Govindaharihari (talk | contribs) |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
== Topic ban review request (Joseph2302) == |
== Topic ban review request (Joseph2302) == |
||
{{archive top|result=There is a pretty clear consensus here that Joseph2302 be released from the terms of AMPOL, yet still be restrained by the "Donald Trump" issue. I'm pretty sure that Joseph understands that vioating the Trump restriction will almost certainly result in a serious sanction. And, obviously, a "No Trump" (broadly construed) sanction means that pretty much everything involving current high-profile politicians over the last few years is ''almost certainly'' included. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1540407498}} |
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1540407498}} |
||
I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to [[Donald Trump]]. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for [[Wikipedia:Women in Red|Women in Red]], and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with [[WP:BLP]], as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to [[Donald Trump]]. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for [[Wikipedia:Women in Red|Women in Red]], and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with [[WP:BLP]], as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
Line 114: | Line 117: | ||
****Your do your math in a particularly obstructionist way. You've successfully exhausted me, though. Good luck, [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]]. In the future, never bring stuff here without taking the simpler route of asking the specific admin first; I imagine [[User:Alex Shih|Alex]] would have done this himself weeks ago. AN/ANI are where simple ideas go to die. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
****Your do your math in a particularly obstructionist way. You've successfully exhausted me, though. Good luck, [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]]. In the future, never bring stuff here without taking the simpler route of asking the specific admin first; I imagine [[User:Alex Shih|Alex]] would have done this himself weeks ago. AN/ANI are where simple ideas go to die. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
*****If you can convince {{U|Alex Shih}} and {{U|Cullen328}} to agree to a full repeal of the TBan (not just a partial), then that would bring that proposal a consensus. As it is, there is no consensus for either a full or partial repeal of the TBan. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 19:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
*****If you can convince {{U|Alex Shih}} and {{U|Cullen328}} to agree to a full repeal of the TBan (not just a partial), then that would bring that proposal a consensus. As it is, there is no consensus for either a full or partial repeal of the TBan. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 19:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{ab}} |
|||
== Question for admins == |
== Question for admins == |
Revision as of 19:42, 26 October 2018
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
|
Index
|
|
The Closure requests noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.
Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.
Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 6 June 2022); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.
A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure for details.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}}
to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}}
or {{Done}}
and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}}
to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}
. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}}
template with |done=yes
. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}
, {{Close}}
, {{Done}}
{{Not done}}
, and {{Resolved}}
.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alansohn - Repeated Violation of IBAN
(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 May 2022) I request that this be formally closed. It appears that there may be a consensus here, but the result of the discussion needs to be logged. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Wikipedia talk:Piped link#RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes
(Initiated 318 days ago on 22 August 2021) Requesting closure of this RFC by an uninvolved editor. Hwy43 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Italian Social Movement#RFC: Italian Social Movement political position
(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 April 2022) RFC tag expired two days ago, and discussion has stopped since weeks, so it needs a formal closure. Already the OP took initiative and decided the RFC result without a proper closure, and they might try to do this again soon. Yakme (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This type of allusions (to which the user is not new) seems to me inappropriate and rather out of place. Until now there was a clear consensus for one of the three options, after two months of Rfc I limited myself to realizing the result of the Rfc, it was my prerogative. However, another user intervened today (after the expiration of the RFC, to tell the truth) and this slightly called into question the balance of consensus. Perhaps the best solution would be to further extend the RFC and seek the opinion of other users, to have a more defined result.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I voted for the option you favor, so I am sort of shooting myself in the foot here, but your methods of working here are totally unacceptable. (1) A 5–3 majority is not automatically a proof of consensus, let alone proof of "clear" consensus; (2) it was not your "prerogative" to "realize" the result of the RfC by yourself and also act on it by editing the page accordingly; (3) I don't think it's forbidden for users to give their opinions after the expiration of the RfC, their opinion is still valid; (4) I am not against extending the RFC, however this has already gone for more than 2 months. Yakme (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- For me it is quite irrelevant if you consider "unacceptable" a prerogative provided by the rules of Wikipedia. You are free to challenge my interpretation of the result and request closure from an uninvolved user, but not to contest prerogatives explicitly provided by Wikipedia itself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I voted for the option you favor, so I am sort of shooting myself in the foot here, but your methods of working here are totally unacceptable. (1) A 5–3 majority is not automatically a proof of consensus, let alone proof of "clear" consensus; (2) it was not your "prerogative" to "realize" the result of the RfC by yourself and also act on it by editing the page accordingly; (3) I don't think it's forbidden for users to give their opinions after the expiration of the RfC, their opinion is still valid; (4) I am not against extending the RFC, however this has already gone for more than 2 months. Yakme (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk:List of political parties in Italy#RFC on Structure of Lists of Italian Political Parties
(Initiated 68 days ago on 29 April 2022) We have decided to close this RFC to partially rewrite it and start a new one. A formal closure is necessary in order not to create confusion with the new RFC that will be started. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:SDC's closure request. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the ANI thread closed yesterday. I'll ask on the article talk page if the participants there still wish the RfC to be closed. Question asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- RfC would benefit from closing just so it's done. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 21 May 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Claire Danes#RFC - Claire Danes persona non grata resolution
(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 May 2022) Request closure of this RFC. Slywriter (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting#RfC: Including victims' biographies in the article
(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 May 2022) Needs a formal close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles
(Initiated 36 days ago on 31 May 2022) Requesting closure of RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles. This discussion has stagnated for long periods of time and there is no new arguments being added. It would be helpful if the closer had knowledge of Wikipedia naming guidelines, notability guidelines, and potentially a basic knowledge of history or linguistics. Poketama (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would also be helpful if the closer could wade through a morass of discussion caused by a poorly-formatted and vague RfC. What is really needed is a more focused question, rather than some request that Indigenous names must be included in lede and infobox regardless of appropriateness or reliable sourcing. Consensus from experienced editors seems to be that these should be included on a case by case basis according to existing Wikipolicy, rather than mandated. The WP:SPA nature of editor raising the RfC should laso be noted. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I edited in a clarification on the question shortly after posting the RfC and I think it can be resolved from the content of the discussion what the result was, rather than re-doing an RfC that has taken months. Users who were unsure of the meaning of the question still gave thorough explanations of their opinions, which can be used to reach consensus.
- Additionally, the meaning of the question has repeatedly been explained to Pete. I'll note that Pete is one of the primary parties in the dispute and thanked me for starting the RfC, as well as doing the formatting of the RfC themselves (See here: User_talk:Poketama#RfC) Poketama (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Very true. Still the question is poorly formed and the discussion consequently rambling. Making Indigenous placenames mandatory in the lead - for that is the effect your question seeks - is very poor wikipolicy. There may be no reliable sources, and WP:UNDUE always applies. The way forward, as found in discussion aimed at resolving the RfC, is for involved editors to collaborate in writing an essay giving guidance for the case-by-case decisions favoured by most respondents. Your contributions in that effort would be most welcome; this is something we have to get right and opening the gates for crusaders from either side is just going to turn Australian geographical articles into a bitter morass for years as cultural warriors throw stones at one another. We work together to produce a useful and respected encyclopaedia, not to sing our team songs as we piss in our opponents' beer. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC tag shouldn't have been deleted, but rather left to expire. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Should an RFC not be allowed 30 days prior to closure? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk:FB_MSBS_Grot#RfC
(Initiated 26 days ago on 10 June 2022) Request closure of RfC by an uninvolved editor as consensus is unclear. Gusfriend (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 22 | 148 | 0 | 170 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 18 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#Merge requests
(Initiated 343 days ago on 28 July 2021) Major backlog of requests needing closure czar 17:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFC
(Initiated 112 days ago on 16 March 2022) Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs#Proposal_to_update_the_project's_RS_guideline
(Initiated 105 days ago on 23 March 2022) No comments since May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Outline of library science#Requested move 28 June 2022
(Initiated 8 days ago on 28 June 2022) Request to close page move discussion by an uninvolved editor as consensus is provided by no comments. Jamzze (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:NGO Monitor#partisan counterpoint
(Initiated 3 days ago on 3 July 2022) – Is just going round in circles with one user insisting on (what looks like OR) be inserted in the lede. It is not going to get resolved as the user has refused )it seems to me) any compromise text, and has offered no alternatives to their version. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on - I have suggested several compromise alternatives, and all my additions (which have been reverted with false claims) have been fully sourced. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Topic ban review request (Joseph2302)
There is a pretty clear consensus here that Joseph2302 be released from the terms of AMPOL, yet still be restrained by the "Donald Trump" issue. I'm pretty sure that Joseph understands that vioating the Trump restriction will almost certainly result in a serious sanction. And, obviously, a "No Trump" (broadly construed) sanction means that pretty much everything involving current high-profile politicians over the last few years is almost certainly included. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to Donald Trump. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for Women in Red, and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with WP:BLP, as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Two questions:
- You're OK with the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in force, right?
- There seems to have been a certain level of impulse control problems thru March. Are you confident those are not going to recur?
- --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- This would work better if you provided links, Joseph, like this, or at least pinged Alex Shih. There, I've done both for you. It's difficult for people at AN to comment on a sanction that was apparently (?) decided at UTRS, see my link. For instance, I have difficulty understanding whether Alex is saying only that the topic ban from Trump pages can be appealed after six months, or that the "voluntary" (?) ban from American politics can, or need, also be appealed. Exactly how voluntary is it? I hope Alex will clarify. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
- I don't know how kosher it is to reproduce verbatim UTRS logs, but since there's no private info involved, I trust I can do it here:
UTRS context, slightly trimmed
|
---|
Alex Shih@2018-01-08 21:23:31: Hello Joseph2302, Thank you for your appeal. If I understand correctly, you'll be willing to accept 1) Commitment to BLP 2) Indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed 3) Temporary restricted from page moves until further notice? While this appeal ticks all the boxes, because of your subsequent comments after the initial block and previous history in this area, the block can only be reduced to 2 weeks I think. Any similar violations like this would result in indefinite block without warning. Let me know what you think, Alex Shih English Wikipedia Administrator ----------------------------------------- Joseph2302@2018-01-08 22:00:11: Yes I would be willing to accept: Commitment to BLP Indefinite topic ban on Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed. I'd take this to mean most/all of American politics in the last c.5 years, plus anything otherwise related to Trump e.g. his businesses, media appearances about him such as the Apprentice, Temporary restriction from page moves (I guess temporary means 6 months or a year, or indefinite but can appeal after X amount of time) And I understand that 2 weeks is reasonable given the comments I made after the 1 week block was imposed. And that any similar incidents would result in an indef block. Obviously I would like to return sooner than that, but I understand the seriousness of the BLP violations and talkpage comments. <extraneous info snipped> ----------------------------------------- Alex Shih@2018-01-09 03:55:12: Hello Joseph2302, No problem, I will reduce your block shortly. Thank you for the prompt response. Alex Shih English Wikipedia Administrator |
- --Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have no issues with posting the messages, in fact I was about to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam I don't care about Donald Trump topic ban, since I don't plan to edit articles about him. And I had some issues in March which won't be repeated. Mostly I was being pointy which isn't the point of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- --Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Writ Keeper. I'm afraid I understand the situation less now, since there's nothing about a topic ban from Am Pol, voluntary or other, there, and yet Alex's log note contains such a ban. Does Joseph need to appeal it at all? Does it exist? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
- In light of Joseph2302's response, I'm in favor of (a) lifting the AmPol restriction, (b) keeping the Donald Trump restriction, and (c) cleaning up the edit restrictions log with a link to this discussion for the Trump restriction. Part of the problem, I think, based on the layout of WP:Editing restrictions, is that restrictions that are not from ArbCom or a community discussion are, apparently, considered "voluntary" (in the sense that they were voluntarily agreed to in order to get unblocked?). So that might be what Alex meant. But yeah, that log entry is a little difficult to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- While I'm not opposed to such a change, I'm not sure if it's really dealing with the issue that brought Joseph here. I had a quick look at their recent creations, and most of them seem to still be alive. Actually often the thing that makes them notable is fairly recent. So I'm not sure it's that likely making the ban post 1932 American politics will help much. I'd also note that the state of pre 1933 American politics means there's unfortunately not so many women which fall under such a criterion anyway. I also see Cullen328 says below that the ban is actually only on post 2013 so a lot more generous than the standard sanction and the point is moot. Edit: I see you mentioned 'current' to be defined carefully, I missed that before and assumed from your comments you were talking about a standard ARBAPDS post 1932 ban not an even more narrow ban. That's more worthwhile except that as said it seems it's already the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony that a "Trump-ban" separate from WP:ARBAPDS is a bad idea. I support lifting the TBAN unconditionally, with the understanding that if he does start making problematic edits related to Trump, it's likely an admin will re-impose the wider topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Trump related, broadly construed, is a really vague term, and I would prefer to avoid such bans. I wouldn't care about keeping a ban on the Donald Trump page (that is a clear line and easily enforceable). Otherwise I agree with lifting the voluntary American Politics ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the Trump related topic ban was imposed by an administrator and that Joseph2302 is not asking that it be removed. What Joseph2302 is asking is that the broader topic ban on U.S. politics be lifted. That topic ban was voluntary, so in my opinion, Joseph2302 can unban himself at any time, with full realization that misconduct in this broad topic area will result in much stricter sanctions. I think that it is excellent that the editor put the matter forward for community discussion. I encourage him to keep avoiding Trump related articles, and to feel free to edit other political articles in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The talk page notice of the restriction did not accurately reflect the UTRS discussion. The voluntary restriction agreed at UTRS was about most American politics in the last five years, specifically referencing Trump related stuff. There is a vast world of American politics articles from 1932 to 2013 that need to be improved, that have nothing at all to do with Trump. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the American politics ban was meant to be voluntary as logged, and therefore intentionally wide (given the situation at the time); considering the history I think this discussion was indeed a good idea, and I concur with the interpretation of Cullen328 and Floquenbeam on my log entry. I would support going ahead and remove that sentence entirely and just keep the Trump topic ban intact, as Joseph2302 is not asking for it to be removed anyway. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given the statements above, I'm opposed to the idea of modifying this topic ban — as long as you're doing anything related to American politics in the last five years, you're likely to run into something Trump-related before long, so there's way too much wiggle room. I'm neutral on "retain the current ban" versus "remove the ban entirely", but both of those are a good deal simpler and less ambiguous (and thus better) than the proposed modification. PS, given the introductory comments about article creation: what about making an exception for drafts? Most disruption in political areas seems to happen when people edit-war over existing articles; if you may edit in this field in draftspace only (and may talk with others about improving drafts you've created), I don't imagine that problems would result, even if it would be a bad idea to remove the ban entirely. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose narrowing the TBAN, especially now. The TBAN was imposed as a compromise, resolving an indef for very unrestrained behavior, in a topic where we have DS because of too much unrestrained behavior due to the intense passions. While the request only discusses work on articles about athletes, it is hard to not consider the timing of this request, with the impending US mid-term elections, with so much Trumpian stuff going on. Given the timing, it seems unwise to narrow the TBAN now.
- Additionally, the request doesn't acknowledge the stuff that led to this situation.
- Looking at their block log they seem to have some hot button issues where they lose all restraint sometimes.
- Please look at their talk page archive from when they were indeffed; they apparently straight up lied about prodding the Trump page and then did the BLP-violating move of a related page that led to a block. In reaction to that, they wrote some things (some now rev-delled) that got them indeffed and caused them to lose talk page access (relevant part of their contribs is here). The indef and talk-page access are what were resolved via the UTRS thread quoted above.
- So they should stay away from US politics, especially now during the silly season. Better for them, better for everyone. We ~could~ consider a request after the mid-terms but it would need to come with way more self-awareness of the problems that led to the stuff in early January, and again, the OP doesn't discuss that at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Question: Could we please see the discussion/noticeboard thread that led to the topic ban? And/or who applied it, and how? Also, I think the reason that this thread is "stalled" is because the thread title is too generic. I have therefore added the user's name to the thread. I therefore do not think the thread should be closed yet. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- This request has been open for more than 3 weeks, it is not complicated, and all the information you're asking for is in the thread already. Bishonen provided the requested links 25 minutes after the request was made. The ban didn't result from a noticeboard discussion, but was worked out on OTRS as an unblock condition with Alex. @Alex Shih:, as the unblocking admin who placed these restrictions, I really think you can just make this call yourself, based on input from this thread. This is run of the mill stuff. Joseph got out-of-control angry, made some stupid comments about Donald Trump in article space, got blocked, accepted a topic ban to be unblocked, hasn't run into trouble in this area since (and seems to have been trouble-free for 6 months, since April 23), and is asking for a reasonably-explained reduction of the scope of the topic ban, and doesn't mind the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in place. I'm sure he knows that another episode like that will lead to an indef block. I'm not sure why this is apparently annoying me more than it is annoying Joseph, except that this just seems so scream-inducingly typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, Floq, I made a simple, good-faith request, and I get a long-winded lecture instead of the specifics I requested? None of what you stated was clear from a perusal of the thread; in fact none of it was stated at all. Way to AGF. Also, there does not seem to be a consensus for anything yet. There is no consensus the remove the broad TBan, no consensus to retain the TBan, no consensus to narrow the TBan. As for myself I would like the see the noticeboard thread that led to the user's block, so that I could assess what the merits or drawbacks of removing the TBan would be. In the absence of that, I agree with Jytdog's assessment and analysis that the user should retain a broad topic ban on AP2, and wait to request the removal until several months from now. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- You mean "in addition" to the specifics you requested; everything you asked was answered, and was answered based on info already in the thread (that's where I got it from). The further info I provided that was not in the thread is not what you asked for. There's a clear consensus to remove the broad topic ban. There might not be a consensus about the narrow one, and maybe that's what is hanging this up, but Joseph isn't even asking for that to be lifted so it doesn't matter. There is no noticeboard discussion that lead to the block. It is insane that something as simple as this takes 3 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- We can't lift the restriction on the broad topic ban without also lifting the narrow topic ban, because the narrow is a subset of the broad. And there is currently no consensus to remove either the broad or the narrow. Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- You mean "in addition" to the specifics you requested; everything you asked was answered, and was answered based on info already in the thread (that's where I got it from). The further info I provided that was not in the thread is not what you asked for. There's a clear consensus to remove the broad topic ban. There might not be a consensus about the narrow one, and maybe that's what is hanging this up, but Joseph isn't even asking for that to be lifted so it doesn't matter. There is no noticeboard discussion that lead to the block. It is insane that something as simple as this takes 3 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, Floq, I made a simple, good-faith request, and I get a long-winded lecture instead of the specifics I requested? None of what you stated was clear from a perusal of the thread; in fact none of it was stated at all. Way to AGF. Also, there does not seem to be a consensus for anything yet. There is no consensus the remove the broad TBan, no consensus to retain the TBan, no consensus to narrow the TBan. As for myself I would like the see the noticeboard thread that led to the user's block, so that I could assess what the merits or drawbacks of removing the TBan would be. In the absence of that, I agree with Jytdog's assessment and analysis that the user should retain a broad topic ban on AP2, and wait to request the removal until several months from now. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- This request has been open for more than 3 weeks, it is not complicated, and all the information you're asking for is in the thread already. Bishonen provided the requested links 25 minutes after the request was made. The ban didn't result from a noticeboard discussion, but was worked out on OTRS as an unblock condition with Alex. @Alex Shih:, as the unblocking admin who placed these restrictions, I really think you can just make this call yourself, based on input from this thread. This is run of the mill stuff. Joseph got out-of-control angry, made some stupid comments about Donald Trump in article space, got blocked, accepted a topic ban to be unblocked, hasn't run into trouble in this area since (and seems to have been trouble-free for 6 months, since April 23), and is asking for a reasonably-explained reduction of the scope of the topic ban, and doesn't mind the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in place. I'm sure he knows that another episode like that will lead to an indef block. I'm not sure why this is apparently annoying me more than it is annoying Joseph, except that this just seems so scream-inducingly typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- support Joseph's request for a reduction in his restriction, it's not hard, he has been good, if he falls off the wagon blocks are available Govindaharihari (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Govindaharihari are you supporting narrowing the TBan to Trump, or are you supporting removal of the politics TBan altogether? Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. I am supporting whatever Joseph is requesting, he has been a good user, let us allow him some trust, restrictions are easy to replace if violations occur. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Govindaharihari are you supporting narrowing the TBan to Trump, or are you supporting removal of the politics TBan altogether? Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Close?
- I think there is consensus here. There is concern about the scope of Trump topic ban leaves too much ambiguity, which really is only a concern if Joseph2302 is/was an active editor in the American politics topic area, which isn't the case here I think. I have always maintained that topic ban enforcements requires discretion and also consideration on the merits of why the original ban was placed in the first place, and under this mindset I think removing the voluntary ban, leaving Trump ban intact and having this discussion as something to point to should problems occur, would be the simple and sensible way forward. Would somebody close this please? Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Can someone please close this? -Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would, except I opined above. But yeah, this is dragging on for no conceivable reason. Recommend closing per Alex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not yet, as insufficient info has been provided IMO. Please see my question above. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see any consensus for any of the proposals. There are equal numbers supporting and opposing every single proposal. Namely: (1) Narrowing the TBan to Trump: Support = Floq, Cullen, Alex; Oppose = Tony, Power-enwiki, Nyttend, Jytdog. (2) Remove entire TBan: Support = Tony, Power-enwiki; Oppose = Jytdog, Softlavender. (I have omitted the opinions of the recently indeffed user.) Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- So 5 people support either full or partial lifting, and only one opposes both full and partial, but because there's a difference on whether it should be full or partial, we just sit here paralyzed for 3 weeks? Fine, I switch to full lifting of the t-ban. That should push it over the edge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- 3 out of 8 commenters is not a consensus. There needs to be a consensus for the specific action taken, and there apparently isn't any (yet). Perhaps a subthread survey on lifting the TBan entirely with only a Support/Oppose option would bring a consensus. Softlavender (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your do your math in a particularly obstructionist way. You've successfully exhausted me, though. Good luck, Joseph. In the future, never bring stuff here without taking the simpler route of asking the specific admin first; I imagine Alex would have done this himself weeks ago. AN/ANI are where simple ideas go to die. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you can convince Alex Shih and Cullen328 to agree to a full repeal of the TBan (not just a partial), then that would bring that proposal a consensus. As it is, there is no consensus for either a full or partial repeal of the TBan. Softlavender (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your do your math in a particularly obstructionist way. You've successfully exhausted me, though. Good luck, Joseph. In the future, never bring stuff here without taking the simpler route of asking the specific admin first; I imagine Alex would have done this himself weeks ago. AN/ANI are where simple ideas go to die. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- 3 out of 8 commenters is not a consensus. There needs to be a consensus for the specific action taken, and there apparently isn't any (yet). Perhaps a subthread survey on lifting the TBan entirely with only a Support/Oppose option would bring a consensus. Softlavender (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- So 5 people support either full or partial lifting, and only one opposes both full and partial, but because there's a difference on whether it should be full or partial, we just sit here paralyzed for 3 weeks? Fine, I switch to full lifting of the t-ban. That should push it over the edge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Question for admins
Is anyone else experiencing a longer than ususal lag when performing deletions within the last 24-48 hours? If it's just me, then it's probably karma for some misdeed I've perpetrated elsewhere. If not, I will make a note of it at WP:VPT.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb made a comment to that effect over on WP:VPT. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a direct link to the thread Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deleting pages so no one has to hunt for it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of course they did. Bbb23 is usually one step ahead of me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a direct link to the thread Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deleting pages so no one has to hunt for it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've opened T207530 so the devs know about this, please feel free to follow/leave a comment -FASTILY 04:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- As you might imagine, the nuke function is also really dragging. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban for StreetSign
StarForce
I deleted this back in May per CSD g11. There are like 1100 revisions. The deletion has been challenged, and I'm trying to restore so we can search for a non spammy version, but apparently I cannot restore that many revisions. Is there anyone who can?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Almost certainly not in one go. This is the same problem as in the #Question for admins thread, and T171898, T207530, etc. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Dlohcierekim, I got it. The 1313 revisions were done in six batches: 59 revisions, 164 revisions, 242 revisions, 296 revisions, 307 revisions, and 245 revisions. My initial attempt of 761 revisions failed (so I ended up dividing it into four batches), as did an attempt at 552 (so I divided it into the final two batches). FYI, since this was deleted as spam and since it was undeleted for review purposes, I thought we shouldn't leave it live, so I've temporarily redirected it to your userpage. Please unredirect it when appropriate, of course :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- PS, it currently qualifies for R2 speedy (mainspace redirecting to userspace), but as this is a temporary hack for something that shouldn't be deleted, I've protected the page lest a bot come around and tag it for deletion. (Template protected because it's the lowest level of protection through which most bots can't edit.) Any admin should unprotect it upon request by any (human) user. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: and everyone else: you can also get around these database errors by refreshing the undeletion page until the undeletion goes through (which usually only takes two or three attempts). The error about replication lag has been coming up for a while now; I sometimes notice it when deleting/undeleting pages for history merges. Graham87 01:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. I think I was hampered by browser incompatibility at work with tWinkle.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism on Classification of Japonic languages (bookworm8899 and sock IPs)
I changed the structure and corrected some informations in that article but a range of different IPs revert and vandalize thus page now. They push a relation with tai-kadai and do not use the talk page. I created a section on the talk page and this was deleted by thr IP aseell. The IPs probably belong to the blocked user bookworm8899/gutmeister who is known for his tai-nationalism. Could someone stop him or protect the page? Thanks AmurTiger18 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- The IPs claim that the topicstarter is a sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter. Is somebody here sufficiently familiar with that user?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see no overlap.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- The article was protected for two days by Dlohcierekim, and the discussions should now move to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see no overlap.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
G5 deletions
Scribbles by The Scribbler was blocked as a sockpuppet. They've created a number of categories that duplicate existing categories but with slightly different names (in order to try and prove a point, something the sockmaster was known for). I don't want to go through each one and individually tag them for G5 deletion, please can an admin please delete all of the categories they needlessly created (see [1])? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Tried to mass-rollback as much of their disruption as possible, but based on the cat populations it looks like there are a few pages that will need manual reverting. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I depopulated the deleted categories. That should stop them from showing up at Special:WantedCategories at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for everyone's help with this matter. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
A Quest for Knowledge
Seems to have been an isolated lashing-out; no further edits by AQFK in last 4+ days. Page is back down to semi-protection with no further edit warring, and the article talk page still exists. I don't think there's further benefit to leaving this open longer. For the record, consensus was that AQFK's edits were inappropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- edit count - they have been around since 2009 and have 23,527 edits. Their most-edited pages are:
This posting is prompted by this bit of edit-warring
Which they are defending at their talk page here. Their last comment there was this: No need to "pile on". The more pro-racist opposition to my edit, the more I believe that opposing racism is the right thing to to do.
As you can see above, their 2nd-most-common place to contribute is RSN, and scanning diffs there, they seem to understand how we use sources.
The initial edit is a) incompetent and b) tendentious as hell, and there is no excuse under the sun for someone with almost ten years of experience and 23.5K edits, who understands RS, to make that edit at all, much less attempt to force it in, much less defend it.
I don't know what this person's deal is, but they do not seem capable of working on content related to race per the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Why take this to a drama board so soon rather than waiting for a cooling off period? There is obviously no further disruption occurring? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Protected. I've protected the page. AQFK probably needs to dial it back a bit. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I find a Quest for Knowledge's first edit to be really really bad. Technically it doesn't need to be cited as long as what the text says is elsewhere in the article per MOS:LEADCITE. But the text in general was blatantly not a good summary of the article, and an egregious violation of the WP:IMPARTIAL tone we are required to have in articles. Grayfell then reverts without giving any reason at all. Quest for Knowledge's second and third edits are reverts merely requesting some policy rational for getting reverted. Greyfell continues to revert without even citing policy in the edit comment or on the talk page. This was WP:Stonewalling by Grayfell to have continued to revert without citing any policy after requested to do so. So I really don't blame a Quest for Knowledge for their 2nd and 3rd edit. Ideally he would have gone to the talk page first, but it was far more egregious for Grayfell to continue to revert without citing any policy. -Obsidi (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The edit was so obviously bad that the revert was fine, merely assuming basic competence on AQFN's part. I like to think AQFN was just having a bad day and would refer him to this advice. He hasn't edited in a while so hopefully this will blow over. Otherwise the applicable issue is WP:SOAP. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The edit was very bad, so I can give a pass to Greyfell for his first revert without an edit summary citing policy. But the 2nd revert by Greyfell after AQFK specifically asked for some policy rational, that wasn't good to revert without at least citing something like WP:NPOV. And the question is, were those 2nd and 3rd edits by AQFK within policy, and I think they were. If someone reverts you without any policy given, a revert (without violating 3RR) to demand some kind of policy cite is not a edit war. If AQFK deserves to be sanctioned, it is for his first edit alone (which was very bad, I agree). -Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what's going on with AQFK. It was an atrocious edit. He's smart and experienced enough to know that it was an atrocious edit. The disingenuousness of pretending he doesn't know why is unhelpful.
Usually it's best for all concerned to avoid getting sucked in by someone who gives the impression they may be spoiling for a fight. So I can see why not responding to the request for explanation could have been a reasonable thing to do (or not do). As with others I hope AQFK is just having a bad day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Obsidi: There is a huge, brightly colored banner across the top of this page requiring you to notify another user of discussion involving them. What part of that didn't you understand? Sheesh.
- Having noticed this anyway... The edit was so awful that I needed a few minutes to assess what was going on. I had to browse the users history to make sure this wasn't part of a pattern, or compromised account or similar. I was typing something on the user's page when they reverted me a second time. This edit was factually wrong to an offensive degree, so I reverted again and finished typing my message.
- I simply cannot believe that a competent editor wouldn't realize this edit was controversial (to put it mildly). Bad edits need to be addressed, and the most important goal is the articles, not playing games by humoring an editor's supposed confusion. We should deal with editors of course, but c'mon, this was bad.
- There's nothing to be done here as far as I'm concerned. Not yet. A Quest For Knowledge knows how to post to Talk:White privilege, and they know that edit wars end badly. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't start this discussion (that would be Jytdog), and I have not proposed (nor has anyone else) any sanction against you. I have merely commented to explain AQFK's actions. (At least as to the last two edits.) -Obsidi (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's weak. Jytdog started a discussion about AQFK, who was notified. You started a discussion about me in the same section without telling me. If you can't just own it, at least don't try and game the system with flimsy technicalities. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- You specifically accused Grayfell of "stonewalling." Doing something like that and not notifying the editor in question is uncool. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't start this discussion (that would be Jytdog), and I have not proposed (nor has anyone else) any sanction against you. I have merely commented to explain AQFK's actions. (At least as to the last two edits.) -Obsidi (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- A request for an explanation ought to be made on the talk page; no edit/revert to the article is required. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what's going on with AQFK. It was an atrocious edit. He's smart and experienced enough to know that it was an atrocious edit. The disingenuousness of pretending he doesn't know why is unhelpful.
- The edit was very bad, so I can give a pass to Greyfell for his first revert without an edit summary citing policy. But the 2nd revert by Greyfell after AQFK specifically asked for some policy rational, that wasn't good to revert without at least citing something like WP:NPOV. And the question is, were those 2nd and 3rd edits by AQFK within policy, and I think they were. If someone reverts you without any policy given, a revert (without violating 3RR) to demand some kind of policy cite is not a edit war. If AQFK deserves to be sanctioned, it is for his first edit alone (which was very bad, I agree). -Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The edit was so obviously bad that the revert was fine, merely assuming basic competence on AQFN's part. I like to think AQFN was just having a bad day and would refer him to this advice. He hasn't edited in a while so hopefully this will blow over. Otherwise the applicable issue is WP:SOAP. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment at first glance there do seem to be some long-term issues here; it would take me at least a half-hour to look at the edit history to come up with an informed opinion. If this lingers I'll try to do so in a few days. power~enwiki (π, ν) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a block is necessary, though some form of admonishment is needed for their insistence here that anyone who disagrees with their edits is a racist. They primarily edit controversial topics, and I doubt they are truly following WP:NPOV with their edits related to Kash Jackson, but overall I don't see a pattern of behavior that justifies a block. I would very strongly encourage them to try their hand at editing articles that aren't related to current political events; editing Sarah Jeong, "Polish death camp" controversy, Unite the Right rally, etc. is not a great way to develop good editing patterns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Slow deleting / undeleting / moving
- In the last several days, deleting or undeleting or moving a page has taken much longer than formerly, even if the page has only a few edits. Is there a reason for this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- You may want to read WP:VPT#Deleting pages. Killiondude (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ahh, thanks for this - just noticed it myself when moving a page, but thought it was our crappy work's server. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
DS template needed
Will an admin please (re-)install {{American politics AE}}
at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump? Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Mandruss, out of curiosity, where is the policy that says only admins can add that template? Just for my own education. zchrykng (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nevermind, found the information here and read the template more carefully. zchrykng (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Do you feel the discretionary sanctions are necessary on this new article? It looks like it is only a few hours old with a dozen edits. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of heading off potential edit wars vs. hampering development of a new article with the tedious "consensus required" sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would say that as a rule of thumb, any article connected to the subject of Trump is very likely to be the locus of conflicts and should be labelled with the DS notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Awilley: On a subject like this, edit wars are not "potential", they are a flat-out certainty. I don't know how much productive development can happen under those conditions. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I will keep an eye on the article over the next few days and will be ready to place the template if it looks like things start getting out of hand. (Or any other admin can place it whenever if they think it's necessary.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I personally kind of expect newer articles to be a bit more "wild west" than established old articles. I would further argue that the "consensus required" provision strongly favors the status quo, which makes sense on old articles with tens of thousands of edits, but not so much on brand new stubs. ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Do you feel the discretionary sanctions are necessary on this new article? It looks like it is only a few hours old with a dozen edits. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of heading off potential edit wars vs. hampering development of a new article with the tedious "consensus required" sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nevermind, found the information here and read the template more carefully. zchrykng (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel that 1RR or "Consensus Required" would be beneficial, but the "discretionary sanctions notice" from {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} might be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Change to Arbitration Committee mailing list
The Arbitration Committee has recently switched from using the Mailman software for our mailing list to Google Groups. Google Groups has been used internally by the Wikimedia Foundation for some time, and it contains several modern features that will improve the Arbitration Committee's workflow.
As part of this change, the mailing list address is now arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Please send all future mail intended for the Committee to this address. The -b and -c lists have similarly moved to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org and arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
Messages sent to the previous email addresses will be forwarded to the new addresses for a time. Other lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee, including funtionaries-en, clerks-l, and oversight-l, remain unchanged.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ Rob13Talk 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change to Arbitration Committee mailing list
Signature of User:RecentEdits
RecentEdits has a very similar signature with User:Figfires in this page. Considering this, I have given him a notice on his talk page on October 16. But then he did nothing, and this edit showed that he want to hide his confusing signature, rather than fixing it. Since this problem aroused Figfires and other editors' concern in User talk:Figfires#Re: 2018 European windstorm season. We want to seek administrator's attention. I know that blocking is the final action that we have to take, so I hope RecentEdits can come here and solve this issue. --B dash (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that both signatures use the same color scheme and look similar (in that they are both green with a glowing green background). But is it really that hard to tell which is which (they both have different names in the signatures)? Your signature and mine both have the same color scheme too! As far as I can tell, he has no edits to talk talkspace, only 22 edits in usertalkspace (of which most were unsigned). And I wouldn't neccessary say he wanted to "hide" the signature, but maybe he wanted to remove what you had just told him was a policy violating signature. -Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Obsidi and B dash: That much is true; however, this is a clear case of RecentEdits attempting to copy Figfires' signature, so perhaps this case is different. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 04:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is not the confusion, it is the trolling factor. Someone might check the contributions of RecentEdits (talk · contribs) and work out whether they do not understand common courtesy or whether trolling is likely. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is certainly concerning; hopefully RecentEdits will change their signature voluntarily before replying here. I suspect this is more likely to be a new user unaware of site rules rather than a sock who is deliberately trolling. But even still: the signature-style-copying is not acceptable, and they must now be aware of that. While it is minimally acceptable not to sign comments on one's own talk page, that is strongly discouraged as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @RecentEdits: - just change the colours, that would be sufficient. A lovely blue, perhaps; try this:
[[User:RecentEdits|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000092 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#000092 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#000092"><b>RecentEdits</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RecentEdits|<span style="color:#990000"><b>Send me a message!</b></span>]]</sup>
. Fish+Karate 08:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @RecentEdits: - just change the colours, that would be sufficient. A lovely blue, perhaps; try this:
@B dash:@Obsidi:@Power~enwiki:@Fish and Karate:I understand my mistake, and I deeply regret it. I will make sure to not make this blunder again, and no, it wasn't purposefully. Thank you! RecentEditsMessage me here.
- @B dash, Power~enwiki, Fish and karate, and RecentEdits: Great that this was resolved successfully. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Journalist wants to see article history
Hi! I was wondering - I was contacted by a journalist who is researching the Warren Chaney case from back in 2015 and wanted to see the (now deleted) articles and the edit history. Would this be something she should go through WMF for or are we able to send her this information and/or restore the articles to a userspace for her? (If restored they would certainly be restricted to where only admins could edit the page, similar to how the hoax museum's pages are locked.) ReaderofthePack (。◕‿◕。) 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Do they have a company email address from a reputable news source? If so I would be inclined to assume good faith, but check the history for abuse before providing. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- If the journalist works for a Kentucky newspaper -- especially the Kentucky New Era -- I would be VERY cautious. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why the bias against Kentucky newspapers, whether Christian County or otherwise? Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Web search shows that a bunch of the stuff in the Chaney "biography" was "sourced" to the Kentucky New Era. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble seeing much abuse potential given that the info (or at least what looks like an intact revision of the Cheney biography) is out there anyway. Maybe I'm missing something though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me there are 2 sets of articles to consider here. The articles on the alleged movies are not likely to have much info that is of concern (albeit I never saw them and am not an admin). This probably applies to the articles on the book and organisation. The articles on the people would need to be treated with greater care considering the possibility for BLPvios. Whatever happens, it should IMO be made clear that we don't (I assume) know for sure who is behind these articles. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why the bias against Kentucky newspapers, whether Christian County or otherwise? Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Protection needed?
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to ask for long term extended confirmed or pending changes protection for Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. The article is a frequent victim of Hoggerdhigh, usually through IP or newly made accounts. Sario528 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since the page has no history of protection, I have applied a week's semi-protection to address the immediate disruption and a year's PC protection, which theoretically will keep it in check. Sario528: In the future, please post requests for protection to WP:RFPP. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Major changes to talk page archive assistant script
When using Archy McArchFace to archive talk page threads, selecting a level n header will now select all of the sub-headers that it contains. You no longer have to select those headers yourself. Happy archiving! →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
RT story on Wikipedia
Did you know, according to Chris Hedges, some Wikipedia editors are unpaid? It must be true, it was on Russia Today, where we learn how "Wikipedia has become a tool to propagate the reigning ideologies and biases of the ruling elites". See also Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Interview_on_Russia_Today for more quotes. --Calton | Talk 14:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, I'm supposed to get paid? Where the heck are my checks? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- The lede of Russia Today article, quite correctly, states that "RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet ..." I do not see why we should take anything they publish in any way seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- You should take it seriously, because in every pile of propaganda, there may well be a grain of truth. RT is rubbish, but don't let them co-opt such a critique of Wikipedia. In many ways, Wikipedia is such a tool... RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's just that, 'RT says, 'you are a tool of the ruling elite' ', sounds like comedy. Is it 'takes one to know one'? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is by necessity based on reliable 'mainstream' sources. There is no choice in this regard, as otherwise it would be impossible to create a coherent work. However, this means that Wikipedia reproduces the bias and prejudices of those sources, which are controlled by the capitalist 'ruling elite', and therefore propagates their ideology. It's worthwhile to be conscious of this fact, whilst also understanding that the age-old mantra 'verifiability, not truth' (even if that phrase itself has passed into history) is a necessary form of bricolage. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- What tool are you? I call dibbs on needle nose pliers of the ruling elites. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- "The ball peen hammer of the ruling elite" has a nice ring to it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see myself as the screwdriver of the ruling elite, although I could be the margarita of the ruling elite if required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- What tool are you? I call dibbs on needle nose pliers of the ruling elites. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is by necessity based on reliable 'mainstream' sources. There is no choice in this regard, as otherwise it would be impossible to create a coherent work. However, this means that Wikipedia reproduces the bias and prejudices of those sources, which are controlled by the capitalist 'ruling elite', and therefore propagates their ideology. It's worthwhile to be conscious of this fact, whilst also understanding that the age-old mantra 'verifiability, not truth' (even if that phrase itself has passed into history) is a necessary form of bricolage. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's just that, 'RT says, 'you are a tool of the ruling elite' ', sounds like comedy. Is it 'takes one to know one'? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- You should take it seriously, because in every pile of propaganda, there may well be a grain of truth. RT is rubbish, but don't let them co-opt such a critique of Wikipedia. In many ways, Wikipedia is such a tool... RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"Controversial" media, and how best to filter it ....
This is going to be a tricky posting (and likely a heated disscussion), so please bear with me.
Recently I was doing some image patrol work, trying to find media which needed updating in anticipation of structured data at Commons. This was done using a query on Quarry ( https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18892 )
However, amongst the filenames returned were filneames for media the filename suggests that the content of that media may be either controversial (at best) or illegal in some Non-US jurisdictions (at worst), and thus would be content that contributors shouldn't edit (for legal reasons in their jurisdiction), or which they would be uncomfortable with editing. This is also a concern that some jurisdiction such as the UK, have penalties for "viewing" certain types of content which whilst merely controversial in the US, may be illegal in the respective Non-US jurisdiction. (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45842161 for one such instance).
Fully filtering content has been proposed many times before and as I understood it would not be possible currently.
Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, currently follow US law (and thus only censor to the extent that US law requires them to), it would be appreciated if there was a better mechanism for admins and uploaders to mark "controversial" media, so it can be explicitly dropped out of queries or searches compiled by contributors in jurisdictions with different (legal) standards, especially as it would for various reasons not always be possible to use a filename to know if content was going to be "controversial" without nominally viewing the content.
I'm aware that there is a badimage list, but it was my understanding this was only used reactively.
I'm posting this to the Administrators Noticeboard, so that someone more experienced can work out a solution and post an RFC in the appropriate manner.
(I will note that in a related aspect of the UK issue, I'd already put forward an informal proposal here about External Links Wikipedia_talk:External_links#WP:ELNEVER/_WP:ELNO_Should_explicitly_indicate_not_to_link_sites_which_contain_'illegal'_content. ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- This sounds like exactly the sort of thing structured data is eventually supposed to be for. Such that things can be tagged as various categories of things that users might want to filter out themselves, without it actually doing anything by default without the users choosing to do this filtering... (thus avoiding issues with actual project-wide censorship while allowing users to filter things on their own and also allowing location-based filtering too if there does wind up being consensus/legal need for it). So my random recommendation at this point might be to look into if any of the existing categories might be candidates for creating flags (or whatever the hell you call it) in the structured data that will then be filterable by for such a use case? -— Isarra ༆ 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- For various reasons, I'd feel exceptionally uncomfortable going anywhere near "controversial" media (let alone editing/tagging), but if other admins want to review/tag images so they don't appear in a query like the one I mentioned ( or suggest a tweak to it), I have no objection.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
SO Request for SirEdimon
No objections to unblocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- SirEdimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Request:
I'm trying to do a "Standard offer". I was blocked about six months ago. Since my block I've been collaborating heavily in the Portuguese Wikipedia and I helped to improve significantly articles about movies and women's soccer. I helped to improve the NWSL's article in Portuguese and the articles of all NWSL's teams. I helped to improve several film's articles and I created many others. I've been very active in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I'll keep my activities there because they need more collaborators, but I also want to be able to edit in the English Wikipedia. I'm fully aware that I broke the community trust and I deeply regret it. I promise I'll never do it again. I kindly ask the admin (or admins) reviewing my case to consider all the "good things" I did before my wrongdoing. Regards.
- SirEdimon was blocked for Sockpuppetry (SPI)
In my opinion, they do appear to have been editing constructively on pt.wikipedia since the block: [3], and they appear to understand why they were blocked. Bbb23 indicated that they are OK with unblocking, [4]
Due to the extent of the socking, I think it's best to discuss this at AN. SQLQuery me! 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd have been fine with Bbb23 and SQL agreeing, and not bringing it here at all, tbh. Sure, let's give it a shot. Seems pretty much a textbook WP:SO case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to be fine, let us give them a chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd have been happy with just the reviewing (User:SQL) and blocking (User:Bbb23) admins agreeing between themselves. But seeing as it's here, I'm fine with an SO unblock too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
RFPP backlog
It does not happen too often, but now we are backlogged at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with 25 open requests. A bit of help will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
User:6Packs/User:If2020/User:Ohmy45 sent me an email requesting an appeal for the block
I was sent an email from this user requesting an appeal for the block, so I am copying and pasting this email below. I am not sure what to do with it, so I am quoting the email below, errors included:
Dear Jesse,
I write this in reference to my Wikipedia account user:6 Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/6Packs. I was blocked on 5 October for a sockpuppert, see account. I sent this to one Admin who had blocked me but he hasn't edited since I sent the email.
I know its really wrong to have created more than one account and it honestly really pains me that I now just have to watch comments on Teahouse and never able to help. My mistakes and punishment dearly affect me everyday because I live a lonely old man life and Editing Wikipedia used to take me off the loneliness and feel like living among a community of human beings.
Due to my mistfortunate acts, I am not allowed to participate in the one thing I have fallen in love with and this has been a tough pill to swallow these past weeks since my block. My life really feels lonely and empty because I spent all my day - time editing 24/7 on my account 6Packs as I am an unemployed retired old fellow who only spends time trying to improve the enclopedia and try as much to enjoy every minute of it. I am very very sorry and ashamed that my decision to create more than one account led to me being banned and not allowed to participate any longer.
On my account, I had created about 50 good articles prior to my block and contributed mostly to preventing vandalism and did not cause any harm to Wikipedia despite my mistake of having previously had another accounts which I stopped using having crea ting the 6Parks one. Presently, I can't edit that anymore and my actions feel like I cut myself further away from the world without my Wikipedia participation. To relieve my stress, I tried creating a Facebook account but I just don't feel part of that as I don't get any knowledge or interest in the posts of people there. Additionally i tried Watching soccer every weekend but after the game, i return to the loniliness and feed my loneliness by reading the posts and comments on Teahouse and Help desks. Wikipedia has become such an addiction and a hobby of mine and it hurts that I made mistakes that I now have to live with by facing the consequences of my mistakes.
I could have posted this on my account talk page but I am currently locked out of the account. I ask of you to kindly see if you can assist me or post this plea on the Admin Notice Board so that maybe the Wikipedia community can decide if I deserve another chance with my account or still remain blocked as I am very lonely affected by this and wish to, should the community see fit, be given another chance. If there is more punishment i can be given before being accepted back or to clean up even 1000 articles that need help in a day, I am more than willing to do it in order that I can be allowed again into the Wikipedia community.
Kind regards 6Parks
-- This email was sent by user "If2020" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jesse Viviano". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
If I have broken any rules, please let me know. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given the extensive checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry, we should probably note that the user is banned rather than blocked, under WP:3X. There's nothing in the unblock request that gives me even the faintest hope we can trust they'll stick to a single account, especially given they've been violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK in the past week. I count 16 sockpuppet accounts. The most I'd advocate is that we'd consider unbanning them roughly under the terms of WP:SO which require six months with zero edits and zero further sockpuppetry. I don't object if others wish to look on this more favourably. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- (EC) Per WP:NOTTHERAPY, the editor's need to edit wikipedia is not something which makes a difference to us. If the editor has the problems they outline, I strongly suggest they try and seek some sort of help elsewhere to deal with them. As for an unblock, my first thought was that editor is clearly missing out a big chunk of the story. Sockpuppets may be indefed, but the master is not unless they either keep creating socks or do something else majorly wrong. A quick look suggests that this has been going on since at least June, not October and is still ongoing. Beyond the sockpuppetry, it seems like there is some fixation with creating an article on some Zambian author. There has also been a global lock, possibly because the same thing is going on at simple and/or commons. I suspect there may be more, either way other than needing to stop socking probably for at least 6 months the editor would need to be more honest if they want to convince the community to give them another chance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)