cassianto, there wouldn't be articles for people to read, let alone articles that can be considered well written. Any credibility to the arguments you're trying to make is lost because of the infantile attacks you throw into each of them. So far, you have successfully demonstrated that you are ill-suited to help construct this encyclopaedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)- Personally I think wikipedia owes more to the people who donate money to keep it running (like me) than it does Cassianto. And I find his attitude gratuitously unpleasant. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 21:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your "random edit" you picked was a response to him AFTER a long drawn out discussion with several insults by him and on my user page. If you want to argue that I am somehow toxic, you need to actually look at the context of the situation. Again, I have also addressed this "oh you haven't been around" fallacy several times. I am a constant user of Wikipedia, I am not a frequent editor, and so I come to you with a unique perspective that Cassianto et al. seem to not consider which is an extremely important perspective: the user. The user who does not know everything about X, and is coming for information about X. I came here to argue for the user and the response has been less than appropriate. PheonixDev (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- In Brief: I did not come here to argue the merits of my edit history, I came here to offer a perspective not considered. Regardless the response from Cassianto and his equally rude friends has been to escalate the toxicity beyond what is appropriate. In what world is this kind of harassment acceptable? PheonixDev (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Has any side here actually taken the time to consider that it doesn't matter at all, and that if you just let the other side win it helps build a better encyclopedia because we're not doing this? GMGtalk 00:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Happy New Year, and how about not mentioning the topic for the month of January, everybody, - just trying how much time we win for articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reluctantly, and as a way of compromise, I would settle for a collapsed infobox, such as that seen on Frank Sinatra. That way, we can all go about our business and PheonixDev can be left to go on another two-year wikibreak until the next major infobox drama. If this compromise is scoffed at and refused by the pro-infobox camp, and the drama continues, then inferences will undoubtedly be drawn by those looking in as to who the actual troublemakers are around here. CassiantoTalk 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the IB proponents are unwilling to accept a collapsed IB as a compromise for long and then start yet more disruption by demanding it is uncollapsed - as happened on Frank Sinatra. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- In my book a collapsed infobox looks even worse as it's by default empty but I really don't care, I have better things to do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but this song has been played too many times before. Here's the 2016 version. The claim is repeatedly made re: nothing to do with boxes and then there's things like Auf in der Kampf? off to the battle? And this plus this edit to fix the supposedly comic box. I don't believe there can be a resolution of any of this without ArbCom. The 2013 ruling was reasonably successful at putting a stop to these wars-that is until the sanctions were lifted in 2015. We hope (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I forgot to add the link in my comment above that it seems the disruption is to provide "amusement" - the link with the relevant edit summary is only available to admins as it was on a page that was deleted after a community discussion; listing of reverts etc does still seem to be continuing to be maintained though. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but this song has been played too many times before. Here's the 2016 version. The claim is repeatedly made re: nothing to do with boxes and then there's things like Auf in der Kampf? off to the battle? And this plus this edit to fix the supposedly comic box. I don't believe there can be a resolution of any of this without ArbCom. The 2013 ruling was reasonably successful at putting a stop to these wars-that is until the sanctions were lifted in 2015. We hope (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I reckon that infoboxes will likely become mandatory in all bio articles. Something I don't relish. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- And then from my part, the box brigade can take over everything I was formerly doing because I won't do it any more. We hope (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GoodDay. For the record, I would support a collapsed userbox in this case, and will support any consensus that is developed, one way or another. I actually doubt that it will become 'mandatory'. The problem is that people expect consistency, so if you choose something highly visible that isn't consistent with the vast majority of other articles, it is human nature that people will come by to try to change it back or 'fix it'. You aren't going to magically get people to not add an infobox to this article every so often, you'll have to keep defending it, and discussing with users why there isn't one. Personally I think that this isn't worth it, but won't begrudge others if they have the opposite opinion and are willing to put in the effort to keep the article in their preferred format (assuming of course that they have established consensus for that format). However, this insistence on treating other editors with outright hostility that some of the "no infobox" editors have been doing is something I can't get behind. If you want to have something that is inconsistent with other articles, and is highly noticeable, be prepared to have to defend and discuss it, often, and not get exasperated at continued discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Collapsed infobox, is a solution. See Frank Sinatra article. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GoodDay. For the record, I would support a collapsed userbox in this case, and will support any consensus that is developed, one way or another. I actually doubt that it will become 'mandatory'. The problem is that people expect consistency, so if you choose something highly visible that isn't consistent with the vast majority of other articles, it is human nature that people will come by to try to change it back or 'fix it'. You aren't going to magically get people to not add an infobox to this article every so often, you'll have to keep defending it, and discussing with users why there isn't one. Personally I think that this isn't worth it, but won't begrudge others if they have the opposite opinion and are willing to put in the effort to keep the article in their preferred format (assuming of course that they have established consensus for that format). However, this insistence on treating other editors with outright hostility that some of the "no infobox" editors have been doing is something I can't get behind. If you want to have something that is inconsistent with other articles, and is highly noticeable, be prepared to have to defend and discuss it, often, and not get exasperated at continued discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- (in response to this) Yes, I support a collapsed infobox as a compromise. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale ban appeal
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions,
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
- one account restriction
- topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
- prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
- prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Request to assist with merge discussion on Erica Garner talk page
There is a discussion on the talk page of Erica Garner regarding whether to merge the article with Death of Eric Garner. There is some edit-warring going on and although a couple of editors (including myself) have suggested the merge suggestion should be closed at no consensus, other editors disagree. Could a non-involved admin kindly take a look and advise. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Disruption at First-move advantage in chess
- First-move advantage in chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review the recent flurry of activity at First-move advantage in chess. There have been repeated attempts by two editors to insert an unreliable source (Stack Exchange) into the article, and repeated edit warring. I'm already on 2 reverts so I don't want to carry on with this this. 222.153.250.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since no-one had warned User:MeixiangKazuki that they had exceeded 3RR, I have given them a final warning. They haven't actually reverted for 12 hours, and at least they are using the talkpage now. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Need help with a copy/paste move
Hi all, I could use a hand fixing a copy/paste move and merging histories or whatevs. A user wanted to move Untitled Anand L Rai film to Zero (film), but the target already existed as a redirect, so he copy/pasted the content. There have been several improvements to the article and I'm not clear on how this should be remedied. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. I moved the old article over the new one and then undeleted the relevant parts of the history. It'd have been much easier if the user had first redirected then created the new page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Jo-Jo!: Happy new year! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia article deleted
Hello,
Article of Ms. Sarita Raghuvanshi (wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarita_Raghuvanshi) had been deleted. It was up from several months. No prior notification/clarification was seeked.
Kindly explain the issue. All required information will be provided. The content on her article is all verifiable by media links. Still if there is any content that may be promotional, kindly edit it and restore the page.
Thanks, Anand --Anand.bhate1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was deleted per WP:G11 as unambiguous advertising. The best place to go is WP:DRV. I can’t guarantee that anything can be done if people there if people there agree that the article is purely promotional though it is your best shot.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
this user has been making a large number of good faith edits, but most all of them are nonconstructive. This includes grammatical errors, factual errors, and adding information that doesn't follow guidelines. I am not sure what other approach to take than to post this here. Nikolaiho☎️📖 00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Have you tried asking them abut it on their talk page? I see a comment they made in April expressing some frustration about being reverted (not by you) but never being told why. Given their comment about being in practice since the 1970s, I think we are probably dealing with an older person who is knowledgeable in the real world but hasn't necessarily grasped Wikipedia culture (which can be confusing and Byzantine for anyone). Reaching out in plain language might help bridge the gap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Query about protecting a deleted page against re-creation
- I have been asked to delete a page, and I did so: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Expectations (Bebe Rexha album). I was then asked to protect it against being re-created, and in the instructions I found a link to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection. This rule seems to have been changed; as this rule stands now, what is the procedure in getting permission to protect a deleted page against being re-created? My work so far has largely been in history-merging and in attending to the speedy-deletion category. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal attack by Coffee in edit summary.
Should still be here. Short explanation - Coffee does not know what a BLP violation is and accusing me of making one, when I'm quite hardline when it comes to enforcement of the BLP is a personal attack. Longer explanation: Recently ITN ran (another) Trump story about recognising the capital of Israel etc. ITN decided not to run the subsequent UN vote where almost the entirety of the rest of the world told him where to go. Supposedly the comment at ITN about it continually running Trump's racist and divisive statements is a BLP violation. Despite it being trivial to reliably source that Trump makes racist statements, supports racists, re-tweets racists, promotes racist political policies etc. About the only thing you couldn't easily source if pressed would be 'Trump is a racist'. Which is a good thing I didn't say that. It certainly is not a BLP violation, nor is it worthy of hiding over 300 revisions with an edit summary that indicates I have done something I have not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)