Sir Joseph (talk | contribs) |
Softlavender (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 399: | Line 399: | ||
:*'''Support indef''' - TGS does a lot of useful work but like I said previously, the unblock was premature and their rationale was incomplete and as evident now, rather deceptive. It appears that they are helplessly drawn to controversial topic areas with all of their problematic editing behaviours intact, and I think the proposed topic ban scope would only delay the inevitable. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
:*'''Support indef''' - TGS does a lot of useful work but like I said previously, the unblock was premature and their rationale was incomplete and as evident now, rather deceptive. It appears that they are helplessly drawn to controversial topic areas with all of their problematic editing behaviours intact, and I think the proposed topic ban scope would only delay the inevitable. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Support 6 months topic ban''', [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
:*'''Support 6 months topic ban''', [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support indef'''. Since at least December 2015 (if not before and merely unnoticed), TGS has engaged in a clear and frankly outrageous pattern of deception and also harassment. The fact that he is a prolific content creator and also a commentator at noticeboards blinded many people to this side of him. But it's as clear as day that he is not going to stop this pattern (he is still playing hifalutin' games with the admins calling him out on his talkpage), and that no matter how many restrictions or TBans or IBans are placed on him, he will still find a way to be both deceptive and disruptive. It simply seems to be part of his nature, unfortunately. We can't allow such a liability to remain on Wikipedia. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 23:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for partial history deletion on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch == |
== Request for partial history deletion on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch == |
Revision as of 23:50, 14 January 2019
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).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
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.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 46 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}
Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Riposte97: time sink
(Initiated 2 days ago on 22 June 2024) Obvious consensus has formed for a community imposed topic ban from "Indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed". Admin close required. TarnishedPathtalk 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 77 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 74 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:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section
(Initiated 68 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 53 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 50 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 50 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL
(Initiated 48 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles
(Initiated 45 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article
(Initiated 33 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close
(Initiated 24 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Greta Gerwig#Order of occupation in the lead
(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 June 2024) No new !votes in over a week. The RfC creator is claiming a no consensus outcome and I'm not sure I agree, but I am involved. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 50 | 64 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 15 | 24 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024
(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
(Initiated 27 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024
(Initiated 22 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro
(Initiated 20 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ECP Question
Why is Semiramis Hotel bombing on ECP indefinitely? The other ECP'd articles in the table have the protection expire reasonably soon. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- That would be WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Every I/P article is supposed to be under permanent ECP now? Wow that is intense. Thanks. I wonder how many articles it is. That much conflict in articles usually means the articles are useless anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This is a continuation of a discussion that was archived before other editors and admins could weigh in. That discussion was begun as a complaint against me by User:SanAnMan. Later incorporated into it was a discussion that had originally begun on at Talk:Unfulfilled, but which was moved here by User:Softlavender. SanAnMan presented what he contended was evidence of inappropriate behavior on my part. I then presented evidence of SanAnMan's violations of WP:OWN, disruptive editing, including attempts to bully editors away from editing South Park episode articles, including outright deceptive statements on his part, which included fabricating non-existent consensuses that he falsely claimed I participated in, but because it was not sufficiently summarized (having been called a "wall of text"), I was asked to further summarize it. SanAnMan nonetheless offered a rebuttal, though he did not falsify, nor even address the evidence I presented of his behavior. What follows is a condensed version of the evidence of his behavior. I apologize if it's still longer than you would prefer; Illustrating patterns of behavior requires not only multiple examples, but some elaboration.
- SanAnMan frequently makes arbitrary changes to episode synopses, often without explaining how his versions are improvements, even when doing so creates grammatical errors. This is distinct from his perfectly legitimate fixing of my typos, repetitions of phrases, etc. which I genuinely appreciate.
- For example, he once removed a series of commas from a passage I wrote, including an Oxford comma. [4] While use of Oxford commas is a question of personal choice, he did not write that passage, but again wishes to impose his personal preference upon articles in a unilateral manner. When he subsequently did this again, he attempted to justify this [5] by falsely citing MOS:COMMA. In fact, MOS:COMMA does not call for the removal of Oxford commas, but says they may be used if used consistently. Nothing in the article exhibited inconsistency. SanAnMan argued, “But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article.” There was no discussion or consensus on this.
- He removed ratings info from an episode article, something that is common in television articles when source info is available for it, but he claims that it “never” goes in an episode article, again without presenting any guideline, MOS or consensus: [9]
- He’ll remove details from the synopses I write as being supposedly irrelevant, but insists on including those he prefers, even when they are trivia. He removed the name of a character because it’s “irrelevant”, even though the character’s interaction with a main character drove a plot point. [10] In another article, he removes the name of a character, Colin Brooks, whose death was the inciting incident of the plot, even though he left in a latter reference to “Brooks’ death” in the same synopsis. [11] Yet despite this, after I did a major fix to two paragraphs in another article featuring childhood vaping, including removing an incorrect claim about a minor detail [12], SanAnMan restored the mention of the detail even though it was trivial. [13]
- In another instance, SanAnMan split hairs over a description of a character being a reference to a Star Trek alien, removing reference to this on account of a detail on the back of the character’s head [14], as if that detail somehow meant that the nature of the parody was not generally true, even though it was one of the major points of parody in the episode.
- SanAnMan either does not understand or misrepresents the purpose of the Lead. The Lead (and for that matter the Infobox) are features of articles that summarize the article’s most salient points, which by definition, means that they repeat information found in the article body. He cited WP:OVERLINK as his rationale for this [15], when WP:OVERLINK says nothing about details in the Lead. When he removed the information again, he stated, “WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details.” Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. No MOS guideline says otherwise, and SanAnMan did not link to any that do.
- SanAnMan blanked the article for the South Park episode “Unfulfilled” (reverting it to a redirect) on an episode of South Park an hour and a half before it premiered, under the rationale that it had not yet aired, an inane rationale, given not only the time element, but the established practices of creating such articles prior to episode premieres, by various editors including himself ([16], [17], [18]) and the presence of articles on future films, novels, Olympics, elections, and other events throughout Wikipedia.
- SanAnMan attempted to cite WP:DELAY for this, when that guideline is for subjects whose notability is in doubt. WP:CRYSTAL also corroborates this.
- He also attempted to falsely claim that there was an “agreement” among the editors of those articles not to create such articles on the basis of press releases early in the season. Putting aside the fact that WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB do not restrict the citation of primary sources in an article as long as the article is not primarily supported by them; the fact that secondary cite-supported information on critical reception is always added to South Park episode articles within a day or two of the episode’s airing and the publication of critics’ reviews; and the fact that Wikipedia’s leans toward inclusion, and the practice of giving editors time to find sources before deleting articles, There was in fact no such “agreement” or discussion, as seen on all the relevant talk pages. When it was requested that he provide links to these discussions, he then attempted to claim that this “agreement” took place in the edit summaries, which is both absurd, and untrue, since no edit summaries show this. He even falsely claimed that I, of all people, was a part of this “process” he described. (I was not.) In addition, his claim is falsified by the continued practices of creating such articles on the most recent episodes, including the one that aired the week before the one in question, which he had not opposed. Presumably because he realized that he was caught in the middle of his lie, he abandoned it, because the following week, when I created the prelim article for that week’s episode ahead of its premiere, he offered no opposition, which he would not have done if he genuinely believed there had been a consensus, or “agreement,” among the editors to cease this practice.
- SanAnMan has reverted against two different editors ([19], [20], [21]), which is considered edit warring, and may be considered a blockable offense. In so doing, SanAnMan self-servingly declares that WP:OWN and 3RR violations are established on my part, but exempts himself from that assessment, even though he persistently reverted the article himself.
- SanAnMan presumes the authority to give “sole warnings” to me, when he is not an admin, and has no authority “sole warnings” to anyone, another presumption of unilateral authority that he does not have. Note also that when I point out what has happened in the past with serial policy violator and manipulators who tried to game the system like Asgardian—a perfectly legitimate warning—then all of a sudden, SanAnMan says, it’s “threat.” SanAnMan can issue sole “warnings”. But when I issue a valid warning based on my prior experience with similar editors, it’s a “threat” that is tantamount to in SanAnMan’s words, saying “I am going to get you blocked or banned,” (even though I don’t have the power to get anyone blocked or banned unless I have evidence of violations that warrant it), and a “personal attack.”
- When SanAnMan first began this discussion here December 9, he said of me, “He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing…” In fact, I never said that “any” edit SanAnMan makes exhibits such qualities, and the diff shows it. I have always distinguished between the solid edits he makes, and those presented here that are problematic.
- SanAnMan claimed here during the now-archived portion of this discussion that when he is told that his criticized for poor writing, or when he is told that his edits do not conform to Wikipedia policies, that this constitutes “bullying.” It does not. To argue that criticism, or pointing out when an editor is violating policy constitutes a “threat” or “intimidation” would mean that every time we address policy violations on Wikipedia, we are “bullying” the person doing so, which is ridiculous. WP:AAEW, which SanAnMan cites repeatedly, is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and its claims that pointing out policy violations is not a valid argument is obviously false. SanAnMan himself has no problem accusing other editors of violating policies, as indicated when he accused another editor of this in an ANI discussion just a few months ago [22].
CORRECTION: SanAnMan pointed out in this post that I denied reverting a wikilink, even though I did. In fact, I did revert the wikilink, but was under the impression that I had not done so when I denied doing this. I see now that I did revert it, and apologize for that error. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- In the archived discussion referenced above, admin User:Swarm specifically stated "we do not need to see another massive wall of text refuting everything Nightscream said point-by-point." He also stated that "None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable" and "all the other specific accusations are fairly minor in comparison." If the admins request that I refute this point-by-point I will, but until otherwise, I will wait. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both of these editors should be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing on the noticeboards and exhausting the patience of the community, the block duration to be determined by each editors' block history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support: Having just dealt with a editor/troll and stalker yesterday, my patience and mercy is at an all time low. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Here are the two users' block logs:
- (change visibility) 18:30, 29 November 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment--see block log, specifically the block of 25 June 2011) (unblock | change block)
- *(change visibility) 14:45, 20 June 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs | block) blocked SanAnMan (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block)
- *(change visibility) 17:32, 6 December 2013 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Jessica Nigri) (unblock | change block)
- *(change visibility) 10:45, 24 June 2011 Ironholds (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment: you should know better) (unblock | change block)
- (change visibility) 01:25, 18 July 2005 Khaosworks (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (3RR violation) (unblock | change block)
- An asterisk at the beginning of a line indicates that the block was removed before it expired. They actually have seven blocks between them, but I'm only showing those that matter: Nightscream was once unblocked by the blocking admin with a rationale that basically says "the edits that prompted the block were actually okay", and SanAnMan's first block was a case of {{User accidentally blocked}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- That their block logs are minimal doesn't surprise me - it's rare for admins to block on the basis of vexatious or tendentious reporting on the noticeboards, which is the loci of their disruption. Doesn't really matter as my proposal is obviously not gaining much traction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion; I'm not trying to say that they're too minimal to warrant further sanctions. Just wanted to provide data for your proposal. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing "tendentious" about providing the copious evidence of an editor's behavior. It's simply that the "community" here just doesn't want to read it, their "patience" apparently too thin for anything that is longer than a soundbite or slogan. Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you said something very similar to that on ANI when you provided even more text and chided the community in advance because you assumed (correctly) that it wasn't going to read it -- it's another part of your disruptive behavior. People don't get paid here, you know, given the choice between wading through your interminable prose (or that of SanAnMan, who's almost as bad), which would take quite a long time and involve a great deal of cross-checking and other research, or doing something that could help the encyclopedia or the project with immediate results, it's not at all surprising that they choose the latter.Recall that saying that "Insanity is doing the exact same thing again and again and expecting different results"? Well, that's pretty much where you are: you could take the time and effort to boil down your concerns to an easily palatable meal which people could take in and digest, but instead you continue to serve up unappetizing 20-course feasts which no one wants to bother even getting started on. I believe Swarm said basically the same thing on that ANI complaint, and neither of you were able to comply -- nor do I think wither of you will ever be able to comply. That's why I proposed this block, which, unfortunately, is not going to happen.Perhaps I should have suggested a topic ban from Wikipedia space, or from the noticeboards, or an IBan between the two of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing "tendentious" about providing the copious evidence of an editor's behavior. It's simply that the "community" here just doesn't want to read it, their "patience" apparently too thin for anything that is longer than a soundbite or slogan. Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Request: I would withdraw this proposal if another editor hadn't voted to support it - my understanding is that I can't because of that. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to close it due to lack of traction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion
(Non-administrator comment) Maybe just archive the thread without further action. All has been said above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- That may have to be. I did read through the sections above and previously read the older thread. There definitely are behavioral issues to be considered, but I for one do not know the best way to handle them. The thing I would want to look at is, are there similar interactions with other editors, or is this isolated? If this behavior occurs with other users, then I would be more concerned about an overall problem requiring some sort of admin intervention, but if it is just how two people interact with each other, then that may be all it is. BOZ (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Then why not start there, with an IBan between the two of them?Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The last thread was not archived before anyone "could" respond, it was archived because no one wanted to waste their time on the massive walls of text they were bludgeoning each other with, which I warned them against doing. I'm not offended by seeing another wall of text, but I am astounded by the lack of clue displayed by Nightscream in thinking that another massive wall of text was going to improve the situation. Smh. Swarm {talk} 03:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not a massive wall of text, except for those too lazy to read it, and whose apathy on such matters is precisely the huge crack in the system that historically, manipulators have exploited to game the system here on Wikipedia. User:Asgardian is one. User:AlanSohn is another.And now we have SanAnMan. The guy blanked another editor's article, then fabricated a consensus that never took place, even claiming that I agreed with him on this, and then, after he was caught in the middle of that lie, skulked away from it, and naturally, the revolving door here in ANI doesn't care because, "Oh, it isn't ongoing behavior." Like he has to do this multiple times a day on a daily basis in order for you decide that it needs to be addressed. The text above is the evidence presented for SanAnMan's pattern of behavior, and was greatly reduced in length from my previous presentation. It cannot be conveyed with non-annotated diffs alone. If I'm wrong, then by all means: Tell me what specific part or parts of it you would remove? Feel free to use the sandbox if you want. And if you can't answer this because you haven't read it, well then, how do you know that the essential information can be conveyed with diffs alone? Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do you find it an effective strategy to insult the people you are asking to take action? Does that often work for you? When you call the cops because your neighbor's party is too loud, do you call the responding officers names and accuse them of being lazy and apathetic? Do you find that gets better results? And when they come, do you give the cops the history of every conflict you've had with that neighbor, from the time they moved into the neighborhood, instead of just telling them that the party is too loud and is annoying you?Are you getting the point I'm trying to make? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do you find it an effective strategy to label legitimate criticism with the spin-doctored term "insults" in order to evade giving actual consideration to the criticism because you lack the character to do so?
- Funny you should ask. When I've called the cops to complain about the neighbors' noise, the cops did something truly astonishing.
- THEY DID THEIR JOB. Are you getting that point? Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, an editor blanked a page, fabricated a consensus that did not exist, even falsely name-dropping other parties to this "agreement", and has not falsified all the evidence that clearly shows that this was an attempt a OWN-type behavior, or even addressed that evidence, and has also exhibited other examples that go to this pattern, but you and the others here have refused to respond to it. You know what that does? It sends the message to people like that that they can get away with that behavior until it reaches such a critical mass that one has to go through the task of ArbComa before they face consequences for it. And what's your excuse? "Oh, it's too long to read! Can you put it in the form of a soundbite or a tweet?. The problem is not "insults." The problem is that ANI is a paper tiger filled with people who have historically refused to address problems like this in an appropriate manner. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, even this ANI is getting nasty. Maybe a cooling off for the parties is needed. The blanking does sound egregious and probably deserves a closer looking at. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I read your massive wall of text, again, and you're literally just re-reporting the same thing. And these issues are exceptionally petty, and they have already been assessed to be unactionable by an administrator (me). You're not going to get better results beating the dead horse a month later. Even if you had a convincing case originally (which you didn't), the issue is stale now. When most people get into disputes, they seek out dispute resolution via community consensuses. If you want improved results, follow WP:BRD, seek third opinions, form local consensuses on the talk page, use content noticeboards when possible, and if all else fails, use RFCs liberally to form binding community decisions, even host them at a village pump or relevant Wikiproject to reach generalized decisions on things like comma usage or when a TV episode should be created, assuming there is no clear policy or consensus on these things already. If this comes back here, you're likely going to get an interaction ban and nothing else. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 20:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Requesting undo of renaming of followed Article: 2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute
FYI: Talk:2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute
This article has been discussed and concluded to move and rename, to retain neutrality of article, from 'Korean Navy radar lock-on incident' to '2018 Japanese-Korean naval dispute', as user's consensus. But, afterwhile, someone moved and renamed the article arbitrarily, without any notice in the discussion page. I think this is unaccepted action, violating rules and ignoring user's consensus.
Hence, I requesting Undo renaming of the article suggested on the subject. Thanks. Funny365com (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- This was done by Phoenix7777 who you forgot to notify. I'll go do so. The move was done under the grounds of WP:PRECISE. I don't see any abuse there, but other admins are free to disagree. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't discussed at all. You requested a move, and someone moved it for you, not because a consensus was formed, but because it was uncontroversial. There is no consensus to speak of. Now it has been moved back, which is acceptable per WP:BRD. You can discuss further on the talk page if you disagree.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note that I blocked Funny365com with a soft block as per WP:USERNAME. I expect they'll pick a new username and continue the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: I think you seem to have misunderstood something. User Funny365com's account name is not companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or creative groups name. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: Their home wiki is kowiki with over 200 contributions. Username violation or not, account creation should not be disabled, since I doubt they wish to rename globally. If this is a username violation, they probably will want to create a new account to contribute on enwiki. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
indefinite (account creation blocked)
- it looks like some gremlin has converted a soft block into a hard block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding username, by the grandfather clause, this is the relevant version of the username policy. This is identical to current wording.
Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page
. Since the domain does not seem to have been registered at the time, nor is registered now, I don't think this is a good block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)- I have converted it to a soft block. Making it a hard block was unintentional. Any admin is free to lift the block if they wish. At various times throughout the life of the account, funny365.com has been active and serving sponsored listings. As such, I believe it fails the "commercial web page" part of WP:USERNAME. funny365.com is not currently active, though, so if an admin believes my block should be overturned on that basis, please just do so. No need to further consult me. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've changed my name from funny365com to Bluepolarbear247. Thanks for noticing name rules to me. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- It seems like I misunderstood how wikipedia discussion system works. So, it's not consensus, and someone just move article for me, right? And I should discuss again to change its name. but Is it good to any wikipedia user change an name of article, without discussion, eventhough there was previous discussion related on renaming? (Anyway, I'll continue discussion about renaming in article above) - Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to have been some confusion over what happened here. Funny365com/Bluepolarbear247 never requested a move that happened without discussion. Actually they started a RM (didn't check if it was done completely properly). After 22 hours and 2 people supporting the proposal (including the initiator/Funny365com) and 2 other commentators who express no clear opinion, the move was actioned by a third party who had already been involved in the article [23] [24] [25] [26]. The page was then moved to a different title [27] with the reason given as WP:PRECISE. The new title was not the same as the original title, instead it had elements of both the old title and new one i.e. was a partial revert. IMO, the actions here are reasonable. The first move was almost a bold move, since there was only 20 hours allowed for discussion and only 2 or 3 (if the mover was also expressing their support) in support so could have been reverted as with all BOLD moves. Since Phoenix7777 I guess doesn't disagree with one element of the move, they only partly reverted. The new discussion can decide whether the current title or the original proposal are better, and both editors who expressed an opinion have already done so in the new discussion so it doesn't matter much whether it would have been better to reopen the older discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Requested eyes at some AfD weirdness
Would someone mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Independence Model (pinging nominator, Anthony Appleyard)? I asked AA, but didn't understand the response – he said he deleted it, but the page log doesn't show it being deleted yet). There was maybe some sort of COPYVIO question, but wouldn't that be more appropriate through CSD, where it was originally, or at least removal of offending text? The claimed source isn't accessible for me right now, so I can't even check on that much. In any case, there doesn't seem to be an actual AfD rationale there, so there's nothing to discuss. Apologies in advance if I shouldn't be bringing this here (the notice says specific help requests should go to ANI, but ANI says it's for urgent problems, and this doesn't seem urgent, so I dunno), but the whole thing is just kind of strange. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete Binary Independence Model (speedy delete tagged for copyvio) after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The AfD is now closed, so the discussion here can be, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Article doesn't look like a copyvio to me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones
Smallbones has been notified about the active community sanctions at his talk page by OverlordQ.
Successive reverts Smallbones performed in 24 hours:
- [28] reverts [29] and [30] reverts [31]
- [32] reverts [33] and [34] reverts [35]
- [36] reverts [37] and [38] reverts [39]
- [40] reverts [41] and [42] reverts [43]
Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discussions regrading tendentious editing here and here Retimuko (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [44]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do I understand correctly that since it is not labelled "undo", you refuse to call [45] a revert of [46]? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [44]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that Smallbones continues to WP:TE on this article after the Blockchain GS were put into place. In some cases he continues to revert every 25 hours (rather than 24 hours) thus maybe he doesn't technically violate the 1RR if narrowly construed, but broadly construed he clearly does. As Ladislav points out this is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not just one or two edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir, Retimuko, and Jtbobwaysf: It's not that I've been ignoring this thread - I just haven't seen anything approaching "Systematic violations of active community sanctions" as the section heading puts it. It's pretty hard for me to defend myself since there haven't been any understandable accusations. For example, of the 4 bullet points above that purport to show 2 reversions that I made within 24 hours, the bottom 3 show nothing of the kind. The first is slightly more complex. I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse.
- So just say what you mean to say, make your accusations, explain what you mean by "bias", "tendentious editing", "long-term pattern of behavior" and give examples. And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer.
- Otherwise, I will ignore you. I don't think any admins will do anything without an adequate accusation.
- Or I will ask for a "boomerang" on all of you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Precisely, and then he brags about it here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232#Thar_she_blows!. Unfortunately, he is a skilled editor and knows when to stop before he crosses the line in terms of sanctions. But maybe one day his pattern of edits will catch up with him...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse." - In other words, Smallbones claims that since he perceives that other editors don't behave as he wants them to, he feels authorized to violate the active community sanctions. That is what I do not find acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment this seems to be a content dispute. The (poorly-formatted) diffs don't clearly demonstrate that Smallbones is breaking 1RR; he probably shouldn't have made this edit but that's not enough for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, "this seems to be a content dispute" followed by "he probably shouldn't have made this edit" does not make much sense to me. I did not mention the content at all. Other contributors did, but I am sure I did not.
- "The (poorly-formatted) diffs" - could you help and improve the formatting of the diffs, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- CNMall41, I agree. It is editors like Smallbones that are responsible for Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. The purpose of the Blockchain general sanctions (1RR) was to tamp down the POV edits (at that time mostly cryptofans) but in this case we have a cryptohater that is now being disruptive. From an editor's point of view, both of these extreme POVs need to be edited into the article for balance. It is our job as editors regardless to make sure the content is NPOV (thus the middle path). However, the point here is that Smallbones' behavior is disruptive, thus this is not a content dispute it is a discussion of the behavior relating to the content dispute (and that is why ANI is the correct venue). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
An Ip (72.69.98.176) has twice attempted to close this discussion. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with me and appears to be some kind of provocation or trolling.
- I would however request that this be closed. The edit I originally made has been reinserted by another editor and stayed in the article for 4 days now. The discussion at Talk:Bitcoin#Price_movements_citing_Coinbase now supports the edit (look at the bottom) as factual.
- Others should feel free to make additional comments here, but if they are just accusing me of WP:TE, RightingGreatWrongs, or accusing me of being the reason Wikipedia losing contributors, then I'd like them to present serious evidence in a serious discussion. Otherwise, they should get the boomerang. After all is said and done here, I made a simple factual edit to the article and several editors went ballistic over it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't sock. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years and made 40,000+ edits and nobody has ever credibly accused me of socking. I'm not accusing you of accusing me of socking, but I don't think that anybody who knows me here would ever take such an accusation seriously. If they do, please take it to SPI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mailing lists - wikiEN-l shutdown and archive
At one time, this mailing list was an important policy discussion and decision-making venue. It has not seen more than a handful of forwarded posts in the last few years, and no significant discussion for the last ten, but its archives are an important historical record that include, among other things, early requests for adminship. I think we should formally close the mailing list to new posts, so that the archive will be static and fixed, and can be more readily preserved.
If there is a reason to keep the list open to new posts, we should identify some new list administrators, since most of the current list administrators are not presently active participants in the project. UninvitedCompany 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Are you proposing a shutdown, or are you merely asking that people sign up to be list admins? Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Softblock and a ticked box
Example: [47]
I thought softerblock had "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" (or just all boxes) unticked. This tick seems unchangeable. Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- It may have been that Dlohcierekim ticked that box accidentally, or did it intentionally but didn't realize the block summary said "soft block". If that wasn't it, it may be a regression bug. I say this only because there has been a lot of code changes to how blocks work lately. — MusikAnimal talk 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Err, actually I think that option isn't supposed to be there at all when blocking accounts, only IPs. So, probably a bug. — MusikAnimal talk 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reported at phab:T213229 — MusikAnimal talk 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The idea is to block the problem account and allow account creation. TWINKLE did the box box-checking for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- It won't let me change the block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Dlohcierekim. I tried to change it too and it wouldn't untick. It's not you. I noticed it with another admin's block. Wikipedia software obviously went insane. The pressure got to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, yes it is MediaWiki going insane. A fix will go out soon. Dlohcierekim made no error. It appears to be entirely a UI problem, too. It is not a hard-block, even though it may look like it when going to re-block. — MusikAnimal talk 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Dlohcierekim. I tried to change it too and it wouldn't untick. It's not you. I noticed it with another admin's block. Wikipedia software obviously went insane. The pressure got to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reported at phab:T213229 — MusikAnimal talk 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to look into this much, but I believe a histmerge of some kind is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Headbomb, a history merge would be a bad idea, since the histories overlap completely. Simply redirecting one to the other would work perfectly well, since they're virtually identical; if you replaced the current contents of Chiquibul with the current contents of The Chiquibul, you'd get these changes. I'll handle it. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) taken over in the Lightbreather case is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The bot that updates the table is broke. Can anyone make repairs.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Cyberpower678 Hhkohh (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: I know it's not ideal but as an interim solution if you go to the unblock template page and choose "what links here" and filter it to transclusions you'll have an up-to-date list. SITH (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @StraussInTheHouse: Thanks. Hadn't thought of that. I've been just looking at the one's my browser says I haven't been to before.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Global ban discussion
Per the requirements, notice is given that a discussion concerning globally banning Til Eulenspiegel from all WMF projects is now taking place on Meta. This discussion can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel. Nick (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Review of JohnThorne topic ban
More than one year ago, based on the result of a community discussion I was placed on an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to the Bible, broadly construed, with the message that this community sanction may be appealed after six months. Today I would like to respectfully appeal this topic ban. To the best of my knowledge, I have respected the ban, not touching any pages related to the ban. During this period of time I have been working to improve Wikipedia on other topics, learning to properly make, modify and improve Wikipedia pages, changing the way I used to edit. If the ban is lifted, I plan to focus primarily on correcting the errors in the previous articles which are still not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please kindly review the topic ban. JohnThorne (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- What were the issues that lead to the topic ban being implemented and if the ban is removed how would you act differently to avoid these issues in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.28.220 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @67.68.28.220: The main issues were my mistakes in editing not following the Wikipedia standards, such as copying from from unreliable sources, copying without attribution/plagiarism, and original research. To date, I have learned to copy from verifiable sources with neutral point of view, make sure to respect copyrights, always include proper attributions, and avoid original research. I plan to keep doing these practices as long as I contribute to Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JohnThorne: What is your understanding of when and how public domain material can be used in Wikipedia articles? How do your current views differ from those you held at the time you were topic banned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think that is adequate, and I endorse the suggestions made below by Guy and DGG (i.e. new articles to Draft and try a starter article first). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with lifting the ban, ion the understanding that people will watch and likely reimpose the ban or some other restriction if you edit tendentiously or fail to defer to others who remove contested material. Pinging DGG and Doug Weller who made particularly thoughtful contributions to that debate. Maybe we should require new articles to go through Draft first and be reviewed? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would very pleased if JohnThorpe were to return to editing on the Bible, if he were to do it properly. The current state of the articles since he left them is very unsatisfactory, for nobody has done even the most basiccleanup. I hope JT understands the problems well enough tofirst do that, and then to try to add sources from a wide range of viewpoints. As I said in earlier discussion, a traditional religious POV can be used as a starting point , although it cannot be presented as the only view or even the curren academic consensus. I would however strongly urge JT that in articles about the OT it would be more logical to start with the traditional Jewish POV, for which there are many out of copyright online sources, and continue with the traditional Christian POV. (This is especially relevant in many of these articles because the material in them is at the core of the Christian reinterpretation of the prophecies to refer to Jesus and any good modern (or even older) Christian presentation will also make clear the key differences). People have killed each other for centuries over the interpretation of some of these verses, and writing a NPOV article is a serious responsibility. As a practical matter, I would suggest working on one or two of the articles, and then asking those of us who have commented here on this if we think it's a reasonable start. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think I'm ok with this, but I'd like to hear from User:Alephb first. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've been working on clean-up of some of those articles even this week, as has User:Wallingfordtoday. There's still a long way to go on all of them, and I don't think anyone as far as I know has volunteered to do the large quantity of work required to get these articles up to snuff. If JohnThorne is willing to take the guidance of the community and policies and guidelines on board in a serious and careful way, he may have something useful to contribute. I hope no one would object if I and any other interested users were to "follow" their edits for a while and provide feedback as the community works out whether things are going to work out here. I would strongly encourage them to focus his editing on existing Bible-chapter articles rather the formation of new ones, though, at least at first.
- My biggest concern is the hundreds of times, in the past, that the claims made in the text were not backed by the sources cited, or that material from fringe sources was taken at face value. I hope, if he is allowed back, that JohnThorne will be patient and responsive with us all if we have questions where we would like to verify some things. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would say that me and Aleph have done quite a bit of cleanup on those articles, mostly in the last month. The "number" of fixes I've done is in the hundreds or thousands (mostly removing unreliable sources and grammar editing -- I've had to remove over 20,000 characters from Isaiah 52 alone). However, there's thousands to go and there are many other pages on biblical chapters that need creation. If JohnThorne can continue working with people following his edits to making sure the same problems aren't repeated, I'd say his effort would be well appreciated. I'm in support of removing the topc ban.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
An issue that has not yet been addressed is whether all these articles should even exist. There is, for example, no wikipedia article on 2 Chronicles. It redirects to Books of Chronicles because "1 Chronicles" and "2 Chronicles" are essentially artificial divisions of a single work. Well, chapters are much smaller artificial divisions, introduced in the middle ages, and other than in the case of Psalms and some special cases, not reflective of any actual structure to the books. This is why even enormously comprehensive biblical encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Biblica and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which go much farther than Wikipedia by including every little proper name in the Bible under its own entry, don't have articles on individual chapters. It would be a little bit like having articles on individual pages of Shakespeare's works. I don't know if there's some appropriate forum for discussing the notability of Bible chapters as a whole, but it should probably be done somewhere, especially if JohnThorne will be getting back into the game. I think the unsuitability of chapter articles for Wikipedia articles is probably a root cause of why the Wikipedia community hasn't, to my knowledge, been able or willing to replace the current copy-pasted articles with real Wikipedia-style articles (except in special cases like "Isaiah 53" or individual Psalms, which are actual "topics" of conversation). Alephb (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to say it given the amount of work I've done cleaning up those articles, I think aleph is right. Besides aleph's points of notability, there are some other points to consider on whether or not these pages should even exist. 1) Despite the work that's already been done, unreliable sources are still referenced hundreds, if not thousands of times in all these biblical chapter pages. 2) There is at least 1 grammar mistake on every single one of these pages (as each page is essentially copied and pasted, the same mistake was taken to all of them, making it horribly tedious to remove them all). 3) The vast majority of the subsections of each chapter is just a quotation of this or that verse in the chapter without any discussion or reliable sources referenced at all. 4) Almost all biblical quotations are from the KJV or NKJV, which are non-scholarly biblical translations. In other words, to completely clean up all these pages, the many thousands of quotations in these pages would have to be replaced or deleted. 5) Quite frankly, another point to consider is the sheer impossibility to regulate all these pages in the first place. There are hundreds of them, and as history shows, random users have been able to go to them and add any sources they want with no one noticing or removing them. They simply have too little notability for any group of Wiki editors to quickly revert bad edits.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I had a similar thought (and I haven't put a ton of work into these articles). It's a discussion to have (or search for, maybe it's been had), I don't know if there exists some sort of WP:GEOLAND for Bible-chapters. Start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Bible, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fault in the page mover
- I am an admin. Whenever I try to move a page, while e.g. obeying a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves, to move (e.g. page A to name B), and it first needs a pre-existing page at B to be deleted, it displays "[XDiHjApAAD0AADw86AoAAADQ] 2019-01-11 12:09:48: Fatal exception of type "MWException"" in red and refuses, unless I delete the old page B manually first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is a known problem, I have seen it mentioned a few different places. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- There's a ticket open for this fault at the moment, as you say until it's fixed you need to get round it by deleting the target page first. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata help
Hello! I need someone's help: this and this link are basicallly the same, people who are born in Kikinda. Also, this category in Polish isn't needed because i moved the other one on the right place. I am asking someone to delete this polish category and merge those two wikidata links, thank you very much, regards, SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- SimplyFreddie, they're not precisely the same. One appears to be for people born there, and the other for people associated with the location. Compare the two non-overlapping entries for pl.wiki. All of the entries in Category:People born in Kikinda (Q8738600) specify birth, not just the Polish one, while none of the entries in Category:People from Kikinda (Q30337582) specify birth. GMGtalk 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: I agree, but they lead to the same category i.e. they are members of the same category. If they are associated with the location then it's just that one polish category (that isn't linked with others) that contains category with people born in Kikinda. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- One is a combination of person related to this place (Q19660746) and Kikinda (Q309355), while the other is a combination of place of birth (Q1322263) and Kikinda (Q309355), the main difference being that place of birth has single-value constraint (Q19474404), because you can be associated with more than one place, but not born in more than one. What makes things confusing is that some projects (like this one) don't specifically have categories for place of birth, but only for association, which includes place of birth. If someone was born in Ontario but spent their life and career mainly in Paris, then they can be in both Category:People from Ontario (Q9075333) and Category:People from Paris (Q8964470). But en.wiki has no Category:People born in Ontario. Some projects (apparently Polish) has categories for both association and birth, while others seem to have one or the other. GMGtalk 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: I agree, but they lead to the same category i.e. they are members of the same category. If they are associated with the location then it's just that one polish category (that isn't linked with others) that contains category with people born in Kikinda. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
IP hopper targeting Reichstag (Nazi Germany)
An IP hopping vandal reinserted their "Adolf Hitler's monarchy" instead of the correct "Adolf Hitler's dictatorship". Hitler was not a monarch. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's not an IP hopper – unless it hopped to a different continent. Just warn the vandals and report them to WP:AIV if they continue. Or request page protection at WP:RFPP if it becomes a regular occurence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit War on "Batman and Harley Quinn" Page
Due to the mixed reception of the film, there are users who keep deleting sourced information from the "canonicity" section of the page in order to paint a picture that the film isn't part of the DCAU franchise. One editor in particular, Mabromov, has reached out to me on another message board specifically stating he was aware his deletions would be causing an edit war with those interested in keeping all pertinent information intact. Is there anything that can be done to stop this from being a recurring thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.37.163 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how this should be followed up
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit. I am not sure how this should be handled, but mainly I don't have the time anyway. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 2:34 pm, Today (UTC+13)
- It's best to foward such things to WP:EMERGENCY and let them handle it. I'll do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I am new here and need help
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Purple_arrow_right.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_right.svg.png)
∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Site ban appeal from Catflap08
- Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Catflap08 is appealing a site ban. For context, see User talk:Catflap08 and the site ban discussion at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my ban. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner.
- The TBAN is something I would like to see being lifted sometime in the near future, as Nichiren Buddhism is something I focused on. The IBAN should, for the time being, stay in place.
- Ignoring the TBAN was something foolish and unwise, ridiculing the community afterwards was downright stupid and insulting. It would have been wiser to ask for the ban to be lifted and ask for advice about the situation in general.
- In terms of behaviour I would repeat the advice I have given to others ever since: Stay calm. There is no rule that one has to reply right away. In case of a conflict it’s better to wait a day or two (maybe even longer) before replying. Most of all do not allow to be driven into a situation that can escalate into a conflict. If there is a conflict - ask for a third opinion. I allowed to become “fed up” as there are subjects I do deeply care about, at the same time I cannot make Wikipedia a 24/7 issue and if it’s a 24/7 issues to others I do not have to follow their example.
- Recently there was some media coverage about a Nobel Prize winner and apparently an article about her was at one point deleted. The media coverage at the time made me think about the articles related to Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Buddhism and Nichiren. Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased and this is doing Wikipedia no favour at all. It’s a subject on the fringe and even while the TBAN might be in place I would like to be given the opportunity to work on alternatives using the sandbox. Even if the TBAN is lifted … at this point editing respective article(s) won’t do much good. I would need advice from experienced editors and community consensus on this one. I believe some of those articles should be slimmed down considerably and be protected for the time being … BUT that decision is not up to me.
- In terms of my work on the de.wikipedia. I have never run into any major problems [48]. There was one exception when a conflict that originated in en.wikipedia was dragged into de.wikipedia – this was quickly dealt with though. Since my watchlist over there is more or less the same as it is here, I for most parts look out for reviewing pending changes. (Please note that since 2008 in the German Wikipedia all edits by new or not registered users need to be reviewed by, generally speaking, the community of registered and “confirmed” editors)
- I would like to expand on stubs such as Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou using Czech and German resources. And maybe even create articles such as “Plague Column” [49] [50] that do not exist on en.wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – it looks like the IBAN referred above is no longer in place. (I could not find any other IBANs noted in WP:Editing restrictions.) –FlyingAce✈hello 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the IBAN was lifted at Hijiri88's request, on the premise that it was no longer necessary since Catflap08 was site banned. If that site ban is lifted, I believe that the IBAN should be reinstated (and actually should not have been removed in the first place, for this very reason).As for the request for Catflap08's site ban to be lifted, I believe it is obvious from the request itself that Catflap08 has strong views on the subject ("Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased..."), which is likely to lead to edits intended to "unbias" articles, which history tells us are usually non-neutral in nature. It is also likely to lead to conflicts with other editors. On the whole, it does not seem to me that lifting the site ban is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- In the linked discussion where the interaction ban was rescinded, you supported removing the ban, and said "If for some reason Catflap08 is unbanned, I would suggest that the IBan not be automaically restored..." I appreciate that over time, editors can reach new conclusions. In addition to the reasons you listed, is there any additional consideration that has led you to change your mind regarding the interaction ban? isaacl (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is that really the case? Well, all I can say is that I remember it differently. Perhaps I began with the thought that the IBan should stay in place, and for some reason -- now not remembered -- I changed my mind. Or maybe I was recalling some other IBan situation. In any case, now I think that removing IBans with retired or site banned editors is not a good idea, since (it seems) nothing on Wikipedia is forever, and it's quite probable that the status quo will be reverted at some future time.Still, whether I said at the time that it should be lifted or not, it was lifted, and I would still argue that if Catflap08 is un-site banned, it should be re-instated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: Could you post a link to the discussion you were referring to? I can't seem to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Appeal of my interaction ban with Catflap08 — FlyingAce linked to it. isaacl (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't see FlyingAce's link. I guess all I can do is agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do ... Speak what you think in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. Self-Reliance (1841)
- Thanks, I didn't see FlyingAce's link. I guess all I can do is agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson:
- @Isaacl: Could you post a link to the discussion you were referring to? I can't seem to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the IBAN was lifted at Hijiri88's request, on the premise that it was no longer necessary since Catflap08 was site banned. If that site ban is lifted, I believe that the IBAN should be reinstated (and actually should not have been removed in the first place, for this very reason).As for the request for Catflap08's site ban to be lifted, I believe it is obvious from the request itself that Catflap08 has strong views on the subject ("Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased..."), which is likely to lead to edits intended to "unbias" articles, which history tells us are usually non-neutral in nature. It is also likely to lead to conflicts with other editors. On the whole, it does not seem to me that lifting the site ban is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- The editor has been almost entirely absent from the site for 3 years and I have no direct experience with them. If they want to edit other topics than those where they previously had problems (such as German towns) and will wait at least 6 months to appeal the TBAN, I see no reason to oppose this. They certainly shouldn't be unblocked to combat "increasingly biased" articles in the area they were TBAN-ed from; the topic-ban on at least Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism should be an indef one with any unblock. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have to say I find the timing a little too coincidental, given that Hijiri88 posted a etirement notice less than a day ago and has just started a self-requested block, so they won't be able to comment here. I haven't looked much deeper than that so i won't support or oppose at thsi time but that doesn't fill me with confidence in their proposed return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was unaware of Hijiri's retirement when I commented above. In that context, this seems very much like "When the cat's away..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Until Catflap08 gives a full accounting of any socking while blocked. Concerns were expressed here including by someone besides Hijiri88 that Catflap08 was still editing using IPs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catflap08/Archive. While these edits seem to be more than 6 months old, the nature of the editing made tracking difficult and reporting often pointless anyway plus socking in April and June could easily make a difference to people.
I also note that Catflap08 has emailed Hijiri88 in the past, emails which were apparently unwelcome, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed?. While I obviously haven't see the emails, I'm concerned by their descriptions. Catflap08 is a native speaker of English [51] so I don't know why they asked Hijiri88 to not accuse them of being a sock when they didn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?. (Hijiri88 obviously has accused Catflap08 of socking in the past, but they clearly weren't then.) I'm of the opinion Hijiri88 possibly mentions people they've had disputes with including Catflap08 too much but from the description, Catflap08 wasn't even sending a general 'can you stop mentioning me' but was annoyed about that particular mention.
More importantly, there's still the other email even if it's over a year ago, I'd like some comment on their part. (I'd note that while the iban was lifted that was mostly because it's dumb when one party is blocked [52] and besides of which, I question if it's appropriate for a site banned editor to be emailing someone they've had extensive disputes with. I mean if the person welcomes it then fine, but if the person doesn't welcome it then no. And they don't need to tell the editor beforehand. It would probably have been better for Catflap08 to go through an admin if they really felt there was an issue.)
As a minor point, I don't understand why Catflap08 of getting their talk page courtesy blanked via OTRS if they were going to appeal so soon, especially given they didn't need to use OTRS. (Yet ironically the fact they did use OTRS raises the question even more of why they were emailing Hijiri88 directly.) BTW, although I too find the timing of this suspicious, it should be noted that Catflap08 did try to get unblocked back in December but it was ignored [53]
Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I asked User:SA 13 Bro if they have any comment [54] as their name shows up in the SPI. I didn't bother with User:L235/Kevin as their knowledge only seems to come from the case so I suspect they have nothing more to add. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, I'd also agree with a minimum of 6 months before any appeal of the tban. You need to demonstrate you can edit without significant problem in less contentious areas first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JimRenge: You got any opinion to indicate? I am unable to determine on the appealing request conclusion. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I received an email from Catflap08 but I have not yet read it. One more comment, since the socking was via IPs, I understand Catflap08 may not want to publicly link their IP/s to their account and in any case may not remember them all and I'm not asking for this. But I think some info on when they last socked, how often they socked, and an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing (i.e. if they socked and any wrong actions they took while socking such as harassing Hiriji88) is a minimum we should expect. If they deny they ever edited via an IP or otherwise socked, that's okay too, the community will obviously consider this denial against the evidence. Their initial statement above didn't seem to mention the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I find it incredibly suspicious (and it appears I am not the only one) that this request is so close on Hijiri taking a break. Given the previous IBan has been removed, there is nothing to prevent Catflap from returning to their previous behaviour. I wouldnt consider unblocking even with the iban reinstated AND a topic ban from the areas they were problematic in previously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- If we remove the community ban, an idea on which I don't have an opinion, we have to restore Catflap's interaction ban. No re-banning Hijiri merely because Catflap wants to come back, however: we should never sanction someone without evidence of problems on his own part, and the potential return of his arbitration opponent isn't a problem by Hijiri. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would support lifting the ban if there is some sort of parole period (6 months - 1 year?) that if previous behavior is repeated then the indef block would be reinstated. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Request for Block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have chosen to retire, and I would greatly appreciate a block on the account. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pardon me for finding my way here through your contributions. Have you read about the WikiBreak Enforcer script? I used to use it back in the day when I would need breaks from here. I think using these is better than a block so that these self-requested blocks do not cloud up your block log. Given the history, I think you will reconsider this decision and eventually come back, so it might be better not to have to bother an admin again.--NØ 12:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick
- TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On 5 August 2018 TheGracefulSlick was indef blocked for socking. On 23 November 2018 they made an unblock request which was discussed at AN: here which was accepted since the appeal was truly a model form of WP:GAB. In their appeal, TheGracefulSlick outlined their future editing plans (historical subjects, albums by the Doors, content on women and specifically Women in Green). They also specifically said that: "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator."
.
However, their editing following their unblock on 28 November 2018 has not followed this editing plan. Specifically, they made they a series of edits to controversial political subjects: Charlottesville car attack (4 December 2018), Talk:List of cities in Israel (8 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringsted terror plot (8 December), Talk:2018 Freiburg gang rape (8 December).
This was then discussed with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, with the participation of User:Cullen328, User:Sir Joseph, User:TonyBallioni. Per TheGracefulSlick their statement was "a self-restriction made on a voluntary basis for my health. I wouldn’t be disregarding it if it were mandatory"
, a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable, that: "TGS: you gave your word that you would avoid controversial areas. You gave politics as an example, I think you should avoid it, not because it is a formal logged sanction, but just like Cullen328 pointed out, you told the community you would avoid it and avoiding it is the right thing to do"
.
Following their discussion on their talk page, TheGracefulSlick continued editing political entries - e.g. Rashida Tlaib (10 Jan, 8 Jan, 8 Jan), Ilhan Omar (10 Jan) as well as Palestinians (5 Jan), Lifta (4 Jan), Military occupation (2 Jan), Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Joseph (18 December), Herbert Lee (activist) (15 December), Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 December, Charlottesville car attack (11 December).
This was further discussed on 10 January (initiated by User:Icewhiz, responded by users above and User:Bbb23, expressing their disappointment on the one hand but on the other hand noting this is a community matter) with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, to which they responded that they saw this as "settled in December and I am not interested in a continuation of it"
. They subsequently blanked the talk page section with the edit summary "Enough already please"
. They have subsequently continued editing political topics, e.g.: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 January).
TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim? Should a TBAN (AP2, ARBPIA, terrorism) be placed to enforce the commitment? Should the indef block be reinstated given the serious misrepresentation in the unblock request? -- Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I said in my “cautious support” of an unblock, deceptively making “textbook” unblock requests is already something TGS has proved capable of doing (along with a high degree of other deceptive and malicious behavior), and the people who were so impressed by the unblock request were being naive to not question its sincerity. Here we see their special treatment was bought with empty words, and TGS has nothing to offer but more empty words to rationalize why they shouldn’t be held to their own promises. TGS was unblocked with the clear understanding that they’re on extremely thin ice, and the blanking of the users trying to hold them to account shows an active and aggressive disrespect for the community. This turn of events should be surprising, but sadly, it isn’t. @TheGracefulSlick: You could be one of the most respected, beloved members of this community. It’s sad to see you continually self-destruct like this. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
TGS was unblocked with the clear understanding that they’re on extremely thin ice
- Fascinating that you should say this. I had considered leaving them a comment myself. I had intended part of it to read along the lines of: "In effect, TGS, you may as well have promised not to go skating on the iced over river, before immediately putting on a pair of ice-skates and proceeding to go skating on the river. It's unlikely that anybody is going to take an action to stop you; but if the ice cracks, nobody is likely to do anything to save you either." Seems the ice may have cracked sooner than I had anticipated... which is my fault really it was a blistering 34° out here this very morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)- Is there anything actually wrong with the edits to the polticial topics? GiantSnowman 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Some of his edits where WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is there anything actually wrong with the edits to the polticial topics? GiantSnowman 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Swarm I asked the blocking admin in December whether I was bond to any editing restrictions. Here and here they say no, so long as I am not being disruptive, but make a recommendation that I do not edit politics. I even asked if there should be formal restrictions, but Tony told me to just use my judgement. Shrike was aware of these diffs back in December.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TheGracefulSlick: if you promised not to edit politics, and the blocking admin advised you not to edit politics, why are you now editing politics? GiantSnowman 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman because Tony stated
I interpreted it as you describing how you would act. I don’t think a formal restriction on “controversial” things would work because that’s essentially anything on Wikipedia and has no easy definition. I think my close was clear that if you were disruptive you’d likely be blocked again, but it’s not a topic ban from controversy or anything of that sort
; he was accurate in that interpretation and I regrettably was too ambiguous in my unblock appeal. However, as I have already stated, I will gladly accept formal restrictions. I just need to know them so we can avoid more of this unnecessary drama.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)- I'd be inclined to introduce formal restrictions until we can actually trust you. Going back on your word so soon is incredibly disappointing. GiantSnowman 16:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I had no issue with restrictions in December and I have none now. I never went back on my word, I merely followed the interpretation of the admin who unblocked me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, you have gone back on your word. You said that "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months" - and yet you're editing present-day politics areas! Either you don't realise that you have gone back on your word, or you are lying (poorly); I don't know which is worse. GiantSnowman 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fine, I’ll agree I went back on my word; I am not really here to argue the point. I will readily accept any formal restrictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC) restrictions as I was a month ago.
- No, you have gone back on your word. You said that "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months" - and yet you're editing present-day politics areas! Either you don't realise that you have gone back on your word, or you are lying (poorly); I don't know which is worse. GiantSnowman 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I had no issue with restrictions in December and I have none now. I never went back on my word, I merely followed the interpretation of the admin who unblocked me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to introduce formal restrictions until we can actually trust you. Going back on your word so soon is incredibly disappointing. GiantSnowman 16:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman because Tony stated
- @TheGracefulSlick: if you promised not to edit politics, and the blocking admin advised you not to edit politics, why are you now editing politics? GiantSnowman 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- In case anyone is wondering about any good I am doing, I did recently nominate Gunther von Kluge for GA review after helping expand it considerably. I created the article on Herbert Lee, soon to be a DYK. I created Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis and also expanded Hereditary. Granted, my editing has gone down lately on account of my academics, but I am doing the best I can in a limited timeframe.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This editor voluntarily made a firm and clearcut commitment to the community as part of their successful effort to get unblocked well before the usual six months had passed. They promised to refrain from editing controversial topic areas such as politics for six months, and to seek adminstrator review of their behavior before beginning to edit articles of this type. They promptly broke their commitment and have persisted despite several editors and adminstrators expressing grave concern. This is a collaborative project and it is important that each of us do our best to keep the promises we make, especially if the promise is made during an effort to persuade the community to lift a sanction. I believe that the sanction should be reimposed, because I cannot believe anything this person says anymore. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
While disappointing, these actions of TheGracefulSlick are not surprising (disclosure: I did not support the unblock in November); a firm commitment was made "to apply the lessons the editors at WikiNews taught me. I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator." None of these actions were taken. While it is excellent that the user is doing "good", it really doesn't negate or counterbalance the fact that the community was lied to and deceived. I do not necessarily think that they should be reblocked as Cullen328 suggests, though i would not oppose it, but at a minimum the commitment TheGracefulSlick made should be formalised and made clear to them ~ as if they didn't already understand it. They should be very definitely banned from any "controversial topic areas" for an absolute minimum of six months, and then their actions reviewed. Happy days, LindsayHello 19:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am not happy at all with this development. During the unblock discussion I offered a weak support, accepting their promised self imposed editing restrictions as a condition of their being unblocked. My trust in this editor, already weak given their previous behavior, has been severely damaged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- If someone can show me one problematic edit that has been made since the ban was lifted I will support restrictions. Otherwise, we are placing restrictions for solely punitive reasons, and we should not be doing that. Neutral until then. Fish+Karate 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like I explained before some of his edits were indeed disruptive WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not disruptive, removing a list of dead is entirely in line with WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
- This does not seem disruptive to me, adding a single sourced sentence.
- This does not either, making an edit once about the presence (or not) of an image, which was reverted, and no further editing.
- I appreciate the point that the user said they would to stay out of such topics, but again, I would have to see evidence of problematic editing before I could support restrictions. I'm not opposing, just neutral. I imagine I'll be in the minority here, but there we are. Fish+Karate 13:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is the issue for me, too. Yes, it may well have been underhanded to promise this to the community and then go back on it - but unless reimposing the restrictions can be shown to be actually preventing disruption, they shouldn't be reimposed. I'm not a fan of users taking advantage of the community's trust in this way, but sanctions have to be preventative. GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Drive by reverting, with no discussion, is aggressive. But the greater issue here is making a commitment to the community to get unblocked, and then choosing no to abide by it (almost immediately) - which is disruptive. The commitment to avoid controversial topics such as politics has context - TheGracefulSlick's 2018 sockpuppet double-voted at a terrorism related AfD(TGS's original vote diff) - they were promising to avoid a topic area that got them in serious trouble previously. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like I explained before some of his edits were indeed disruptive WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm curious to see what TonyBallioni has to say about this matter as the unblocking admin. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I really did not want to get involved. But I have followed this situation from a distance. Here it is really clear in my opinion that TonyBallioni unblocked TGS in good faith and with restrictions to certain topics that was agreed upon by both parties. If then the editor in question quite fast starts ignoring the agreed restrictions and edits certain articles anyway within weeks then that in my opinion is a breach of the agreed rules concerning the editors unblock. Bbb23 did not support unblocking TGS before the 6 months had gone by, Tony gave TGS the benefit of the doubt. I see a breach of trust here. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The question is: would the unblocking admin have unblocked TGS without such assurances having been made... ——SerialNumber54129 18:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: The community consensus was to unblock TGS. Tony assessed consensus. The key question is whether the community's decision was influenced by TGS's later broken promise. I revisited the discussion and I didn't see any editors who supported unblocking expressly saying that the promise influenced their support vote. Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't. For me, personally, by socking TGS breached the trust of the community. The broken promise is another example of such a breach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to pings: as Bbb23 pointed out, there was community consensus to unblock: I only assessed. I’ve already stated my view that I don’t think “controversial topics” is defined enough to be a formal sanction, which is why I didn’t log it. I read it as a good faith promise that the community or other admins were free to look to in assessing future sanctions if there was disruption. If the community feels it appropriate to formalize sanctions to specific topic areas, that is fine by me, but I’ll leave it to another admin to assess consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I want to bring up the intensity of TGF's record problematic political editing, including a few ecamples that did not, I think, come up in the discussion leading to the recent suspension. These include:
- Undiscussed blanking and redirect of 2013 Bat Yam bus bombing, here: [55].
- Undiscussed blank and redirect of 2011 Tel Aviv truck attack, here: [56]
- Other pages GracfulSlick peremptorily blanked are discussed at Talk:2011 Tel Aviv truck attack. These include 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, and Ramat Eshkol bus bombing.
- She improperly closed an AfD, and was admonished on it at Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack .
- In addition, she re-nominated a terrorist attack for deletion only 9 weeks after the 1st nomination closed as KEEP Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (2nd nomination), accusing editors who had iVoted Keep the 1st time of "ignorance" and "ignor(ing) policy."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I am disappointed with TheGracefulSlick (=TGS) here, I thought he would show more maturity that to dive straight back into WP:ARBPIA territory, when he said (in his unblock request) that he would not. Just not....very clever. To be blunt: TGS needs to grow up, if he wants to continue edit wp. (From what I understand: he is not an old guy, ie there should be room for an improvement). TGS should know by now that when you edit ARBPIA topics someone will monitor your every edit. However, I think it would be a great loss to Wikipedia to ban him indefinitely: I have seen some of the very fine work he has done. 6 months imposed topic ban seem about right, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Vote
OK lets asses the community consensus here is a three proposals that where raised during preliminary discussion(users may add other options or tweak existent)
- As the unblock was granted based on a statement subsequently found to contain material misrepresentations, restore the indefinite block.
- As TheGracefulSlick is not abiding to their voluntary commitment to avoid the topic area for six months (and
"honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator"
prior to returning), convert the voluntary commitment to a WP:TBAN from WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, and terrorist attacks. TheGracefulSlick may appeal the TBAN in six months time at AN or to closing administrator that will evaluate his progress - The ban should be seen as voluntary and vacated
- Support option 2 as first choice per my arguments before and option 1 as a second choice--Shrike (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support option 2 - After reading the above discussion I think TGS may do a better job at avoiding the editing area after the restriction is formally logged and the boundaries are better defined.--NØ 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- A voluntary ban is voluntary and may be broken or rescinded at any time. If the community seeks a full sanction they should enact one. As no logged sanction here is being violated I would say no action is needed. There was a thread here awhile ago about enforcing voluntary sanctions but of course I can’t find it now. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support option 2 - It is evident per the unblock request and approval of said unblock that TGS had a clear agreement with the admin concerning restrictions/ban of certain topics. A voluntary ban is still a ban from these topics.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)- Support option 2 as the best outcome since there is is little support for option 1, and option 3 rewards deception. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support option 2 as their promise to stay away from these areas was a major factor in them being unblocked in the first place.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Option 2Changing to Support Indef, as per Swarm Sir Joseph (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)- Support indef, oppose option 2 Noting that to pledge to stay away from political topics, and immediately nominate the Toledo synagogue attack plot for deletion was a remarkable demonstration of bad faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef, oppose option 2 - Option 2 has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is not the need to enforce the broken promise. The problem isn't disruptive editing in controversial topic areas, that's not even the point. TGS is not, and never has been, a bad content worker, in fact, they're a good one. They don't need a TBAN. The issue is the continued manipulative and deceptive behavior, which quite simply means that we can't trust anything they said in their supposed good-faith unblock request, which everyone was so impressed by. This is exactly what myself and several other editors were worried about, and something that has been a problem going back years (not only did they subsequently ignore the unblock condition imposed on that account, but they continued to pretend to be friends with the user they were harassing with that sock). We can see that obviously they haven't changed, and obviously we were wrong to believe in their unblock request, and they don't even take the concerns about the community's destroyed trust seriously. The indef should be reinstated. A TBAN has nothing to do with the problem. Either we let this deceptive behavior slide, again, and decide to trust them, again, because TGS is a "good editor", or we actually draw a line and reinstate the indef. I don't think we have any reason to continue to trust TGS either way, but I would rather see TGS free to edit than slapped with a pointless TBAN that's completely unrelated to the actual problem. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef, oppose option 2 - I also had to change my !vote. This is clear deception as Cullen328 stated. And option 2 will most likely only give TGS another opportunity to be deceptive at this point. I think that the editor recieved a huge straw with the good faith decision of Tony to unblock, sadly TGS did not take this opportunity. BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef - TGS does a lot of useful work but like I said previously, the unblock was premature and their rationale was incomplete and as evident now, rather deceptive. It appears that they are helplessly drawn to controversial topic areas with all of their problematic editing behaviours intact, and I think the proposed topic ban scope would only delay the inevitable. Alex Shih (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support 6 months topic ban, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef. Since at least December 2015 (if not before and merely unnoticed), TGS has engaged in a clear and frankly outrageous pattern of deception and also harassment. The fact that he is a prolific content creator and also a commentator at noticeboards blinded many people to this side of him. But it's as clear as day that he is not going to stop this pattern (he is still playing hifalutin' games with the admins calling him out on his talkpage), and that no matter how many restrictions or TBans or IBans are placed on him, he will still find a way to be both deceptive and disruptive. It simply seems to be part of his nature, unfortunately. We can't allow such a liability to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Request for partial history deletion on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch
There is a page, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, that was made on November 16, 2018 by Favre1fan93, regarding the in-development series. The series iself was announced as "Vision and the Scarlet Witch" by a Deadline Hollywood source (which later removed the title), while the current title, "The Vision and Scarlet Witch", was announced with a report from The Hollywood Reporter. Robberey1705 created a separate page after The Hollywood Reporter report under the name "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" and further worked on the page despite a more-developed article, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, having already been made. I proposed a deletion request of the Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch so the Draft:Vision and Scarlet Witch page could be renamed and moved to that title, as it was the first draft article made. RHaworth acted upon my request by merging the history of Robberey1705's Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch into the history of Favre1fan93's Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch. Since merging the history of the two pages was not my request, I'd like to see if the revisions from Robberey1705's draft were deleted from the page as it was from a separate page that doesn't need to exist, and should not have been made in the first place. The selected revisions to be deleted are starting from this revision (the first by Robberey1705 on his own draft) up until this revision by RHaworth of him merging the histories together with a rename to the proper title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Unban request for Thepoliticsexpert
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thepoliticsexpert (talk · contribs) has requested that their ban be lifted. Here's their statement:
I hereby humbly craft an unban request on my own talk page further to the guidance received from administrator @Just Chilling: on 9.7.19 that “Check User has raised no objection to your appeal moving to the next stage. In order to be unbanned your appeal will need to be taken to the Community for a full discussion and there would need to be Community consensus that you should be unbanned.” I therefore humbly ask that the reviewing admin take my unban request to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN for community discussion along with the following text could be put to the community as my grounds for unban: ‘ I have gone over 6 months now without any sockpuppets - I have not used any Wikis for editing/contributing in any way in this time - and would like to apologise for all my previous actions which I regret. I would like to request an unblock because I want to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia again. I was previously unemployed (hence I had time to sockpuppet). I'm now in full time employment so my contributions would be small but of high quality and would do so in my free time but don't worry - I wouldn't have time to sockpuppet! I now understand what sock puppetry is, and so know how to avoid it. I think all the former accounts I created when sockpuppeting have been blocked anyway, but can confirm I have no account on Wikipedia other than this one, and have no intention of creating any others. I will only use this sole account to edit Wikipedia if unbanned, if i’m not unbanned (if I don't receive a consensus from the community for the unban) I will continue to respect the ban by simply not contributing'. Thank you in advance to the admin reviewing this unblock request for your kind assistance with this matter, as well as to Just Chilling and the checker for your help too. Yours sincerely, thepoliticsexpert 21:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The sockpuppet investigation is available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thepoliticsexpert/Archive and there's a rather long list of sockpuppet accounts at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Thepoliticsexpert. Yunshui states: "There is a not-inconsiderable amount of activity on the IP range from which this appeal was sent (which appears to correspond to a range previously used by thepoliticsexpert) but given the breadth of that range, this isn't surprising. There's no definitive evidence that any of those users are thepoliticsexpert, but if he told the truth at 1 it's entirely plausible. "Consent" (or the denial of such) was not intended to be implied; I was simply providing additional information which wasn't available to the previous reviewer." (source: User_talk:Thepoliticsexpert) The block was made by Bbb23, who I will notify. I noted that the block became a ban under WP:3X, based on WP:SPI evidence of repeated sockpuppetry and block evasion. At least two of the sockpuppet accounts were based on my username, so I'm unsure if this makes me involved. I take no current position on whether this user should be unbanned and unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thepoliticsexpert and Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert in mind before making any decisions or conclusions anyone. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm all right with letting someone back in after a "normal" first block, but with this massive history of disruption, I say no. More than eighty disruptive accounts! Maybe after one or two disruptive sockpuppets, but this many accounts, I don't think we can ever trust the operator. One of the SPIs pointed to User:5.69.92.250, a Sky UK Limited IP that geolocates to western London; if this is the kind of IPs that Thepoliticsexpert has routinely used, I don't see any problems with the activity, since there are lots and lots of people in western London who use a major telecommunications company. However, even if we assume that he's telling the truth there, and that all 10 extended-confirmed accounts and all 60 autoconfirmed accounts (not to mention the other 1,930 or more accounts) have been blocked or forgotten about to the point that he'll never be able to access them, his history of disruption is too extensive. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose largely per Nyttend. Their track record is far too egregious for an unblock this soon. Come back in two years. If there is no evidence of socking, I'd be willing to talk about an unblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. The community cannot unblock a CU-blocked user unless a CheckUser consents. As far as I know, that has not happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support immediate close per Bbb23 and WP:SNOW. Even w/o the CU issue, it is inconceivable that the community would agree to unblock this editor after only six months. Seriously. If they want to pursue this they can take it to ARBCOM, but I believe it would be a waste of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- There's clearly no chance of an unban or an unblock here. I also agree that ARBCOM would be a waste of time. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I support a WP:SNOW close on this (but believe it would be inappropriate for me to close off the thread). --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yamla, thank you for being careful, but that's actually not something inappropriate. Any time you propose something and then change your mind, you're free to close it as "withdrawn" if it's gotten no input or if the proposal's only been opposed. I've closed it in that way. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- There's clearly no chance of an unban or an unblock here. I also agree that ARBCOM would be a waste of time. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I support a WP:SNOW close on this (but believe it would be inappropriate for me to close off the thread). --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Admin help needed with error message
I had a problem which I discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cannot log on through TOR. My problem was fixed, but in the process we identified a place where we could improve one of our error messages. One suggestion was:
A local version of MediaWiki:Sessionfailure can be created and edited by administrators. It could link Help:Logging in.
Could someone read the thread and look into creating such a page? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Notice of accidental block
Hi, just a note that I blocked Special:Contributions/90.241.4.206 while thinking I was looking at Meta. I realized right away when I noticed that the wiki logo was different and undid the action, but wanted to leave a note here in case anyone was concerned. Related, the IP might be worth blocking if it continues. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ajraddatz, don't worry; nobody's going to object if you quickly self-undo a bad block. My only objection is that you shouldn't have undone the block; although you were at a different project, the IP in question deserved a block here, too, so I've reverted your self-reversion and re-blocked for a week. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Notification of BAG nomination
I am just writing this to inform AN that I have requested to join the Bot Approvals Group (BAG). I invite your thoughts on the nomination subpage, which is located here. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ahllam
I have a request for admins to please revisit the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahllam (Iranian singer) as I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12. TnksReza Amper (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reza Amper, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place for this. If your best argument is to repeat the argument you've already made in the discussion then you would probably be wasting everybody's time. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Asking for a review of my protection
Earlier today, I reacted on a request at WP:RFPP and fully protected Mann Gulch fire because of edit-warring and content dispute. One of the edit-warring users, CerroFerro, was apparently upset about the protection. They left me a talk page message accusing me in "hijacking the page" and suggesting that I should be blocked, without actually giving a link so that I could not understand what they were talking about [57]. When I asked them what the fuck they were talking about, they called me a "foulmouthed" administrator [58], and when I asked that they crossed this out they instead suggested that I should refer to myself "Mr. What the fuck" [59]. Since my administratve actions seldome cause such an expressive reaction, it is possible that I have done something wrong before asking what the fuck they were referring to (which is a pretty much common expression, but apparently they have taken in as offence, which I did not mean it to be). Therefore I request an independent review of my protection of this page. May be indeed I hijacked the page and should be blocked, I do not know. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- A small correction: I capitalized the "F" in the proposed moniker. CerroFerro (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/The_Wrong_Version.svg/220px-The_Wrong_Version.svg.png)
You obviously protected the wrong version, you clod. Seriously though, CerroFerro, you might want to contemplate what other options an admin has in such cases (like blocking you for edit warring) and reconsider your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- No issues with the protection. CerroFerro has clearly put some effort into that article, but they need to focus on reaching consensus for all or a part of the content they wish to add, rather than continuing to edit-war over the exact change that they made, which is only likely to end in escalating blocks. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, having reviewed all of this exchange, if CerroFerro doesn't moderate their tone the next time they log in, I for one am willing to issue an immediate civility block; this was completely unacceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- [edit conflict with Vanamonde's 22:25 comment] I saw that RFPP request earlier, and I wasn't at all interested in handling it at the time, because I really did consider it the wrong version. At 2042, Montanabw reverts to his preferred version with a rationale of "edit-warring", and then at 2043 requests protection on edit-warring grounds and requests a reversion to status quo ante bellum. (1) When a page has had recent edits from only two individuals, and neither one's been doing blatant vandalism or anything comparable, either nobody's been edit-warring, or both editors are guilty of it. (2) Reverting for the mere reason of "edit-warring" isn't generally a good idea, and it's definitely not if you're one of the parties. (3) Protecting and then reverting to status quo ante bellum, when one party's preferred version is what that party calls status quo ante bellum, is definitely picking sides. (4) Had this request come when the other party's preferred version was active, things would be different ("anything is better than edit-warring, so let's stick with the bad version instead of fighting"), but given the fact that protection was requested immediately after reversion, this sounds solidly like "please protect my version", especially as days were passing between reversions, so there was no significant chance of CerroFerro making any edits before someone saw it at RFPP. (5) Consequently, I consider both parties to have acted improperly, and the only way I'd consider protection appropriate is if CerroFerro's version is displayed until protection ends. [This is not a comment on Ymblanter, who probably didn't notice most of the items I raise.] I'm not sure what to do, but we can't treat this as if CerroFerro's the only one to blame. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- As an aside, I'm sure it's a difference of culture and situation, but I struggle to think of a real life situation in my life where someone could ask "what the fuck" another person is talking about without offence being given. I realise that for some people this is everyday language, but those people need to consider that for other people it isn't, and err on the side of not stirring up needless trouble. GoldenRing (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)