Ivanvector (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 494: | Line 494: | ||
*'''Comment''' I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shrike&diff=879855216&oldid=879844634&diffmode=source] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of [[WP:BATTLE]] behavior because I didn't allow his [[WP:POV]] [[Template:Did you know nominations/Enclave law|a DYK]] nomination to be presented as he wanted--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shrike&diff=879855216&oldid=879844634&diffmode=source] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of [[WP:BATTLE]] behavior because I didn't allow his [[WP:POV]] [[Template:Did you know nominations/Enclave law|a DYK]] nomination to be presented as he wanted--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
:BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=878178917 this] also wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=879609090 this]. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=867068917 organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state] also wrote "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". Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated [[WP:BAN]]. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote ''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?'', please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)</small> |
There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=878178917 this] also wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=879609090 this]. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=867068917 organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state] also wrote "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". Or hell, just count the commas in the AN complaint and the ones in Shrike's response above. Compare the number of run-on sentences. Compare the grammar of "I didn't edited on behalf" and the literally perfect prose of the AN complaint. Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated [[WP:BAN]]. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote ''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?'', please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)</small> |
||
== New OTRS queues == |
== New OTRS queues == |
Revision as of 17:42, 14 February 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 | 44 | 58 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standard offer unblock of User:My Lord?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following an SPI report, I blocked My Lord (talk · contribs) on July 18, 2018 for abusive use of sockpuppet accounts IndianEditor (talk · contribs), Iamgod12345 (talk · contribs), GhostProducer (talk · contribs), and CEO of Universe (talk · contribs). After initial denials, My Lord admitted to operating the account(s), and while there could have been valid real-life identity concerns (which I won't spell out) for starting the first alternate account those wouldn't explain away the multiple socks and how they were used. Subsequent to the block, based on behavioral evidence, suspicions were raised that My Lord was also behind the Adding The Truth (talk · contribs) account. My Lord has denied the linkage and admin opinions on the strength of the bahavioral evidence has differed. On the plus side: afaik My Lord has not socked during the duration of their block and their past editing has shown that they are at least capable of making useful contributions to the project. In light of all this, and as I had suggested at the time the current block was placed, My Lord has requested an unblock as per the standard offer. My recommendation: I am inclined to grant a conditional unblock, with the user, however, being topic banned from "India-Pakistan conflict" related articles, discussions etc. Please see the discussion at the user's talkpage for reasons why such a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA may be helpful and justified; if this is the path taken then the continued need for the topic-ban itself can be re-evaluated after, say, six months.
I invite other admins and the community to chime in on whether they think a continued block, conditional unblock or an unconditional unblock would be the best course forward here. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would feel fine with conditional unblock if there is no check user evidence of socking by My Lord or Adding The Truth. Though the connection is behavioral only, there should be caution before unblocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Almost forgot I would also need to know the user is not using proxies, unless there is a valid reason to do so.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- CU said "inconclusive" and behavioral evidence was too flimsy. It was not long after the SPI that the filing editor was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE for engaging in this proxy editing[4] and he himself claims that his account was being used by someone else with his permission.[5] Another SPI was also filed by a proxy editor, who was later topic banned for it.[6] What if these circumstances were revealed before? No one would be blocking Adding The Truth and My Lord. 39.33.95.29 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ironic The sock detector was proven to have used sock puppets leading to their block. Leaving aside Adding The Truth. They admitted to socking. However, that was then; this is now. If they have abided by the terms of their standard offer then they can be unblocked. And so far, I see no indication they have not.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to
support(changed opinion, see comment below Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)) unblocking, and note that I'm the admin that made the call in the Adding The Truth case (I did not have checkuser access at the time) and have been challenged on that call extensively. The relevant consideration for SO is that there is no evidence of socking in the last six months, and my opinion as someone who's looked at this case very extensively is that there is not. As I said on My Lord's talk page I will not check this account myself owing to past administrative disagreements, but I have assurances from another checkuser that there's nothing to report. I did not ask about proxies, though. We had some back-and-forth on the talk page already, it might be relevant reading for anyone considering the request. I cannot support this unconditionally: My Lord has stated they intend to dive in to active editorial conflicts, and at first I offered advice that they should not, but the appearance of other familiar names from those conflicts makes me think that unblocking without a topic ban from the India-Pakistan conflict is just going to be asking for trouble. tl;dr: yes to unblock, but only with conditions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC) - Note A few minutes after starting this section, Abecedare unblocked My Lord with a rationale of unblock so user can participate in AN discussion on standard offer unblock request. Clearly this has not been abused so far, since My Lord last edited yesterday. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock as a no-brainer. My Lord is known for catching some of the most disruptive sockmasters in the area of India-Pakistan conflicts,[7][8][9] all of whom are now sitebanned, and for bringing great quality to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus,[10][11] Kargil War,[12] Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts,[13] and many other articles. Having him blocked over a block evasion in 2017 (from which he had already learned) is punitive and unusual in nature since SPIs frequently get rejected for "not showing recent abuse". CU never confirmed any recent socking by My Lord since the time he was blocked. My Lord's adherence to the terms of WP:SO, something that most editors fails to do, further strengthens my comments. Orientls (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock and keeping unblocked as is. Given the lack of any evidence of problematic editing, I am mentioning that SPIs were filed by socks and meat puppets who were sanctioned for it very soon,[14][15] and to keep My Lord blocked or sanctioned any longer under flimsy causes would only entertain the disruptive block-shopping behavior and discourage productive editing. 39.33.95.29 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional unblock, per Ivanvector, Abecedare, and Huon at User Talk:My Lord. I don't want to rehash everything that others have said on that talk page; suffice to say that I would prefer to see My Lord demonstrate an ability to edit constructively and collaboratively outside of this highly contentious area before diving back into the same conflicts that precipitated their previous socking. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock: User:MyLord was blocked for a six-month period for sockpuppetry, which in my opinion, is enough of a censure for that offense. He has created geography and religion-related articles on Wikipedia, such as Zeashta Devi Shrine and Point 5240, which have been helpful to the project. As such, his request to be reinstated as a productive editor should be honoured. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional unblock - yes, the behavioural problems that led to the block of My Lord's sock account(s) were displayed quite some time ago. However, they have never been addressed, and by focusing solely on the sockpuppetry issue (or the lack of a recent such issue) My Lord is avoiding to address them now while indicating that he wants to return to just the same topic area. Huon (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support only with indefinite TBAN I'm undecided whether the TBAN should be from IP-conflict or all IPA topics. The ban should be indefinite with an appeal to AE or AN after six months on a showing of constructive editing elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock Technically, the issue of sock puppetry was resolved much before since he had been only using his main account for a long time. I don't see any sense "topic ban" or any demands since no one is producing any diffs to justify this unwarranted sanction, though the evidence for opposite significantly exists. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock. There is always a chance to go awry and go nuts in wiki for some time, I presume there should be a chance given to come back to normalcy, (return to civility) if the user has shown these signs why not unblock him unconditionally ?. --Shrikanthv (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional unblock only. Let us see if My Lord can edit productively in other areas before letting them back into the area that caused the issue in the first place. I note that pretty much every editor above asking for an unconditional unblock is a user in the IPA area, which isn't a good sign. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock for the exact same reason Black Kite opposes it above. If ML is going to go back to doing what got him blocked (which would be very stupid given the number of editor who will be watching), it is best that we find out right away. Anyone who thinks that WP:STANDARDOFFER should specify an additional topic ban after the six months, they should discuss it on the talk page for that essay (or perhaps at WP:ROPE) and see if the community agrees. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock persuaded this would be a net positive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock - currently there hasn't been clear provision of evidence by the TBAN-proposers - I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's conclusive. Primary ban was for socks. I'm not sure how much benefit this will bring - any violation will get him rebanned regardless. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock - no topic ban was ever placed, and there's no evidence that has been supplied that suggests there was a particular issue in the user's editing in "India-Pakistan conflict"-related articles. If we trust an editor to be unblocked we should initially assume good faith and let them edit without restrictions, as with all editors returning from a block someone is bound to be monitoring their contributions. Fish+Karate 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock - I don't find the evidence of misconduct conclusive. My memory may not be that good here, but I don't recall any serious issues with ML's editing under that particular account (other than the usual par for the course). Moreover, if we believe that ML won't be able to edit in a policy-directed way, it is better that such editing happens in the India-Pakistan conflict area which is closely watched. Overflow into other areas is not in anybody's interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock. I only see evidence of the fact that ML has been a net positive to IPA and India-Pakistan space and has indeed done a great work in both article and Wikipedia space related to this area. Sure some people would personally disagree with his edits but there is no reason not to accept his unblock request since he has been thoroughly helpful. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose without conditions (restating a "support" opinion I wrote above) - those looking for evidence of My Lord's past disruptive behaviour in the India-Pakistan topic should look to the editing histories, talk page histories, and block logs of their admitted socks IndianEditor (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and GhostProducer (talk · contribs · logs · block log), the behaviour which led to their blocks which My Lord has never acknowledged (i.e. this is not just a sockpuppetry block), and that My Lord fervently denied these connections while evading their blocks right up to last July when they were backed into a corner and admitted everything. I'm also concerned that many of the editors writing here that My Lord's past sockpuppetry should be unconditionally forgiven are the same editors that agitated for NadirAli to be sitebanned for exactly the same offence, and have argued for sitebans for other opponents for much lesser infractions. It's an obvious double standard that does not bode well for participation in this Arbcom-sanctioned topic area.
- I feel the sentiment from some here that we should just unblock and wait for My Lord to screw up and be blocked again, I know WP:ROPE and all and I often agree. If it were a matter of not being confident that an editor is going to avoid repeating their disruptive behaviour then ROPE is a decent approach. But this is not that: it's not a matter of whether or not My Lord will jump right in to one of the most embittered conflicts on Wikipedia, they've already said they're definitely going to. That ought to set off alarm bells, and if not then all their old friends showing up here to cheer them on definitely should. The topic seems to be reasonably stable now (I haven't seen a huge ANI thread about it in at least a few months) and a lot of admins and editors have spent a great deal of time getting to that point, but taking the ROPE approach here is almost certain to destroy that stability.
- I support unblocking My Lord, just repeating it to be clear, and I look forward to seeing what they get to work on. We had a brief conversation about it on their talk page and I think those are some good ideas. But I'm very wary about how this is playing out with respect to the India-Pakistan conflict. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Re "it's not a matter of whether or not My Lord will jump right in to one of the most embittered conflicts on Wikipedia, they've already said they're definitely going to", could I have a link to where they said that? Not arguing or disagreeing, but I like to verify claims when they affect whether someone is blocked or banned. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, here is probably the first time where ML indicated his plans. He is quite upfront about it, which I appreciate. I am not overly worried about POV-pushing possibilities there. Notice how my mediation at Talk:Hizbul Mujahideen was quickly accepted. On the other hand, I would be more worried about pages like Jaggi Vasudev, which tend to generate endless drama. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector, couldn't you provide diffs in place of speculating the contributions? One can find India-only related edits in all accounts of My Lord except his main account when it concerns India-Pakistan conflict and they seem problem-free. NadirAli was a package of CIR and NOTHERE who socked every day, that's why he was sitebanned for second time. Why he should be mentioned? If you would like to discuss "obvious double standard" then consider mentioning Nauriya who was not blocked for his continued CIR and socking in July 2018, yet My Lord was blocked for his past socking. Nauriya managed to get himself sitebanned, which is something anyone can tell My Lord never will. It doesn't matters if My Lord edits India-Pakistan conflict since evidence establishes that he was a productive editor. Now instead of settling scores for the opposing side, you need learn to examine the credibility of each case on its own merits. 41.246.26.55 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's no speculation. My Lord suggested that their last 50 article contribs indicated which topics they meant to edit, but after I pointed out that 39 of those contribs were rollbacks ([16]), My Lord responded: "After unblock, I will continue working on Kargil war (there is a dispute there with which I can help[17]), Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Point 5240 and bring each of these articles to GA level." I didn't say at the time but I appreciate the honesty, I think it's a good marker and bodes well for future contribs, but I still think it's a bad idea to come off an indef going straight into India-Pakistan conflicts. I think it would be a bad idea for anyone, but My Lord has been specifically involved in those conflicts previously. I just don't see it going well, and I actually don't want to set them up to fail, regardless of what anyone here thinks about my motivations. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This user was not exactly famed for their honesty. A troublesome trait of My Lord was lying in their edit summaries. In particular they would claim consensus for their edits/reverts (on ARBIPA pages no less) where none existed.[18] For example he lied[19] that there was consensus for his edit on Violence against women during the partition of India when in fact there was none.[20] He behaved similar on the Kashmiris article. To add to all this, he also lied to Sitush that he had never had any other account on Wikipedia.[21] I don't even need to mention his initial lying on the SPI. Ivanvector can elaborate on that. Before allowing him to edit again we need some sort of guarantee that the habit of lying won't continue. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Citing a frivolous report that ended up with "no action" only puts My Lord in a better light. While I can see you are engaging in aggressive POV pushing on both of these articles, it also appears that there is clear consensus in favor of My Lord's edits as the talk pages shows even when he was not editing.[22] Maybe you could be more honest with your first edit ever to this page[23] but at this moment you are only poisoning the well. 39.33.55.198 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- @My Lord: Now would be a good time to do as Guy Macon asked on your talk page and to respond here so as to . . .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ROPE and the conditions of WP:SO having been met in good faith. If the problems return later, we can always reblock. --Jayron32 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support When a productive editor screws up badly, and then does what is required to be readmitted to the community, I generally believe they should be given the chance. As Jayron notes above, if problematic behavior returns then reblocking is just a matter of three clicks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see User talk:My Lord#AN. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have given this some thought but I'm not convinced that My Lord should ever be unblocked. His dishonesty was so pervasive that he can't be trusted again one bit. See for example this edit summary here on an India-Pakistan war article[24]. A search of that page's edit history shows there was no deletion and restoration of that (well-sourced) section before My Lord deleted it. His edit summary was a lie. Once a liar is always a liar. And My Lord has lied many, many times. His behaviour on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus was especially egregious. His tactic was to bludgeon his way through the dispute process by citing unresolved discussions in his edit summaries to support his changes.[25] Not only was this user a liar but he also harassed Mar4d and NadirAli.[26] This user is of no value to the encyclopedia. Some good faith editors are of the opinion that My Lord can always be re-blocked if he repeats his disruption but I should point out that administrators have typically ignored clear evidence of his disruption. Sandstein closed an AE report about him merely because there was no other administrator interested.[27] (I also note here that Sandstein found the first batch of diffs presented there unactionable, but he did say he did not examine the rest of the evidence. Several editors pointed out that the next piece of evidence showed clear dishonest conduct from My Lord). I am also noting the (clearly non co-incidental) proliferation of IPs[28][29] from random corners of the globe who are popping in here just to defend My Lord. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Fabricate all you want but edit summary here was accurate and this discussion shows consensus was in favor of My Lord, and even the present version of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus supports these edits. Reporting a topic banned editor for his topic ban violation is a productive work. Admins have already dealt with these diffs and that is why Sandstein had closed the report as "no action" because the report was extremely frivolous. Your personal attacks, false accusations and aspersions would rather justify a prohibition on you from contributing to Wikipedia. After all an SPA like you who has done nothing except promoting a particular fringe POV is a net negative. 39.33.84.145 (talk)
- @Dilpa kaur and 39.33.84.145: both of you, make sure those are the last personal attacks you write in this thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was curious about the liar label repeated four times, based on "some thought" and a "search of the page's edit history". The content in question was added by a notorious sockmaster Faizan/Towns Hill on 11 April 2017, deleted on 13 May 2017 as a block evasion edit, and reinstanted on 15 May 2017. This clearly validates ML's edit summary:
remove section restored without discussion
. I am also curious though how this particular edit showed up on Dilpa kaur's radar screen, which was well before her account was created and on a page that she never touched. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was curious about the liar label repeated four times, based on "some thought" and a "search of the page's edit history". The content in question was added by a notorious sockmaster Faizan/Towns Hill on 11 April 2017, deleted on 13 May 2017 as a block evasion edit, and reinstanted on 15 May 2017. This clearly validates ML's edit summary:
- Neutral on unblock,
but a little concerned that at least two IPs with no other edits have argued against oppose votes, when the subject was blocked for sockpuppetry.O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- You may want to know that IPs are human too. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not concerned. It's one of our very capable and knowledgeable IP editors who for whatever reason has not registered. It's dynamic. The editing style is different from ML's.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, both of the IP editors here (there are two, despite the multiple addresses) are editing from locations which are different from what I have presumed is My Lord's location, though my assumption is based on things that other checkusers and editors have written on Wikipedia since I said I was staying out of checking this myself. One is on a different continent. I'm not saying that they're definitely not being used inappropriately, but I'm as certain as I can be that they're not My Lord. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- True Dlohcierekim. I was also editing Sardar Arif Shah a few hours ago, though that won't appear on contribution history of a single IP because they are dynamic. 41.246.26.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/41.246.26.0/24, more or less. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks - I wasn't aware that the IP was dynamic, so I've struck my concern. It just smelt a little fish, or rather meaty (and with social media nowadays location is not so much of a factor), but I'm happy to accept the explanation. O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/41.246.26.0/24, more or less. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- True Dlohcierekim. I was also editing Sardar Arif Shah a few hours ago, though that won't appear on contribution history of a single IP because they are dynamic. 41.246.26.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, both of the IP editors here (there are two, despite the multiple addresses) are editing from locations which are different from what I have presumed is My Lord's location, though my assumption is based on things that other checkusers and editors have written on Wikipedia since I said I was staying out of checking this myself. One is on a different continent. I'm not saying that they're definitely not being used inappropriately, but I'm as certain as I can be that they're not My Lord. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, Dilpa kaur has raised a serious point about the edit summaries. To restore controversial content with an edit summary which merely links to an ongoing dispute about said content[30][31] is impermissible. It creates a misperception that the discussion has a consensus for one's edit. It also impedes the consensus building process. It should be remembered that these reverts were done while discussion was still taking place. The disputes had not been resolved then. Code16 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose : The administrator Ivanvector has outlined some concerns, which I find genuine and tend to agree with him. ~~ Arslan-San 10:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose because My Lord wasn't just blocked for socking. His other accounts were indeffed for tendentious editing. Ivanvector has pointed that out. FreeKashmiri (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ivanvector. Alive4islam (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I have no considered opinion on this request at the moment, but I am puzzled by the out-of-the-blue "Oppose" !votes above, most of them parroting each other, from four editors in a row, within 34 hours of each other, two of whom have made less than 35 edits total, and three of whom came straight here from editing, and edit-warring, on Alastair Lamb. Something seems odd. Kautilya3, any comment or insight (besides the fact that that article could use some admin oversight)? Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
A new proposal for community EC restrictions has been created below. GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Support unconditional unblock because if it's good enough for our best editors Kautilya3, Orientls and Accesscrawl then it is good enough for me. They obviously know this user the best with loads of experience. 2601:248:600:B1D:982B:ED22:81B:416F (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- A definitely neutral comment from an IP that just yesterday posted: "We all patriotic Indians must unite!! [...] We need to make use of every Wikipedia avenue ANI, arbitration enforcement, SPI to get rid of them." A WP:NOTHERE block is probably in order for Special:Contributions/2601:248:600:b1d::/64, but someone else can review that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, just reminding everyone saying "oppose per Ivanvector" that I support unblocking, but with exhaustive long-winded explanations and conditions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - It is unbecoming of a sysop to compare My Lord's case with NadirAli. The latter was an extreme trouble who should never be allowed back but the former has done nothing but good. 42.108.249.237 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional unblock A good contributor who brings several sourced content and quality to articles from what I have seen. I do not have much background on some of the SPI, but have come across their edits and they seemed sourced. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support unconditional A lot of the opposes have a dubious tenure and whilst I do not have a huge lot of sympathy for MyLord; I believe that he is here for the right purposes and have displayed much less of the characteristic IDHT traits, visible in this arena. His editorial actions will be extremely scrutinised; (he knows that) and shall he mess up, it won't be long before he gets re-blocked. ∯WBGconverse 11:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Call for close
It has been three days since anyone commented. Could someone uninvolved please evaluate and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Seconded, I was going to write Guy's comment myself. We seem to have a shortage of uninvolved admins patrolling this board, there are a few stale threads here that need a closer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll close it, as I haven't been involved so far. Give me a while to read the arguments each way... O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)- Sorry, just realised I have been involved. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- If it's any help to whoever closes this, a quick tally gives 17 support !votes (of which 15 are unconditional), and 5 opposes. The main concern, raised by Ivanvector, is that My Lord has stated that they intend to resume some of the editing patterns that got them blocked in the first place. This concern was raised quite late in the discussion, and possibly may have swayed some of the earlier supporters if the argument had been made earlier. I share Ivanvector's concerns and hope that ML will take this on board if unblocked. Despite this however, I feel there is a consensus to unconditionally unblock, per ROPE. As I said above, I have been marginally involved, but if people (especially Ivanvector) are happy for me to close with this consensus, I will do so. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- This must be some unusual method of counting - I make it 12 unconditional, 8 conditional and 2 opposed (I'm counting "oppose per Ivanvector" as conditional support, since it's clear that's what his oppose vote meant). At any rate, please don't close this yourself - it's unfair to the editor to be unblocked when the close can be attacked for being involved. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- It was a quick mental tally, rather than an official count. I should have said "at least 2 conditional". O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- This must be some unusual method of counting - I make it 12 unconditional, 8 conditional and 2 opposed (I'm counting "oppose per Ivanvector" as conditional support, since it's clear that's what his oppose vote meant). At any rate, please don't close this yourself - it's unfair to the editor to be unblocked when the close can be attacked for being involved. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- If it's any help to whoever closes this, a quick tally gives 17 support !votes (of which 15 are unconditional), and 5 opposes. The main concern, raised by Ivanvector, is that My Lord has stated that they intend to resume some of the editing patterns that got them blocked in the first place. This concern was raised quite late in the discussion, and possibly may have swayed some of the earlier supporters if the argument had been made earlier. I share Ivanvector's concerns and hope that ML will take this on board if unblocked. Despite this however, I feel there is a consensus to unconditionally unblock, per ROPE. As I said above, I have been marginally involved, but if people (especially Ivanvector) are happy for me to close with this consensus, I will do so. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am also not sure what method is being used here either as Voice of Clam is at least correct about his "support" and "oppose" count. Clearly 15 users support "unconditional unblock" in the sense that they only want the user to be unblocked and they have rejected or ignored the condition: Orientls, 39.33.95.29, Anupam, Accesscrawl, Shrikanthv, Guy Macon, Dlohcierekim, Nosebagbear, Fish and Karate, Kautilya3, Shashank5988, Jayron32, Ad Orientem, 2601:248:600:B1D:982B:ED22:81B:416F and Sdmarathe. There are 5 users who completely "oppose" any unblock even if they misunderstood someone's comment or they are using argument of that different !vote to support their oppose: Dilpa Kaur, Code16, Alive4Islam, Arslan-San and FreeKashmiri. There are 5 users who want "conditional unblock": Black Kite, GoldenRing, Huon, Vanamonde93 and Ivanvector. There was one "neutral" comment, which came from Voice of Clam. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think what anyone neutrally reviewing the discussion above would agree is that there is support for My Lord to return to editing; there's only a quite small minority saying they should not be allowed to edit at all. Out of the rest of us, I read the discussion as there being a number of editors concerned that My Lord's return to India-Pakistan topics could be tumultuous, but no consensus whether this merits a preemptive sanction, versus being a situation which WP:ROPE already covers. And so if I could gently nudge the eventual closer, I suggest unblocking unconditionally with advice regarding the sentiment here. Either My Lord has heard the concerns here and will approach the topic with caution, or the significant additional scrutiny they are likely to be under means any disruption will be rapidly reported and result in some kind of sanction anyway.
- But whichever way one reads the discussion, it's been well over a week while these appeals usually run 24 hours. Let's just get on with unblocking them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can someone just close it? ∯WBGconverse 11:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Ivanvector's summary of the discussion and, given that this has been waiting closure for quite some time, I will close the discussion on those terms in 24 hours unless someone (a) objects to me being the original starter of the discussion and the closer, or (b) beats me to it (which you are most welcome to!). Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: I'm going to have to object, per GoldenRing's comment a few lines above. Given the animosity in this subject area, this really should be closed by someone with clean hands as much as possible. Even if you didn't really make a bolded comment in the discussion, the fact you opened the discussion is going to meet someone's low bar for involvement, and there are already a number of editors here for whom that bar is extremely low. Although I suppose if we determine that there are no willing closers, we could close this by committee, in which case see my most recent comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close it if people support and I'm called upon to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: you are hereby called upon to close this discussion :) --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict
In a discussion above a number of editors have begun discussing restricting edits to pages related to conflicts between India and Pakistan to users with extended confirmed rights. It's buried in an unblock request from another editor which isn't really related and wouldn't be affected by that restriction, so I'm formalizing the proposal and breaking it out for discussion. I will post notes in relevant places after I post this.
As many of you know, this topic is plagued by sockpuppetry (including ban evasion and likely good-hand-bad-hand abuse) and it's strongly suspected by many editors that groups on both sides of the conflict are recruiting new editors to falsely influence consensus through civil (and sometimes not-so-civil) POV pushing, and the use of brigading tactics. The topic is already under a broader set of Arbitration discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA) which largely fail to address this "bigger picture" problem, except when incidents have already occurred. The conditions here are similar to the editing issues facing gamergate and the Israel-Palestine conflict before similar restrictions were put in place for those topics (see discussions here and here). In those cases the restrictions applied to the arbitration cases but in this instance the proposed restriction would cover a much narrower subset of topics, so I am proposing it as a community general sanction.
Proposed (parts copied from the relevant Israel-Palestine restriction): All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. Editors who do not meet the extended confirmed threshold may request edits on an article's talk page, subject to discussion and consensus. On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion.
Please discuss below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- My gut reaction is that we already have the authority under the existing DS to apply ECP as needed and that it should be used liberally in this area. I'd be hesitant to bring about a new area that is 100% under ECP because of how difficult the conflict is to define. We could get a situation where all of South Asia is more or less blue locked, which is what we had for a while with the Middle East. It seems easier just to apply ECP on the first instance of disruptive socking/meat/whatever, and log it as an AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni is right. All it needs is admins prepared to do it. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- How will that solve this newest drama-fest that popped up an hour ago, over ANI? ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - The problem with this is that it can act as a reverse honeypot trap - the conflict branches out onto less and less related topics, and thus so do the editing restrictions - topics to do with the individual countries, at a minimum, would see a spike. It's not that I don't see the issue, it's just that I'd rather the splash damage. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cautious support - I admit that 30/500 is no panacea, but it will help. The problem is "brigading" as Ivanvector has pointed out. Each country's editors want the viewpoints favourable to their country to be represented and those favourable to the other country to be eliminated. The former is apparently ok by our WP:NPOV policy (even though there are struggles to get the WP:WEIGHTs up) but the latter can only be achieved by demonising all the editors that stand in the way and the sources and scholars that stand in the way. For that, brigading is needed. If you can gather big enough a brigade you can shout down the other brigade. Brigades are cheap these days. You just go to your favourite internet forum and shout, saying "our country's honour is at stake". People will line up. They may not know X from Y. But that doesn't matter. All they need to know is cut-and-paste. Any mobile phone will do. That is the environment we are in at the moment. A 30/500 protection will at least dampen this. The new recruits will need to stick around for 30 days, which might try their patience a little. But determined nationalists will stick around, and pass the goal posts. Plus we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is itself an internet forum. There are plenty of potential recruits available right here. Those people might have already passed the 30/500 goal post. So the problems won't go away. They might just become a little bit easier. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support as one major and important step in the right direction. Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- This thing already exists. A number of articles about other subjects like castes, geography, and more other subjects under ARBIPA are already ECP for various reasons. GenuineArt (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Don't we need an explicit ArbCom decision to authorize preventive ec protection, similarly to ARBPIA?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cautious support. I agree with a lot of what TonyBallioni has said above about the need for caution and the dangers of defining the conflict too broadly. That said; we already have used this particular scope for topic-bans, including last year's mass t-ban, because it is a fairly narrow locus (relative to all of ARBIPA) that still contains a lot of disruption. The issue with the current regime isn't that admins aren't using our discretion to protect pages when necessary; it's that pages that need protection often do not come to our attention. As a result of off-wiki canvassing, a ridiculous number of distinct sockmasters with varied agendas, and increasing awareness of how CUs may be circumvented, it is often not worth an experienced editor's time to investigate a new account and file an SPI. Some of socks are caught anyway (Bbb23 really needs to get a medal for everything that they do) but a lot of others are not, and especially if they are throwaway accounts created for the sake of a single conflict or discussion, may never be. Also, protecting a single page often has the result of driving the nationalist conflict to different pages. The net result is that we have sustained disruption on a number of pages that is too large to be effectively patrolled by experienced editors who have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. In that respect, preventative protection would help considerably. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging @GoldenRing, NeilN, JzG, Bishonen, Sandstein, Abecedare, BU Rob13, and Doug Weller: As all of you have sanctioned editors under ARBIPA in the last year, I think your opinions here would be valuable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Make it so. This will result in less drama and fewer sanctions of inexperienced editors unfamiliar with our ways. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes yes yes. This topic is a mess of editors broadly suspected to be socks or meats but without any firm evidence of the same. This would significantly raise the effort required to make a sock ready to do battle. To answer a couple of objections above:
- @Ymblanter: The community can impose whatever restrictions it likes, given a strong enough consensus.
- @TonyBallioni: While it's true that we can apply ECP to individual pages, this particular topic is disruptive enough that I think it's worth having a preemptive rule. At present, it needs an administrator to come along and apply ECP, while this would allow any EC editor to revert changes by non-EC editors on any article falling under the restriction.
- @Ivanvector: I'd prefer to see language that more closely mirrors the committee's ARBPIA restriction; in particular, I think the committee's "reasonably construed" language is important to avoid some of the problems others have alluded to above; this is narrower than the usual "broadly construed" language. I think the language about preferring enforcement through ECP would also be useful. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- In fact at first I copied the Israel-Palestine General Prohibition verbatim, only replacing "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" with "related to any conflict between India and Pakistan". But that prohibition was originally drafted before extended confirmed protection was a thing (I was involved in its drafting), you can see the original version in the "superseded versions" collapse here. Basically it read as it does now, but the second sentence read "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, ...." without the bit about EC. Some time after EC became available to admins the phrase about preferring the use of EC was shoehorned in, in typical Arbcom bureaucratic fashion, without fixing the rest of the sentence. In fact there's no reason to enforce that prohibition by any means other than EC protection, but all the old methods are still mentioned. Subsequent revisions also added the instructions for editors not meeting the criteria in bullet form, which I tried to fit into the restriction itself. Then it was too long so I started editing, and by the time I got through that I had basically rewritten the whole thing. But I agree that something like "reasonably construed" could be added back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting that discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS) already apply to the India-Pakistan topic area, so admins can already use this to apply ECP to individual pages. Whether a broader community sanction is needed I don't know - I'm not familiar enough with the particular dynamics in this topic area. Sandstein 09:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not only do discretionary sanctions already apply, any page experiencing issues of this nature can be just sent to RFPP where it will get ECP'd if necessary, a sanction is not required to allow ECP to be applied if there's already disruption occurring from new/autoconfirmed editors. Fish+Karate 10:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding is that we are discussing a preemptive protection. Requests for preemptive protection are routinely declined at RFPP, withe the exception of the ARBPIA articles which can be extended-confirmed protection any time, even if there is no ongoing or past disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- While I am someone who doesn't place much stock in preemptive protection, and that includes the ARBPIA articles, I would pay you the princely sum of $1 if you can show me an article pertaining to the India-Pakistan conflict that has never been subject to any disruptive or nationalistic editing. Preemptive is not something that applies here. Fish+Karate 11:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Bhaskar Sadashiv Soman was the Chief of the Naval Staff (India) during the 1965 war. After looking at every edit in its history, I don't believe that it's ever had any nationalistic or other disruptive editing, and the closest thing to an editing dispute in its history is [32], where someone declined a db-copyvio because the infringing text could simply be removed. You didn't specify what kind of dollar...I want a Gold dollar in perfect condition, please :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent work! I bet it took some hunting, though. You have won 1 Liberian Dollar; it has a value of around US$0.0062. Let me know where to send it. Fish+Karate 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Actually not. I figured that a comparatively minor military figure would be less likely to get disruption (if the other side's never heard of him, they won't know to mangle his article), so I looked up the 1965 war and clicked the names of the various commanders in the infobox until I found one without a significant revision history. (Less revisions = less chance of disruption, since lots of reversions expands the history.) Then, all I had to do was page through the revisions. As for the money, send it to my former employer. Their resources helped me expand related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent work! I bet it took some hunting, though. You have won 1 Liberian Dollar; it has a value of around US$0.0062. Let me know where to send it. Fish+Karate 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Bhaskar Sadashiv Soman was the Chief of the Naval Staff (India) during the 1965 war. After looking at every edit in its history, I don't believe that it's ever had any nationalistic or other disruptive editing, and the closest thing to an editing dispute in its history is [32], where someone declined a db-copyvio because the infringing text could simply be removed. You didn't specify what kind of dollar...I want a Gold dollar in perfect condition, please :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- While I am someone who doesn't place much stock in preemptive protection, and that includes the ARBPIA articles, I would pay you the princely sum of $1 if you can show me an article pertaining to the India-Pakistan conflict that has never been subject to any disruptive or nationalistic editing. Preemptive is not something that applies here. Fish+Karate 11:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding is that we are discussing a preemptive protection. Requests for preemptive protection are routinely declined at RFPP, withe the exception of the ARBPIA articles which can be extended-confirmed protection any time, even if there is no ongoing or past disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support as someone who frequently edits in the topic area. A step in the right direction. The topic area is infested with sock-puppets, and this is certainly going to help. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with TonyBallioni - admins already have the authority to incrementally apply indefinite ECP to the articles that need it. I don't think they should be preemptively protected, but the threshold for protection should be very low (e.g. any reasonable request, even in response to a small number of disruptive edits). If you want preemptive protection, an amendment request should be put forward to Arbcom. MER-C 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: (and @Ymblanter:, since they raised this concern above) We do not need an amendment from ARBCOM, because Ivanvector is proposing community-authorized sanctions that happen to overlap with ARBIPA discretionary sanction. Procedurally, broad community consensus is quite sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- We've just got two complaints today, on this very board, within the scope of the Arbcom case, one of which is about this conflict. That and the considering the general lack of clue in this part of the world tips me over to cautiously support. MER-C 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Central Discussion - I suggest that this be added to the Cent discussion list - going off others on the list, it's a broad enough issue (with major potential ramifications) that it warrants it. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Done and thanks for the suggestion. Someone may want to tweak my description of the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reluctant Support Tony is right. We already have the authority to do this. Unfortunately, for the most part we haven't done it. I think there is a certain reluctance on the part of many admins (myself included) to push the ACDS button in all but the most egregious situations. And I also think that reluctance is generally good and healthy. I'm also not a big fan of one size fits all solutions to problems. That said, this really has become an area of pervasive and sometimes organized disruptive editing. IMO it is at least as bad as that which in the past afflicted the more highly trafficked Arab Israeli related articles. So yeah, this probably is something that needs to be done though I regret that necessity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cautious support I get the "reverse honey trap" argument and think there is a strong possibility that it will balloon to cover all South Asia (e.g., Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan) but allowing sock-puppetry and brigading to rule the day is a worse outcome I feel. One merely means an overly-high level of protection, the other means Wiki relaying POV and potential false information. PS - but also, let's have a time limit at which we review whether this restriction is actually working. There's too many bans/restrictions that just get put in place and left there without anyone checking to see if they're still needed (e.g., is the Arbcom restriction on The Troubles still justified this far out from the Good Friday Agreement?). FOARP (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support, as long as it is applied relatively narrowly. GABgab 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support The point of extended confirmed protection is to direct new users to discuss the issue on the talk page. This issue is probably among the top 5 most contentious in Wikipedia, with a 1.5 billion / 150 crore people being upset. People supporting Pakistan claim that Wikipedia is biased for India, and people in India claim that Wikipedia is biased for Pakistan, and I expect we have 100,000 / ek lakh complaints. Directing people to discuss this is our best response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: for mercy on my watchlist. The revert wars and POV-pushing are getting just as toxic on these as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions could be applied as TonyBallioni said, but there's no harm in generating a nice discussion here so admins protecting such pages can link to it. SITH (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: The most complicated areas require the most experienced editors. This will free up admin time by reducing the number of PP requests and ANI threads, and it will encourage newer editors to go to the talk page first. Article stability will increase. There will be peace for a time. Levivich 07:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Extended confirmed is reasonable and appropriate here. Benjamin (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Partial oppose/caution
Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict.
This part I completely concur with and I hope the above discussion will encourage uninvolved admins to use the tools they have already been granted by WP:ARBIPA (and which seems to have wide community support).On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion.
This is the part I am wary of since I forsee that this will result in edit wars, 3RR violations and meta-arguments on whether a page falls within the "India-Pakistan conflict" area or not (for example, does the whole or part of the Navjot Singh Sidhu article fall into that category due to this recent controversy?) Instead of extended-confirmed editors being free to flout 3RR if they have a "good-faith reason" to believe the article/topic/edit falls into the India-Pakistan conflict area, they should request EC protection and admins should respond more promptly and boldly.
- And while I have your ears: the "India Pakistan conflict" has been and will probably remain a long-term problem area but over the next few months I expect that articles related to 2019 Indian general election will present an even larger number of, and more urgent, problems requiring admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: That's an excellent point. I'm not even sure why that language was placed in the ARBPIA restriction, since surely the best way to deal with such a situation is to request EC protection citing the relevant sanction, thereby avoiding an edit-war. Ivanvector I'm wondering if you could strike that portion, even now, since most people supporting this have commented generally on the need for preemptive protection, and less on the specifics of the wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's a misreading of my intent. What I mean is that if a non-EC editor makes an edit it may be reverted under this restriction, but equally it may be restored by any EC editor in good faith iff they take responsibility for the edit (the "editors may restore" directions at WP:EVADE though that's a bad place for it). At that point it is subject to 3RR or any more limiting revert restriction. If extended-confirmed editors start edit-warring over nitpicked interpretations of this restriction, then proceed with whatever your usual approach is to disruptive reversion. Just generally speaking, if you get two editors arguing over who it is that first crossed the bright line, a good approach is to block them both while directing them to WP:NOTTHEM. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: That's an excellent point. I'm not even sure why that language was placed in the ARBPIA restriction, since surely the best way to deal with such a situation is to request EC protection citing the relevant sanction, thereby avoiding an edit-war. Ivanvector I'm wondering if you could strike that portion, even now, since most people supporting this have commented generally on the need for preemptive protection, and less on the specifics of the wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm not sure doing this preemptively is the best of ideas. As TonyBalloni, Abecedare and others point out, it is not always easy to figure out whether an article comes under the conflict and we could easily see this being applied too broadly. For example, if the conflict with Pakistan becomes one of the talking points in the upcoming Indian elections, we could easily end up with a large number of election related articles under ECP and would lose an important opportunity for adding new editors from India. Applying restrictions rather than ECP on individual articles, or on flash point areas like the Kashmir conflict, gives us some level of control while keeping more articles open to new editors. What we really need is a full time ombudsperson to monitor and manage these articles and, since that is hard, this is just a weak oppose. --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm going to get accused of assuming bad faith here, but in my experience this is what actually happens. Yes, hot news topics and especially elections bring new editors to Wikipedia, and that's a good thing most of the time. New editors of course don't have a good idea of how things work here, and make entirely good-faith common mistakes like not providing a reference, editing based on "things they know", innocently edit warring, gentle POV skewing, and you know, stuff we've all seen and probably have had to gently coach a newbie on. The problem when it's a topic like this is that those new editors immediately get bitten by the established editors on one or the other sides of the conflict: their edit is reverted more or less immediately and they get a couple of big scary notices on their talk page about the discretionary sanctions and the potential punishments for not being perfect right out of the gate, or if they do have a good grasp of things they're immediately accused of being someone's sockpuppet. You can't really blame a new editor interested in Wikipedia from giving up on the project in short order when they encounter such behaviour. And yes, that aggressive behaviour is a problem and when we see it we should knock heads, but this is kind of a way to address it broadly. Not a fantastic solution, I know, but it's something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support There are many socks and meatpuppets. This will save the time of good faith editors. However those 500 edits should be on mainspace, not on talk pages or userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.216.115 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Pages related to the conflict have been under constant attack for a while to the point where ACP isn't enough. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
POV-pushing by Santasa99 in regards to Islamism and Bosnia & Herzegovina
User:Santasa99 has recently been engaging in edits regarding Islamism and Bosnia & Herzegovina which seem to fall under the category of WP:POVPUSH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Specifically this user has blanked and emptied Category:Islamic terrorism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:Islamism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members. I left a message on this user's talk page but at the timing of this post they have not responded. Other examples of this user's behavior include removing Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members from Mahmoud K. Muftić claiming that it somehow defaces the subject despite the fact that Muftić's lengthy relationship and association with the Muslim Brotherhood is described and cited at length in the article, removing Islamist categories from Mirsad Bektašević, Jasminka Ramic, and Abdullah Ramo Pazara despite the fact that these subjects are citizens of Bosnia & Herzegovina and affiliates of Al-Qaeda and ISIL, obvious Islamist organizations. The editor's conduct and edit summaries here and here seem to indicate that they are very passionate and bias concerning this subject. These edits seem to be POV-pushing and disruptive, hence why I am bring this up here. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nice try. What POV pushing? What WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? You said to me how Cat's are "valid pages which I emptied/blanked without a good reason. Cat's aren't "valid", Cat's are exactly what they are - Cat's; and you put articles there or not. There is nothing to add to that.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Santasa99: Your behavior arguably falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because (jugging by your behavior, especially the edit summaries you leave) that these categories are somehow disrespectful or insulting, hence why you claim they are inaccurate and are removing them. This is the exact definition of RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In reality just because there are a couple of Bosnian individuals labeled as Islamists on Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia is trying to label all Bonsians as intolerant or Islamists. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I really don't know how to respond to your mind reading. You are taking this issue and conversation into some area which I am not going to follow you into. You have certain pages on certain subjects and all that matters is if they correspond to Cat's. Your opinions on my state of mind or what Wikipedia does to whom isn't required and I am not interested in it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Santasa99: well first of all I never claimed to be a mind reader, I wrote that your edits "seem to" and "arguable fall under" what is considered POV pushing and RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I neither know nor really do I care for your motivation in removing these categories.
- Secondly categories, while not articles, are still quite important to Wikipedia, as they are important in connecting articles and integrating them in the greater encyclopedia. Instead of saying that the categories are rubbish or are tarnishing to individuals, perhaps a better argument would be why these articles are not appropriate based on the article subjects. Using the Muftić example, if the subject is from Bosnia & Herzegovina and is as well an affiliate with the Muslim brotherhood, by Wikipedia's guidelines Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members is a valid category, unless one or both of the aforementioned facts can be disproven.
- Lastly more of a general statement to anyone reading I believe this thread might be more appropriate for ANI than here just based on the nature of the discussion and issue. If anyone wishes please feel free to move this discussion to ANI, or on the other hand if some admins find this topic interesting than it could be kept here. Good day Inter&anthro (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I really don't know how to respond to your mind reading. You are taking this issue and conversation into some area which I am not going to follow you into. You have certain pages on certain subjects and all that matters is if they correspond to Cat's. Your opinions on my state of mind or what Wikipedia does to whom isn't required and I am not interested in it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Santasa99: Your behavior arguably falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because (jugging by your behavior, especially the edit summaries you leave) that these categories are somehow disrespectful or insulting, hence why you claim they are inaccurate and are removing them. This is the exact definition of RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In reality just because there are a couple of Bosnian individuals labeled as Islamists on Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia is trying to label all Bonsians as intolerant or Islamists. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nice try. What POV pushing? What WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? You said to me how Cat's are "valid pages which I emptied/blanked without a good reason. Cat's aren't "valid", Cat's are exactly what they are - Cat's; and you put articles there or not. There is nothing to add to that.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
As an uninvolved user, I must say it seems as if Inter&anthro has a point. Santasa99 has blanket removed categories that (at least at first view) seems reasonable. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Jeppiz, maybe second and third look at actual articles categorized as such would be in order?--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Inter, how about you assure me that person, you repeatedly mentioning, is Bosnia and Herzegovina citizen - this Muslim brotherhood guy? So basically what you are saying is that no matter if articles have nothing to do with such Cat editors should restrain themself from removing them from it? You didn't even try to contest my actions on specific articles, you are trying simply to bypass entire issue of these articles being rather curiously ambiguous on these Cat's you are so eager to save. And regarding your expressed opinions on my "motives" and "behavior", and how I feel and what I think is happening and so on, they are on record just above.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Since I was asked to take a second and third look, I have done so. My conclusions:
- Santa99 was wrong to remove the categories, except for the article on Mirsad Bektašević.
- Both Santa99 and Inter should stop arguing here immediately . You have both stated your case. Continued arguments do you no favours at all. Quite the opposite.
- The categories should be restored and Santa99 cautioned to desist. Jeppiz (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not arguing with anyone, quite the contrary. But I will argue my case if anyone ask me to. As far as Jeppis observations, you seem pretty convinced - there are more the a few articles to review to get all the important information, really, and I must noticed that you isolated only this person Mirsad Bektašević as not fit for such categorization, again, pretty convincingly. How is that that you missed this Muslim brotherhood guy, how is he fit for placing under "Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members", which is then categorized as "Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Islamists" and so for--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)th ?
- He's at it again, pretty much templating and removing the content of the Bilal Bosnić article. Bosnić's relationship with the Salafi movement and ISIS is well established and this is cited and mentioned numerous times in the articles yet in this edit Santasa99 tries to chalk it all up to weasel words. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song). --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Done by User:Bakazaka. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I request administrative attention at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdolrahman Razani. There is already an administrator, User:JamesBWatson, but they are a participant in the discussion. In particular, I take very strong exception to the implication by User:Phil Bridger that the proponents of deleting the draft are doing so out of prejudice. The page in question is an autobiography, and the editor is gaming the system by submitting multiple copies, and some of us would oppose that by an Anglo-Celtic New Zealander. Can we please keep the deletion debate on the merits and demerits without playing race cards?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think you are oversensitive. I don't see a "race card" being played. Some editors disagree with you. It happens every day. 204.130.226.100 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Suggesting that I wouldn't have nominated the autobiography of an Anglophone professor for deletion is implying that racial, religious, or national prejudice was a factor in my nomination. It wasn't. A prejudice, in the etymological sense, against autobiographies was a factor, and I have a right to interpret a Wikipedia guideline strictly and to argue that it needs to be applied strictly. The implication of racial, religious, or national prejudice in my nomination is a race card. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead". But irrespective of that bureaucracy, can I ask why you didn't try discussing this with the user on their talk page, explaining to them why you considered what they said to be impugning your and other editors' motives, rather than coming straight to AN? Is there an underlying prior conduct issue on Phil Bridger's part which mean you do not expect a polite and collegiate approach to be productive? I am not aware of any. Fish+Karate 10:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Suggesting that I wouldn't have nominated the autobiography of an Anglophone professor for deletion is implying that racial, religious, or national prejudice was a factor in my nomination. It wasn't. A prejudice, in the etymological sense, against autobiographies was a factor, and I have a right to interpret a Wikipedia guideline strictly and to argue that it needs to be applied strictly. The implication of racial, religious, or national prejudice in my nomination is a race card. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think Phil Bridger made a mistake in exressing himself as he did, but I don't think it was a big enough issue to warrant any administrative action, and I think Robert McClenon has over-reacted in bringing the matter here. I will post a note to Phil on his talk page about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add Merge template to "2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident"
Please add {{Merge from |Nathan Phillips (activist) |date=January 2019 }} to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident until such time that the merge discussion has proper templates above and below it. I can not revert again due to WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like that merge proposal has been closed. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to keep the merge tag on the article when the merge discussion is closed. What is someone who sees the merge tag supposed to do? If you're refering to the use of {{archive top}} instead of {{discussion top}}, it's fine the way it is, WP is not a bureaucracy. If there's some other thing wrong with the discussion close that I haven't noticed, what is it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I received a message[33] on my talk page from Bishonen (talk · contribs) that I have been topic banned and am restricted from editing caste related articles and social groups. I would like to appeal against this ban and request uninvolved editors/admins to review and lift this ban. In my defence, I have been actively engaging in talk pages see [34], [35] and also initiated the discussion on the wiki noticeboard for reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gustav_Solomon_Oppert_work_a_reliable_source_?. During the course of this time I have interacted with Slatersteven (talk · contribs), Sitush (talk · contribs), Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) and found that to my horror that Sitush (talk · contribs) and his cronies like Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) actively monopolising the edits to these articles and thereby controlling the content of the articles like Maravar for example. I also found that Bishonen (talk · contribs) colluding with Sitush (talk · contribs) on more than one occasion during this time period. The modus operandi seems to be that Sitush forces an editor into an edit-war by reverting an article back and forth and then asks for Bishonen's help [36],[37],[38] upon which Bishonen swiftly blocks or bans the opponent under the pretext of restoring normalcy. So, requesting other admins and editors to review and lift this ban. Nittawinoda (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse sanctions Any appeal that contains words like "cronies" and continues personal attacks against other editors is unacceptable. This topic ban appears to be entirely justified. Acroterion (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I regard the word cronies as being totally apt in this case as Sitush, Sangitha_rani111 and Bishonen have been tag-teaming against other editors in articles like Vanniyar and Maravar to push POV and project the communities in bad light. For example, they've been calling the entire community of Maravar as robbers and thieves [39], [40]. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've been tag-teaming? That's interesting, since I have never edited those articles. Just one of your many random accusations. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
- Oh Yes you have been tag-teaming as you are quick to intimidate, block and lay sanctions on editors at Sitush's request without even reviewing the case and looking at an edit from the other side. Here [41] you are clearly stating that you have no clue what the issue is but then you're asking Sitush (talk · contribs) as to what needs to be done whether a topic ban would suffice. If you do not understand the cause of conflict then you should lay off instead of taking sides with Sitush. This is precisely what tag-teaming is. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've blocked Nittawinonda 31 hours for abusing this appeal to resume personal attacks on other editors. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement sanction, at least for now. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh Yes you have been tag-teaming as you are quick to intimidate, block and lay sanctions on editors at Sitush's request without even reviewing the case and looking at an edit from the other side. Here [41] you are clearly stating that you have no clue what the issue is but then you're asking Sitush (talk · contribs) as to what needs to be done whether a topic ban would suffice. If you do not understand the cause of conflict then you should lay off instead of taking sides with Sitush. This is precisely what tag-teaming is. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've been tag-teaming? That's interesting, since I have never edited those articles. Just one of your many random accusations. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
- I regard the word cronies as being totally apt in this case as Sitush, Sangitha_rani111 and Bishonen have been tag-teaming against other editors in articles like Vanniyar and Maravar to push POV and project the communities in bad light. For example, they've been calling the entire community of Maravar as robbers and thieves [39], [40]. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- YOU are doing yourself no favours, but I would also point out there has not been a serious of less severe blocks leading up to this topic ban.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- There don't have to be any blocks before issuing a topic ban, nor does the banning admin have to get community consensus to do that deed. I've not long since alerted you to the same sanctions regime, Slatersteven, so perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with it. Nittawinoda, partially aided by you, probably out of ignorance on your part, has been showing either a severe lack of competence in the topic area or (as I think) a glorification agenda for weeks, even months now. They've been a serious time-sink and have been trying to whitewash stuff all over the shop in relation to certain castes of South India.
- Nittawinoda, you were not only on Bishonen's radar. You will see on their talk page that other admins, such as RexxS, have also expressed concern about you. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- RexxS is yet to be one:-) ∯WBGconverse 17:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- My conceanrn is that one of the few times a users cam forwards and try and tell him he was wrong (not shout at him or call him incompetent, just tell him "this is against policy" I was told I was in fact wrong by one of the users who wanted him blocked. I am concerned because what I am seeing is a users who was subjected to abuse and PA's (and he was), who was never in fact given mentoring or any any attempt made to change his ways and who has now been blocked because of those ways. I do not doubt his actions were actionable, I told him as much. I am concerned this was a first step.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- The block wasn't a first step, Slatersteven. Blocks and bans are different, see WP:BAN. I banned Nittawinoda, Acroterion blocked him. I wouldn't exactly call my topic ban a first step either; it was preceded not only by much advice and explanation from Sitush over several weeks, but also by this explicit warning from me (more explanatory version specifically about sources here), to which Nittawinoda answered like this. You will recognize much of his wording from his appeal in this section. Since I was met with so much assumption of bad faith, I didn't choose to continue arguing with him. Sitush has more patience than me, though, and went on explaining. (I suppose it's those explanations, occasionally with an infusion of impatience, that you call "abuse and PA's".) If Nittawinoda had listened even a little, even intermittently, to what Sitush told him, he would have had a good chance to become a better editor. EdJohnston's advice about listening to Sitush might have helped, too, if he'd listened to that: Sitush is very familiar with the sourcing issues on caste articles and his recommendations are often respected by administrators. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC).
- Decline--I read 2 of the t/p(s) and I support Bish's TBan, which is as usual, good. Complete clueless-ness + PA + IDHT. Enough, ∯WBGconverse 19:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:PC Engine
PC Engine from the Japanese Wikipedia keeps on adding that the Bomberman series originally debuted in 1987 when it actually was in 1983. His/her reasons are that the 1983 is a prototype and not part of the series. To support this, one of his/her sources is a primary source to Hudson Soft's website (the company that created this franchise) which, for some reason, points out the 1987 debut. Supposedly, this is the year the NES game was released in North America but, as far as I know, we go by the original release and not by any specific region's release year. I reverted PC Engine adding tertiary sources, most of which on Internet say the first game was released in 1983. However, he still insists on changing it without consensus. I didn't make this report on the edit warring noticeboard because the reversions were sporadically. Check his talk page and the article's talk page. 200.59.159.162 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also discussed at WT:VG#Bomberman. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing to ask if administrators can shed some light on this issue, i have been monitoring Pakistan related pages, history, culture, people etc everywhere where Pakistan have been shown in positive light or have some comparison with India. Indian users are getting in to edit wars to push their narrative and later it is being accepted by some moderators here. I have been blocked lately due to reverting Regional power article to it's original form and the later Indian narrative is forced. I expect administrators to be neutral; instead of having an agenda. Also, if administration is aware of this problem and they are letting it slide through and they intend to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool by some particular nationality, please mention it as a disclaimer at the beginning of every Pakistan related article. Comment added by AlphaAce (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can help you fix whatever problems there are, but you need to drop this attitude like "indian vandals are doing <blah>". Please see WP:AGF.
- On the Regional power article, I suggest you first read the talk page discussion, and the recent RfC (Request for Comment) which formed a consensus that only sources that meet the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS criteria can be used. So, what you need to do is to find sources that meet the criteria, and discuss them on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: have you gone through the whole talk page and archive of previous talks. Consensus was developed on Regional power and said sources, until someone came in and vandalized it. Just look at the editing history of that page, you would know what i mean. AlphaAce (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- AlphaAce, Yes, I know what happened on the talk page. That is how I gave you the advice above. Repeating: RfC formed a consensus that only sources that meet the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS criteria can be used. So, what you need to do is to find sources that meet the criteria, and discuss them on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @AlphaAce: Your attitude here is unacceptable, you may not appear on noticeboards doing exactly what you have accused others of doing and expect sympathy. I've placed a notice of discretionary sanctions concerning India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on your talkpage. Please review the conduct expected of editors in those topic areas and abide by it. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: my attitude is in retaliation for what's being done systematically on wikipedia by a certain nationality users. It's unacceptable that you or anyone, instead of addressing the core issue, are cherry picking that why i am raising the issue. It itself explain my reservations. Look at the example below by @Nil Einne: tells the whole sad affairs of wikipedia by itself. AlphaAce (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne is rather ungracefully pointing out that the argument could be inverted, and that you appear to be guilty of the same conduct that you're complaining about in others. You must expect your conduct to be scrutinized when you post here. "Retaliation," as you put it is not acceptable, and I strongly advise you to reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia. If this continues, you may facing editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@AlphaAce: Hi, I am writing to ask if administrators can shed some light on this issue, i have been monitoring India related pages, history, culture, people etc everywhere where India have been shown in positive light or have some comparison with Pakistan. Pakistani users are getting in to edit wars to push their narrative and later it is being accepted by some moderators here. I have been blocked lately due to reverting Regional power article to it's original form and the later Pakistani narrative is forced. I expect administrators to be neutral; instead of having an agenda. Also, if administration is aware of this problem and they are letting it slide through and they intend to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool by some particular nationality, please mention it as a disclaimer at the beginning of every India related article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the point you're making, but it's probably not helping. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Nil, are you compromised? ∯WBGconverse 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Where have you been blocked? Can someone run a CU? ∯WBGconverse 17:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)- He's just reversing the order of AlphaAce's complaint to make a point - it's easy to misinterpret. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: i was blocked for three day, now i am able to edit. However, responses given above are testament for the point i am trying to make in the first place. Addressed users love going to nitty gritty of wikipedia terminology, going behind the vile of so called guidelines and policies and push the agenda. It's sad but as per wikipedia guidelines this community itself is a public property and the community that is created by it's valuable users; pouring in hours of their time and then someone comes and change culture, history, art, ethnicity related articles of a certain country to push their agenda. It is just unacceptable. AlphaAce (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @AlphaAce:, go to the t/p and start a discussion about your content. See WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:AGF. This board is not for settling content-disputes.∯WBGconverse 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You're clearly still missing my point. Maybe my comment wasn't the best way to express it, but if you've been around wikipedia for long enough, you've seen the same crap from both sides. India supporting editors moaning about how bad Pakistani editors are and how they're destroy wikipedia etc and Pakistan supporting editors moaning about how bad Indian editors are and how they're destroying wikipedia etc. Your latest comment didn't include any country references so this time I could just repeat it word for word as coming from an India supporting editor. It gets very boring seeing it all the time. Note that I hardly ever edit in related topic areas, so it's mostly at various noticeboards especially the AN ones I see it.
Also discussing disputes over article content, respecting other editors and assuming good faith are not just the "nitty gritty of wikipedia terminology". As we are a collaborative encyclopaedia they are a key part of what wikipedia is. If you are unable or willing to work with other editors in a constructive fashion, whatever country they come from, then wikipedia is not the place for you. And yes, again this applies to editors who support India as much as it applies to editors who support Pakistan.
Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, as for the specific dispute you outlined, the history is a mess. But it's probably best to start from here [42]. On 11 November, an editor removed the content based on an RfC. It stayed that way until 18 December [43] when various IP editors tried to re-add it. This was largely stopped by protection a few days later. Then you came along on 31 January and tried to re-add the content [44] falsely accusing other editors of vandalism. You then edit warred with multiple other editors to try to keep it in, I guess until you were blocked.
Two points here. First as I said the accusation of vandalism was false and should not have been made. The edits were clearly made in good faith, based on the belief that they improved wikipedia. In fact, your edit summary itself supports this view. It also said "
Wikipedia is not about India's personal feeling platform
". POV pushing is harmful, but most of the time it's not vandalism. Maybe you consider this "nitty gritty of wikipedia terminology
" but there are reasons why vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia. If you don't wish to understand them, or wish to understand what vandalism is, that's fine. Just don't ever use the word vandalism. There is no reason why you can't learn such a simple thing.And here's the most ironic point. When you started your edit war, the final thing you said was "
Before editing go to the discussion board
". You then proceeded to make 4 more (5 total) reverts against 4 editors and of course eventually came here to moan. But guess what? The talk page hasn't had a substantive edit since 31 October. [45] Why didn't you follow your own advice and go to the discussion board, at least after you got into an edit war?Since we don't rule on content disputes, there's not much I can say about that. Further back there was this discussion Talk:Regional power/Archive 5#Pakistan. This eventually ended up on the DRN, but it looks like that discussion died as no one responded to the questions raised by the volunteer Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 167#Talk:Regional power#Pakistan Later an RfC was started on a wider issue. This closed on 31 October (that last edit) with the summary "
clear consensus to include only those nations as a regional power if the information is supported by multiple reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
". That was clearly the justification for the editor removing the content on 11 November. So at least one editor, and probably more, seem to feel that at the moment, the Pakistan does not meet the requirement for which we have consensus. (That RfC did include some discussion of that as well.) Again if you disagree, the talk page shouldn't be empty. (I have zero opinion, I haven't even looked at the sources.)Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I should clarify to avoid causing offence that I'm not saying most editors from Pakistan or India are like that. Nor is it unique to that specific area, I only singled them out because that was the issue of discussion. Also in case it's unclear, this also all means that there are legitimate behavioural problems from editors on both sides. But it's also generally possible to tell if there's nothing worth looking at simply from reading the complaint, without checking any diffs. (Although the lack of diffs is something that doesn't require checking.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
- Remedy 5 of The Troubles is amended to read:
- 5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.
- The section #One revert rule of the same case is superseded by the following additional remedy:
- 6) As a standard discretionary sanction, a one revert restriction (1RR) is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Enforcement, with notifications to be posted, at a minimum, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:The Troubles.
- All active restrictions placed under the previous remedies remain in force.
- Remedy 1.1 of Great Irish Famine is marked as superseded. The article, now at Great Famine (Ireland), is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorised under The Troubles.
For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Cosmetic edits with no visual change to the article
Are edits like this allowed? I recall some time ago that a couple of well-known editors used to get regularly hauled over the coals at ANI for making these types of edits, but I can't find a policy or guideline against it (except the WP:AWBRULES). Not looking to get the editor in question into trouble, but was just wondering if I could advise them to stop making such edits (my watchlist seems to be getting these on a regular basis recently). Cheers, Number 57 11:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Number 57, I've once or twice made cosmetic changes - that happens when somebody uses VE (I believe the mobile version) and it makes cosmetic changes to infoboxes. Certainly with the larger articles, having no line breaks in an infobox makes patrolling changes to the infobox vastly more difficult. I think WP:COSMETICBOT covers some aspects for humans too. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- But the edits in question don't change the line breaks, all they seem to do is remove a space from empty template parameters – that's not something that affects the display of the template or the wikitext in the edit window. Seems like a clear case of COSMETICBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is neither AWB nor a bot. The editor just used the script WP:AutoEd to automatically edit this page. The user who made this diff above wasn't even aware of what change was made while saving the page. I am aware of it since I had used this script for a while, to try it out and later uninstalled it. The script among other features has an in built Module that automatically "Adds and removes whitespace in certain locations". --DBigXrayᗙ 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- But the edits in question don't change the line breaks, all they seem to do is remove a space from empty template parameters – that's not something that affects the display of the template or the wikitext in the edit window. Seems like a clear case of COSMETICBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: I'm assuming you are asking in general here and not about this specific editor's edit. In general, someone making a whitespace edit somewhere is not a problem. Most of the prior cases of this were when these edits were being made as part of a high-speed and/or high-volume series of edits. In those cases it wasn't so much the mostly useless edits, but that the volume and/or speed would cause general disruption by flooding watchlists and recent changes. @DBigXray: all editors are personally responsible for every edit they commit, I used some script and I don't know what it does type statements are not an excuse that will survive past an initial warning. — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Yes, I am asking in general. The edit I noted above was not about whitespace though (I assume by whitespace, you mean an edit that reduced whitespace visible in the article) – it didn't change the appearance of the infobox at all. Number 57 15:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: I meant code white space - which is invisible to readers as you mentioned. These purely cosmetic edits in isolation are really no big deal and don't constitute disruption - but if someone starts making hundreds or more - they could be. — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux:, indeed, the editor will be held accountable for using the tool, which automatically removed some whitespace without the knowledge of the editor in question. Unawareness does not mean unaccountability. In fact this lack of awareness of what the tool was doing in background when the editor window was loading, was the main reason why I removed this script. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: I meant code white space - which is invisible to readers as you mentioned. These purely cosmetic edits in isolation are really no big deal and don't constitute disruption - but if someone starts making hundreds or more - they could be. — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Yes, I am asking in general. The edit I noted above was not about whitespace though (I assume by whitespace, you mean an edit that reduced whitespace visible in the article) – it didn't change the appearance of the infobox at all. Number 57 15:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
My thought on this is that if we have tools that automatically make changes like this because these have been determined to be the ideal configurations for the encyclopedia, then why don't we just have a bot come through every few weeks and apply these to all the articles in the encyclopedia? Either these changes are good and we ultimately want them made, or they are not, in which case they should not be part of some tool's default. bd2412 T 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I make cosmetic/autoed changes virtually every single day and to my knowledge I've only had one person complain, I won't deny I too make edits like the one above which I consider to be pointless but still smack save anyway, I don't really see a problem with edits such as these, We're all helping here in our own little way. –Davey2010Talk 15:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- But an edit like the one shown above doesn't "help" in any way, it only bloats watchlist, history, ... without any benefit. Looking at your edits, what's the benefit, the "help" provided by an edit like this one? Take the first change it makes: a "real" cleanup would have removed the return, while your edit removed a space instead. That's not helpful, that's useless tinkering. Fram (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding Davey's edit: Depending on brain type, some editors would say that inserting a blank between a bullet and the following text makes a tiny improvement in readability in the edit window. Not wishing to discriminate on the basis of brain type, and believing that no improvement is too small, I don't object to that kind of change. (Marking that as minor helps editors who exclude minor edits from their watchlists, and Davey did that in that case.)
Removing or inserting blanks that have no effect on the edit window, let alone the rendered article, crosses the line in my view, even if marked as minor. Any tool that does that should be required to cease doing it.
Agree that the line break should've been removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding Davey's edit: Depending on brain type, some editors would say that inserting a blank between a bullet and the following text makes a tiny improvement in readability in the edit window. Not wishing to discriminate on the basis of brain type, and believing that no improvement is too small, I don't object to that kind of change. (Marking that as minor helps editors who exclude minor edits from their watchlists, and Davey did that in that case.)
- But an edit like the one shown above doesn't "help" in any way, it only bloats watchlist, history, ... without any benefit. Looking at your edits, what's the benefit, the "help" provided by an edit like this one? Take the first change it makes: a "real" cleanup would have removed the return, while your edit removed a space instead. That's not helpful, that's useless tinkering. Fram (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- The main reason to not have a bot making cosmetic edits en masse at regular intervals is to avoid flooding people's watchlists with changes that don't need to be checked. The idea of having a script make such changes automatically is that it will usually only be done when some other non-cosmetic change is made at the same time, so we get gradual cosmetic improvement without alerting everyone for every cosmetic change. The downside of such script changes is that they can still generate watchlist alerts if no non-cosmetic changes are made at the same time, but that has a far smaller impact on watchlists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A downside to making such changes in Draft space is it postpones the bot from identifying pages for the G13 deletion. I often find pages kept alive for months or years because of automated edits that add no value to the dead draft. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding GiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:
- He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
- He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
- He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
- He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
- He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
- He may not use MassRollback.js
Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.
For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed
While ArbComm failed to pass a motion on it, Admins should be mindful of the problems of shutting down discussion about Admin misconduct too quickly. Two Admins closed the discussion of GS's conduct on this board and a third Admin threatened to block another editor who objected to one of the thread closes. GS himself called the qusstions harrassment. This behavior can cause non-Admins to distrust Admins generally as they are perceived to protect their own. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
The restriction on page creation imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
- Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new pages outside of mainspace such as talkpages and AfD pages.
- Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
- The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request
Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre
I admit, I'm not sure the administrators' noticeboard is an appropriate venue for this comment. If that's the case, sorry, I'm just trying to solicit feedback from a wider audience since the RfC I submitted before received very little interest. I thought I'd try here, and hope experienced editors will participate in the ongoing discussion.
I've become very frustrated by the fact that Wikipedia has many categories defining all songs by recording artists as one or more specific genres. For example, categories at Category:Lady Gaga songs suggest all of her songs are synthpop, dance-pop, or electropop. Entries in this category include many songs that would never be described as pop, including many jazz standards she's recorded for various projects. For song articles, we require secondary coverage to verify genres listed in the infobox. I argue we should only add genre categories for song articles when the song has actually been described as such. We can't just group all songs by an artist as being a specific genre. Doing so makes Wikipedia wrong, sometimes very inaccurate.
I've raised this issue for a third time at WikiProject Songs, here, and I invite editors to review past discussions and contribute to the ongoing recent one. I don't want to introduce any bias here, but as a general summary, some editors feel strongly about keeping the current method of categorization, but if I'm tallying correctly, more editors seem at least open to making changes. Again, I'm just hoping for feedback from editors who are not necessarily watchlisting WikiProject Songs.
I'm also open to other ideas for getting more editor feedback. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if this will help, but maybe try WP:CENT too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih
The "Alex Shih" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a duration not to exceed one year, during which time Alex Shih will be temporarily desysopped.
If Alex Shih should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the Clerks' noticeboard.
If such a request is not made within one year of the "Alex Shih" case being opened and suspended, this case shall be automatically closed, and Alex Shih shall remain desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih
My appeal has been archived before being closed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 31 January 2019 I filed an appeal here. About four hours ago that appeal was archived by a bot before it had been closed. Granted it had attracted very little interest, but to me it was a big deal, and I think the comments it did attract were generally favourable. Where does that leave me now? Can I appeal again? Can I unarchive that appeal and request a formal close? Please advise. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unarchived below, in the hat. I would be in favour of removing the restrictions also, and your following Ivanvector's advice. Fish+Karate 10:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support removing the restrictions although as with others I urge you to follow Ivanvector's advice Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: The bot archived it again. You'll need to use something like {{Do not archive until}} to stop it. I'd fix it myself except that I still need coffee and don't want to break anything. —DoRD (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers all. The error was mine, I didn't remove the header within the hat tags, so the bot still saw it as a separate section what needed archiving. Foppish Fish! Trying again. Fish+Karate 13:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, is the hatting supposed to attract editors to the discussion? GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unarchived DeFacto restriction appeal discussion attempt 2 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
About two months ago I successfully appealed here for the lifting of the last of my editing restriction. The closing admin noted on my talkpage that I still have a restriction from editing logged out or using more than one account, and a restriction stating that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block." I would hereby like to appeal for the lifting of those final two restrictions (not that I plan creating more accounts, causing disruption of failing to "get the point") to finish my journey along the path back to full good standing within the community. I hope my record over the past two or three years, since having a community ban lifted, of collegial and collaborative creation and improvement of articles speaks for itself, but if anything needs clarifying please ask. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
|
176.224.57.211
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Purple_arrow_down.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_down.svg.png)
- 176.224.57.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Latest sock of indeffed User:FaisalMusicFan99 - see history of Draft:The Life and Times of Beau Rondeau which he has recreated - was blocked as 176.224.192.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 6 Feb and 176.224.139.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 5 Feb Arjayay (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Arjayay:: are all these edits the same person, in your opinion? I am looking to range-block if possible — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- MSGJ - undoubtedly - I've been following these socks for a long time - for an explanation of their modus operandi, and the more recent IPs, please see User:Arjayay/Albert Unfortunately, they have used several ISPs in Riyadh so this would need several range blocks - the 176 and 93 ranges would be a start
PS your ping didn't work, I found this by accident - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)- I have blocked the 176 range for 3 months. Can you help by calculating the other ranges? If there is little collateral we can block them for a similar duration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know how to calculate ranges - the IPs are listed at User:Arjayay/Albert - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- FYI: NativeForeigner's tool - simply copy/paste text containing IP addresses and it'll do the work for you, but it may return ranges too big to work with like /15. Those will have to be split into multiple smaller ranges. —DoRD (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know how to calculate ranges - the IPs are listed at User:Arjayay/Albert - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- MSGJ, you may want to change that block to include {{anonblock}} in the reason so that any innocent users will have some idea of how to request an account. —DoRD (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have blocked the 176 range for 3 months. Can you help by calculating the other ranges? If there is little collateral we can block them for a similar duration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- MSGJ - undoubtedly - I've been following these socks for a long time - for an explanation of their modus operandi, and the more recent IPs, please see User:Arjayay/Albert Unfortunately, they have used several ISPs in Riyadh so this would need several range blocks - the 176 and 93 ranges would be a start
User has continued to edit List of National Basketball Association referees, ignoring 2 WP:PAID user warnings. Links are: List of National Basketball Association referees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NBA Referees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I notified them of this discussion on their talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that this is in fact a paid editor? I find it very unlikely that the NBA would be so dumb as to pay someone to push a POV under such a blatant username. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Based on the username, I believe it is reasonable to conclude they are likely a referee, who as an employee would be covered by WP:PAID even if the NBA had not explicitly assigned them to update the page. Regardless, failure to respond to the WP:PAID notices (even with an "I'm not paid" response) is a violation of the policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- As the username suggests it is a group, I have blocked the username; given the UPE possibility, I hardblocked. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that they are likely to be a referee; the name sounds a lot more like someone interested in referees than, say, the National Basketball Referees Association. Editors are not required to respond to personal inquiries; the paid-contribution policy requires disclosure, but no one is required to declare that they are not a paid editor. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is true no one is required to respond to any request or declare that they are not a paid editor- but the username policy is clear that usernames cannot be that of a group and "NBA Referees" at least suggests that the user represents a group. They need to clear that up- which may clear up the paid editing issue. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see the name any more suggestive of a group account than the user name "F1fans". The name is a bit more generic than a group would ordinarily pick. The user's edits are not promotional—in fact, the most recent one removed needless praise. So while I wouldn't be shocked if the account were operated by a paid editor, for the moment I don't feel there is a strong argument to conclude this. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, let me be very clear: no more personal attacks. WP:WIAPA demands serious evidence for serious accusations. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see that a fan is the same thing as a referee, especially not an elite level referee. Anyone can be a fan. By comparison there are only 71 current NBA referees according to our article. There would be maybe a few hundred more former referees. You can't be an NBA referee unless you're appointed by the NBA. Maybe more to the point, if you call yourself "NBA Referees", it's fairly unclear if you're saying you represent or are associated with them in some way, or are just a fan of them. I mean if this editor was mostly editing random other pages, I'd have no concern, but given their edits have all been to the list page; at a minimum, I think there is easily possible confusion and uncertainty about who they are and whether they represent a group. BTW I'm not sure the fact that they have a blatant username says anything about them being paid. Many organisations (or more accurately the people at whatever level in whatever organisation involved in making the decision, in this case I assume there may be multiple) still have little idea how to engage with wikipedia. Not everyone is trying to sneak stuff in the back door, there are still many which are trying to be semi open and transparent, but hopeless failing to do what we expected. To be fair, in most cases these will confirm when challenged although of course, our talk pages probably still mystify a lot of people. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see the name any more suggestive of a group account than the user name "F1fans". The name is a bit more generic than a group would ordinarily pick. The user's edits are not promotional—in fact, the most recent one removed needless praise. So while I wouldn't be shocked if the account were operated by a paid editor, for the moment I don't feel there is a strong argument to conclude this. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is true no one is required to respond to any request or declare that they are not a paid editor- but the username policy is clear that usernames cannot be that of a group and "NBA Referees" at least suggests that the user represents a group. They need to clear that up- which may clear up the paid editing issue. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Based on the username, I believe it is reasonable to conclude they are likely a referee, who as an employee would be covered by WP:PAID even if the NBA had not explicitly assigned them to update the page. Regardless, failure to respond to the WP:PAID notices (even with an "I'm not paid" response) is a violation of the policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Please redirect
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chaim Eiss to Chaim Yisroel Eiss. I'd have done it myself but "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Shrug - never saw such an error before, but well, here you go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Backlog at SPI
Just a note that SPI seems to be very backlogged. Right now there are more than 100 cases in various stages of the process, plus another 70 or so that are closed but not archived. I hate to point this out because I know that our SPI admins and clerks work very hard - and do have lives. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've worked to clerk, handle, and close a handful of them today. I'll jump back into the SPI list once I get a few high priority tasks that are on my plate wrapped up and done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
TfD on protected template
Please can an admin list Template:TheFinalBall for TfD deletion? The template is protected and so I cannot use Twinkle to do so. There's a discussion here which suggests template is not needed, so good to start a proper focused discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Question re WP:NOSHARING
I recently came across a beautifully worded talk post from an editor who I have worked alongside for a long time.[46] It struck me as very strange, because throughout the time I have previously known him, his English has been very different [47][48][49][50]. It is the difference between a native and non-native speaker, a gap that cannot be bridged in a short period of time. Examples in the first link which I have not seen before from this user include colorful adverbs (e.g. aptly), particular latinate word choices (e.g. subsequently vs. “then/after/next”) and unblemished use of tense.
Is there any way to assess this further with respect to WP:NOSHARING, akin to an WP:SPI?
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Onceinawhile, Please make sure that you notify the editor in question of this thread, as is required by the red box at the top of this page. I have gone ahead and done this for you. SQLQuery me! 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this so quickly. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Shrike's first edit was the creation of New England Role Playing Organization on 20 May 2006. Aside from reverting the removal of content and adding un-original content (e.g. citations and quotations), this looks like his next significant contribution to mainspace, 2 December 2006. After that, his next major contribution was the creation of Insulation monitoring device on 17 December 2006. These are the only edits I've seen in his first year of editing in which he added significant amounts of new content to mainspace. The first edit is rather different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- The editor created a few articles this year. Here are two of them after many edits from the editor, immediately before other editors got involved.[51][52]. 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Papirosn, last edit before someone else (the second diff in the comment just above mine)
- Mount Hope, Jaffa, last edit before someone else
- Arthur Menachem Hantke, last edit before someone else
- Félix-Marie Abel, last edit before someone else (the first diff above)
- Do with these what you will. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- The editor created a few articles this year. Here are two of them after many edits from the editor, immediately before other editors got involved.[51][52]. 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Shrike's first edit was the creation of New England Role Playing Organization on 20 May 2006. Aside from reverting the removal of content and adding un-original content (e.g. citations and quotations), this looks like his next significant contribution to mainspace, 2 December 2006. After that, his next major contribution was the creation of Insulation monitoring device on 17 December 2006. These are the only edits I've seen in his first year of editing in which he added significant amounts of new content to mainspace. The first edit is rather different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this so quickly. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I have also interacted with Shrike for a long time. Onceinawhile is correct that it is quite impossible for Shrike to have written the indicated text without help. Nobody can advance from C-grade English to A-grade overnight. Nableezy raised the same question on Shrike's talk page, which Shrike (whose English level had somehow returned to C-grade) refused to answer: I will not gonna answer You baseless WP:ASPERATIONS is another example of you WP:BATTLE mode.But I will say this I certainly didn't broke any rules. I'm not alleging that Shrike violated a policy, but I do believe an explanation is in order. Zerotalk 05:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Related, go to this version (earlier this year) of Shrike's talk, scroll down to the bottom, and un-hide the collapsed text; you'll see people asking the same question. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note to Onceinawhile: The post you cite and link to in your OP was not on a talkpage, it was on this noticeboard (AN) [53]. It seems clear to me that Shrike had someone else word the post -- someone who is very familiar with Wikipedia's ins and outs and jargon. It was a very long and detailed, six-paragraph OP about TheGracefulSlick's transgressions. Shrike's subsequent posts in that same thread reverted to his inadequate English. So something is going on. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Icewhiz as he may have some idea about this. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- This appears quite speculative to me, and why has this become a problem a month after the fact. Might it be a timely response to this? Also within days of all of this happening – also involving Shrike. For all intents and purposes, the only thing that may be demonstrated is that Shrike had some help writing the post. Proxying? potentially, but Shrike and TGS have overlap in the IP editing area, and for whom would they be proxying? Their personally filing the case is entirely unsurprising, given that they also started the Your unblock conditions thread on TGS' talk page. Proxying, thus, appears unlikely. GizzyCatBella proposes a more likely explanation that
[p]ossibly the editor received some assistance in drafting the note in perfect English [...]
. Not unusual, or prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Shrike and I recently collaborated on a DYK. I noticed the line through TGS’s name on a talk page yesterday so traced back to find out why. I hope that is a clear explanation. It is the type of explanation I would like to hear from Shrike. His collaboration with the mystery second editor could be innocuous or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't quite understand why proxying is unlikely because Shrike was someone who we would have expected to file a case/has legitimate interest. If I were a banned (whether topic or site) or blocked editor or simply someone without active sanction who wanted to evade scrutiny, looking for someone to proxy for me I'd look for several things. One is someone who could be reasonably expected to file a case. I definitely would avoid choosing someone who had never ever been involved in the area ever before since frankly it would raise too many questions. Now I'd also choose someone who I'd believe would be compliant, preferably someone I was friends with to increase the chance of compliance, and someone who could reasonably have written the message I wrote for them. The first two could obviously apply if proxying were involved, there's no way for me to know. The last one clearly didn't happen. But it doesn't seem sufficient evidence in itself since frankly making sure that the person's English level and commenting style is similar enough to yours is probably one of the easiest things to miss. Remember that proxying is frowned upon, even if you had legitimate interest in what is being proxied and may have eventually written your own version of what's being proxied because banned means banned. At a minimum, it's reasonable that editors should disclose if what they're posting was actually written by a banned or blocked editor or even an editor in good standing who doesn't want to be associated with the complaint and they're posting because they agree it's a legitimate complaint. Note that I'm not saying this happened, but rather I see no reason to say it's unlikely from the limited evidence at hand. Personally, if Shrike at simply clarified when queried about it way back that they had help but the person who helped them wasn't blocked or banned, I would AGF on that. The fact they've been so evasive is what causes concern and makes me feel it would be best if they disclose to arbcom or whatever who helped them. (I'm not saying I would support any sanction if they don't but being part of a community means sometimes it's good if you deal with concerns even without any threat of sanction for not doing so.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, by way of explanation: Some folks here do not seem to understand that it appears that Shrike may have been proxying for a banned editor. For those who don't know the whole long story, TheGracefulSlick was endlessly hounded and harassed by CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs) and later by CrazyAces' numerous sockpuppets. If Shrike took the wording of that long involved AN filing from CrazyAces489 or his socks, that would be a breach. As it is, the only other person whom I can think would have the motive, knowledge, English skills, and wherewithal to write such a lengthy and detailed and nuanced and perfect-English filing of TheGracefulSlick's missteps would be Icewhiz, who had also apparently been observing his edits -- but there's no reason that Icewhiz would not have filed his own AN post rather than merely providing text to Shrike (who clearly does not have the ability to write what he posted in that AN filing). Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the TGS was hounded. In that case, I think it's more imperative that Shrike explain either privately or publicly who helped them with that post. Failing that, I'd be willing to support some sanction. Perhaps a topic ban on bringing on participating in complaints about other editors to AN//I or AE. They may still participate in any discussions about them of course. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Nableezy, who brought the issue up on Shrike's talkpage last month. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- SHRIKE, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Y'all have too much free time. You're trying to rule on something you have no information on whatsoever, in order to enforce rules that are essentially unenforceable and fundamentally wrong. Hey, Shrike! Can I have the password to your email account? I wanna see who you've been chatting with. Oh, and please hand over your phone. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing to see here Even if Shrike is copying, verbatim, a banned editor, that's not prohibited under PROXYING. What Shrike is doing (assuming of course that they didn't just ask somebody for English help/spending some time drafting) is taking responsibility for the contents of the post, and they must demonstrate that the changes are productive. Given that the discussion in question lead to the reimposing of an indef on TGS, I think that is prima facie evidence that the post was productive. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I find it highly questionable whether posting something verbatim from an editor who has hounded the editor you're posting about without at least disclosing it came from said editor is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. Frankly if it is, I think wikipedia has completely failed as a community to protect each other. There's absolutely zero reason why an editor in good standing, including Shrike, couldn't have brought a complaint about TGS without involving the socking harasser. There's absolutely no reason why Shrike couldn't have simply said fuck you to CrazyAces489 if it really was them. or at the very least, revealed they were bringing a complain which had been written by CrazyAces489. Because that's how we should treat editors who think it's acceptable to hound their fellow editors. Tell them to fuck off because we can handle stuff without them. TGS may have been a highly problematic editor, but we owned them the basic courtesy of keeping away hounding socks from them, or at the very least, disclosing to them if we were going to ban them based on a case effectively brought by a hounding sock. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I'll put it more simply. If it is true that Shrike is proxying for a socking hounder, and Shrike wants to take responsibility for that edit, then they are taking responsibility for hounding another editor. We are also free to sanction them for engaging in hounding. There should never be any reason why hounding is acceptable, even if the editor being hounded deserves sanction by independent action unrelated to the hounding. This is not simply a matter of semantics since it's completely understandable an editor may feel angry by the fact that they were sanctioned from a discussion started effectively by a hounder, even if were they to look at it fairly, they would recognise the sanction itself was entirely justified. There is absolutely zero reason the discussion which lead to the sanction had to be so tainted. This isn't a case where the hounder managed to evade scrutiny and post before we caught them but one where if it is true, they were enabled by an editor here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I find it highly questionable whether posting something verbatim from an editor who has hounded the editor you're posting about without at least disclosing it came from said editor is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. Frankly if it is, I think wikipedia has completely failed as a community to protect each other. There's absolutely zero reason why an editor in good standing, including Shrike, couldn't have brought a complaint about TGS without involving the socking harasser. There's absolutely no reason why Shrike couldn't have simply said fuck you to CrazyAces489 if it really was them. or at the very least, revealed they were bringing a complain which had been written by CrazyAces489. Because that's how we should treat editors who think it's acceptable to hound their fellow editors. Tell them to fuck off because we can handle stuff without them. TGS may have been a highly problematic editor, but we owned them the basic courtesy of keeping away hounding socks from them, or at the very least, disclosing to them if we were going to ban them based on a case effectively brought by a hounding sock. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- One final comment on the issue for clarity, since I believe the AE case which was mentioned above has some similarities. If a sock initiates a case and it's closed as coming from a sock, I'm not saying the text has to be thrown out. Actually it may be okay to re-use the case verbatim. In such examples, at least it's disclosed and it's questionable if it's worth re-writing anything if it isn't needed. I consider this fairly different from an example where, unsolicited, an editor who has been hounding another editor to the extent of using socks, sends a case privately or semi-privately to an editor in good standing, and said editor in good standing posts it without disclosing this happened. IMO it should just be completely thrown out, i.e. I'm not even going to bother to read by any editor receiving it. But still, I could accept it if it was disclosed that it came or they believe it came from such an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [54] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of WP:BATTLE behavior because I didn't allow his WP:POV a DYK nomination to be presented as he wanted--Shrike (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote this also wrote this. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state also wrote "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". Or hell, just count the commas in the AN complaint and the ones in Shrike's response above. Compare the number of run-on sentences. Compare the grammar of "I didn't edited on behalf" and the literally perfect prose of the AN complaint. Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated WP:BAN. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote 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?, please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. nableezy - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
New OTRS queues
In an early 2017 RfC, the community endorsed the view that private evidence related to abusive paid editing should be submitted privately to relevant people when there are concerns related to privacy or outing. To better allow the functionary team to investigate instances of abusive paid editing where private evidence is a factor, the Arbitration Committee has established the paid-en-wp OTRS queue to receive such private evidence. The email address associated with this queue is paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. The queue will be reviewed by a subset of arbitrators and interested local CheckUsers, who will investigate all reports and take any necessary action.
This queue is not a replacement for existing community processes to address abusive paid editing. In particular, all public evidence related to abusive paid editing should continue to be submitted at the appropriate community noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Private reports that do not contain private evidence or can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes will be redirected accordingly. Reports will also be redirected to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where appropriate.
Further, the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue has been established to allow private requests for CheckUser to be sent to the local CheckUser team. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than the functionaries-en list. Similar to the above, all private requests that can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes, such as WP:SPI, will be redirected accordingly.
The Arbitration Committee would like to note that the creation of these queues was endorsed by the 2018 Arbitration Committee, with the announcement delayed into the new year as the queues were organized and created.
For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New OTRS queues
Mark Dice has posted a YouTube rant encouraging his legion of subscribers to disrupt the talk page of his article demanding we write it the way he wants Ian.thomson has begun blocking them as NOTHERE meatpuppets (see his block log). Wumbolo has challenged these blocks and effectively called for Ian to be desysoped. To provide clarity as to these blocks, I’m asking the community to review them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks this page is subject to the long-term disruption by an alt-right conspiracy theorist with a twitter and YouTube following who has been trying to write his own biography for years. He’s managed to convince Jimmy Wales to try to write it for him twice, and it failed each time, so now he’s moved to devoting a 5 minute YouTube video to getting his followers to force us to do what he wants. We don’t have to tolerate such disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks Meatpuppetry is only slightly less disruptive than regular editors advocating on behalf of meatpuppetry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Blocks seem fine to me. I looked in on the article earlier today to see what had happened recently following Jimbo's interference. Saw extra activity but couldn't check YouTube. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't have an opinion on the blocks either way but believed that they should be publicized. I also did not call for Ian to be desysopped for blocks of sleeper accounts. I said that it would be highly controversial if he unilateraly blocked new accounts after talk page protection expired. None of the new accounts were made aware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse, obviously. Since the talk page was semi-protected, it hasn't been new editors who don't know what's going on, it's people who have read Dice's YouTube rant and have old WP account that they've reactivated. As I said at the talkpage, the last four were created in 2006 (first edit for over 10 years), 2011 (first edit for 3.5 years), 2013 (re-started editing end of January after over a year break) and 2017 (first edits for 3 months apart from two edits on English Defence League - which probably tells you something). Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks It was pretty damn obvious and blatant, most were just trolling anyway. Accounts inactive for years suddenly showing up to make snide talk page comments about how unfair Wikipedia is to Mr Dice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Editors above are conflating accounts that were created today and those that were active years ago. I'm not saying that they should necessarily be treated differently, just that they should be examined in context and perspective. wumbolo ^^^ 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- What useful content was provided by the new accounts that were blocked? As I said on the talkpage, if someone wants to start a reasonable discussion, that's fine, but all of those account were the usual "Wikipedia is left-wing bias (sic)!!!", "the MSM is fake news!!!1!!" and "I'm not contributing to Wikipedia again!!!". Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- And then there's,
the criminal Ian.thomson blocked me on here illegally for political reasons and I have contacted law enforcement and they will be investigating his behavior and when he is indicted for the felony he committed against me he will be extradited to my state to face criminal charges and will likely be sent to prison I was told.
[55] —DoRD (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- And then there's,
- Endorse blocks and calling for a desysop is clearly not warranted in the face of this canvassing and meatpuppetry. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- A perfect example of which we speak [[56]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- [57] sounds You-tube related with a legal threat thrown in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse blocks - I wrote a comment on Ian.thomson's talk page after wumbolo posted their objection but before I knew this thread was opened. I wrote: I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). I also wrote that I had checked some of the accounts which were just recently reactivated to participate in this and found them to be
Unrelated. Maybe we could be a bit kinder to actual new good-faith accounts that are on the canvassed side of this, but trolls and older accounts that should know better should be indeffed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Probably goes without saying but when I say "new good-faith accounts" that does not include new accounts dropping legal threats. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)