Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256

Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC

In August I initiated Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law, an RFC concerning material duplicated on a large number of articles in the scope of three different WikiProjects (WikiProject International law, WikiProject LGBT studies, and WikiProject Africa). The RFC saw a lot of participation and seemed to come to a consensus that the material was inappropriate (though I don't think the RFC was ever formally closed). However, the talk page on which the RFC took place was recently deleted because the corresponding article was found to be a copyright violation. So now there is no more publically visible record of the consensus.

It seems clear that the RFC should be restored, since the discussion concerned not just the page which was deleted but maybe two dozen others which are still extant. (And also because someone is attempting to restore the duplicated material which had been removed as a result of the RFC discussion. I don't know whether they honestly forgot about the consensus, or if they're taking advantage of the fact that the record of it has been deleted.) The question is, where should it be restored to? Restoring it to Talk:LGBT rights under international law would preserve the existing inbound links, but we'd end up with a talk page with no corresponding article. Alternatively we could restore it to a subpage or a talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects. Is there a precedent for this sort of thing?

Incidentally, once the RFC is restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the WP:CSD#G8 was invalid because it is a "page that is useful to Wikipedia". It should be restored to the same location and tagged with {{G8-exempt}}. @Wizardman:, do you agree? Thincat (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and restored it, since the information was being used elsewhere and G8 as a result would not apply. Wizardman 15:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Psychonaut (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Userpage moved ?

Please check this edit, thanks.--Musamies (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved page back to user space, left a note at the new account's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Block Review Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would request a review of the block of User:MarshalN20 by User:Sandstein based on this report at WP:AE by User:Keysanger. The matter of the report stems an incident two weeks ago, after prompting from myself Marshall withdrew 100% from the discussion, struck out his comments and has taken no further action. This was a minor transgression of his topic ban, prompted by a query from User:Darkness Shines and in all other respects he has respected the topic ban. To hit him with the block hammer two weeks later, seems to be totally unfair and decidedly punitive in nature. I am far from convinced that there is anything preventative in this course of action. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The block was based on AE discussion. This really isn't the right venue ES&L 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think a month long block for this is completely ridiculous but this is typical conduct for Sandstein and AE. This may not be the right venue for discussing an AE discussion but someone needs to deal with Sandstein and his extreordinary blocks and unnecessarily broad discretion to run AE like a one man show. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This is an arbitration enforcement block (WP:AEBLOCK), subject to review under the conditions described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions. I refer to my comments in response to Wee Curry Monster on my talk page. Furthermore, I am of the view that, as the Arbitration Committee put it in a draft procedure, "only an editor under sanction may appeal that sanction" (WP:AC/DSR#Appeals). Because Wee Curry Monster is not the editor under sanction, and MarshalN20 themselves considers the sanction justified, I recommend that this request for review is not examined further.  Sandstein  20:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Per this arbcom decision [1] the block can only be over-turned if (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). And if I may correct you, there was no discussion at AE he was summarily blocked over a stale issue within hours of the report being made. This is the right venue to have the block reviewed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And to add, if the only option for over turning a bad block is a community consensus here, then requiring the blocked editor to make the request is distinctly kafkaeque even for wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, they can very easily appeal from their talk page, see WP:AEBLOCK. Your premature appeal, for which you have no standing, unneccessarily complicates the discussion between me and MarshalN20 on their talk page, and I won't comment on it further.  Sandstein  20:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no standing? Would you please explain that remark, I do hope it is just a poor choice of words. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein that's complete nonsense. Your unnecessary block is what complicates the case. Not WCM's opening this discussion. I don't think I have ever once seen you overturn your decisions at AE. In fact you have a history of being defiant and refusing to do so. AE should not be a one man show and we do not need a venue where one admin who does very little else is judge, jury and executioner.

Back to the matter at hand. This case is a clear representation of how long blocks for petty reasons have become the norm here. I frankly don't think you care about that. I really don't but the bottom line is this case was resolved a month ago which makes this block punitive, not preventetive and completely pointless. This block is not preventing anything except edits from getting done.

Further and even if this gets me blocked (which I really don't care about these days anyway) I'm going to say this because it has needed to be said for a long time. We do not need administrators that act the way you do. That is not helpful to the project. We do not need AE to be a one editor show. Not with you or anyone else. You are one of the most abusive admins around. You don't care what anyone says, especially if they aren't another admin; you do what you want; you dole out draconian blocks like candy and generally do nothing else of benefit to the project. You are one of the minority of admins who shouldn't have the tools. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings or makes me look even more like a jerk than people think I am. But someone needs to tell you in no uncertain terms that you are not a Judge (even if you are a lawyer IRL). This is not a black and white site and we don't need black and white rulings; grey is sometimes good. We also don't need a 100% guilty verdict out of AE. Its a death sentence just like Arbcom. AE is nothing but a Kangaroo court that needs to be put down! Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without taking any opinion on the substance of the block, I do want to point that this is the right venue for such a review. The AE header instructions clearly state that AE sanctions can be overturned "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)". I'm not saying that is should be overturned, but this is the right venue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, without taking an opinion on the substance of the block, this may be the right venue, but it probably isn't the right time – given that there appears to be ongoing discussion with Sandstein on the blocked editor's talk page – and it definitely isn't the right person—Wee Curry Monster should not be posting a block appeal on behalf of a third party who did not ask him (or give him permission) to do so; WCM's involvement is particularly unhelpful as he has been pushing a rather lawyerly and fundamentally incorrect understanding of the 'vandalism' exception to WP:TBAN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion

Would an administrator be able to clear out some of the pages in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion? This category current has a bit of a backlog. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

As an experiment for class discussion, Scott Warfield (professor of music theory at University of Central Florida) solicited problematic spots in WP, including vandalism. He posted the summary of his findings in an email message (available at Wikipedia Summary). He has identified vandalism by "a son of a musicologist." One example he identified was Auburn Arena. An edit made by user at IP 108.203.193.219 indicated that John Philip Sousa performed there (the arena was built in 2010 and Sousa died in 1932): [2]. Another instance of false information planted by this person (this time under the username SkinnyBenny) is on a non-music article, Mack Brown, the offending statement being: It marked the second time since the founding of the Big XII conference that The Golden Lasso trophy awarded to the winner of the Chisholm Trail Rivalry resided in Manhattan, KS. for at least two consecutive years. The Kansas State Duplex Cats. (There is no "Chisolm Trail Rivalry.") [3] If an admin is reading this, I suggest some kind of ban as this person seems to enjoy deliberate vandalism. -- kosboot (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

When I put the notice on the user's talk page I saw that he was previously warned about previous edits: User talk:SkinnyBenny. -- kosboot (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Only subscribers to that mailing list are able to read the email. For that reason, I must ask that you clarify: was Warfield asking people to vandalise Wikipedia, or was he asking them to report existing vandalism? Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - one needs to register to read. Warfield was soliciting WP examples of vandalism and controversies. Since this person was cited twice (and I only realized that I had been involved with him in 2012), I thought to report it. -- kosboot (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: SkinnyBenny's last edit was in August 2012 - over a year ago. The last warning on their talk page was in March 2012. I have appended to the notification on their talk page the fact that this discussion is about them; the original notification was too vague. No evidence is given here, that SkinnyBenny is the IP stated (The IP received no warning; and the Souza statement could as easily be an error as vandalism), and reference to their supposed real world identity may be in contravention of WP:OUTING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING only applies when someone claims to be revealing what can't be discerned from on-wiki information. Saying that SkinnyBenny is the IP on behavioral grounds is standard WP:SPI behavior (see WP:DUCK), although in this case the evidence is far far too slim to make such a determination. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about "saying that SkinnyBenny is the IP". I referred to discussion of their "supposed real world identity". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Merchandise

At an RfC about changes to the Toolbar, there was a mention of a 'Merchandise' or 'Shop' link there. I can't remember such a thing, and can't see it either in Monobook or Vector. I asked for details there, but none were forthcoming. Has anyone else any knowledge of this feature? Or is it just waffle? Peridon (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd that you don't see it. For me, it's right there at the bottom of the "navigation" box. "Wikimedia Shop", right below "Donate to Wikipedia". FWIW, I still use Monobook, like all true Wikipedians. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I just logged out, and it's in roughly the same place in vector too. I'm starting to suspect I've misunderstood your question... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you've understood all right. For me, the only thing under Donate is the Search box. A thought has occurred - I use Firefox with AdBlock Plus. That's very good at blocking ads - perhaps the link is being stopped? What link do you get? Peridon (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I takes me to https://shop.wikimedia.org/. Do you have some kind of java/css thingamajig that alters your navigation box? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I've just tried disabling ABP on a page - no difference. LindsayH can't see the shop either - I've just contacted them. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been targeted for a special promotion, due to my obvious lack of willpower. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember ever seeing it, and it's not something I would disable. Nothing in gadgets, and I can't remember how to get at js and css stuff. Now I've seen what's in there, I don't think I'll be purchasing - a 20 litre back pack for $150? It may be an expensive brand (never heard of it), but that's ridiculous. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see it when you log out? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No difference at all. Can't be down to using en-gb, either. That wouldn't be in action logged out. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible it's only there for people in the US? I'll bet you a $13 water bottle that's it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Floq, you're out a waterbottle. I'm in Canada and for as long as I can remember the shop link has been visible in my toolbox.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Double or nothing: the US and Canada. Better yet: displayed in some countries, but not others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's created by a neat little extension (mw:Extension:WikimediaShopLink), which only shows the link if you're in a specific geographic region. Legoktm (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But even so, it allows you to select GBP for the prices (still too dear for a 20 litre day bag... Peridon (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks for the alert, Peridon.) I have never seen this link, that i can recall. I use Chrome, with AdBlock, if it's possible that's blocking the thing. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 23:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, never mind; now i see Legoktm's cool explanation. Good to know. Lindsay, late to the party, as ever, decides to go back to sleep. 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Appropriateness of a new move request within 24 hours of a closed request

Resolved

Can an admin examine Talk:Case Closed#Requested move 3 for the appropriateness of opening a new move request within 24 hours of the previous move request that was closed after 12 days of discussions and did not provided any new arguments? 24.149.119.20 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the request. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding User:CommonsDelinker to the templateeditor group

Hi! I've gotten a request to add CommonsDelinker to the templateeditor group, so that it can remove or replace images on pages with templateeditor protection. This isn't a scenario that we foresaw when the group and criteria were created, so I'm putting this here so people can give input. --Rschen7754 10:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason not to allow this, we can always reconsider if this turns out to cause problems. Fram (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me,  Done Legoktm (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; remember that WP:TPE says "An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities". Passing WP:BRFA is an obvious indication of competence. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG

Hi, can someone check the edits being made by ClueBot NG - it is adding Today's Featured Article to some IP talk pages instead of a warning. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there some way to stop it from editing user talk pages only? I'd hate to have to block it from reverting vandalism. John Reaves 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw the odd TFA talkpage edits too, it wiped about 40k from a page in the process. I commented on the bot talkpage, as I know the guys above did too. I concur that since these are talkpage errors it would be most unfortunate to stop the good mainspace work - depends, I guess, if we could live with it not leaving warnings until fixed. I think I could, due to its legendary accuracy, but I could also understand if that breaches its BRFA terms. Hopefully someone will just fix the problem and make all this moot. Begoon ^talk 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be in addition to warnings, and only sporadically. While it's a bit strange it doesn't seem like an issue requiring drastic measures Jebus989^✰ 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The only worry is it removed (a lot of) talkpage content and buggered up the warning sequence in the one I saw. So long as these could be tracked and retrospectively fixed, probably no biggie. Begoon ^talk 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The old warnings should probably be restored. I'm sure there is someone looking to boost their edit count that would do it. John Reaves 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Begoon ^talk 16:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is rather malfunctioning. Now we are not reverting vandals, but reverting the malfunctiong ClueBot NG. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, ClueBot NG is not warning those editors who vandalized the first time. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any code changes, so it's probably a template change somewhere, I just can't figure out which one. Legoktm (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a content dispute over {{Uw-vandalism1}}, and full protection was requested at WP:RFPP. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That shouldn't cause it though. ClueBot doesn't use that template. Legoktm (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

{{TFA}} is being substed into somewhere. Legoktm (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Might not be the best time but for debugging future issues it would help a lot if NG's source were public, ideally hosted on github/bitbucket/google code etc. With the dropoff in owner activity this is becoming more and more pertinent. Jebus989^✰ 17:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is public. Legoktm (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's pseudo-public "available on demand" as far as I can see? The advantages of having the codebase in a (visible) repository under distributed version control should be obvious to Wikipedians. Jebus989^✰ 19:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was busy trying to track down the issue. It's fully public, see [4]. There's also WP:BEANS, so I guess it's not necessarily a good idea to spam that link everywhere. Legoktm (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh cool, thanks Jebus989^✰ 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Take a look at this. It's from a user Cluebot warned. It added the warning along with replacing my welcome message with the TFA stuff. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh, bad news. I was debugging it and poking in the source code directory and accidentally found the password, so I've blocked it as compromised. I'll send an email to Cobi/Damian in a second. Legoktm (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the anti-vandal triremes are gonna be working overtime. Load the ballistas Admiral Caius (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reset the password, and will make sure that Damian takes better care of the new password. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can one of the bot-ops (Cobi or someone else) explain why many of the Cluebot edits say that they are reverting to a last good version by me on articles that I have never edited? Flattered though I am to be Cluebot's default good guy, it's hardly accurate. Examples [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] etc... Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They are still pasting TFA into talk pages and removing stuff in the process. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd. It's almost as if the API is simply returning bad data. The bot's code hasn't changed to bring this on, and the fact that there are no default users or anything makes it look like the API is returning your username. I'm still looking into the issue -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the exact text of the edit as submitted by ClueBot NG before expansion of the templates. It's just copying the text from the TFA blurb.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM & Suburban Express

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not an expert at Wiki rules. I am more knowledgeable than I was a week ago, but not an expert. I have a COI due to my ownership interest in Suburban Express.

In recent months, CorporateM has been extremely active in editing the Suburban Express article. I would argue that he has been agressively pushing his POV.

I come here with a very specific complaint relating to conduct which just occured this hour.

A few days ago, SlimVirgin argued that the article had several problems, and suggested a new lede.

Later, an economist came on-scene and was adding useful input. He created a section in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suburban_Express#BRD_on_recent_lede_changes_by_CorporateM and was engaging others in a discussion, hoping to converge on language which is agreeable to all.

CorporateM jumped in and proposed language which deleted two facts about Suburban Express which are quite novel: * Virtual bus company * Started by a student. He then increased the proportion of the lede devoted to newsy/recent POV.

Although the discussion was ongoing, CorporateM replaced the lede in the article with his proposed language, before the talk section group had reached a consensus.

Is that how it is *supposed* to go? My instincts tell me that this is not right.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=580482208&oldid=580412378 and accidentally omitted notification CorporateM Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not notify CorporateM about this discussion as required. Someone else has done so on your behalf. this is a content dispute, and not an issue for AN. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about editing by User:HouseOfArtaxiad

• HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I want to complain about the behavior of User:HouseOfArtaxiad. He is tendentiously deleting text and sources from several articles even after explanation. His edit summaries are his personal opinions and comments such as "undoing vandalism".

Articles:

Nazim Bey

• first removal of sourced text without edit summary[12]
• He was reverted[13] and did a second attempt. [14]
• third attempt [15]
• 4th attempt [16]
• 5th time [17]
• 6th time [18]
• 7th time [19]

List of massacres in Turkey

• deleting a sourced massacre [20]
• another sourced massacre [21]

Could he get a sanction for this behavior? Many thanks. Fatbob5 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this should have been posted at WP:AN3. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but filing the wrong color form shouldn't preclude an editor (especially a new one) from getting a response.

@Fatbob5:: The dispute at List of massacres in Turkey seems to be about the reliability of Justin McCarthy as a source for the topic. You can read/participate in the talk page discussion or post a message at WP:RSN for further review.

@HouseOfArtaxiad:: You seem to be challenging a book published by OUP on the grounds of reliability/neutrality or whether it is being correctly cited (not really clear). However, instead of repeated reversions or communicating-through-edit-summaries alone, you need to make your case on the article talk page or appropriate noticeboard. Also note that, irrespective of whether your reverts are justified, your edit-summaries labeling Fatbob5's edits as vandalism are clearly erroneous.

Can some admin review the situation and see if the pages need protection? Also can some editors knowledgeable about the subject area weigh in, or direct the editors to the appropriate wikiproject etc. (Feel free to move this thread to ANI, if needed.) Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Abecedare asked me to have a look here. What a fine mess. HouseOfArtaxiad is (besides the personal attacks and false claims of vandalism) very clearly edit warring here; I just slapped a warning on their talk page. Their suggestion that the Ungor book is unreliable is based on nothing at all, and at any rate such a discussion ought to take place on the article talk page or on WP:RSN, not with some sneers in edit summaries ([22], [23], [24], [25]). I see no such attempt, just rather boorish summaries. And absent such a discussion, I see no reason whatsoever not to accept the book as reliable--OUP is hardly a press without a reputation. In other words, the ball is in HouseOfArtaxiad's court (I just reverted) to make their case politely, in the proper place.

  I do see problems, however: the section I just reinstated is basically plagiarized, and where changes are made they are clearly made by a non-native speaker, or someone with a less-than-perfect command of English. I'm going to have a closer look, and it may well be that intermediate revisions must be deleted for falling foul of fair use guidelines. But, in the meantime, HouseOfArtaxiad, you are hereby warned that your behavior is unacceptable and blockable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• The material was added here. I have rephrased it: this was just a copy and paste job, and I've deleted all intermediate edits. Fatbob5, you are going to have to read up on what constitutes plagiarism and the relevant policy, Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It begs the question of what else you added, and how you may have added that. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• I tried to settle this amongst the Admins, but they ignored me and pretty much left me to settle things on my own. So you all cannot portray me as being unproductive, when I was the first person to reach out and try to stop this.

Drmies, you seem to be giving Fatbob more credit than he deserves. Justin McCarthy has already been deemed unreliable on talk page. Fat has not only reverted his lies back on the page, but you have assisted him in doing that too. There is plenty of blame to go around. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the conduct of another editor, calling them a liar is a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When did I call him a liar? HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmies Please respond or remvove your unintentional vandlaism. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're talking about--and "unintentional vandalism" is a Contradictio in terminis, unless "vandalism" has no relation to our definition of the term--see WP:VANDAL, and how it features the word "deliberate" in the opening sentence. There is no consensus whatsoever in that discussion on the talk page about the supposed unreliability of the Oxford UP book. I've outlined, above, what you will need to do to have a book discredited (and, in fact, Cavann pointed that way in August already. Continue with the discourse of "lies" and you will find yourself in even more trouble. For now, I can lay a charge of personal attacks and POV editing at your feet. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, asking for the second time, when did I call anyone a liar? HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Above: "Fat has not only reverted his lies back on the page, but you have assisted him in doing that too". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So I never called him a liar or any name? Yes, thank you Andy. I was pointing out Fat is editing falifications which even go against other cited sources. I can't link it because you deleted that edit, clearly you aren't biased at all. You are contridicting yourself. First you say to dicuss things on the talk and now that isn't good enough apparently. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I say this without saying any naughty words? If you don't understand what's going on here, refrain from commenting. I mean, DUH. I removed the edits from the history because they were a copyright violation. Saying that I did so to further some agenda is not only incredibly ignorant, it's also a personal attack. Maybe someone will block you for it, for attacking my integrity based on what is really complete ignorance. Saying that Fatbob is adding falsifications is a personal attack as well--at least if you claim that they did it on purpose, which you did by crying "vandalism" (did you read the part about "deliberate"?). And the whole "falsification" thing is bullshit anyway, since it's your word against a book by an academic published by the OUP. In other words, it's just your opinion, which seems to be thrown in here to further some POV, cause you don't like what the book says. And what did I say? "You need to make your case on the article talk page or appropriate noticeboard." Where's the contradiction? Stop jabbering here and make your case. I don't know how many times I need to say this; perhaps my English isn't clear enough. What is clear to me, though, is that perhaps you shouldn't be editing here at all. Your command of English is lacking to the point where it seems you can't follow a basic discussion, and you think that yelling "vandalism" in edit summaries and attacking other editors' integrity is acceptable behavior. It is not. Plus, I note that a few editors have pointed out (on your talk page) that you don't appear to be very neutral. I urge other admins to see if this is worth pursuing, and I might consider filing on ANI for a topic ban, if I find more evidence of non-neutral editing. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue with problematic editing of HouseOfArtaxiad should be taken to WP:AE, and admins should look into placing him under editing restrictions as per WP:ARBAA2. In a short time that he has been here, he has already been warned by the admins: [26], and I warned him about ARBAA2 at his talk: [27] Since both Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are covered by ARBAA2, this thread needs to be moved to WP:AE and discussed there to determine whether HouseOfArtaxiad should be placed on a restriction. In my opinion, a topic ban needs to be considered, as HouseOfArtaxiad demonstrates battleground mentality and fails to understand the core WP rules. Grandmaster 23:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think a better idea is for an admin to close this--I think the initial complaint has been dealt with, though without blocking or anything like that (and for that, HouseOfArtaxiad should be grateful)--and to start a new thread. This one was a bit contaminated from the beginning since the net wasn't cast very wide and the sanction called for in no proportion to the disruption. There are bigger fish to fry: (allegedly!) a general pattern of POV editing that should be dealt with in the appropriate forum. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the section header which was 'Distruptive editing' and changed it to 'Concerns about editing by User:HouseOfArtaxiad' in the hope of making it neutral. User:Drmies is hoping to find another admin to close this. One could argue that this could be forwarded to WP:AE since User:Grandmaster left a notice for HouseOfA in late September which pointed him to WP:ARBAA2. That would count as notification for purposes of the Arb case. If someone tries the AE option then they need to make an argument there has been serious misbehavior on articles subject to the case. Someone would have to supply all the missing information which makes this thread hard to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's why I think that the case, not the thread, should be forwarded: I focused on the narrow issue of the use of the book and the behavior associated with it--the uncivil remarks and the claimed consensus for disqualification. In other words, I didn't enter into this with the thought of ArbCom restrictions and how those might or might not be relevant to the case. Thank you Ed, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmies I want to point out both those warning were about the same thing and were about a week after I joined Wikipedia. Drmies, you may not be such a bad guy, maybe you saw the disruptive editing title and immediately thought it was as simple as that, but try to take a step back and look at things more open-mindedly. I was the first one to report this, as I showed, but at the time the Admins simply didn't care. But all that matters now is fixing the three articles. Forget about the massacre one, I have an idea to completly rewrite the list, which has grown unreadably long and lost all sense of definition for "massacre". But look at the Nazim and Mehmed articles. All these changes are based off the claims of one author. This author got the death date of Nazim wrong by several years and the "justifiable vengence" theme of both articles is really unencyclopedic, especially because they are basically telling the reader 'the Armenians had to die because of Russians'. How does that make any sense? Both look like a poorly written extremist book, something that is also the only reason Justin McCarthy has an article. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

These 2 rvs by HouseOfArtaxiad: [28] [29] at the time when his behavior is discussed here are clearly not helpful. He removed a reference and asserted as a fact one of the versions of the foundation of the town (and not the generally accepted one), suppressing the other, in contradiction to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and a bunch of other rules. Grandmaster 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The concerns about editing of HouseOfArtaxiad have already been raised at WP:AE: [30] Grandmaster 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Block appeal from L'Origine du monde

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the end of September this user was blocked by Beeblebrox and subsequently appealed. The appeal was turned down after a previous AN discussion. The editor has made an unblock appeal on their talk page and requested that it be brought here. Their unblock request follows below. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I went crazy. In the 5 years I have been editing wikipedia my only previous block was 1day for violating 1rr in Arab-Israeli - the 3 weeks+ of mistaken indefinite block really pushed my powers of endurance, and I over reacted to those who questioned my innocence and mistakenly thought I had been identified as a vandal by Checkuser. Having taken a break, I accept the mistake, apologise for my over reactions and bad behaviour. I can see that my situation was unusual, and think that I can improve the unblock template and related text so the directions are clearer. I would like to point to Right to Exist, to which I made the majority of edits, as an example of my abilities to contribute in controversial areas, and improve this great work. I believe I have insight into my overreaction to unusual circumstances, and a greater understanding of the administrative and anti-vandalism procedures. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥

• Not yet WP:OFFER ... plus, they'd need to significantly expands the number of people they're directly apologizing to on their talkpage ... it's much longer than that. See you in March ES&L 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not yet - Didn't we just go through this? And looking at LOdM's User-space edits, I'm not getting the impression that any of the sticks are really dropped, but only the verbiage used is being toned down. I don't have any confidence that LOdM won't return to the same problematic behaviors. Zad68 13:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not yet Per ES&L and Zad, lets wait till the standard offer applies before unblocking. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not yet I have occasionally viewed User talk:L'Origine du monde since the mess erupted and it appears the user is doing the minimum required to allow them to resume their NOTCENSORED campaign—a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, and a time sink for those who have to deal with the nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. I don't believe in making people beg to return, only promise not to resume the behavior that got them blocked.--v/r - TP 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not yet . Completely new to this AN issue, I have just reviewed all the background, and I think the standard offer should run its course. There are many things that L'Origine du monde does not, and still does not appear to understand about Wikipedia, and the block would enable them to follow Wikipedia stuff and get up to speed. That's why I don't concur with TParis's suggestion of WP:ROPE; we have turned many inexperienced editors into good and collegial contributors in the past, and I would not like to see Rope being a possible path towards another indef, or even a ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as blocking admin. I firmly believe this user was acting in a deliberately provocative fashion and reject their claim that there was just some sort of temporary "freak out." As the primary author of ROPE I obviously do support it's use in many cases, but I don't think this is one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given the opposition of the blocking admin, I cannot in good conscience support this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this is going to snowball but my main concern is that L'Origine had posted an unblock request on 11/2 and hadn't had any response. When this discussion closes and gets archived, could an Admin inform him/her and also state conditions under which she/he could reapply to be unblocked in the future? Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, they already know about WP:OFFER; they're hoping we all forgot. You're right, however, block requests are one of my usual admin tasks ... but I'm on admin-holiday for a couple of more months. I see a couple of long-overdue request reviews on some of the pages on my watchlist ES&L 18:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That was my main concern, ES&L, that they weren't left in limbo, without an answer either way. Surely other Admins are on patrol, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of my previous tasks have gone to fallow since August :-) We all have our specialties/tasks. Unblock handling is not a glamour role, nor does it make you many friends ES&L 02:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I managed to piss off an otherwise perfectly friendly panda the other day. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Takaisi, third notice (old incident)

• Takaisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apologies for posting this again, but it was archived so quickly that User:Timtrent (aka FiddleFaddle) apparently did not notice that he was replying to an archived message.

User Takaisi, second incident notice

User:Takaisi was reported for article ownership issues bordering on edit warring last month; see archives. At that time there was no reply, but the user stopped editing shortly after User:DAJF reported the issues.

Over the past couple of days Takaisi has again been editing. Most of these edits are well-intended and constructive. On the other hand, the user has a tendency to revert articles to his/her preferred version, particularly where stubs have been merged.

• College of Nagoya Bunri University 3 November
• Kanto Gakuin Women's Junior College 4 November

The editor also removes maintenance tags (Soka Women's College 3 November) and rarely participates in Talk page discussions. As DAJF noted in October, this may be at least partially a language issue. I have translated Takaisi's comments from Japanese to English on a couple of occasions in the past (here, here, and here), and have translated English comments to Japanese on User talk:Takaisi.

I'm not sure what sort of intervention might be appropriate, but I've done just about all I can and the user is not engaging with me. Perhaps others can be more successful. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The only way I know of getting such an editor's attention is to fire a large warning shot across his bows. I understand and share Cnilep's frustrations. Inspection of User talk:Takaisi shows that this editor ploughs his own furrow whatever he is asked to do differently. It may be WP:COMPETENCE or it may be language, or it may be bloody mindedness, but it is time for it to stop. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The earlier messages are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Edit-warring and ownership issues by User:Takaisi and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User Takaisi, second incident notice. There are additional, related comments at User talk:Cnilep#Nara Medical University College of Nursing reverts and User talk:Timtrent#User Takaisi. Cnilep (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Takaisi has no visible comments on any talk page in the English language. On his own talk page people have left him messages to which he doesn't respond. (By mistake, he has occasionally posted a comment in article text, for example at Takaoka National College). This is now the third post at ANI about him, so a wait-and-see approach wouldn't be reasonable. WP:COMPETENCE includes communication. In my opinion the only options are either (a) an indef block until the user agrees to join in talk page discussions in English, or (b) a final warning that makes the same point. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On the basis that many edits are wholly constructive, I suggest (b) followed by (a) at whatever distance apart they are required. We need to get his attention, not to punish him. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Copy deleted article to my userspace?

I'm currently working on improving the Everything2 article. Several years ago, an article on the Everything Engine (which I recreated as a redict) was deleted on notability grounds. Although I haven't seen it yet, I think some of the content of this old page might be appropriate for the Everything2#Software subsection on the Everything2 article. Can someone go back to the deleted text and copy it to my userspace so I look through this and see what is appropriate? Thank you, thank you! —mako๛ 09:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:REFUND is the appropriate noticeboard ES&L 10:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but what the hell, I went ahead and just restored it in-place. The page is still a redirect but you can pull the content from the history. be sure to attribute it in your edit summary iand/or on the target article's talk page using {{merged-from}} if you re-use any of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday, 10 November at 00:01 (UTC) until Tuesday, 19 November at 23:59 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. 64.40.54.211 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is this a named editor accidentally editing while logged out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb open for more than one month

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb have been open for more than one month. Can someone please close these two threads? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, he means they have been at Requests for closure for a month. The first is still open and the second is four different editors contesting a non-admin closure pbp 00:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The first one Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas I've got, just compiling my notes, hope to have closed by Tuesday. Herostratus (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to formally note that jax's posts to prevent this from archiving are as annoying as a half-inch congealed booger high up in the nasal cavity ES&L 01:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply - ES&L, if you have a suggestion about where to post something like this where it will not be automatically archived (or how to prevent automatic archiving), I am all ears. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A matter of trust

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please save me the feel good messages, I'm not looking for those. Recently I've been discussing my near-paid editing experience on User_talk:Jimbo Wales. Some editors have expressed that I've violated the community's trust. There is no consensus on that with respect to the COI policy. However, two things concern me. The first is that I am currently the leading candidate for the Arbcom Election Committee for 2013 in terms of the numbers supporting me. I am not sure if those who supported me there are aware of my recent announcement, although I've disclosed it previously several times. So, would it be canvassing for me to ask each of them to reevaluate their support based on information that is not really new, but much more visible now? I feel that the election committee is an important role of trust and I wouldn't want my participation in it to affect it's legitimacy in the future if these issues are not hashed out now.

Also, on a closely-related issue, the question of the appropriateness of an administrator who has accepted money to edit has come up. I'm aware that reconfirmation RFAs are not seen positively around here. However, would the community find it appropriate or even necessary for me to go through a new RFA? If there is a consensus on the subject, I'm willing to request desysop at WP:BN and go through the normal process. Or if consensus is entirely against me having the bit, I'll just resign it and leave it at that. I'm not attached to the tool, it doesn't affect my pride any, and as far as I am concerned it really belongs to the community and not me anyway.--v/r - TP 01:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For those of us who haven't been following Jimbo's talk page, would you mind providing a brief recap of your experience as a paid (or near-paid) editor? MastCell ^Talk 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was approached by someone who I had worked with on an unrelated project. He said he has great professional respect for a colleague of his and believes that person is important enough to be covered by Wikipedia. I told him I'd like 3 days to review it myself. I found ample sources to meet WP:GNG but I also found other notability criteria that this person met including being a Fellow of the Royal Society. I agreed to write the article, I released my copyright of the work to them, and they published the article on Wikipedia. I later submitted the article for a DYK, disclosed my COI, and the article was reviewed for neutrality. In the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, another editor has been able to demonstrate that sources that were critical of the subject existed and I had not included them. I maintain that I was not aware of them, but I'm not really sure it matters.--v/r - TP 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bah. No need for drama, TP. Go away from Jimbo's page and get back to work :-) ES&L 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think a reconfirmation RFA is a good idea in this case. As far as I know, you're the first admin to disclose that you (sometimes) edit for pay. Given the possible precedent and PR concerns about admins accepting money for edits, I think this is a situation where the temperature of the community needs to be taken. My personal feeling is that I'm uncomfortable with an admin editing for pay because it opens the door to adminning for pay, but I suspect individual editors' opinions will vary widely on the topic and it's best to see what the consensus is about whether people are comfortable with you playing both roles.

  As far as election coordinator, I think that similarly, the people running arbcom elections need to be viewed as ideologically as pure as possible, and paid editing again may put a pall on that. You could try notifying all previous !voters, but frankly I think it would be easier and more...seemly?...to just withdraw if you think your candidacy is that potentially problematic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

From WP:COI: "Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic." (The emphasis is mine.) However, you should disclose on the article's talk page or via edit summary whenever you have a conflict of interest in the interests of transparency. You should understand, as any other paid/COI editor should, that the content, once on Wikipedia, is outside your control. In other words, you may find that the content you were paid to write was severely trimmed back or deleted at AFD, leading to you not getting paid. You'll have to deal with that with your employer—Wikipedia's editors largely won't care that you lost your job or reputation for good work. Don't spam (duh), don't sock (duh), and don't accept payments to advocate a position. Those are about all the issues that I noticed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@TParis: I don't go on Jimbo's talk page, and you don't explicitly mention it here: did you actually accept pay (monetary or otherwise) for writing the article? The way you talk about it, I read it as just a sort of favor for a colleague, without compensation. As an outsider to this issue, I think people are making a lot of unnecessary stink about this comparing it to Wiki-PR and such, even if you were paid. From what I've seen of your work here, I personally think that your standing as an administrator shouldn't be compromised at all (I have no opinion on Arbcom as I don't really know how that body works). Ansh666 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The "sort of paid to edit" part comes to play because I didn't actually make the edit that introduced the material. I released the copyright to the payer and allowed them to post it. Not out of an attempt to deceive it's source. I declared within the week here that I had a COI long before this matter became controversial. But it was for their friend and they wanted to post it.--v/r - TP 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like you weren't even the Wikipedia editor for the article itself, and as an editor only did the DYK submittal. But either way, the piece of gold in that conflicting patchwork wp:coi guideline is the bolded definition at the top: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Did you let that happen at any time? If so, you blew it big time. If not, then (including in light of everything else above) IMHO you are fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said on Jimbo's page, my integrity isn't for sale. I took 3 days to review the material to make sure it was beneficial to Wikipedia first before even accepting the job.--v/r - TP 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • "Integrity" in this instance ("the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness"), would entail announcing any conflict of interest on the talk page on your first edit. If you did that, then there's nothing to discuss here. If you didn't do that, then the community has a right to ask why not. As you are already aware, issues with your application of NPOV in the area of COI editing have been raised by other editors on Jimbo's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
      • My first edit was at 01:44 10 Sept and I made the COI declaration at 02:03 10 Sept. I did not make it on the talk page because I assumed making it in the DYK request was sufficient (my actual-non-paid-editing was to get the article to DYK quality, afterall, so I felt it important to disclose the COI to the reviewer).--v/r - TP 02:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me. Then I guess the only argument on Jimbo's page is about your interpretation of NPOV? Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't think there is anything I can say about that. I screwed up. But it wasn't on purpose. Only thing I can say is that I've been critical of articles I have a COI with, such as Tops In Blue before (I had a friend in the ensemble). But I'm not sure if that's even a worthy argument, I wasn't paid to write that article.--v/r - TP 03:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think TP is too worried about his personal situation, and is unintentionally causing a lot of drama by worrying too much, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_need_to_be_redacted. The general question of paid editing by admins, which I opened on Jimbo's talk page, is quite serious. Wiki-PR is still boasting that it employs admins to edit articles here, and I'm simply appalled by that idea. Who ever would have thought that *admins* would consider that it's ok for them to edit for pay? (As Fluffernutter notes, TP seems to be the first to declare this). After I opened the discussion TP jumps in with his disclosure and asks why I can't AGF in his case. Not the best way to do it IMHO. I don't see any reason to pursue TP's case, if he feels uncomfortable, he may pursue it via RfA. The general question should be pursued however. I'd suggest a survey of admins here, "Do they think that admins should be allowed to edit for pay?" but first I think the recent brouhahas should be allowed to calm down. And admins should consider what each answer would mean for Wikipedia - it's likely to be a big change in either case. Wikilawyering about a case we haven't come close to seeing before isn't a good idea. To me the main issue would be regulatory capture. Let's leave this for now and let things calm down, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones has a stronger disagreement than I do with the concept of paid editing in general, but in this specific situation I agree with his assessment. Paid editing is just another kind of COI, and when you (1) do your best to be neutral despite the COI, and (2) make clear that you've got the COI in the first place, there's no real problem unless you're inept at being neutral. TP seems to have handled the edits in question in an ideal fashion, so I too will suggest that he stop beating himself up and continue being a useful administrator. We have few enough admins; we don't need to lose another one! Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a matter of concern. You've been explicit with your involvement/possible biases, and, while I don't quite align with paid editing in general, I don't feel that this is against policy. If the community seeks to redefine consensus on paid editing, that can be done with an RFC - for now, there's nothing wrong here. If anything, you deserve praise for being honest. m.o.p 08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with m.o.p. My judgment of this paid editing situation is not that is it "okay" or "evil" but that it is in flux. I think Wikipedia is, at most, halfway through a conversation about the subject and no serious changes should be made while there is such a wide range of opinions being aired about it. The community is still sorting everything through, posting RfCs and hashing things out on Wales' Talk Page. There haven't been any guidelines settled on yet which require TP to do anything other that disclose your COI which you had. I don't think you should make any decisions based on talk page conversations, just continue to be transparent. Maybe by early 2014, some standards might be settled upon but, like I said, the situation is still being debated and it would be a mistake to take any one position as authoritative (unless it is already part of WP policy). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• If I understand this correctly, I'd say you didn't handle this ideally (should have announced the COI immediately and ideally would have found the negative material). I don't think any of those things are killer, but certainly would be problematic if they happened again. I'd much prefer our admins not get paid for things related to Wikipedia at all. But you certainly still have my trust and my endorsement of you for the election stuff still stands. Just handle it better next time (and ideally I'd prefer there not be a next time). Hobit (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Kudos to TParis for raising the question here. Yes, a bit of drama, but better a little drama now, than a lot more later. I don't think it affects the ability to be a member of the Election committee. I could imagine it being a relevant issue if he were to run for Arbcom. I don't think a reconfirmation RfR for this issue is warranted (qualified, because I'd like to see everyone go through one eventfully.) We still have some sorting out to do on how we should handle paid article editing, but it is a highly contentious issue, and it is fair to ask the questions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• I think that TParis highlighted an important systemic issue, which is that editors can make some good money editing Wikipedia while staying within the rules. The fact that he is an administrator in good standing is illustrative of the fact. I.e., he has the trust of the community, he knows the rules backwards and forwards, and feels genuine indignation that his judgment is, notwithstanding, called into question when he accepted pay. But the problem is not TP but the system that allows editors to work for pay as long as their "motives are pure." The very wording of the COI rules cited above ("when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest") shows how much trouble we're in. It makes COI an entirely subjective issue totally existing within the mind of an editor, rather than an objective fact caused by payment or other factors. I like that TP has come forward and bared his soul like this, even though his presenting himself as a test case was done for the purpose of challenging the move to curb paid editing rather than to help it along. I disagree that the disclosure that he refers to above is adequate, as it was not made on the talk page of the subject article and there is no such disclosure to this day. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• As disgusted as I am to be defending TParis, the fact is that he's done nothing wrong in this case. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joe, I appreciate your objectivity.--v/r - TP 17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason not to believe TP when he states that he was not aware of the less complimentary sources. His broader body of work speaks for itself as to how he approaches the project and while a reconfirmation for adminship might be a good idea, just to put everybody at ease, I see no reason to withdraw from the arbcom election. Against the current (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not surprisingly, I see nothing but honesty and openness in TP's behavior. I'm personally against paid editing by anyone and even more so by adminstrators, but my personal preferences don't trump policy. No reason to withdraw from the Committee, request a "revote", or run another RfA. Someone uninvolved should be able to close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• TP, the only people who would see what you did as importantly problematic are people who either aren't seeing the end-goal (good articles for a good encyclopedia), or aren't really thinking it through. Being upfront about it on Jimbo's page was laudable and helpful, even if perhaps it didn't help some of the readers there to see the issue more clearly. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crat help needed

Here. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Then post at the Crat's noticeboard :-) It appears that they're not fully granting RTV (they would have been renamed to "vanished userxxxxx", and completing the deletion of those pages may not be compliant with what has been approved by the crats ES&L 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

'crat board--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

The ban remains in place. There is no consensus (yet) to lift or modify it, and no agreement on what restrictions or rules would apply once the ban is lifted. There is serious disagreement about the ban and its usefulness, and later appeals, with clear commitments and rules, perhaps under new policies about paid editing / paid advocacy, seem to have a good chance of success. It has been strongly suggested though to wait at least a month before a new appeal is launched. Fram (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AKonanykhin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17 October 2013 ban discussion A user has requested that a ban recently implemented here be lifted. I must remark that the ban was placed without meeting the formal requirements of WP:BAN, which states that there must be evidence of repeated disruption by a user. The closing admin Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated that they are "cutting and running", going offline for one week.[31] I have no issue with an editor taking a break; but an admin should not make a contentious administrative action if they know they will be unavailable to explain. Before leaving Kudpung refused to explain their actions when I challenged them. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to explain their actions. Regrettably, I am unable to discuss the matter with Kudpung, so we are right back here. The text of the appeal: I would like to request the lifting of the ban against WikiExperts, that is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive254#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us While I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion, we respect the community’s decision that COI disclosure must be mandatory for us for anybody from WikiExperts to edit Wikipedia, in addition to all other COI guidelines. Therefore, we will be treating COI guidelines as policy from this point forward. Until the ban is lifted, we have stopped editing as per the ban’s request, and will only do so once the ban is lifted in accordance to the language within it, which read, “The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.” Once the ban is lifted, COI disclosure will be followed by anyone who edits in conjunction with WikiExperts. As the CEO of WikiExperts I am stating here that from this point forward we will comply with the terms set out for lifting the ban. We have already updated our agreements and are in the process of updating our Ethics page on our website in anticipation of this change. Would you please post my statement at the AN so that we can proceed with the conditions for lifting the ban. Thank you! AKonanykhin (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC) My greatest concern is that the user was banned without any diffs showing disruptive edits. They were banned for suspicion that they might do something wrong. This shocks the conscience and goes against our principles. In any event, the user has stated that they will adhere to policy and to WP:COI, and will disclose any paid editing. I think it will be better for Wikipedia to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing. Jehochman Talk 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Further info from the user: On Friday, I attempted to communicate our compliance to the Arbitration Board, and its representative User:Roger Davies responded that the better way would be to place it on my Talk Page and ask somebody to add it to AN (see below). Yesterday, I complied with Mr. Davies' recommendation, posting our compliance pledge to my Talk Page and asking the admin Kudpung who enacted the ban to add it to AN. As I had no means to contact him directly, I did so by placing a note on his Talk page, and promptly removing it to avoid accusations of unathorized editing; the full text was only left on my Talk page. In retaliation, Kudpung banned IP address of our Hollywood FL office and greatly expanded the ban to any account "operated or assumed to be by Wikiexperts.com" This wide ban was enacted without any evidence of any violation of any rule by our company, as you rightly observed. I personally was banned without having ever made even a single edit in any WP article. Thank you for considering his appeal. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) For completeness, what I wrote was: "Thanks for your email. We would in all likelihood refer this to the community as it was a community ban decision, with plenty of participation, relating to a hot button topic. "However, it occurs to me that you can appeal to the community yourself - more quickly - by posting this request yourself on-wiki on your user page, with a note asking for it to be cross-posted to the Administrators Noticeboard." I have formed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the appeal,  Roger Davies talk 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support First a minor point - the AN Ban discussion was closed on the 17th while the notice of unavailability was posted on the 20th. It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that Kudpung closed it on the 17th, knowing that he would be unavailable starting three days later. The timing is unfortunate, but that's all it is. That said, I support overturning the ban. I haven't read the entire discussion, but I see enough problems that, as a minimum, we should start over and do it right if a ban is warranted, and ideally, find a way to reach out and determine whether there is a way to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia without declaring that the business cannot do anything. The most important reason, and already noted, is the lack of diffs. Have we ever banned an contributor without citing a single diff? That alone ought to be a sufficient reason for overturning, but I'll not a couple other points. The Morning277 issue understandably leaves a bad taste. However, when one entity involved in paid editing wreaks havoc, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all entities involved in paid editing deserve similar opprobrium. Some of the support are in reaction to strong words by the owner, which appear to defy our positions on COI. I agree that there was a bit of a bull in a china shop reaction, however, those concerns appear to have been taken on board, and the owner has changed policies. If we supported a ban based upon his initial position, we at least owe a second consideration when that very position is changed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Comment, concurrent with the ban discussion there were policy discussions to try to establish standards for paid editors. One proposal banning paid editing was heavily opposed. Another, drafted by me, requiring paid editors to disclose has receive significant opposition for being too strong. It seems very strange to ban somebody for something that's not yet policy, and especially when the proposal "paid editing is forbidden" has a majority of opposition in the community. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) First of all, the lack of diffs is a lot less troubling to me than to you all. If someone says "I will trash Wikipedia" we have every right to say "You may not edit here". Of course his statement wasn't that strong, but "I will not play by your rules" is close enough IMO. That they are willing to follow the rules at this point is wonderful, but I think it's fair to worry if they actually will. I'd say: conditional support. With the condition being that every editor who has or is editing for them be identified including alt accounts. If and when we find someone editing for them who isn't on that list, we can reinstate the ban. First of all, I think that's how paid editing should work (and I speak as someone who has written a proposal to the NSF to pay people to edit here--it barely didn't get funded sadly but I'd have had all editors identify that they were being paid). Secondly, given previous statements from this company, I think "trust but verify" is important. Without such a bit of clarity it will be impossible to fully verify. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC) -- Given that the current offer doesn't include disclosing past accounts I'm opposed to unbanning under his proposed conditions. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) So you think someone should be banned for thoughtcrime whether or not the actually broke any rules. OK, lets put your theory to the test. I will not play by your rules. I will trash Wikipedia. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making those two statements without any evidence that I have ever actually trashed Wikipedia or refused to follow the rules. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) There is plenty of evidence that this person has violated COI and our meat puppetry rules in the past. His threat to do so again is credible, yours is not. If you were to trash the main page and then later threaten to do so again, you'd be blocked in a heartbeat. It is unreasonable not to react to credible threats. We do it all the time with legal threats here. Why is this different? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Obviously I cannot do the experiment but I believe that you are mistaken. If I trashed the main page, was blocked, and the block expired, I do not believe that I could be blocked for simply saying that I will do it again. Legal threats are a different matter; WP:LEGAL specifies the reason why they result in a block: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels", and of course we have a policy page that says that I cannot make legal threats, so that puts it back in the "violating an actual rule" category. Can you point me to the guideline where me saying (in a non-disruptive way and without breaking any other rules) that I will trash the main page but not actually doing that is blockable? I maintain that our policies forbid blocking someone for thoughtcrime. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Trashing the mainpage isn't quite the same as sockpuppetry, though. Let's change your scenario. Let's say that on the first day of every month you reveal an act of subtle vandalism that you've previously inserted for "humorous effect" using a dynamic IP sockpuppet account. And let's say that you make a show of telling people that you intend to continue the game indefinitely. Your claims are credible and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some kind of sanctions. AGF isn't intended to act as a hobble to common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Actually, I am not assuming good faith. That rule would be for looking at something that may or may not be against the rules and deciding whether to assume that it isn't. This is about a hypothetical editor who has broken no rule while expressing an unpopular opinion. And your new scenario would be someone being disruptive (we don't need to spell out every way someone can be disruptive). Both the repeated vandalism and the making a show of telling people that you will continue to do so is disruptive. I am talking about someone who has broken no rule (unless someone wants to point out where we have a rule against thoughtcrime). Even under your scenario, if an administrator responded to the clear disruption with a block that doesn't mention trolling or socking, but instead named something that is entirely within the rules, that would be wrong, and the blocked editor would be well within his rights to ask that the bad block be removed, even if it was only to have it instantly replaced with a good block based upon actual evidence of violating a policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Ah well I'm right there with you regarding the COI/NPOV bit of this mess. I haven't yet seen any evidence that AKonanykhin had engaged in violations, but only that he expressed his view that COI looks like a set of recommendations rather than like a set of firm rules (on which point I must regretfully agree with AKonanykhin). And my !vote below arises because I too think that basing the ban on this goes too far. If the ban is to be upheld I'd really rather it was clarified that it is related to the sock/meatpuppet admissions from SPI. And I guess that brings us to the point at which we differ in views. I see a substantive difference between blocks based on specific tangible crimes like vandalism or BLP or COI/NPOV violations and those based on intangible crimes like sockpuppetry or my subtle vandalism hypothetical. If a ban is based on a tangible violation (like COI/NPOV violations) then we absolutely should have specific diffs to point to that document the violation. But if the ban is based on reasonable suspicions that intangible violations (like sockpuppetry) will resume then I think the threat of harm/disruption should grant the blocking admin somewhat greater leeway (the block/ban would be subject to review anyway). In the matter at hand, I don't think the proof at SPI is strong enough to indicate that AKonanykhin poses a SOCK threat going forward, but if he does violate SOCK then the ban can always be re-applied. -Thibbs (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I would disagree with Jehochman on one point: Wikiexperts was already "underground". The refusal to be open and honest about whose articles they were paid to edit - and lets face it, this is a PR group so AGF or no, NPOV cannot be automatically assumed - was antiethical and counter to community expectations. If they are prepared to act above board, then I am willing to reconsider my previous support of the ban. Resolute 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban I supported the ban in the 17 October ban discussion, "until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages." That appears to have happened. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I read their comments a couple of times and am missing where they say that they will restrict their edits to talk pages. Is that somehow implied by the "following all COI guidelines"? If so, I'd prefer it be made explicit. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support Given that effective enforcement of the ban would requiring outing every Wikipedia editor, it's a self-righteous feel good action, not a reasonable approach to an admittedly very real problem. It will drive paid editing deeper underground and provide yet-another-thing for Wikipedia editors to accuse each other of. NE Ent 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) This appeal, though no fault of the User that represents the corporation states much that is irrelevant 1) "driving underground" has not occurred as the corporation has undertaken not to edit through the ban; 2) the community decision was based on statements of the corporation and through its representative, which in the consensus opinion made banning the needed remedy. Nonetheless, the undertakings of the corporation seem to address the major consensus concerns expressed, so if they follow through, including disclosure and their web page, and under current Wiki norms: not opposed to unban pursuant to these immediate undertakings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional Oppose: While it maybe possible/wise to overlook, all that is truly past (accounts and edits and non-disclosure); the statements below seem to suggest that the corporation will not disclose presently ongoing COI arrangements (the "maintain" article agreements issues), only future arrangements. If they will not upfront disclose relative to any/all COI editing going forward, then oppose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support: If they have indicated that they will fully comply with WP:COI instead of treating it as "unethical" as they were before, then the conditions that led to the ban have been satisfied. However, it should be made clear that reversion to previous behavior will lead to the banhammer being dropped once more. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Maybe I'm just a lot more cynical or less trusting than you guys, but I have serious reservations about lifting this ban. The attitude expressed here is shocking and appalling on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, reading it now, I'm still not totally convinced that it's not a trolling parody. This is someone telling you that their official viewpoint is that it's "unethical" to disclose a financial conflict of interest. How would a sane, reputable publisher respond to a declaration like that? I'm a bit skeptical about the turnaround from the defiant stick-your-guidelines-where-the-sun-don't-shine attitude to the current conciliatory request above, and I've generally found modifying one's actual ethics to be much more difficult than modifying one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm opposed to it, unless we have some concrete way of ensuring that they follow through on what are currently unenforceable promises made under extreme duress. MastCell Talk 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) @MastCell: I've checked out the user, spoken with him, and am convinced that he's too serious to waste time trolling us. I think the ban was hasty, and there is a principle at stake: we don't ban people for suspicion. The banned account never even edited main space. Why are we so desperate to muzzle this guy? Let's assume good faith. If I'm wrong, WP:ROPE will be effective. Let's let his editors disclose themselves and promise to treat them fairly, while firmly enforcing WP:NPOV and all our other policies. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) As one cynic to another -- if the ban is upheld, do you really think the company will cease editing? NE Ent 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I don't understand the argument that the possibility that a banned user will keep editing should be a valid reason for uplifting a ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Comment - I am sure many folks here are aware that in light of the recent uncovering of the SPI network run by WIki-PR, new policies were proposed to ban paid advocacy. See discussion here for a sense of the very mixed thoughts of the community. I posted notice of this discussion, there. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose at least for now. While it does seem like the process by which WikiExperts was banned was flawed, there is deep discomfort in the community with this kind of activity. We should not allow WikiExperts back in until the community has made up its mind on how to deal with this paid advocacy. I also note that the brief description that appears with WikiExpert's "hit" on Google, reads "WikiExperts handles this task for you, protecting your online reputation." Wikipedia does not exist to enhance or detract from anyone's reputation - it exists to provide NPOV information. If you read their Ethics page, while it is great that they say they will not remove any well-sourced negative information, at no point do say that they would actually add negative information about a company, even if that information were well-sourced. This is what I mean, about editors working for WIkiExperts actually not being aligned with WIkipedia's goals. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Strong Support The whole community ban proposal was a illegitimate witch hunt intended to out editors and get them banned. That goes against what Wikipedia stands for. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Strong support Konveyor Belt is absolutely correct. And for the admin who closed the discussion in favor of the ban- shame on you and you should be stripped of your admin abilities, that was an abuse of power and completely not in line with policy or even the community feelings on the issue, there is no way in hell that discussion was in favor of a ban by the Community and should have been closed as "no consensus" at the very least. I am so disappointed. The ban is illegitimate and was never agreed upon by consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Strong Support per Jehochman and SPhilbrick. We do not want to go down the road of banning folks preemptively and without evidence. Especially not with a user/company that is making a good faith effort.--v/r - TP 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support - more or less as per Bushranger above, if they have indicated they will comply with WP:COI fully. It would also help a lot if the frankly inexcusable statement they made about how it is unethical to abide by our policies and guidelines is very visibly and prominently rescinded and apologized for. I believe I had justification for supporting the ban based on their stated disregard for policy and guidelines, and I believe that keeping the ban in place until that statement is clearly retracted and they agree to abide by all relevant policies and guidelines is clearly indicated, here and elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support. If every WikiExpert editor declares their COI, and participates via talk page suggestions, I am willing to let them do so. Regarding the absence of diffs; they are not needed. I approve of the banning of an editor who declares the intention to violate Wikipedia's policies. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. Eric Corbett 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support. I find the reasoning of "no diffs provided" and other process-related complaints about the banning discussion to be a bit circular and more than a bit lawyerish. When someone states they plan to circumvent the guidelines here, I'd say the need for specific diffs of editing infractions is pretty much superseded -- especially when that circumvention is what prevents us from potentially finding any such diffs to begin with. But that said, since I only supported the ban because of their stated policy of non-disclosure, if they change their policy to full disclosure -- an oft-updated list on their site, of the Wikiepdia usernames in their prevue, would be ideal -- I'm fine with letting them back (that is, unless/until we pass something that says paid editing is disallowed altogether). equazcion → 17:53, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) So you think that the requirement for actual evidence of of editing infractions superseded if someone says that they plan to circumvent the guidelines here? OK, lets put your theory to the test. I plan to circumvent the guidelines here. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making that statement without any evidence that I have ever actually circumvented any guidelines. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Of course I wouldn't waste time acting on your issuing a hypothetical challenge just to make a point, but if it seemed like you were remotely as serious about that as this person who posted it as part of his business plan, I would do so for you, and you'd be the first to know how it worked out. equazcion → 05:18, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC) Let's pretend I was serious and credible. (Quaker cannons are of no use if the enemy knows that they are Quaker cannons... :) ) What policy would you cite as me having violated? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) WP:COMMONSENSE. equazcion → 15:31, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but you cannot invoke WP:COMMONSENSE to justify banning something just because you don't like it. Also, it's an essay, and you cannot ban someone for violating an essay. That section ends with "Editors must use their best judgment". If your best judgement (the generic "your" -- I am not pointing at you personally) says that it is OK to ban someone not for anything they have done but rather for an opinion they hold, then I must question that judgment. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) According to WP:Blocking_policy#Disruption you can be sanctioned for breaching guidelines as well as policies... Depending on context, your hypothetical example statement in itself (and AKonanykhin's initial statements that caused the ban to be imposed) could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive – and sanction worthy. Mojoworker (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The only way that either statement by iteself could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive is by pretty much ignoring what those guidelines actually say and using a definition that encompasses anything someone doesn't like. It makes denying the holocaust disruptive and pointy. It makes arguing against anthropogenic global warming disruptive and pointy. It makes saying that the WMF is going the wrong way disruptive and pointy. In fact it makes anything that a bunch of editors disagree with disruptive and pointy. Of course someone can be disruptive and pointy while expressing those unpopular opinions -- we have plenty of examples of that -- but expressing an unpopular opinion without violating any policies or guidelines is never disruptive or pointy. Remember, next time you may be the target of a thoughtcrime ban instead of the proponent. --Guy Macon (talk) That's essentially all true. The community decides what's considered disruptive and what makes sense -- pointing to the essay again, which albeit merely an essay, describes what IAR tends to mean. If you think what's transpired here demonstrates that someone doesn't need to violate a particular posted policy in order to be banned, you'd be correct. You seem to find that a disturbing notion since it means there would be no solid rule structure here and everything is therefore subjective, but that's basically how Wikipedia works, by its very principle -- for better or worse. equazcion → 21:35, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC) Support unban which should never have been enacted in the first place. --John (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support for lifting the ban. Clearly reveal all editors being paid by this company, and commit to exercising conformance to all policies and guidelines by those editors. Guidelines may not be "policy", but they are deemed guidelines because they are agreed by the community to be best practices. Improper conduct by any editor under the authority of this company may result in a sanctions being applied as to all representatives of the company. bd2412 T 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support The problem last time around was their opposition to our policies. They have committed to abiding by the community norms now, so there isn't an ongoing reason to restrict their editing. Some have suggested that the ban be lifted under the condition that WikiExperts only ever edits talk pages. While I agree this is a good practice to encourage, I don't think we should make the unban conditional on them never making an article edit. {{requested edit}} gets backlogged often, sometimes for very extended periods of time... and editor retention in that area is poor. This is especially true with respect to editing articles about obscure companies. Uncontroversial edits should be uncontroversial, even if made by their team, and WikiExperts should not be discouraged from making grammar corrections or fighting vandalism just because they're being paid for that purpose. Edits where neutrality is a possible concern should, obviously, be discussed, but I don't want to see them banned in the future just for making neutral changes to articles on their own. We need people to edit these articles. As long as they are being edited neutrally, that is a net benefit to the project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support While I don't support the venture of WikiExperts, per se, insofar as they recognize and comply with the COI policy, there would appear to be no grounds to band them. That said, I don't think that the current policy is adequate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of evolution vis-a-vis the current (inadequate) policies.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose Upon reading some of the other comments about meat puppetry--setting aside the sockpuppetry--I've decided to change my vote until that issue is clarified. It seems that if you have more than one editor from a paid editing group editing the same article that other policy issues arise; for example, the Wikipedia consensus building process is undermined due to the contractual obligations of PR professional to PR client. The ban should be maintained until the community can work out a viable policy-based solution, or WMF imposes one. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support, and make sure that this editor is handled in a fair and transparent manner. The speed of reaction has a knee jerk feel to it. I see no reason yet to ban this editor because he exhibits fairly ordinary behaviour, despite the paid editing accusations and the firm he appears to head being controversial. However, should his behaviour become worthy of a ban, yes, ban him in the future. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditionally support unban as the one who originally proposed the ban. If wikiexperts.us has now agreed to make the requisite COI disclosure, the ban is no longer as a preventative measure and would be purely punitive. Lifting of the ban should, of course, be conditional upon actually doing that going forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support this is going to continue no matter how many we ban, better to address paid editors now and establish additional guidelines if needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose I can't find myself supporting this unblock at this time. Just far to early in my opinion, and the exact reasoning seems to boarder on the desperate to unblock over what could be seen as a technicality. We are not a court of law, just volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is. It places an unfair advantage to articles that have editors being paid on a regular basis to edit here with permission. I see almost no way to make this work even with the proposal from below. But what I do see is many editors who have some argument I can understand if not truly agree with. This isn't a block appeal of a single editor. So I oppose the unblock of the entire company being allowed back right now, but would support the single editor himself being unblocked. Let him, as the CEO of this company, first lead by example. If they can be seen to be working within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia I think we can revisit this in a short time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Absolutely not. Since when do we even consider an unban request just a few days after the ban is implemented? Come back a year or two from now. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Since it emerged that this ban was incorrect in the first place, that the victim of the ban had done nothing wrong at all, and that the ban was placed to enforce a principle that the majority of Wikipedians do not agree with. That's when. --John (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose: There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of WP:Sock puppetry here: [32] and also here [33] and here [34]. After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" [35]. But at the SPI investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts/Archive, User:AKonanykhin admits to paying an editor to insert a promo shot of Alexander Konanykhin into the Alex Konanykhin article. He also admits to paying an editor who was then blocked for insertion of spam and advertising [36]. So, when these concerns were first raised, user's response was to deny. Then, when clear evidence is presented, the admissions come. If the user really is contrite, then surely user would be more than willing to show this contrition by sitting out a reasonable time for a block, not just a few days. The unblock proposal sounds far more like a continuation of the falsehoods in an attempt to continue past behaviour. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support, with heavy emphasis on "conditional". I agree with Hobit and bd2412. Trust but verify, as Hobit said. All accounts must be identified. All accounts must agree to abide by policies and guidelines, same as any other editor. If evidence appears that policies and guidelines are being ignored or violated, the ban comes back. And I want to add that all the comments about the existing ban being improper strike me as wikilawyering hogwash. It was a proper ban, based upon explicit evidence and community norms. This isn't a court of law, and the pleading about process in this particular instance has been utterly groundless. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support: A dangerous precedent, banning editors you don't like on suspicion that they might be damaging the encyclopedia. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI and strong evidence of socking isn't enough to get over the "might be damaging" thing? Hobit (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) That is correct. A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI does not justify a ban. Bans need to be based upon actual violations, not on expressing unpopular opinions. As for strong evidence of socking, please show me where in the ban request socking was even claimed. If you want them banned for socking, write up a proposal that says that, and include some sort of evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) A large number of those supporting the ban included socking as a reason for the ban. Just search for "sock". Look, we've got someone who A) admits to using socks and having others edit for him (which would be meatpuppetry) B) we have ample evidence does use socks/meatpuppets and C) clearly indicated an intent to keep doing this. And it would be an unpopular opinion to say "COI is a bad policy". It would be threatening to disrupt to say "I've ignored COI and intend to do so in the future". Hobit (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I of course have no problem with blocking for socking (with evidence), but a number of editors on this very page have told me that it is OK to block someone for (in your words) "A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI." Where is the policy that allows that? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC) WMF Press Release The following statement would seem to indicate that there is a general policy violation in not declaring a COI. I don't know what the implications are regarding this ban, but perhaps it should be addressed in this discussion. Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Sadly I don't think that could be used to mandate COI disclosures. There's a difference between passive failure to represent your affiliation with a company and active misrepresentation of your affiliation. Even the bit urging companies "to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia" is just that... an urging. But think how well that press release would be complimented by an actual policy mandating disclosure of COI. That would be ideal in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I agree that a policy directly addressing this issue is needed. Regarding the ban, I think that there is room to find a gray zone between explicitly declaring an intent to not disclose relationships to companies (don't know if they actually edited any articles for clients) and actively misrepresenting a relationship. It is more than a passive inaction, at any rate, based on the explicit expression of intent to not represent the relationship at all--to conceal it. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support lifting ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative but I don't believe there was evidence of damage done to the encyclopedia. As long as they agree to abide by WP:COI and be open about it, I think they should be allowed to edit on article Talk Pages: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. These changes may or may not be acted upon. Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest." WP:COI I encourage them to join Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. If there are infractions in the future, they should dealt with. I don't believe in blocks based on suspicions, whether it is of a registered account or an IP. Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support… a little dubiously. But yes. To get personal and historical for a moment: Jehochman is a trusting guy. I've watched him assuming too much good faith quite often, and getting it flung back in his face. By contrast, the point made by MastCell, the original Wikipedia Cynic, really resonates with me: one's actual corporate ethics don't tend to be so easily changed as one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. Agreed. But I believe, or at least I hope, that the statement by AKonanykhin above will make it possible to unban on the "trust but verify" principle mentioned by several supporters of the unban proposal. Presumably some of us cynical people will be watching and verifying. It also impresses me that Seraphimblade, the original proposer of the ban, is now prepared to support an unban. And I'd like to second Tryptofish's characterization of the claims that the original ban was improper as "wikilawyering hogwash". It was a proper ban, and it should be immediately reinstated if the unban is gamed in any way. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC). Support. I am quite unhappy with the way that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us was closed. Normally when the result of a discussion goes against me I have no problem accepting and following the consensus, but in this case the closing comments ("There is a clear consensus to support the proposal, based both numerically and on the strength of the arguments. Among the Oppose !votes and comments are strong recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy, but that would be the subject of a separate discussion.") do not accurately reflect either the strength of the arguments or whether a significant number of the oppose comments were actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy. In my opinion, Kudpung let his own POV cloud his judgement. I think that he should have asked for a couple of other uninvolved editor or admins to agree with the closing, as is common in hotly contested proposals. I maintain that a fair reading of the arguments shows that it is the support arguments that are weak and are actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy by allowing someone to be banned even if they did nothing wrong, simply for expressing an unpopular opinion. That's a huge change from our policies and guidelines as written. Bans should be based upon actual specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Many diffs proving meatpuppettry by people specifically connected to Akonanykhin were provided during previous AN discussion, and I do not see any procedural violations during previous discussion and closing. Where is disclosure? I mean the list of accounts that are currently used by members of this organization? Once again, this is not only a matter of COI, but a matter of proven meatpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Really, could you show me a few of them? I never saw any such diffs. Jehochman Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I think we had at least four accounts acting his meatpuppets and edited his biography[37], [38], [39], [40]. One of them was blocked by an arbitrator, and rightly so. If anyone is interested in more detail, they can check previous AN discussion.My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. Key point during previous AN discussion was that Mr. Konanykhin can not comply with Wikipedia guidelines (even if they wanted ) because they are bound by a confidentiality agreement with their clients. Is it still the case? I understand that it is. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) We have no interest in his contracts. If he is required to disclose for future edits, it is his problem to set up his contracts. That is not our concern. Jehochman Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) User:Jehochman I really disagree with you. Based on what you write here, I have a bridge to sell you! My point being, that in any transaction it makes to sense to be sure that the other party can actually deliver what they promise (ie, you make sure i own the Brooklyn Bridge before you give a million bucks for it). If WikiExperts cannot disclose who their clients are, then their promises to do so are hollow and are even bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC) He tells: we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors [41]. It means that they have a number of "their" editors here and can not disclose their COI.My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It would be surprising, if such an agreement did not have an out for complying with the demands of the privately run website they intend to participate in, but I get your concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban: as I previously said, I would support unban only if WikiExperts agreed to disclose all accounts they use. They've updated their ethics page. It's a step in the right direction, and seems to suggest they won't create or edit articles directly, but it doesn't go far enough. It says they will do their paid advocacy: "Without compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, our clients, and our own enterprise" which strongly suggests they haven't changed their previous position about keeping their accounts and client list private. That's unacceptable. Conditional support only if WikiExperts agrees to publicly identify all past, present, and future accounts of their employees and contractors, disclose all COI relating to their clients, and refrain from editing or creating articles directly. The previous ban was brought up and supported because WikiExperts flagrantly declared their intention not to abide by COI guidelines (see comments such as those on the Signpost recently). If they reverse this position, act transparently about their financial COI, and refrain from direct editing, then they are completely welcome on Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose The original block was based as far as I am aware, on indications that the "editor" would ignore WP policy. In other words, disruptive editing. Also there were a raft of sockpuppetry issues. I note the strong aversion to paid editing, its ethical and practical issues voiced by the community in that closed conversation. I believe user Kudpung was procedurally quite correct in his action. Why not just create a seperate business WP? I believe this is the thin end of the wedge, and the involvement of money, or worst, commercial profit as an incentive to join and edit WP will ultimately doom the project. If WP wishes to sup with the devil, it had better use a very long spoon. Irondome (talk) Comment on proposal to lift ban. I think the risk of conflict of interest has to be severe when editors are paid. There are also plenty of unpaid Wikipedia editors who are not just subject to conflict of interest but are driven by special interests of their own, not neutral reporting. I agree that to ban a paid editor merely on a risk basis is itself questionable or perhaps unfair. I think that a paid editor should be required to post every one of his proposed edits on the article's talk page and leave it there for a week before posting it to the article. The talk page post should be clearly labeled as a proposal by a paid editor, with disclosure of his fee.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support the ban (past tense), as enacted, despite procedural problems with the discussion.. Not because he is a paid editor, but because he is a non-repentant sockpuppeteer in control of undisclosed paid accounts. I don't support a flat ban on paid editing, as impracticable, with undesirable obvious consequences. I do support mandatory disclosure of paid-editor status for every account engaged in paid editing, and declaration of banned status on every person in control of an undisclosed paid account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Jehochman, slander seems very strong, I didn't think my reading of WP:SOCK violation was less than obvious. Perhaps I misunderstand something. If AKonanykhin (talk · contribs) denies being in control of any accounts (whether technical control or by contractual arrangement) used for undisclosed paid editing, then I support unbanning, the ban having no foundation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC). "undisclosed" missing, always intended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) SmokeyJoe, I have no idea who you are in real life, but I know exactly who AKonanykhin is, and so does everybody else. We must be careful when talking about people, especially identified people. We've heard people say "sock puppetry" and "its obvious", but is it really? The hand waving doesn't convince me. We need to see the diffs of his sock puppetry. Surely somebody can reference one diff where he's damaging the encyclopedia, if he's been engaging in sock puppetry. I think what we have here is a bunch of loose talk, and then people come along, look at the thread for 30 seconds and say, "Yeah, me too, I hate paid editing." The lesson to all is to dig into the details and look at the evidence before opining about somebody's behavior. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I do not know who AKonanykhin is. I have not looked at that information, as I do not see this discussion as being about AKonanykhin, but about paid-editing in general. AKonanykhin deserves extra credence for speaking up openly, but I'm thinking that not all paid editors are organised by AKonanykhin. "Meat puppetry" and "sockpuppetry" are unfortunately strong pejoratives. We should talk instead of controlling undeclared alternative accounts (accounts clearly linked to the editors main account). We don't encourage this, but we allow it if it is not abused. The checkusers don't actively look for it in the absence of actual problems. I have no evidence or suspicion of AKonanykhin, or any of his writers, having submitted a damaging edit. However, many undisclosed paid editors, working unmonitored, may become damaging. I am keen to see us monitor paid editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) On the unban motion, I agree with Jehochman about procedural concerns with the cited ban discussion. I do not specifically criticise the closer, Kudpung. AKonanykhin now seems to say that he, and all his professional associates, his paid editors, will publicly disclose their COI/paid editing. This is a major development, changing the situation. Exactly what "publicly disclose COI/paid editing" means, I am not sure, and would like to know. As I stated somewhere else, I think only a minimal disclosure need be mandatory. Given AKonanykhin's new commitment, I support unbanning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I do not object to use of undeclared alternative accounts for good reason. Acceptably good reasons are poorly described, but there are reasons. Paid editing seems to be one reason. I am ambivalent on paid editing; it is a difficult reality for Wikipedia. On careful consideration, I think we must allow/support it, with restrictions, if the paid-editing accounts are disclosed as paid-editing accounts. Now, given that I'm supporting limited paid editing, I can see that it must be acceptable for respected editors who choose to engage in paid editing to use an alternative account that is not connected to their main account. I assume that AKonanykhin has an anonymous main account, and if so, I wouldn't ask him to declare it. If AKonanykhin employs Wikipedia paid editors, it is like meatpuppetry, but I think we must allow him to do this, subject to him committing to requiring his contracted writers to disclose their paid-editing accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban (Support the ban) Agree with SmokeyJoe that paid editing by multiple accounts coodrinated from a single center is a violation of WP:SOCK as meatpuppeting (probably sockpuppeting as well). The only way we could allow paid editing by wikiexperts is if all the involved editors describe the conflict of interests and avoid edit warring. They did not do this so far Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) @Alex Bakharev: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) What proof do you need? Wkiexperts themselves claimed that they coordinate hundreds of Wikipedia accounts. Coordinating multiple accounts is of course a form of meatpuppery (if the accounts related to actual people) or sockpuppery (if they do not). Until all those accounts are properly identified and connected to each other for basic srutiny I am opposed to lifting the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I need diffs showing some of these accounts coming together to corrupt the consensus at a community discussion. For instance, if the Wikiexperts help each others articles survive deletion discussions, we can ban them. If you don't have that evidence, all you have is hearsay and malice. That's not enough to ban somebody. Mere suspicion that somebody might do something wrong is not a reason to ban somebody. Jehochman Talk 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) But the tune has changed to try and twist out of the penalty. If we say okay, then you open pandoras box upon the website.--MONGO 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I'd simply ask that you look at the edits made to this person's bio and his various companies. There are clearly a number of paid editors working on those in clear violation of COI and our rules on meat-puppetry. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support unbanning of AKonanykhin and his company, on condition that any accounts used in the future by him, his company, regular employees who edit on its behalf, or its subcontractors are listed on a Wikipedia page (en:User:AKonanykhin would be the obvious place). Naming the clients is unnecessary. —rybec 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support pending full and retroactive disclosure of all accounts. I'm not convinced that this appeal is genuine based on past experience with paid advocates, but disclosure will go a long way towards addressing the concern. MER-C 04:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support I disagreed with the reasoning of the original ban, but I hoped that the issue would lead to some sort of consensus on how we should tighten the currently toothless "strongly discouraged" COI wording. It didn't. That said, we need to make it worthwhile for editors to disclose their COIs. Currently, it is in the interest of paid editors to hide their relationship with their clients - they gain nothing from disclosure in spite of leaving themselves open to harassment, and yet risk nothing by non-disclosure. By respecting WikiExpert's offer to disclose their COIs, we finally do the opposite, providing value for the disclosure of COIs that makes it worth their while to do so. It may not work, but I think we should respect the offer and give it a go. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose - For what it's worth, I oppose this, since it's clear to me that the purposes of public relations people are antithetical to those of people who are attempting to write a NPOV encyclopedia. PR people serve a valuable purpose to the business community, and I have (indirectly) been the beneficiary of their work, but the usual course of business is that a PR person sends their info to some intermediary (a reporter on a newspaper, for instance), and the reporter decides how much of the info to use. It may provide a guide to the reporter for further investigation, or it may (in probably more cases than we'd like to know) be reported verbatim, but at least it has had the chance to be filtered through an intermediary who can use their independent judgment to weed out the worst of the promotional tendencies of the professional publicist. Reporters who pass along PR without vetting it have a tendency to be fired, or become PR persons themselves, because media outlets live and die by their reputations for accuracy. However, when a PR person has direct access to the means of dissemination, as is the case with Wikipedia, there is no longer an effective filter between their output and the encyclopedia. (Those who think that the cumulative result of all editors watching over he encyclopedia is an effective safeguard might be interested in doing a search of the project for "penis" to see the extent of the run-of-the-mill vandalism which hasn't been reverted by such means.) This is where the danger lies. If we allow public relations people to have clear and unfettered access to edit the articles in the encyclopedia, it is inevitable that we will eventually lose whatever reputation we have built up for neutrality and accuracy. Yes, people will still come to Wikipedia for information, since that habit has effectively been formed, but we will no longer be a free source of neutral information, we will be just another media vector for promotion and publicity. Those who think otherwise are, I believe, sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the blatant reality of the situation. Those who protest that we can't effectively police PR misbehavior are like inner-city cops who let crime get out of hand because it was just too hard to keep fighting against it. Yes, obviously, if we were to ban paid editing (as I believe we should) those editors would work overtime to get around our defenses, and that might require some policy changes on our part, such as loosening the restrictions on CheckUser investigations, but new strategies from the opposition require such responses on our part, and using such we can keep PR-fluff to a reasonable level. I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of those opposing taking steps against PR-editing are sincere in their beliefs, but I believe that are entirely and utterly wrong. The game changed when Wikipedia became the first stop of choice for many people when they want to get a quick bit of information, and such a vector cannot be ignored by people who live and die by their ability to get out their clients' message to the most people possible. We are no longer amateurs here, regardless of whether we get paid or not, we are professional information providers, and it's our responsibility to see that the information we provide is as accurate and unbiased as possible. To do that in a context where we give free reign to those other professionals, the PR people whose job it is to provide biased and celebratory information, is much more difficult, which is why we should not be unbanning any admitted PR person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) This is excellent comment. I completely agree. It matters a lot who edits. As someone else said, What is that he does? What is his nature? For example, contributors who are students, journalists, professional researchers or educators are relatively well fitted by their occupation to contribute here (sure, they can have a bias). However, paid professional propagandists are not. They should not be allowed edit here at all, or at least required to disclose their occupation and be closely watched by community. Such is life. Now, speaking about this particular PR company, they are openly telling at their website: Hey, our goal is to undermine Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Conditional support. I am very troubled by the statement above that "I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion." This isn't just a matter of deciding that some particular conflict of interest wasn't worth disclosing. Unless I'm very mistaken, this was an ongoing, systematic patter of undisclosed conflicts of interest. This suggests that you had a policy of asking "Am I doing something that doesn't absolutely break the rules" instead of "Am I doing something that (1) is ethical and (2) should be a positive for Wikipedia? I don't mind people being paid to write here, honestly and ethically, on topics of genuinely encyclopedic value that might not otherwise be covered. Writing puff pieces on topics of dubious notability while concealing one's economic interest in the matter is a very different thing. If you need someone to tell you that, it makes me wonder whether you even understand what ethics are. Before lifting the ban, I'd want to see a firm commitment not just to not outright breaking rules but to doing one's best to do intellectually honest work, including that you will be open to do warts-and-all writing. For an example of what I'm talking about, I did a piece about my own great-aunt Lena Levine. I disclosed this connection on the talk page and actively researched to find a citeable source stating that her so-called "consultant bureau for pregnant women" included illegal abortion referrals. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Strongly Oppose unban Way too soon given that this was only enacted a few days ago. As this company's conduct amounted to utter contempt for Wikipedia's rules (it's not like WP:COI is anything new, and there's evidence that they were taking steps to avoid being caught out using multiple accounts), we need to see evidence that they're actually willing to abide by our basic terms and conditions before any commitments they make can be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Very conditional support. According to their website (as of right now): "As a part of the Wikipedia community ourselves we "talk the talk and walk the walk", confidentially representing our clients in a manner that the community can embrace." (my bolding). It's unchanged from what that page said before the block. To me this implies that they promise their clients that they will perform conflict of interest editing on their behalf while ensuring that no one will be aware of it. It's unethical and a statement of continued intent to evade scrutiny of their edits, unless they now plan to deceive their prospective clients instead of us. I'd need to see exactly how Konanykhin and his company plan to implement yesterday's promised disclosure of their editors' conflict of interest here, because it clearly removes one of their big selling points to clients. Of course, getting himself and his editors banned has removed an even bigger selling point, so they might just decide to go for the lesser of two evils. I also strongly agree with Tryptofish and Bishonen that the original ban was proper one, and it should be immediately reinstated if WikiExperts.us attempt to game it any way. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban. Way too soon. And the statement on their talkpage should be followed by corresponding changes to the policies listed on their website. Until that occurs they should stay banned here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Comment I'd sooner have WikiExperts in than Wiki-PR, but there's the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem. We understand that, but a lot of the people who have just started something like a social media site for the Bloggui tribe can't see why they're not allowed in, but Facebook is. I don't object to people with what is classed as COI editing - so long as they follow the rules and we get articles and changes that are suitable. Hell, if they are OK, how do we know who they are unless they use a user name like BloggsCoMarketing? How do we set a standard to say WikiForHire can come in, but GetOnWiki can't? Other, that is, than the simple enforcement of the current rules. No corporate accounts, no advertising, notability shown and referenced. Market forces may play a part here - the creators of crap won't get any recommendations from their customers and may be subject to Trading Standards inspection if they claim things they can't deliver, or cash loss if they are foolish enough to offer money-back guarantees... Peridon (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban (and monitor for further SOCK violations), the evidence of wrongdoing in this case is almost entirely circumstantial. Yes paid advocate editors tend to violate NPOV when it suits them, but unless some minimum threshold of evidence is presented that NPOV has in fact been violated I find the punishment to be out of keeping with the crime. AKonanykhin had stated in the past that he didn't intend to abide by the suggestions in the weakly-worded COI guideline. And perhaps the most damning evidence against him is that presented by Atethnekos in the SPI case. But I find AKonanykhin to be much more forthright than many in his position. He has disclosed his affiliations, he has credibly stated that he intends to abide by the site policies, and he is seeking to unblock his account rather than simply sockpuppeting which as we all know is infinitely easier than a request for unban. If there were policies against COI-editing or that mandated disclosure then that would be one thing, but under the current rules there is no evidence that what he has actually done is ban-worthy. If Wikipedia wants to impose bans for this kind of editing behavior then it has to get its house in order first. There are currently 3 proposed policies on this topic which I see receiving large opposition. Voters seem to jump at the chance to vote down imperfect proposals rather than to vote up the best of them. The result is that none of these proposals will pass. If we can't get our act together then we can't hold third parties to our heightened personal standards. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Note: I'm strongly sympathetic to the requirement for AKonanykhin to declare all sock and meat accounts too. My unban vote isn't conditional on this, but I do think it is a very reasonable imposition. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) No. It is not circumstantial, when based on writings of the blocked/banned party - and writings of the blocked/banned party are always the only evidence. Every block/ban decision is a predicted calculation of present and future risks, including logical inferences from the present facts. As for "our house in order," every user has the responsibity for our house's order (see, eg. [42]) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, his unsubstantiated claims that if push came to shove he would elect not to heed WP:COI's suggestions are quite clearly circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing. They may possibly be direct evidence of his lack of moral compass or perhaps even his intent to do wrong things, but intent is an exacerbating factor when it comes to COI/NPOV violations and it is rarely if ever an essential element of the wrongdoing. Furthermore he has controverted this evidence with an explanation that he does not read the guidelines as defining his actions as "wrong". I have to say the weak wording of the present guideline sadly strengthens his claims. There's an ocean of difference between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" even when it's written in bold. That's what I mean when I say that we must get our act together before imposing bans like this. Until we can agree as a community that paid-advocacy-editing is forbidden (not just discouraged) as a matter of policy, it's unfair to hold editors to this elevated non-consensus standard even when direct evidence exists (as it doesn't in this case) that they have actually engaged in conflicted editing. I personally think disclosure should be mandatory, but that is only my personal opinion, not yet policy. By the look of the three ongoing proposed policy discussions it will probably never become policy. -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) They are not unsubstantiated claims, they are acknowledged evidence of past and future acts (and whether those acts are discouraged or forbidden makes no difference - either way they should not be done); and they are credible given the statements that were made and the actions they described. As for whether the User was mistaken, that is the risk one takes when one chooses to skate the edge - the lesson there is 'do not skate the edge.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Where have these claims been substantiated? Are there any diffs that can be provided that will show that AKonanykhin bridged the distance between simply saying that he would not take the suggestions offered in COI and actually editing in violation COI/NPOV? Because that's what I mean by "substantiated". His words would have to take substance in the form of edits for me to considered them as factual proof of misdeeds. If no such evidence exist and all we have is intent without a crime then we are punishing thoughts. -Thibbs (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) User:Camper-mann adds promotional material and removes negative information from the Alex Konanykhin article [43]. Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Wikipedia [44]. After initially denying any wrongdoing, when confronted with the evidence, User:AKonanykhin says "As for User:Camper-mann, his actions were a very long time ago, in February of 2009. To be honest, I may well have sought out an editor at that time to adjust our pages, long before I ever got into the Wikipedia editing business. Obviously that user did a bad job." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts&diff=577308061&oldid=577187191). When User:AKonanykhin was first confronted with the concerns of infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user should have come clean, admitted the errors and committed to not doing it again. Why did the user not do this? The answer is obvious: User:AKonanykhin hoped that those users (like User:My very best wishes) previously involved with the Camper-mann etc. investigations would not show up for the discussion and that the evidence of previous misdeeds would not be seen. It was only when these hopes were dashed that the concessions occured. I call this lying: Using falsehoods to gain an advantage. This is an obvious cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL, a policy which rightly enjoins every editor to act honestly. The same is the case with the promise to disclose conflicts of interest. User:AKonanykhin user previously said it "cannot" be done [45], but now says it can. How is it possible that it both can and cannot be done? The answer is obvious: Either User:AKonanykhin was lying then, and hoped that the community would accept that it cannot be done even when he knew it can, or is lying now and hopes that the community will believe that any disclosures he does will be full disclosures, even when he knows that they won't be. Either way, this is another cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) There are significant chronological holes in this argument. AKonanykhin only made the statement that he would ignore COI's recommendations in the interest of his clients a week or so ago. I don't think he has had time to make good on his claim yet. The diffs you offered actually predate AKonanykhin's having even joined (and thus implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules of) Wikipedia. Likewise as far as I know he hasn't yet had an opportunity to demonstrate that he won't make full disclosures although he said he would so your accusation that he is a liar seems to be as premature as the ban. That AKonanykhin would have violated COI and that he would have failed to make full disclosures remain hunches, assumptions, and speculative projections. Holding him accountable for the actions of another person from nearly 2 years before he even joined the project goes a step too far. I think some kind of actual misdeed should precede a ban, not a gaze into the crystalball to nail him for future crimes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I do not say assertorically that User:AKonanykhin is lying on that count. Rather, I say disjunctively that either the user is lying on that count or the user lied when it was said that disclosures cannot be done. How can one sincerely promise to do something but also believe in one's heart that it cannot be done? Such could not be a sincere promise. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) That's no more a lie than my statement that "It's impossible to force an advocate editor to disclose because we have no policy mandating this" will be a lie once such a policy is adopted. When AKonanykhin made his initial statement he was accurately reflecting his company policies as written. Now that they have been rewritten he has changed his claim, but that doesn't make his previous claim a lie. You're not presenting the full picture. -Thibbs (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC) When editors first complained to User:AKonanykhin about not following disclosure requirements, the user's response was to say that it "cannot" be done, and that such disclosures would be unethical, and would put clients at a competitive disadvantage (because others would not disclose despite the requirements) [46] [47]. And this is in a context of a "crusade" or "jihad" supposedly being waged by Jimbo Wales and other editors against (partially) the user and WikiExperts, in which is a prerogative to avoid scrutiny [48]. Then the user is banned. And then also the user sees that other users will largely only agree to lifting the ban if these disclosure requirements are agreed to. So, when, in the mind of User:AKonanykhin, did agreeing to these requirements stop being an unethical concession which simply cannot be done in this holy war? Your theory is that the hyperbolic claims of it being unethical were the sincere beliefs of User:AKonanykhin, but then he coincidentally changed these sincere beliefs right when doing so would allow an unban. My theory is that he was or is being insincere at some point, either then or now. That's not me failing to give the full picture, that's me having a different interpretation of motivation than you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC) No, failing to give the full picture is to leave out the fact that the business policies have been modified when you say that "First he claims that he can't disclose for business reasons and then a few days later he claims he can disclose". If the business policies have been modified then this explains why he can now disclose. The same is true at Wikipedia. If there's a rule against vandalism then we can say that we can't vandalize. If this rule is repealed then we can now say that we can vandalize. That's not an example of us lying. That's an example of the policies that bind us changing. It would be presenting an incomplete picture to say "Look at these liars! One day they say they can't vandalize, then the next day they say they can! Something is fishy!" without mentioning the policy change. The same is apparently true in this case with AKonanykhin. -Thibbs (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban - the ban was implemented by the community, and I do not see any good reason why this one user should not be subjected to it. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @GiantSnowman:, please show me one diff where they have done something wrong to an article. One diff and I will shut up. Aren't you an administrator? Do you look at evidence, or do you just ban people who you don't like? Jehochman Talk 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) It's the principle of the matter. A ban has been enacted by the community as a whole; the burden is now on you/AKonanykhin to show why the ban should be lifted. FYI, your "do you just ban people who you don't like?" comment makes you sound like a stroppy teenager, or wose. GiantSnowman 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Giantsnowman - was this meant for the section above?--v/r - TP 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, apologies, this thread is too bloody long! GiantSnowman 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I could care less whether AKonanykhin gets unbanned. My concern is that we the Wikipedia Communittee act ethically. The ban was improperly placed. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented, and the closing admin misjudged consensus badly. There need to be diffs of wrongful editing. We do not place bans for political reasons. Bans are for repeated disruption of the encyclopedia, not for suspicion or simple dislike for a person. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) There is plenty of evidence of puppetry (meat vs. sock being unclear). There is plenty of evidence of folks editing articles related to this person and company with a COI. And there is evidence that he was ignoring COI and plenty of evidence that he intended to continue to do so. How is that not enough for a ban? That said, if he's willing to fix those things and identify all COI (past and future) I'm fine with removing the ban. But this isn't a ban based purely on "suspicion or simple dislike". Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @Jehochman: - where have I said I dislike this person? FWIW I think he's actually come across rather well. Your lack of good faith is disturbing. GiantSnowman 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Comment. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients.My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban - I'm agreeing with the opening statement of the initial flimsy case, and maintain my view that they shouldn't ever have been banned. Not only that, but the user in question has very clearly made attempts to line themselves up with the majority of the policies. I've seen several users publicly state that they will reject policies as they see fit on their user page/talk pages, without any action; another sign of double standards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) This is not about the user, but about this user and his company. Did this user and his "friends" follow policies, in particular WP:SOAP? No, they have been heavily involved in promotion using multiple accounts [49], [50], [51], [52], exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You're going to have to do more than show a few 2008 and 2009 transgressions to convince me. As for Eclipsed, the only recent account, almost all of the articles they've written have plenty of references, and I'm not seeing many deleted for being non-notable, or being pure puff pieces. In fact, even AKonanykhin's own article isn't a pure puff piece, given the presence of two immigration trial sections. These articles are less biased than a large amount of those written by non-paid authors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Speaking about their "merits" per WP:IAR, we do not know it, because we do not know who and what edited on their behalf. However, their presence caused significant disruption: these two huge AN discussions and a couple of earlier ANI discussions I remember. That's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Since when was the number of AN/ANI discussions even remotely a relevant factor? Several editors in very good standing have had multiple AN/ANI threads opened against them. Should we ban them essentially because other people have issues with them, even though these users are contributing effectively and well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) And a lot of other people were banned, because they created more disruption (unhelpful discussions on ANI and other places) than contributed positively to content. In this particular case, we simply do not know if this organization contributed positively to the project at all (we are talking about organization) because we do not know who their editors are and what they did, just as few people knew much about Wiki-PR, until their actions have been investigated. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Comparisons to WikiPR are not warranted here, as the two are indeed very different in their approach to policy and Wikipedia in general. No two paid editors are cut from the same cloth and we shouldn't try to categorize them. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - arbitrary break Strongest possible oppose I'm seriously thinking of retiring. Wikipedia has fallen so far that now we allow and encourage paid editing and corporate interference with our articles. We no longer have any integrity left. The way we are heading, I no longer have much respect for this place as an independent source, or a project that I can put my time into. I have always admired our integrity and ability to call bullshit when it comes to conflict of interest editing, but in the last several years we have rolled over and let ourselves become nothing more than a giant billboard for hundreds of different companies. The lack of a good COI/Paid Editing policy, policies such as "outing" that are exploited in situations such as this, and strong, deep COI inflitration. This group of editors has abused our sockpuppetry policy, our notability guidelines, and our policy on using Wikipedia for advertising, like hardly anyone else in our history. If there has ever been somebody to ban it is WikiExperts. Under no circumstances should they be allowed anywhere near our articles. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC) It is not a battleground, and therefore we need not "prevent them at all costs" or worry about "infilteration". KonveyorBelt 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @Themfromspace: If you can't make your point without needless profanity, hyperbole, and threats to resign you might consider taking a break. We don't need this sort of diatribe in the midst of a rational conversation. The community is deeply divided over paid editing. We can't even agree on a policy, yet. We need to find common ground. Treating this topic as a battle is not helpful. Jehochman Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) There is no hyperbole. Infiltration by advertisers, which is happening, is the greatest threat to our integrity that we face outside of the longterm decline in neutral editors. This is something we need to say NO to. Loudly. Anything less is unacceptable. This is not a battleground mentality, it is an antivandalism mentality. ThemFromSpace 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) What has changed? Advertisers started "infiltrating" Wikipedia over a decade ago. We have robust policies and processes to deal with that issue. Nothing has changed except a group of users have started a mass hysteria. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban. Maybe one banned editor soured me on paid editing forever. But what I saw was (and still is, as I'm sure that banned editor is still socking away), was pure advocacy for profit. Doc talk 16:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @Doc9871: If you are going to denounce a named, living person, you need evidence. Can you please show me the evidence of sock puppetry? This is a rumor that's been oft repeated but never substantiated. Where's the sockpuppetry report? Jehochman Talk 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) As I pointed out below, I was not referring to this editor. I was alluding to MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), an editor that started out openly promising on elance to create and "maintain" articles for money, creating any notability required as a WP "expert". Sorry for the confusion; I've mentioned MPF in so many comments concerning this issue that I took it for granted that it would be understood that he was who I meant. My bad. Doc talk 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements will be followed. http://www.wikiexperts.us/en/ethics That may address some of the concerns expressed previously. Jehochman Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I didn't mean this particular banned user, FWIW. I don't see how WikiExperts is going to make much money if they abide by the same rules for content that we all do. Paid editing is usually about promoting your product, ensuring notability and keeping out all the negative stuff. Meh. Doc talk 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) We're trying to discuss whether to unban this particular user, not the general principle of paid editing. There are a couple policy proposals pending. Please do help us resolve them! Jehochman Talk 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Doc - paid editing can also be moving a process along that would otherwise wait for a disinterested editor to come to at some point. For example, removing primary sources used to cite negative information (someone hated their spaghetti, blogged about it, and then updated a Wikipedia entry for an Italian restaurant that managed to escape CSD). Or it could be writing a new article for a person who has plenty of references but has not had anyone on Wikipedia get around to writing an article about yet. Or it could be handling any other perfectly legitimate concern without some silly PR rep bludgeoning it because they don't understand our processes.--v/r - TP 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I see no difference between this guy's firm and this one. I think we're screwed with companies like this around and more popping up. They are just going to sock to evade detection when they realize that they pretty much have to. Really look at what they promise to do. This sort of paid editing is, IMHO, totally against what the encyclopedia is for. Doc talk 21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) But your making an assumptions and then making a factual comment about the assumptions. ie "A could be B, and B is really bad, so A is really bad."--v/r - TP 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "Are you being unfairly treated on Wikipedia? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins. And we'll engage on Wikipedia's back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Wikipedia." My emphasis on "and admins". Like I said: we're screwed already with this. Doc talk 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC) And the "mission statement" of WikiExperts is just so wrong. "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Seriously?! "Strangers" can't edit "your" article? An unbelievably stupid fucking joke is what that is. Doc talk 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC) A user tearing down the first and fourth Pillars of Wikipedia. Perhaps the community should play Delilah in this drama? This seems to be more of the same behavior from the user. As documented above [53], User:AKonanykhin, when first told of WP:Sock puppetry violations, denied; and then, when shown the evidence, conceded. Now we see here the same behaviour: When first told of COI disclosure requirements, user denied and said this was not contractually possible [54], but now that the community presses, the user has conceded. This seems to be a pattern with this user of using falsehoods to try to get benefits. This is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars. Which of course makes sense: User fully admits to being here not with the end goal of making a better encyclopedia, but with the end goal of making better money. It's become increasingly clear in my mind that when the interests of this encyclopedia get in the way of the interests of this user, this user sacrifices the former for the sake of the latter. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You've misrepresented what they've said. That "is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars." What he said was, that he has rewritten the contract for his future customers which allows for open declaration of a COI and disclosure of whom he is working for. He's still contractually obligated not to reveal the others unless he can contact those customers and negotiate an amendment.--v/r - TP 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If what you are saying about the meaning is true, then either the falsehood is the same as I identify, or it is even worse! Either User:AKonanykhin has dropped, or will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the previous statement that disclosure "cannot" be done was the same falsehood. Or, User:AKonanykhin has neither dropped, nor will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the promise to meet disclosure requirements is a shameless lie! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Or it's not a "shameless lie" at all and your continued rhetoric only serves to obscure and derail factual discussion. Business doesn't happen overnight. A promise from the CEO to change business practices takes time to renegotiate contracts. Your confusing unrealistic idealism with legitimate business expectations. Please stop doing that. Be realistic and quit accusing them of being liars simply because they cannot snap their fingers and make it all happen in an instant.--v/r - TP 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I never intend to use rhetoric, I only intend to give the facts as I see them, to the best of my ability. I don't expect anyone to make anything happen in an instant. I assumed that your interpretation was not the case. According to User:Jehochman, who I take to be trustworthy on this matter, User:AKonanykhin now intends to meet disclosure requirements ([55]). As I said, either they do intend to meet the disclosure requirements, in which case their previous statement that this "cannot" be done, was a falsehood, or they do not intend to meet disclosure requirements, in which case the current promise is indeed a shameless lie. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You yourself are tearing down pillars, namely 3 and 5. KonveyorBelt 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Disclosure is not a "requirement". It is a recommendation. They've agreed to follow (not meet) disclosure recommendations (not requirements). WP:COI "you are advised to...provide full disclosure of the connection".--v/r - TP 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC) That's the wording Jehochman ascribed to the user: "The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements". If there is a real difference between the meaning of "following requirements" and "meeting requirements", just read "following" whenever I have said "meeting". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Question. When the company says it will abide by the COI guideline, does that mean it will disclose its accounts and require its contractors to refrain from editing articles directly (as the guideline advises)? Or is it offering something more restricted than that? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Same here. @Jehochman, I'll believe it when I see it. So now their ethics page says "including Conflict of Interests (COI) disclosure requirements" although their "Why us" page continues to promise their clients confidentiality. There's enormous scope for gaming this. As you and several others have been at pains to point out, our COI guidelines don't explicitly require disclosure. However, quite a few of the editors in this discussion who do not outright oppose lifting the ban, require declarations of COI from this group of editors, and for well-founded reasons. None of their editors are banned from editing their talk pages. It would be a good start if each of them declared their conflict of interest on their talk pages now and AKonanykhin linked to those talk pages on his talk page so that this can be verified. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I'm tired of being a middleman in this discussion. I'm not his spokesman. Please go talk to AKonanykhin directly. This is why it was so stupid to ban him. It's hard for concerned editors to talk to the guy when he can't even edit his talk page. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) His block log doesn't indicate that his talk page access has been revoked, and indeed, he has edited it 4 times it since he was blocked. I'm also quite sure he's reading this discussion, as are his employees. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban. I have yet to encounter a cogent argument for the position that paid editing creates a bias that is somehow more problematic than any of the other myriads of biases all editors are influenced by, and, so justifies special treatment. I see no reason to address any particular bias, including this particular bias. Regardless of what an editor's biases are (and it's a matter of what the biases are, not if there are any), what matters is that the edits are made in compliance with NPOV and our other content-oriented guidelines and polices. WP:AGF, anyone? And, yes, paid editors can edit in good faith. --B2C 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree, an editor who was simply paid can edit in good faith. However, an editor who was paid to conduct propaganda type editing (and that is what PR companies do) should not be allowed to edit per WP:SOAP. Well, perhaps they might edit per WP:IAR, but only if they openly disclose their affiliation prior to any incidents resulting in blocks, such as promotional editing of Mr. Konanykhin biography (see my links above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) My very best wishes (talk · contribs), edits in violation of WP:SOAP are violations of SOAP regardless of whether they are motivated by payment, and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no need for a separate sanction targeting paid editing. Since there is no reason to disclose any other bias (like one's race when editing an article about race, or one's religion when editing a religious article, or one's political leanings when editing a political article), there is no reason to disclose the specific bias created by paid editing. Attempting to do so resolves nothing and pushes the behavior even more underground. Let's show a little more faith in our content-guarding policies and guidelines like NPOV, Notability, WP:IRS, and, yes, WP:SOAP. --B2C 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) This is not about bias. An editor who belongs to an outside organization makes promotional edits (including removal of important reliably sourced information - yes, I saw this a number of times, and this is the reason I do not edit in certain subject areas) not because he has a bias, but because he was told to do them by his superiors. He acts as a proxy. He acts essentially as a meatpuppet. Therefore, the disclosure is necessary.My very best wishes (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Actually, I do not mind when people work for educational or scientific organizations (although a disclosure would be appropriate/necessary even in such cases), but when it comes to political PR, such as removal of well-sourced information about crime, no. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Well, I question the prohibitions on meat puppetry as well. But that's a bias too... it's a bias favoring the views of the meat. I don't care why people edit as they do - I care whether the result of their edits -- the affected content -- is in compliance with our content-specific policies and guidelines. That's it. --B2C 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose (of unban) The current proposal is based on the proposition that, since there were few diffs given during the banning discussion, the rules on banning were ignored. There are no rules that require diffs during the banning discussion. There was clear and solid evidence -AK's own statements made in the media and posted on his own website, that he had violated the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times, and that he intended to keep on violating our rules. His statements on this page were enough to show meat-puppeting. The ban was quite proper. I don't find User:AKonanykhin's statement that he would follow the rules in the future at all convincing. There are no details showing that he knows what he did wrong. There is no acknowledgement or reporting of the history of what he's done wrong, so that we can't easily correct his advertising and promotion. He needs to disclose his clients and contractors, and give dates and articles. His claim that he can't disclose because of contracts he's signed is self-serving, and any such contract provisions would be unenforceable as it is public policy in the US that promotional and advertising claims must disclose the relationship between the sponsor and the person making the claim (if it is not obvious that the person making the claims (here- the editor) is working for the advertiser). Konanykhin's website wikiexperts.us is currently breaking the law by making false advertising claims. For example he currently promises his clients to "Increase the visibility and credibility of your company, brand, or product by creating or improving your Wikipedia presence." He cannot deliver on these promises for at least two reasons: 1) promotion is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia; and 2) he and his employees are currently banned from editing on Wikipedia. If he continues to make false advertising claims on his own website and break the US law on deceptive advertising, even after he is banned here, how can we expect him to follow the rules here. At a minimum, he needs to take down his advertising of Wikipedia editing services on his own site, before we can even consider unbanning him. Two more example from wikiexperts.us of deceptive advertising (the first also promises POV editing) "Article Monitoring and Repair: When someone edits your article, WikiExperts are alerted immediately. Our staff reviews the article to check whether it is still objective, representative and above all, not unduly damaging to your brand’s image. If needed, the changes are reversed." "Updates: Just as your business is dynamic, so too should be your Wikipedia entry. Every time your company’s situation changes, we will update your article, applying the same care to keep it compliant with Wikipedia policies." (How can he update an article - compliant with Wikipedia policies - when he is banned?) Smallbones<subj>(smalltalk) 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) This is an interesting argument. However, he acts rationally. Why change their web site? He overcame Russian justice, INS, FBI and US Department of Justice. Sure thing, he can deal with Wikipedia. I am looking forward seeing him and his people around. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) "Why change their web site?" because he is breaking the law if he doesn't. It's pretty simple. Is your argument really that he should not be held to Wikipedia's rules and US law, like any other person, simply because he has won some cases in court? It seems like an incredibly cynical argument - "because we can get away with it" Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC) No, I am simply trying to explain why they did not bother to fix their web site (yet) - from their perspective. They think they will edit here no matter what, I believe. Let's see if this unblock passes. If it does, I am right. If it does not, they will do something else (possibly new statements and yet another request for unblock). My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Qualified support for an unban. On the one hand, I (and I believe I speak for many here) don't like the idea of unbanning known paid editors—paid editing is distasteful and disruptive, and can be fairly assumed to carry a certain level of bad faith. I say that last part in that the ultimate goal of a paid editor is to get paid, rather than improve the encyclopedia—that's my distinction between "bad" paid editing and acceptable paid editing (e.g. the reward board, or paid Wikipedian-in-Residence positions at GLAMs, et cetera). That being said, given that we cannot prevent all paid editing, it is in our interests to bring it "above-ground" as much as possible. By allowing paid editors some freedom when they disclose their actions and are subject to scrutiny, we ultimately gain greater control over paid editing's influence because it can be measured and regulated more effectively. It also gains us greater leeway to penalize paid editors who try to slip under the radar and fail, since there'd be an established best practice that they are demonstrably trying to circumvent. The freedom that I believe paid editors should enjoy when their work is disclosed and meets our standards is tempered by greater freedom on our part to block and ban paid editors who do not meet these standards. If a paid editor is found to also be operating "underground" or operating sock puppets, etc., that should result in an immediate and permanent ban. We cannot tolerate behaviour that is manifestly in bad faith. For that matter, if paid editors produce poor-quality work, we should not be tolerant of that, because it can produce so much clean-up work for our unpaid volunteers. I'd support a "sticky proposed deletion" process analogous to those for BLPs. I'm rambling, so TL;DR: Unban this time, and let's move to incentivizing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour more consistently in the future, please. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Simply a poor-quality work is not a forbidden, unless an editor is utterly incompetent. It does not really matter that these editors are paid. However, they work for a propaganda/PR company. That should be forbidden per WP:SOAP.My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban, not because I like PR companies editing, but because we can either A unban and have all PR accounts disclosed, or B don't unban and drive PR accounts underground. It's very simple. Ross Hill (talk) 00:49, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Despite the disclaimer on their "ethics page": "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Does anyone here seriously not see how this statement sums it all up? It's astounding. Doc talk 07:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Firm Oppose. Per Smallbones and Nyttend. While some people here claim that the banning process was "flawed," the fact that it's an editor with his own article we're talking about here, who has made repeated intentions of violating WP policy, and suddenly seeking an unban roughly two weeks after Kudpung closing it? Jeez, as per Nyttend, try going off the grid for six months! I agree with Smallbones' points on the subject being alerted of possible edits to a client article and their people will fix it. That's already owning it in my book and they dare other people to edit client articles. AKonanykin's making a really stupid facade of declaring that his company will suddenly follow all WP guidelines despite all his rhetoric about violating them, hypocrite much? An unban will only play into his hands.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban per two points: I call shenanigans, basically. I believe AKonanykhin is a good businessperson and will do what good businesspeople do, which is serve the needs of their paying clients. What they have stated they do for their clients seems patently incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. I just don't believe their culture, aims and methods can turn on a word like that. I read the latest on AKonanykhin's User Talk and there's a lot of "Yes, but..." there setting up loopholes. Yes, WP:AGF but also AGF is not a suicide pact. Where are the diffs? - Several commentors here supporting the unban have asked for diffs showing the ban is justified. However, this is not another !vote on banning. This is an UNBAN vote. We normally only grant an appeal to lift a ban after it has been demonstrated that the editor can contribute productively and in line with Wikipedia's rules. Where are the diffs demonstrating this? If AKonanykhin provides a complete list of their paying clients and accounts the company uses, and demonstrates that well-sourced content that meets Wikipedia's content policies but reflects badly on their paying clients won't be challenged or removed, I might reconsider. Zad68 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose unban As someone else wrote, "I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is." Paid editing is advertising, and Wikipedia does not allow ads. John Nagle (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC) In fact, hiring of an experienced participant by a business can be a bribery - if the payment alters to the worse editing behavior of the recipient.My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support Unban with proviso that all Paid COI edits must be identified on talk pages of affected articles, under penalty of return to banned status. The marketing of this company implies NPOV is the least of their worries. We need to make sure that it is on their radar, and the only way to do that is if we know where to look. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) There is no consensus to unban this account. We can talk about why that is for months. Doc talk 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban: As much as I am opposed to paid editing, as it truly does undermine the spirit of Wikipedia, I am unconvinced by arguments that this ban should stay in place. If the ban was to be kept in place until a promise to declare conflict-of-interest was made, then there really is no reason to keep the ban in place. A lot of the arguments to keep the ban in place revolve around the implicit mistrust we have in paid editors, and that in many cases may be well founded. However we set a ban in place and gave specific guidance as to how it could be removed, and if we do not follow through on our word here, then we are just as untrustworthy. Do we really set expectations for people without meaning them? Do we really set bans or blocks in place with instructions as to how it can be removed, then reneg on those terms when someone complies? It appears that a major concern is that we have no idea whether or not the company will comply with the terms of the unban. I’m a little sceptical of that line of argumentation. If they are unbanned and hey, look, there doesn’t seem to be any Wikiex account anywhere doing anything whatsoever, I think we’ll have our answer—they’re not following the rules. And if contributions do pop up, we’ll know immediately if we need to revert them or not. So I think we can see pretty easily whether or not to trust the company’s word if there is future disclosure, or if there is not. Considering all we have to go off right now is a couple of stale diffs from before the editors went into business that would be very beneficial in terms of seeing what potential problem lies here. On top of that, we can see what their editing patterns are and if we want, continue searching for problem patterns that might have popped up elsewhere, and address such patterns as they arise. So if they can’t provide past accounts, I don’t see the issue personally, as if they were problem accounts we’ll find them. Wikipedia isn’t fragile or incompetent, we can easily see if the unban should stay or a ban reimposed by a small sample size of disclosed edits. So again, no reason to reneg on our word. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Real problem here is not paid editing, but use of multiple accounts by the same organization when every individual account acts as company's proxy. Yes, I agree, such bans can be appealed, but only under one standard condition: complete disclosure of all their current accounts to asses potential damage (or possibly benefits) of their activities. Actually, we have this below with regard to another company: This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that XYZ as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC) A standard could be set, but I don’t see where it has. I’ve reread the ban again and it does not mention retroactive disclosure, so are we not moving the goal posts here? In retrospect, if the ban had included retroactive disclosure, the vote could have turned out differently. In addition, if the ban had not included a clear pathway to reinstatement, again the vote could have turned out quite differently. There is no way of knowing if the ban would have been agreed to with the new standard of retroactive disclosure. It’s not that retroactive disclosure is a bad idea, it’s that no one agreed that it would be necessary. I dislike these types of people as much as anybody, and would prefer no paid editing whatsoever on Wikipedia. But the language used was pretty specific, and ignoring that language in favour of new conditions strikes me as strange. The other thing that bothers me is the assumption of bad faith in past edits, which was also not a part of the ban. You mention WikiPR, where there is evidence of bad faith edits, but this case provides none. For all our searching (I’ve done some myself too) I can’t find examples of bad faith editing—and definitely nothing that would make me feel comfortable with establishing new conditions for unbanning. Maybe that’s all beside the point though, because from what I read the ban doesn’t state anywhere that there was an assumption of bad faith edits. It only states that it was unethical (and, quite frankly, abhorrent) to lambaste Wikipedia in the way that it was happening and at the same time not disclose accounts that could prove good faith editing. The logic behind this wasn’t that the company must be editing badly, but that we didn’t trust it to edit without supervision. Anyhow, I’m uncomfortable with the apparent shape-shifting of the argument not to unban and the setting of new conditions that did not appear in the ban, as when I apply the arguments here to the ban language, I feel it is starting to slip away from the original decision (which I agreed with, by the way). I think that is dangerous for the long-term development of a paid editing policy that keeps Wikipedia safer, as it doesn’t show continuity in our decisions. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) WP:AGF policy is only about individuals, not organizations. Importantly, even though we have AGF, we also can and should trace contributions by individual editors to identify those who actually damage the project - this happens all the time. When it comes to corporations, there is an additional dimension: activities of people who work on behalf of the same organization are normally coordinated from the same center. Is it an illegal coordination? We do not really know without having their disclosure. We can't AGF that activities of between different people from the same corporation are uncoordinated because they usually are, almost by definition. Yes, I believe they must make retroactive disclosure as a precondition of their unban, so we can check they did not do damage like Wiki-PR. Did this particular user and his employees were actually engaged in doubtful coordinated activities? Yes, at least four their accounts (one of them blocked) edited biography of Mr. Konanykhin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Just as a point of interest, nowhere in WP:AGF does it state what you are implying it does. Groups of people are not treated differently from people by the policy, which is besides the point, as I was only pointing out that there was no breach of WP:AGF retroactively in the ban language and that therefore I find that imposing it now is contrary to our mission—which is to root out any potential problem we might have. I am clearly not saying that no tracing should occur, I in fact stated that we can trace patterns much more easily if damage exists by allowing ourselves a recent sample of their edits. As a complete aside, I’m not sure that making charges of illegal activity is in line with WP:LEGAL, as you are implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed. But I could be wrong on that. Really, I agree with you that perhaps in the future retroactive disclosure requests could be made a part of any cban. But it wasn’t in this case, and again, I think that trying to impose it regardless doesn’t respect the original community consensus. Is there evidence enough to ignore the consensus and impose new sanctions? The evidence you present for unconstructive editing is pretty old. One is an attempt to post material that was shut down pretty easily by us four years ago, and which occurred before the company we are talking about came to being. The second is a case where conflict of interest was actually disclosed, so the policy we’re trying to imposed (and rightfully so) wasn’t circumvented. That second edit was just to add a photo, I would add, and one we still have on the Commons and in use. I’d want to see far more in terms of recent, damaging diffs to determine the impact of this situation on the site, and in fact, believe that we will never be able to determine such potential damage if we do not respect the language of the original consensus and disallow ourselves the ability to see what new edits we receive. That’s fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our backs. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Where did you find that I am "implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed"? I never said anything even close. I only said somewhere that I saw how certain editors remove well-sourced negative information (including information about crime) from articles about certain rich/influential living people and organizations, and I am sure this is COI problem. Unfortunately, based on my experience here, this is all unprovable (no one declares their COI in political subjects of course), can't be fixed, and only will get me banned. So I would rather avoid editing these subjects, and that is exactly what I actually did.My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - 2nd arbitrary break The original ban stated [56]: "The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases." People might argue in how to interpret the first "will", but to me it's stating the company's editors must disclose that they have been paid to edit articles prior to the ban and that any new employees must do so if/when the ban is lifted. It does not require that they name their clients, although that can be reasonably inferred from the articles they have edited since 2010. In fact, although they later attempted to make that information harder to find, several of them had been openly declared, along with their articles. See for example, User:Eclipsed here, here (uncollapse the thread). The user pages of two of the four editors whom Eclipsed "adopted" (and at one point referred to as his "team"): [57], [58]. All four editors can be found here. See also here (uncollapse the "Declarations"). Plus this user after this. I will notify all the editors I've mentioned here, although apart from Eclipsed, they now appear to be inactive. There is another editor who is almost certainly from WikiExperts who has extensively edited WikiExperts.us as well as all the other articles on Konanykhin's various companies, his wife, her associates, etc. I won't name them here as they have made no attempt to declare their COI. Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Three points. (a) Yes, this is written in text of ban: all accounts (including current ones) should be disclosed. (b) Konanykhin said that they have a non-disclosure agreement not only with their clients, but also with "their" wikipedia editors [59] and that they currently have a number of editors here, rather than these old accounts (in his another statement too where he tells that their people stopped editing during the ban) (c) Making such non-disclosure agreement means creating a Cabal; and we know several cases when members such "teams" (even not bound by any agreements) were sanctioned by Arbcom in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC) The original drafter of the ban language himself has stated he supports an unban in the above discussion. I believe that they would have the closest understanding of what the language was supposed to mean. A number of other users who supported the ban have changed their minds, so I am reasonably assured that these individuals have the right interpretation of the language. In addition, there was very little discussion of disclosing retroactively in the commentary that led to the ban, so I'm relatively convinced that your misinterpreting it. No retroactive disclosure was agreed upon by the community. That said, we can go round and round like this for weeks. On your other point Voceditenore, I would indeed like to hear from User:Eclipsed to see how his or her Wikipedia activities are related to this discussion and what they have to say about the things being said about him/her. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC) It does not matter what drafter or anyone else tells. It only matters what was actually written in the ban, because that is what people voted for. My very best wishes (talk) We're saying the same thing here, just from two different sides. I believe it is a stretch here to say the ban intended for retroactive disclosure, and that moving the goal posts doesn't help us deal with the problem at hand. I'm also saying, I guess, overall, that smacking away the hand that is being extended by the company in question and gaining the "upperhand" so to speak by actually seeing if what we fear exists (potentially attrocious editing) is not in our best interests either. I'd rather keep Keyser Söze in my grips while I can (no offense to the company/person described meant, I'm purely using an analogy). Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Two points. 1. Retroactive disclosure to some extent may well be the incidental result of present and future disclosure, but present and future disclosure should occur, nonetheless. 2) Are there current claims that present/future disclosure cannot be made? If so, those should be rejected, as incompatible with the ban condition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, nothing should stand in the way of present and future disclosure. Any claim that full disclosure post-unban is not possible due to potential retroactive disclosure would be a cause to reinstate said ban, if made. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC) @ Jeremy112233... You want to know what role of User:Eclipsed is in all this? Read this posting he made to AN in November 2010, when this company was first brought to the noticeboard: "Greetings! My name is David, and on Wikipedia my username is Eclipsed. I recently signed up as COO of the company named in this thread. My boss is Alex Konanykhin. I receive financial compensation for the work I do for this company. I would like to say more, but I feel to do so may be a violation the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING". Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC) This is perfect example what happens when political PR companies are working in Wikipedia. Eclipsed was a well-intended participant who contributed just fine since 2005. He was recruited in 2010 (based on his statement), which led to COI problems and finally his retirement from the project. This incident alone could be a reason for banning the company. What they do is bribery. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC) In that same post that I linked Eclipsed claimed that he was already working as a free-lance paid editor here, but finding it hard to make a go of it until he met Konanykhin. If he is to be believed, he wasn't exactly corrupted by his current boss, although if you read the whole discussion (uncollapse the thread), several editors disputed the accuracy of his narrative. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you! Strange that there was a disclosure of COI on User:Eclipsed's edits instead of being done in secret. It's not all that relevant to the ban/unban discussion though I guess, as it is an example of disclosure that has already taken place and not of undisclosed contributions, in line with what we are demanding. We can use it in other ways though perhaps. Maybe as an example of how the company might have in the past been able to edit in the way we need them to, for those on the fence, or at least that sample size of edits I was talking about, in terms of the kinds of potential edits we are trying to ferret out. Good information. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC) This is a disorganized discussion because people commented and voted with regard to three different issues: (a) paid editing (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but better be declared), (b) WP:COI (editing in the area of your expertise, paid or not, is not necessarily COI), and (c) working on behalf of an external political PR/propaganda organization by multiple editors coordinated from the same center (potential improper coordination and WP:SOAP problems). I think (c) is the most serious issue that requires complete disclosure of all recent and current accounts used by all external organizations currently working in Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I fully respect your opinion, though I've heard almost nobody in the above thread describe anything like your option "c", and find it mildly bombastic--equating public relations people to propagandists and whatnot, or assuming that there are multiple tag teams of editors out there (no one has provided evidence of that). Your use of WP:SOAP is apt though; I would add that if any significant amount of unambiguously promotional material is found and deleted in association from the organization we're discussing, that there could be grounds for restrictions outside the language of the ban in any unban. I just don't see any such clear examples of such unambiguous promotional activity right now, which makes me concerned that we're imprinting our own worst fears on a phantom that may or may not have any of the organs we might be attributing to it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Perhaps this whole discussion is purely academic. Even Jehochman does not believe these guys are going to respect Wikipedia rules. He tells in his opening statement: "I think it will be better for Wikipedia to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing"'...My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Support unban: Assuming the ban was placed primarily not because of WP:SOCK violations but because of an open refusal to recognize the consensus support for WP:COI's calls for disclosure, that condition no longer applies. To those who say they suspect the refusal has just gone from open to underground, I say you can't ban people without substantiating the suspicion. This isn't to argue that any suspicion would be unreasonable but to note that it's unworkable as a matter of procedure. I also note the level of community consensus for what you find in WP:COI, or perhaps more precisely its interpretation, varies. The idea that an editor with an unproblematic edit history who fully discloses his or her affiliations and interests should additionally be subject to further editing restrictions is far from universally agreed to. I might also add that even with respect to the transparency issue, some consistency is in order here. How many of the people who were outraged that the user previously declared it "unethical" to surrender anonymity are themselves editing Wikipedia anonymously? "But I'm not a paid editor," you might say. First of all, the policy rationale for prohibiting WP:OUTING applies just as much to paid editors as unpaid, unless one can explain what protective force surrounds an editor with a disclosed COI from "real world" harm that does not also surround you in your anonymity. Secondly, whether an editor is paid or not is about as relevant as whether an editor is a volunteer official with a political party, which is to say more than just one sort of affiliation is relevant (or not). If I'm editing my brother's article and he's running for elected office there's no necessary financial benefit to me if he gets the new job but it may still be potential nepotism. The problem is POV pushing, and paid editors have no monopoly on POV pushing. By the way, I don't think the fact the user continues to complain that disclosure would invite harassment is predictive as to what he will do. In my experience, once an editor discloses a conflict of interest, he or she gets harassed until they either quit or go underground. Maybe this user will go underground again. If, however, the community would TRY to extend the welcome mat to editors who disclose their affiliations I believe this could lead to a virtuous circle whereby there is more and more disclosure from editors.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Proposal for Disclosure What if: We have the editors who work for WikiExperts create separate COI accounts, like WMF staff members, that they use while making edits for WikiExperts? For example, if I were employed by them (which is not to say that I am, because I'm not), I would use User:TParis (WikiExperts) for all paid editing by WikiExperts and User:TParis for all of my normal editing. Using the WMF Staff member model, this could make it very clear which edits are by WikiExperts. The way it stands now, if we identify who their editors and customers are, we still do not know if each, and which, individual edits are being paid for or not. This solution would take all the ambiguity away. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) This strikes me as being maybe workable. That is provided these individuals actually do any editing that isn't for pay. There could be a bit of a blurry line, though, if I as a paid editor (which I am not) were to, perhaps, try to add some information on the topic of my COI to marginally related articles. An example might be trying to add a link to my business' building (which may or may not be prominent in the community) to the article on the city in which it exists, or something like that. Such edits might be seen as problematic if the editor, reasonably, thought the building should be mentioned, which perhaps it might be, but others, just as reasonably, might disagree regarding the amount or location of such content. In such cases, to what degree might COI be considered relevant, and, as a secondary concern, to what degree might, potentially, problematic paid editors (which would probably include only a comparatively small number) seek to excuse such problematic edits with this perhaps dubiously defensible reason? John Carter (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose This leads directly to witch hunting. If an editor sees they are paid 10/10 times thy will revert. If they explicitly state in their names they are a paid pr firm they will be reported to ANI and generally harassed. KonveyorBelt 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Not exactly. I've been paid to write articles and I've even managed to get them put on DYK: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dennis_Lo.--v/r - TP 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It has been my experience the Wikipedia community is actually protective of COI editors who follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Konveyor, you keep making claims about disclosure leading to harassment, but you never point to any specific examples. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) User:CorporateM is out and proud and manages to get the job done. No doubt it is very much more uncomfortable and difficult to do it that way than to simply hide, but he/she nevertheless behaves ethically. Like TP, above. We could make it easier for them by reviewing their talk page requests and WP:AFC submissions in a timely manner. But we can't welcome a team here that openly defies community-agreed norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Comment. I'm not persuaded that we actually need it to be part of the username for the account, the way that "(WMF)" is used, but I do believe strongly that some kind of identification is needed, perhaps by way of userpage disclosure. I don't really buy the argument directly above, about inevitable reverting of good edits, because that's what discussion and consensus are for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Comment. I think this ban can be lifted if they provide list of all their accounts (here and right now), so that everyone will be able to check what exactly they are doing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support Other paid editors, such as WWB, have used this method successfully. Steven Walling • talk 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support - I agree that the affiliation of paid editor should be in his/her username; disclosure upfront (like scientists with COI do in their scientific papers) is the way to go... don't bury the information. As volunteer editors our time here is precious, and I for one don't want to be suspicious of everybody I am working on an article with, to the point where I go check their pages to see who they are when there are disagreements. I think too that all their paid editing accounts should be listed on one page, so that it is easy to find the relevant editors and audit their compliance, for any editor or admin who wants to see how well they are keeping their promises (assuming we un-ban them) Responding to User:Konveyor Belt. I know what it is like to be witch-hunted, so please know that I am sympathetic with that concern. But we need to work toward compromise and consensus, and it would be helpful if you acknowledged that there is a big chunk of the community that is really concerned about paid editing - we need to work toward solutions everybody can live with and avoid exaggerations like "10/10 times they would be reverted." I hope you can see that.... Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support as a general solution in such cases, but not in this particular case, where I think the ban should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Support - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It's not a violation of sock unless the employer asks all its employees to work together to subvert consensus. If there are 100 employees of Apple editing Wikipedia, which there probably are, should we block all of them for sock puppetry (starting with User:Alison who freely discloses her Apple affiliation)? Jehochman Talk 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support - Makes sense. Now, if we can just get User:Dickhead (Bigot) and User:Nice person (Acupuncturist) to fall into line when editing race or acupuncture articles, respectively, life will be much simpler here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Really this sounds no stronger a policy or guideline than just requiring the user to create an account with that companies name in it like, oh...I don't know..User:Arturo at BP and follow that example. But they should still not be allowed to edit, but can make drafts and suggestions on the talk page. As I understand it, TParis is suggesting we just allow the paid editors to just edit any article with a new user right....one that we have been attempting to fight against. No, I'm not for allowing paid editing on Wikipedia, no offense to those who have admitted to having already done so. I see this as a way that more experienced editors could easily take advantage of their expertise and experience to profit from and....I don't know that anyone can talk me down from that position but please try, I am all ears. Volunteer should be our goal and if someone is slipping through our policy cracks by editing an article specifically because they have been hired to do so....well, I would think we would want to fill that crack, not widen it.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Mark. Are you offering the example of Arturo at BP (talk · contribs) as a good example of a paid editor? Because it is moderately disclosed, and has no mainspace edits? I think it looks good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Comment - Why not run a test case on this? Make it optional, and get feedback from them and the community after some time. We can then broaden or scrap the idea based on its success. Contrary to Konveyor Belt's claim above, a named account would seem more trustworthy to me; the editor is choosing to be transparent and is obviously knowledgeable about our policies and his responsibility to manage his COI. I don't know if requiring them to have named accounts is the best plan when we don't have such a policy in place for other paid editors, so I'd oppose a requirement on those grounds.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I would only argue that we do have such a policy or guideline in place for other paid editors. In fact we have, what I thought was a pretty clear set of policies, not perfect, but getting stronger and clearer on the subject. Disclosure polices Per WP:ISU "Usernames implying shared use": ...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", "LoveTrammelArt", etc. Remember that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of username. The conflict of interest guideline advises all users to exercise caution if editing articles about businesses, organizations, products, or other subjects that they are closely connected to. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's advice on editing with a conflict of interest. " Per WP:NOPAY "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing": If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an employee, owner or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited. And of course Declaring an interest: Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself, and public relations professionals may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics. The disadvantage of declaring your interest is that people outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may identify you and generate negative publicity for you, your group or your company. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (see WP:REALNAME). Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.  ::Example of disclosure. I think it is safe to say we have a few policies in place for this very thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support. Every paid editor should disclose their COI. This is a very straightforward way of doing so and is about as good as it gets. MER-C 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Support TParis' line of thinking. These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them. A User:Username (paid editor) account would be the best disclosure for edits to mainspace. I would not insist on having the tagged alt account linked to the main account, as I think there would be lots of paid editors not brave enough to do this. I would have untagged, undisclosed paid-to-edit accounts declared preemptively banned, with their work subject to WP:CSD#G5. I think only this will motivate compliance from the majority of paid editors. I would allow tagged accounts the freedom to edit as per any editor, and to restrict their editing privileges if they edit poorly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Hey SmokeyJoe. Is the statement: "These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them." something of a false argument? We have a set of guidelines and policy in place and have been through a good deal of discussion from the BP article in regard to paid editing and paid advocacy editing. I am not sure if I understand the logic of the proposal if not to simply allow editing of the article itself by creating a new user right or user category. I would say if we are allowing them the ability to gain financially against the very policies we have in place right now and in mass to the very question of meat puppetry, we should probably hold off any decision until we have a Village pump proposal made to the full community. If there is consensus for some special user group with the point blank disclaimer embedded permanently into the editors name...then won't they also want to have an alternative account for when they are not being paid? How far will this really take us? Will everyone be allowed two alternative accounts? If not, how does one get this new user right? What are the criteria for it? If you get it and don't have a regular account would you be able to work around the all editors being able to have double accounts...one for volunteer work and one for payment from an outside entity for the best price I can get? Can this be be implemented without the foundation and a full look into any implications on community reaction and editor retention. Would legal need to look into this first. This sounds like something that would need a straw poll, and go through a more thorough process of community vetting and consensus to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Mark. The statement is my working premise. There are some high profile admissions of undeclared alternative accounts used for paid editing. The existing policy on paid editing is weak. It is discouraged. Disclosure of COI is encouraged. They are not forbidden/required. I think "requiring" disclosure of paid editing is a reasonable small step worth trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I think one step is to tighten the policy to require disclosure of paid advocacy and paid editing. I think it is a step too far to then..."Release The Kraken" upon the community by then saying just by a stamp of disclosure we should let them edit articles. Disclosure and proper COI editing is not direct and it may not be exactly what companies and editors may want in regards to paid editing policy but I can't support actually giving them a green light with the collateral of the whole thing being alternate accounts, mass groups of editors from different companies with different agendas and a political nightmare of campaigns and PR firms etc, this will attract. This isn't really just a matter of one company, but allowing everyone the right to do the same thing...and they do have the same right to do what this company does. Now we have to decide how to react to it. I agree. We should require disclosure of paid editing. I do not agree that we should allow paid editors to edit articles directly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Mark. Agreed, we should require disclosure. When disclosed, should we allow them to edit mainspace? If it is a hard no, does this mean we require them to post edit requests on the talk page, and will these be ignored? My problem with a hard no is that they will reject the deal and stay underground. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Strongly oppose per the name of the company. The Foundation accounts are used to speak with some sort of authority. Non-regulars at AN will see (WikiExperts) and think these are more expert than the other poor sods who just have plain user names. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Proposal for Disclosure. What's next? A special user account for editing political articles identifying your political affiliation (B2C (Whig Party))? And another for editing religious articles (B2C (agnostic))? And yet another for one's favorite football team when editing football articles (B2C (49ers))? And, of course, everyone should be required to disclose their place of residence in order to identify nationalistic biases, etc. (B2C (Antarctic)). There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases. There is no reason to identify paid editors, ever. Focus on content, folks, not the editors. It is that simple. --B2C 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) " There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases". Then find ways to deal with other means of bias too. That's like saying we shouldn't block vandals because we can't block all disruptive editors. When we can deal with obvious forms of bias, we should. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I suggest you're underestimating the effect of all other kinds of bias, and thus overestimating the relative significance of this one kind of bias. We deal with all bias in the same way: WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. The beauty of WP is bias does not matter! WP all about putting all of our biases (and we all have them!) aside and creating NPOV notable content that is well-founded in reliable sources. This whole issue reveals how little understood and appreciated this aspect of WP is, even by very experienced editors. Sad, really. --B2C 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose Per declaration here [60]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Proposal number 99999: Declare that you do paid editing This seems by far the most sensible and lightest solution. If you engage in paid editing, place a notice on your user page or talk page that says you do. This bit could be compulsory, if that's what consensus says. If all your edits, or the majority are paid for, then you should say, but this bit isn't required. No need to disclose exact clients, or their exact requests. No messy signatures, no outright bans, just a simple notice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support as long as this is not interpreted to mean that this is the only thing that needs to be done. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Depending on exactly what you mean by that, then no, it doesn't suggest that this will resolve the entire problem. I'm not that naive. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support This is one of the simplest things to be done and one of the best. Declaring any COI before you start editing will hopefully defuse tensions. KonveyorBelt 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support. This makes sense; we need to wake up to the reality that paid editing is going to go on (just as unpaid biased editing is going to go on), and our best defense against error is to have it out in the open. On a slightly more maudlin note, I feel bad for Luke, since this is Proposal number 99999, and Proposal number 100000 wins a free Hawaiian vacation. Well, I'm off to make a proposal... bd2412 T 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support I feel the issue isn't being paid for editing, per se, but whether or not a person clearly profits from the edit: consider two cases. If someone fixes a typo or adds a minor detail to a biography (date of marriage or graduation from college), no one's response would change if the edit was made by the subject, his arch enemy, or an objective person who jsut happens to know the fact. On the other hand, if someone questionale material to a controversial subject, thus tilting the POV of the article in one direction, the community response will be in proportion to just how vested that person is in the subject -- viz., a newbie is far more likely to simply be educated on Wikipedia ways than someone being serious money by an advocacy group or business. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Support I think this has already been agreed upon by the prior consensus, and by this one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Clients' identities must be disclosed if disclosure is to have any value. Otherwise, what does this accomplish? The whole point of COI declarations is to put other editors on notice so they can apply additional scrutiny to your edits are they deem appropriate. A bare declaration that you've done some paid editing, for who knows whom and for who knows what, provides very little guidance, if any. In addition many editors (especially those with less experience than the ones patrolling this noticeboard) don't often look at other editors' user pages, so a COI disclosure on an article's talk page (such as a Template:connected contributor tag) would be much more effective. Moreover I see nothing wrong with requiring paid editors to disclose their client lists. This is not WP:OUTING. If they signed NDAs, well, that's their problem. And expecting them to follow a "paid editor honor code" is sheer folly, given the empirical evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Comment: I have a feeling, based on people's reactions, that the proposal isn't being read very carefully. The proposal isn't for full disclosure, but rather for partial disclosure. I'd like to see other editors weigh in not only on whether disclosure of paid editing is warranted but also whether disclosure of clients is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) No, clients identities don't have to be disclosed. That's never been a thing, it's just many people wish it was (including you, it seems); it also borders on WP:OUTING to force it to happen, as you are expecting confidential information to be put into the open. If you see a spammy article from someone with an "I engage in paid editing" notice, then it's almost certain that they were paid for it, and that they need to be watched carefully. Since paid editing is not a policy violation, there is at present nothing more that can be done. At the end of a day, someone can be neutral or biased regardless of payment. Good, neutral pay editors should not be discouraged; those who act in a biased or policy-violating manner should be dealt with on those violations, not solely the issue of payment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Your proposal already goes beyond the strictures of WP policy, so by your logic here your proposal must be rejected as well. And yes, you're correct that my position is for paid editors to disclose their clients. No, this doesn't border on WP:OUTING. OUTING is about personal information that exposes the editor to harm, not about confidential information. And frankly I don't give two bits about confidentiality agreements entered into by parties who are subverting our project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Uh, I'm not sure if you've read the rubbish you've just written or not, but OUTING doesn't directly expose an editor to harm, and forcing people to disclose confidential information definitely COULD expose an editor to harm anyway. And again, you're buying into the myth that every single paid editor is bad, which is quite blatantly bullshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Comment This does not appear to be the right place to discuss a policy proposal. As is the proposal seems ambiguous, ("but this bit isn't required"?) also disclosure for our readers (and editors) sake will need to be on the talk page of the affected article, in addition to the user page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC) That's completely ignoring most of the proposal, which deliberately avoids the thorny issue of disclosing confidential information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose per unenforceable due to privacy policies of WMF. NE Ent 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC) What privacy policies? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Another Proposal: Certification Course I'm just full of ideas this morning. What if we organized a certification course? It wouldn't be a precursor to editing, nor would it prevent a paid editor who is advocating a POV from getting blocked, but what if we offered this course that companies like WikiExperts can enroll their employees in and they'd get a userbox identifying that they've been through this course and have a basic understanding of policy? I'd imagine it could be modeled after our current mentorship programs. It would go a long way toward trusting folks.--v/r - TP 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Also liking this idea. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC) From what I've seen in the past, Wikiexperts.us tends to hire subcontractors with prior WP editing experience, and often with considerable experience. It isn't surprising, in that new editors tend to make more mistakes which see the articles deleted. So it isn't lack of knowledge of the processes that is generally the problem. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Indeed, this is probably why they are successful. Their editors are pre-certified. Jehochman Talk 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Well the idea was more general than just Wikiexperts. I'm talking about paid editor companies all around.--v/r - TP 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Just so. A provocative question: would we rather have a bunch of bungling corporate marketing people edit Wikipedia, or would we prefer that they hire professional help who know how to write to our standards? Jehochman Talk 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If you're serious about this idea, then the objective should be a program for *all* new users, an area where we already have severe deficiencies. NPOV is the key issue for all new users, whether they're paid advocates, paid editors, unpaid advocates, or just want to add something about their favourite TV show. The mentorship program is on its last legs due to a lack of volunteers. The idea is a good one, but it needs to work within our existing resources and target actual problems for the project, not just the perceived ones or the ones that are currently high-profile. We've had paid advocacy here for more than 10 years (my own first encounter with it was in 2007, and Wikipedia was a key part of a multi-pronged publicity campaign), so this is not a new problem. Risker (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) New users shouldn't have to slog through a bureaucracy just to edit. It must be fairly intimidating to have to go through a complex course just to fix a typo. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we should try to keep it this way as much as possible. KonveyorBelt 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Here is a question, then, Risker. Would anyone object if I, and maybe a few other volunteers (or someone else entirely, I won't patent the idea), were to "incorporate" a small business as a 'school' of sorts for these types. Off-wiki and what not, but with the sole purpose of teaching these paid-editor types, those whom are not already savvy, on how to edit Wikipedia. Could also teach public relations teams for companies how to do it right. Would that solve the problem?--v/r - TP 02:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The encylopeadia anyone can edit as long as they have the money or connections, eh? So you want to create a business enterprise to teach WP policies, of course for a fee. I am aware you in fact do not, but this will be the logical end result. As I said above. the project is doomed if money becomes a major criteria. No money should be involved, no one should make a penny from WP. We are all unpaid volunteers. See my proposal for a purely business enterprise related WP below. All monies recycled into local companies enviroments on a charitable basis. They would have to sign up to this explicitly. It would be hived off from the real project. I am taking it to Meta, and I think it will generate some support. Irondome (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I'm more or less weighing the idea in general as such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here. However, if the community were to see it in a good light, we might be able to determine a route that would give us the 'feel goods' needed to make paid editing in a limit function acceptable. Money and connections couldn't possibly affect the encyclopedia itself, as such a company wouldn't edit the encyclopedia. All it would be is to teach policies and then cut those editors lose. Then they are on their own and liable to the very same policies as everyone else. All of fee would get them would be knowledge of how Wikipedia works to give them the best chance to be successful within policy. I, personally, would charge to teach others this. I'd need to cover expenses such as a gotoMeeting subscription, a website, and business fees. But it's an idea. It's also an idea I'm not attached to, I already work two jobs and I don't need a third, so if anyone else likes the idea they are welcome to run with it. Wikipedia is part of the 'free culture' but this is a sensible business niche and reason should trump idealism.--v/r - TP 03:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here This is exactly the attitude that got Wikiexperts and WikiPR into trouble when they started ignoring policy. KonveyorBelt 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry. I need to take a shit, can I get your approval for that? Creating companies related to Wikipedia is not the same thing as creating companies to edit Wikipedia. So no, it's not the same attitude. Take your rhetoric to someone who wants a bite.--v/r - T:P 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If taking a shit was an inherent, natural part of Wikipedia, it'd be approved. Process is important. If your business is designed to make money off Wikipedia without approval there would be a problem. Businesses are a natural canvas for soapboxing and MEAT. KonveyorBelt 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) That's the militant-ignorance that is causing the problem we have now that managed to site ban a user without evidence of misbehavior (no, meat puppetry has not been proven). People make money off Wikipedia all the time. Our content license is specifically written to allow it. I could print and bind the entire encyclopedia and sell it. So no, making money off Wikipedia is not disallowed. Making money teaching people how to use Wikipedia is actually a great idea, doesn't affect content in the slightest other than improving the general quality of new editors, and the only reason not to do it is a fear of threat to the "free culture" that permeates throughout this project.--v/r - TP 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Making money off of a nonprofit organization is not disallowed, yes, but it is completely unethical. It certainly affects content. For example, someone could be assigned to add a part to an article by you or someone else, and that part contains POV material, although the student doesn't know it. Who is at fault here? The horse or the master? KonveyorBelt 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Clearly you haven't been around very long. People make money often reusing Wikipedia content. It's specifically licensed to allow it. The only restriction on Wikipedia content is that it has to be attributed and shared in the same fashion. But you can bundle it on a CD and sell the CD and make a profit. There is nothing unethical about it. What credentials to you have to make an ethical determination here?--v/r - TP 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) @Konveyor Belt: I've made money from Wikipedia. To be specific, directly from the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia. I had a several month long contract with them, one that paid quite decently. Although they no longer employ me, the Wikimedia Foundation still employs quite a number of other people. I see problems with unethical paid editing practices, but I think saying making any money whatsoever related to Wikipedia is unethical is going too far.. if no one made money off of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist. If nothing else, a site of our size could not realistically survive without some full time tech people, and it'd be remarkable if we could find enough solid tech people willing to work for free. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC) So far as I am aware, no one has objected to John Broughton making money from sales of Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. If an author can profitably write a book about how to edit Wikipedia, why can't an instructor profitably teach a course on the same subject matter? Why can't an expert individually advise a client on the same subject matter? bd2412 T 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Isn't there a relatively simple corporate editing training module already on this site? I thought I saw something like that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Don’t know if they have a formal programme, but there’s WP:CO-OP.—Odysseus1479 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC) A separate business WP A separate WP should be created. It would adhere to WP procedures and agreements, and users would sign up to that. All monies would be donated to companies local enviroment, including charities. There will be no profit made. This should be a red line. Companies should agree to any monies being paid to their local communities to foster good works. This would be cast - iron AGF, and would indicate the ethical solidity of interested companies. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Bring this to Meta. Ross Hill (talk) 23:09, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Excellent. I need to knock this up into a more detailed proposal though. What metawiki portal would be most appropriate Ross? Irondome (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I think somewhere, someone actually suggested something like this on Jimbo's talk page and frankly this sounds like the best route. Maybe not as proposed above but using the Wikivoyage model. Perhaps something like "Wikispotlight" (sounds better than Wikibusiness or Wikiforhire) and leave the entire subject of paid editing as ambiguous as it is at Wikivoyage. As I recall there is no such policy of paid or promotional editing on that site or any particular rule about a business writing their own information if it is relevant for the page and section.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I do think the concept of the ultimate desination of any monies paid through using this mooted new sub-Wiki would be revolutionary. Companies would agree that any monies paid would go to charitable or local good cause foundations. It would attract some potentially huge revenue, (I think BP would love it :)) and would indicate that participating companies have a strong ethical semse, or perhaps merely a sense of positive PR. Any monies accrued using WP would be small change, and they would gain great kudos. The foundation may need to take it on, but potential revenues for positive charitable or educational programmes could be considerable. Just initial thoughts here. I agree this model is the way to go. Irondome (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC) So we'd have 2 Wikipedias - shall we call them PRpedia and NOPRpedia? With the PR folks banned from NOPRpedia, but free to pitch as much as they want at PRpedia? Lots of questions on the details here, but there is one very big problem. If we disclosed to the readers that PRpedia editors were allowed to put in "hidden" PR pitches into their encyclopedia, then they'd have very few readers. They'd also tend to have pretty poor articles outside of business areas - except that they could just copy NOPRpedia articles. They'd also have very biased articles on business, so when readers figured out what's up, they'll all go back to reading NOPRpedia. PR folks are not idiots, so they'd just go back to undisclosed editing at NOPRpedia, and PRpedeia would die, no readers, no editors. If anybody disagrees, of course, they can just form their own PRpedia and see how successful it is. The WMF will supply the software for free, and probably even help them download all the articles to start. Actually there are mirror sites that do this already, but I'd guess all the successful ones have one thing in common - no hidden PR in the articles. A more direct approach might be for the WMF to just provide space for declared PR companies or business to just write whatever they want about their clients or themselves in the form of CC-BY-SA licensed articles. They wouldn't be good secondary sources, but we could use them as primary sources as needed, as long as the companies provide adequate info that the writer is who he/she claims to be - i.e. the public can hold them responsible for what they write. Again, the companies can do this themselves if they want on their own websites, but heck - why not as long as they agree not to put their advertising into our articles? As above, they could pay the costs of keeping the site open. A couple of problems here though. 1st the PR folks won't do it - they wouldn't fool anybody if their "info" was in this form; and 2nd the WMF has always said that it wouldn't take advertising. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Great feedback. Appreciated. I dont agree with large chunks, but we have a coherent dialogue on this path started. Irondome (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Agree entirely with Smallbones. It's not realistic. Feel free try it anytime. These companies want to be listed and covered by Wikipedia-proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I've thought along these lines myself - and rejected the idea. There already are Facebook, MySpace, AboutUs and so on where they can post their PR speak twaddle for free. Why provide them with another space for the same? These PR people already seem to think people love their stuff - I saw a van belonging to a well-known mattress manufacturer the other day, and on the back it said "Follow us on Twitter @xxxx!". Mattresses? People who are that desirous of finding the latest news on mattresses? Cameras and computers I could understand, but mattresses? PR gone barmy. Keep Wikipedia free from this nonsense. And don't lend the name to a PR pushing venture. It's bad enough with xxxx-Leaks and Conservixxxx around. Peridon (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Apparently several mattress companies use Twitter. Tweets include "NOTHING ELSE MATTRESS..." and "Students! Be careful of buying a used mattress from Craigslist." Comedy gold. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The problem with a spinoff wiki is that it will never achieve the same level of Google importance that enWP has. I remember during the MMA wars when a great faction of the supporter camp up and decided to set up a MMA wiki after irreconcilable conflicts with the generally accepted Policies/Guidelines/MoS/Best practices. Whenever you search for a MMA topic Wikipedia is typically one of the top 5 sites simply because we do uphold a specific set of editorial practices. I don't think we want to give any opportunity for free-advertising to have any linkage to Wikipedia's good name Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Uhm...have you edited Wikivoyage Hasteur? I have actually been collecting some information from business' on my travels and taking pictures of some of the more interesting California Hotels/Bed & Breakfast to add to articles eventually, but I have added images and other contributions to a number of articles. It's great fun I think. Take a look at the article for Hollywood. Note that there is contact information, addresses, and very "pamphlet" style writing with what some might call "promotional tone". And that article could use some expanding as a travel page. Why couldn't we have something similar that isn't specific to travel. Maybe "Wikimarketing" if we want to be blatant, but I think it needs to be purpose driven and have a need to feel in the right manner and the best idea I come up with is "Wikispotlight" or something similar sounding that is simply a place that allows a magazine style of formatting. It would be filling the nich of "this need" for paid and unpaid advocacy of subjects in a little more graphic looking and slicker format, as paid code writers would be able create far more complex templates and creative ways to us mark up coding. I think if we ever tried to fill a "need of paid editing", this would be the way to do it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Nope - The Bushranger One ping only 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot down this proposal entirely. I've had the same thought as this proposal many times. It would solve the problem of our readers being deceived, and the endless arguments that paid editors will give when they are edited. But the likely failure of this experiment to draw in advertisers only highlights the fact that the advertisers don't want to just advertise here, they want to deceive our readers, and steal our credibility. It just wouldn't work as far as attracting the advertisers to the new site. But it could likely work in another sense. Going to court against the advertisers would likely be quite complicated under the current set-up. The courts would likely address questions like: What rule did they break? Why is this a cause of action in court? Having this alternative advertising site, with a small fee required, would make it all very simple: theft of services. An advertiser who had the opportunity to pay for an ad, but instead just inserted it in an article would not have any case in court. They'd be in and out in 5 minutes. Guilty as charged. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) So I take it consensus indicates its an idea so bad, it will stampede an octopus. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't put that much weight on it. I think TParis even mentions somewhere that something like this wouldn't even need a decision here. I think it might be something being proposed to Meta.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC) It already exists. It's called Wikia. It's full of ads and promotion. Most of the content is fancruft. That's what a "business-friendly wiki" looks like.John Nagle (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Exact wording people are supporting? I've proposed conditions that I'd be comfortable with for unbanning this user. But I've yet to see a clear idea of what conditions, if any, we'd require before we unbanned him and his company. I'd like to see a specific proposal from the user directly (I believe he can edit his talk page and if not perhaps through WP:ORTS. In particular I'd like it made clear if he is agreeing to have all folks editing for his company identified (and if it's just future ones or would include the past) and how exactly he'll have paid editors proceed. I'm pretty happy with the changes to his website, but I'd like to get some kind of sense that those will stay around. Basically I'd like to hear what he's committing to (if anything). I feel it's really unclear what people are supporting (or not supporting) above. Hobit (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) What they support is in fact unconditional removal of ban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Actually there are at least 11 !votes under the unban proposal for conditional support, the condition being that all this company's COI accounts here are openly declared. That's just a first count. There are probably more if you read the various statements carefully. So I think Hobit's question is very apt. Voceditenore (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, you are right. And since they are not going to declare their current, but only future accounts (if I understand correctly from their statement below), these 11 vote probably should count as "oppose"... My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (Mojoworker (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)): As the founder and CEO of WikiExperts I am happy to state clearly that, if WikiExperts is again able to edit Wikipedia, we agree to follow all COI Guidelines to the letter for every edit we make moving forward. That includes disclosure of any account used to make an edit from that point forward, as per the condition set within the original ban regarding the condition for unbanning. Disclosure will take place in full adherence to the COI Guidelines. Prior to the ban it was our opinion that it was unclear whether or not COI disclosure was mandatory, and if it had been made known to us that it was mandatory and not an issue for debate, we would never have made previous edits contrary to the guidelines. Now that we know disclosure is mandatory, we have altered our practices to adhere to the new set of rules. I have reviewed the above proposals for how new forms of COI declarations could occur, and state here that WikiExperts is fully willing to work directly with the Community to develop a system of declarations that makes the Community comfortable and provides an additional level of neutral scrutiny for all our contributions. We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia. Because of previously signed NDAs, we have no ability to reveal the past clients, however, we pledge to no longer sign agreements that would disallow us from full COI disclosure, so that all future work can be verified as within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Ethics page on our website already states as such, and past references to confidentiality of the service have been removed. We would very much like to prove that we are not harmful to Wikipedia, and to show that we add neither promotional nor non-notable material to the website when allowed to edit. AKonanykhin (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)) This is probably unrealistic, but I would love a requirement that editors working for a paid editing company be required to put in, say, 500 productive article-space edits per month on topics unrelated to any of the company's paying customers. Think of the typos to be fixed! The uncited assertions to be sourced! The disambiguation links to be fixed! bd2412 T 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Requiring that sounds unworkable, but we could come up with some scheme to review and rank paid editors according to how much volunteer work they do, and urge uninvolved editors to take that into account when they decide who to work with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks all, I appreciate everyone working to make this clear. Personally, I don't think this goes far enough. I'd certainly want a list of all articles/subjects they were hired to edit before I'd think it reasonable to have them come back. It's pretty standard to ask people to clean up their own messes or help others clean them up before getting restrictions lifted. If they signed non-disclosure agreements, that isn't our problem IMO. But I am pleased we have some idea how things would improve. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC) The defense that WikiExperts has "no ability to reveal the past clients" because of "previously signed NDAs" is legally specious. WikiExperts, its clients, and its employees/contractors are fully able to renegotiate and/or rescind any NDAs as necessary, and they all have the incentive to do so. So I call Mr. Konanykhin's bluff on that point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) User:Slimvirgin here is the answer to your question above. It appears that WIkiExperts does not intend to follow the COI guideline, in that they do intend to edit pages directly as opposed to limiting themselves to suggesting content on Talk. The relevant quote is "We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia." I have posted the question directly to User:AKonanykhin; I will copy the reply here when it comes.Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Motion for closure I think the length of the thread has gotten to the point where the average editor will not invest the time to read it all and make a thoughtful comment. Could we get an uninvolved admin, please, to read this and record what the result is? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC) This proposal is indeed hard to read. There is a problem with there being 2 distinct questions 1) whether the 1st banning was improper (with many editors not commenting on this) and 2) whether Wiki-experts et al should be unbanned. There is also the problem that many editors expressed conditional support for unbanning, but the conditions vary and it's not clear whether any of the conditions have been met. These !votes will have to be read very carefully. Due to the complexity of the proposal, I'll suggest that 3 univolved admins work on this, make separate counts and then compare notes. FWIW, on the 1st question, whether the 1st banning was improper, I count 16 saying it was proper and 10 saying it was improper. On the 2nd question, unbanning, I count 22 opposing unbanning, 13 conditionally supporting unbanning, and 21 supporting unbanning. Obviously the 13 conditional !votes are very important, but to the extent that the conditions aren't obviously met, I believe they should be counted as opposes. I don't claim that this is a perfect count, only that counting will be difficult and require more than 1 admin to do right. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) For any observers, please bear in mind that the closing admins will not only count votes, but also weight them by quality of reason. If it comes down to a conditional unbanning, I request that the unbanning conditions be proposed to the subject, and that they have a chance to agree to them. There might be a disparity between what the subject agreed to already and what will be required. That may be due to the subject (understandably) not knowing the requirements. If the closing admins can make the unbanning conditions clear, that would be helpful. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman Talk 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC) There is no consensus to unban this editor. Unless his outfit can prove that they are completely different from something like WikiPR, the outcome is going to be similar. Doc talk 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC) WikiPR was creating low quality spam articles. I don't know what this editor did wrong because even after many requests, nobody has posted diffs showing evidence of wrongdoing. There's been guilt by association (a false impression that this group is the same as WikiPR), guilt by assumption (they are paid, they must be bad), and guilt by mass hysteria (OMG paid editing is so bad, let's ban somebody!!1!) but no actual evidence. It has been a shocking display of poor judgment by some of the participating editors and especially by the admin who closed the original discussion. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC) @Doc, I very much disagree with your point of view on this (the strength of the arguments to keep the ban are rather flimsy in my eyes and held by a minority of votes), but that is besides the point--it is not up to those involved in this discussion to decide on the state of consensus. I also highly disagree with @Smallbones, who is trying to use his misinterpretation of the banning language to whitewash the original intentions of those that voted in a support of unbanning. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose early closure The fact that many editors have expressed an opinion is no reason to short-circuit the normal process and close early. Right now there are 20 comments labeled "Oppose" (meaning oppose the unban, keep the ban) and 38 comments labeled "Support" (meaning support the unban, remove the ban). Of course such a rough count isn't at all definitive, but that just supports the need to wait the full 30 days and then have an experienced and uninvolved closer give us the final answer concerning consensus. There is only one valid reason to close early -- WP:SNOW -- and it does not apply here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I think the user has the right to have his appeal decided faster than 30 days. Nowhere has it been established that we must wait a certain amount of time. Moreover, as I said already, this thread has become very long and convoluted, and the flow of fresh opinions has dried to a trickle. There isn't much benefit to letting the same partisans argue their positions; this only makes the thread longer without providing further insights. Jehochman Talk 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC) The two editors immediately above clearly don't know the rules on the time required for a community ban. WP:CBAN says "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I should be aware because I had a hand in drafting that rule. We've waited way, way longer than 24 hours. The 30 days is typical of an RfC, which this is not. Jehochman Talk 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Informational note: I have asked User:AKonanykhin directly if WikiExperts intends to edit pages. I did that, because although he promised several times to abide by the COI guideline, he also wrote things that made it seem as though they do intend to directly edit articles, even though the guideline clearly and strongly discourages conflicted editors from doing so. Since the initial ban arose from their bluntly aggressive interpretation of our guidelines and policies in their favor, it seemed like an important question to get clarification on. The answer was a great example (to me) of avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. I re-asked and have not been answered yet. The brief dialogue is here. Would you like to wait for closure until there is a response? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I'm concerned that this might be an instance of violating our rules against the harassment of banned editors. Isn't stating that one will abide by all COI guidelines the same thing as stating you'll abide by each of them as they are being pointing out one by one :) In addition, giving your own personal context to rebuttals given by banned editors instead of allowing their words to stand on their own (and commenting after the fact) seems rather unsavoury to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) User:Jeremy112233 sorry you see this as unsavory. I am just trying to ascertain how User:AKonanykhin will interpret that - please recall that they said before, that they were abiding by WIkipedia's rules.... it was worth it to me at least, to find out what that means, now and in this case. AKonanykhin has replied to my question. The question and answer are copied below. Hi AKonanykhin You have said that WIkiExperts will abide by the COI guideline. That guideline reads, very clearly: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." Above, you wrote: "We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia." Based on this, it appears that WIkiExperts does intend to edit articles directly. So to avoid any confusion, would you please give a yes/no to this question: If unbanned, will WikiExperts directly edit articles? Also, if the answer is "yes" would you please explain how you square that with the very clear advice in the guideline? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC) User:Jytdog - We intend to follow COI Guidlines in its strictest sense, as a policy. There are any number of aspects of the Guidelines, and we will follow all of them. Would you mind posting my response to your question to the AN thread? AKonanykhin (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for replying! However before I relay this to the board, would you please answer the question I asked above? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC) If you don't want to provide a direct answer, I will be happy to copy your answer above but will include a note that I asked twice for a direct answer and didn't receive one. If your goal is to gain trust this is not a great approach... Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) User:Jytdog - My response is that I will follow COI guidelines to the letter, abiding by all parts as if it is policy, as requested. That includes all parts of the guidelines, including the non-posting of material directly to the page if it can be in any way construed as controversial, and the alert of a COI to all such edits so that they can be reviewed by others if they so choose. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC) This is becoming a bit more clear. So the COI guideline says that paid advocates (like WikiExperts) are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral". It sounds like you interpret "areas" narrowly. Let's say you had a client, Company X. It sounds like you would consider a neutral fact about Company X, like the date Company X was founded, as not being included in "areas", and you would indeed directly edit that kind of content in an article about Company X. On the other hand, it sounds like you would interpret some controversial activity of Company X to be within "areas" and therefore WikiExperts would not directly edit content about that controversial activity. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please clarify! Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC) There will be no efforts to circumvent COI guidelines whatsoever, and our reading has often been more strict that those of others. A non-controversial fact would be pretty straightforward, such as having the founding date of a company and a New York Times article that states that date and no other article contradicting the date, which could be added in tandem with the Times article as a source. Apart from such exceptionally clear-cut facts, pretty much nothing is non-controversial, so we will be posting all other kinds of material to talk pages instead of direct editing, so that the material can be first reviewed by the community. AKonanykhin (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the further explanation. Copying this to the discussion now. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Hey Jytdog - AKonanykhin has already given you the answer - he will abide by the COI policy. Quit trying to bait him into saying something that the policy does not say. The policy does not forbid editing. It's a suggestion. End of story. And you know that's true because you're trying to get him to specifically say what you want him to say instead of saying he will abide by the COI policy.--v/r - TP 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, according to WP:COI, "paid advocates" are only "discouraged" but not forbidden from direct editing any articles they want. This should not be a problem if they honestly disclose their COI, and more important, their work on behalf of an external propaganda organization. However, according to statements by AKonanykhin, they did not (and will not) disclose anything with respect to their recent and current editing and editors - for whatever reason no one here should care about. That's why I can not support lifting this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC) @Jytdog - Glad to see the dialogue here now, no offence meant, just making sure we're following policy :) Good useful information here at the end of the day! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC) No disclosure of earlier edits. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Summary and recommendation As I have not contributed above, I might have the right to close, but if I were to now evaluate the consensus of the community -- and by consensus I do not mean agreement, which we do not have, but rather a settlement which most of us can live with--I would say that the consensus has a remarkable similarity to my own opinion. I therefore think it better just to summarize and recommendation. We are not agreed whether it would be desirable to absolutely prohibit paid editing, but I think everyone is agreed that we have no way of preventing it. We are all agreed that since it exists and we cannot prevent it, it needs to be controlled and carefully watched We are generally agreed that self-identification of paid editors should be required, I think it therefore follows from our general policy on user accounts that this is required of each individual account. We are not agreed on whether or not it is ever permissible for an editor to introduce a new article for which they are paid directly into mainspace, but we are generally agreed that this is permissible via AfC, and probably also in user space. We are generally agreed that the move to mainspace must be done by or with the approval of an uninvolved editor We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry and undeclared COI editing. We are essentially all agreed that they have used many tactics to try to deny this, and avoid complying with out plainly stated rules. I think there is general agreement that in such a situation Kudpung's ban was justified, whether or not it strictly complied with the usual way we place such bans. We are not agreed on the likelihood that the firm will follow the rules in the future, or about their good faith in offering to do so. But I think we are generally agreed that they have at least made a clear offer to follow our rules in all respects without their customary quibbling. I think we are agreed that in such situations we normally afford the user the opportunity of a final chance. I think most of us feel that it would be warranted here, though some are of the opinion that the likelihood of their actual success in following the rules is not very great. There are varying opinions of whether it would even be possible for them to follow the rules--whether the scrutiny that the articles would receive would accept the notability and freedom from promotionalism of their articles. While I do not see how we can require the disclosure of previous edits, if they have made a contractual commitment to their customers. I think we are essentially all agreed that they must not use such a reason to avoid self-identification in the future, I suppose this implies they make sure their present and future customers realise this, and that they say so explicitly in their advertisements. As comments, I note that (a) some self-identified paid editors have elsewhere expressed the opinion that there is not sufficient such business to maintain a company;s existence by article-writing alone--that there are insufficient customers that are actually notable and would be willing to pay a fair rate for a truly POV article, and (b) some established rule-following paid editors seem to want us to continue the ban, in order to avoid having the taint of this firm's unsuccessful attempts affect them. I hope we will continue to judge all cases individually. I therefore suggest that we provisionally overturn the ban, requiring a commitment to follow all " bright-line" guidelines. In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately and I see no reason for further appeals to be listened to for some time, After 6 months, the situation should be re-evaluated to see the effects of the self-identified editing. If there is the actual production of decent articles, the trial will be a success. If not, we can consider wether to simply continue under intense scrutiny, or to ban for the empirical reason that the COI of this particular group of paid editors prevents honest editing. In the later case, I do not know how we will prevent their re-emergence. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Support: with a question. Are brightline rules the same as COI guidelines? If so, then definitely support. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC) So-called "Brightline" is a slogan that Jimmy Wales created that has been rejected by the community when attempts were made to make it part of Policy and Guidelines. So the two things are most certainly not synonymous. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you! I guess I'll have to look into brightlines more if it's different from what we were talking about. Regardless, I think DGG has done a great service here in trying to bring us all together instead of just firing off an immediate close that some might be upset with. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I think DGG made many valid points, and I obviously agree with them. He is very well familiar with the case as someone who fixed problems in article about Konanykhin. However, I simply do not see consensus to overturn this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Support – I agree that Kudpung's reading of consensus for the ban was justified. However, the premise of the original ban proposal – which everyone's !vote was based upon – was that "(t)he ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases". AKonanykhin agreed to the above stipulation eleven days ago – why are we still discussing this? DGG's point 10 handles the situation well and codifies future expectations. The ban should be lifted immediately per the wording of the original ban and if those opposing the unbanning feel they have a compelling argument, then they should propose a new, more draconian ban. Someone should close this ASAP. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC) oppose I don't think there is consensus to unban them at this time. And in any case, I disagree with unbanning them without them identifying their previous articles/editors. I don't believe that agreements they put in place should matter when it comes to the general requirement of coming clean with bad past behavior before being unbanned. It creates a very poor precedent. If we are going to unban them, the exact conditions (editing articles allowed? AfC allowed? etc.) should be blindingly clear. I don't believe the unban proposal above is as clear as it would need to be. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Right or wrong, the ban was worded as it was – including the terms for lifting the ban – and that wording was what everyone !voted upon. AKonanykhin has agreed to those terms. Why are we moving the goalposts? If the additional terms you're stipulating now had been specified in the original ban, it may well not have passed... Mojoworker (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I took it to mean that they'd disclose all COI/paid editing, past and future. I agree it could be read either way, but as I said, we generally expect people to either clean up their messes or at least cop to them so others can try to fix whatever messes there are before we unban anyone... Hobit (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Get it over with already please - Although I maintain my view that there was no disruption, and that the ban was utterly invalid, Kudpung's closure of the other/previous/banning thread was valid. However, it explicitly stated "(t)he ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases" - as the company has agreed to do this, then the ban cannot be maintained. Doing so is punitive, not preventative, and again, I make the comment that no disruption was occurring - the last disruption of any kind came several years ago. The fact that people are still grasping at straws and looking for any way to maintain the ban is disgraceful, and goes against all Wikipedia policies - none of which prohibit COI or paid editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Support - however I would add to the last point, a requirement that all WikiExperts user accounts be listed somewhere in one place, like User:AKonanykhin's user page, so that the community can easily audit WikiExpert's compliance with the conditions. Otherwise it seems to me that it will be very difficult to ensure compliance.Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC) This is a fair summary of the discussion. I find paid advocacy worrying, and we need stronger policies around it. I would be glad to see a policy that disallowed PR firms from editing articlespace altogether. And I don't think WikiExperts is particularly interested in improving the encyclopedia; they're focused on satisfying a marketing niche, helping companies advertise themselves. (Even if they namecheck the 5 pillars a lot in their self-presentation.) However, given current policies and the language of the original ban, the proposal in point 10 seems reasonable, especially with Jytdog's addendum. That will give us a clearer understanding of how and where they work, and what the impact is; which can be reviewed in a few months, and will serve as a useful example for future discussions about this sort of editing. If we do want a permanent community ban -- for bad behavior, or because other related policies change -- it would be better to decide that separately, rather than to claim the original ban extends to this. – SJ +, on further reflection, 02:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) , 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) No, the conditions of unban were not met. According to ban, "The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future". No, they did not agree to publicly disclose all their current and recent editing and editors because of their confidentiality agreement, as has been discussed above. If they did, where is this list? My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) The proposal isn't based on the unban conditions, it states the ban itself was wrong. Thus, there is no reason that those conditions be met. I'd like them to in the future, but it is not a prerequisite. KonveyorBelt 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC) The only relevant question is this: do we have a consensus to unban? Obviously, we had a prolonged discussion about this, with numerous arguments "pro" and "contra", and AKonannykin making various statements. Therefore, the most relevant subsection is the last one with votes - here. In this subsection, I counted 6 votes to keep this ban, 5 votes to unban, and 1 vote with "qualified unban". Clearly, there was no consensus at the end of discussion, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC) No, there were plenty of votes in both the section above and below that one. Why are you arguing that only that section should count here? Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC) No, I am not arguing that only one subsection should count. However, it is very common that during such long discussions (e.g. AfDs, RfCs) people change their views or receive additional information, which helps them to make more qualified judgement. Therefore, what people happens to realize at the end of discussion counts more, in my opinion. But whatever. I think this discussion is already dead horse, so let uninvolved admins to close or have it automatically archived in a couple of days. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC) As a side note, I have no idea how many people who commented and voted decided to support AKonanykhin because they have friendly relations with various PR companies and other businesses operating on this site. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Blindly accusing people of meatpuppeting will not advance this discussion. KonveyorBelt 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I hope this is not an attempt to re-vote everything? My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure that's what is going on here, I believe this is an attempt to find a solution for a question that won't go away by ignoring it. We need to know what to do moving forward now that the debate is winding down. Otherwise we'll just be arguing the same thing over and over again for weeks. The vote above is clear numerically, though the content of the arguments will be subject to the closing admin's judgement. I'm not one to dabble in subjectivity, so I would encourage anybody in the above string to recast their votes if they read all the oppose arguments and see their conditional votes as not being met in terms of their conditions. Short of that, we can't recast anything. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC) What is going on here? You already voted second time. You first voted to unban in the initial section, and then you voted to unban in this section. And you encourage everyone else "to recast their votes"? This is very interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Happy to clarify this for you. This is a conversation about DGG's recommendation, an independent issue from the initial thread regarding the ban. In terms of my use of the term "recast", you are accusing people of being "duped" into conditional supports, and I'm saying that if anybody truly feels that way they should recast their votes (the original one, not placing a second one, obviously) themselves. Otherwise another person's thoughts on whether they really meant to support the ban or unban is irrelevant, so it is best to hear any changes of heart directly from the editors involved. I've seen none. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry to disagree about this. DGG (and I respect his opinion very much) suggested to close this discussion as removing the ban. That was perfectly fine. However, when new votes started to be collected in support of his proposal, this became a violation of WP:Consensus. Why? Because if this is closed as "unban" based on votes in the last sub-section, then opinions of numerous contributors who voted in three first subsections (only really relevant subsections) will be ignored. This is known in real life as disfranchisement.My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, if that happened, that would be wrong. But I'm fairly sure the closing administrator, whoever they are in the future, won't disregard the rest of the debate. Certainly this little conversation we're having here will remind them of the rest of it even in the off-chance one became confused. So I wouldn't worry about that. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Support - we can be satisfied by whatever method of disclosure is effective. I suggest AKonanykhin publishes a list of all his paid editors, and that any time those editors participate at a talk page, they state that they are working on behalf of WikiExperts for [drop in name of end client], and then make their request. If they provide quality content, the community will review it and add to the encyclopedia as appropriate. If they provide a stream of garbage, this activity will be banned. If they don't make proper disclosures, they be discovered eventually and banned for a very long time, per WP:ROPE. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Fine per SJ and my prior comments. As long as there is no claim that present and future disclosure cannot occur, for any reason (even if it provides indirect evidence of the past). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose to using this sub-section to re-vote. What should happen is simply a couple of uninvolved admins looking at the original thread/discussion about lifting the ban (three first sub-sections) and deciding if there is a consensus about this.My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC) You are right that there is no call for voting here. It seemed that DGG was looking for feedback on a close he had in mind, and he decided to discuss it on this page rather than in private (?) with another uninvolved admin. I appreciate that transparency. – SJ + 00:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC) with another uninvolved admin? No, DGG was involved in editing article Alex Konanykhin (on a good side - to fix COI problems created by a bunch of meatpuppets) and therefore could not close this himself. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC) DGG is indeed uninvolved in this debate. There is no requirement for an admin to have never approached a subject matter before in their editing careers, only that they are uninvolved in the actual debate itself as well as what led up to it. That's true in DGG's case. But on another note, I find the edit history you've referred to troubling after reviewing it. The problem I see there is the BLP-violating vandalism you yourself put forward here with a quick revert from you here (with the note that you knew you were probably wrong to change the lead in that way), in addition to removals of clearly cited material such as here or here or most troubling very recently here. I find these to be BLP violations, and I do take that kind of previous behaviour into account when looking at what you've written in this discussion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Content edits are usually considered "involvement" in the subject. For example, I am "involved". None of my edits was in any way problematic. However, if you have concerns, you can post Konanykhin at BLP noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC) FWIW, I did not even remember I had made two minor edits to the article on AK. I have made so many thousand such edits of BLPs that I do not remember each instance. Any involvement I have is because of previous discussions on the question of paid editing, and in trying to deal with articles from this and other paid editing sockfarms. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, sure, I remember you doing just that, and I mostly agree with your comments. But I simply do not see consensus to remove the ban. However, since I have been previously involved in editing this article (also just a little) and know too much about the subject, I indeed may have a bias. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I have been asked to post the following: User:DGG, Thank you very much for taking time to review the appeal and writing your recommendations! You correctly stated paid editing exists and cannot be prevented; that it’s not, in fact, prohibited. I think that this ban/unban discussion produced a great illustration of why paid editors are reluctant to disclose their CIO. Our concern number one is that we’d be subjected to an unfair treatment based on incorrect assumptions. Having seen many examples of self-promotion attempted on Wikipedia, some Wikipedians automatically assume that every paid editors is guilty of the whole array of violations. When you wrote: “We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry”, you were accurately summarizing the opinions voiced during the discussion, but those opinions were dead wrong. It concerns me when the guilt is assigned with no evidence, as a knee-jerk reaction to the Wiki-PR scandal. (Some editors were actually confusing us with Wiki-PR or erroneously assuming that we are acting in the same way.) The second concern is a near-certainty that disclosing COI would result in being stalked by anti-paid-editing activists. I respect everybody’s right to be against paid editing, and am NOT referring to people who voted against me on this ground. Instead I’m referring to User:My very best wishes who vandalized my Wikipedia profile a few months ago and has been trying to out-talk everybody in this discussion, leaving countless comments. He’s not on Wikipedia to develop quality content – he does not do it; rather he’s dedicating a lot of time fighting because, as he wrote at 00:12 on Oct 13, “his [my] BLP does not explain where and how his initial capital came from.” This formula was used by his and my compatriots to murder hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs in Russia as “class enemies”; I’m disappointed to see such ideological activism on Wikipedia. We belived that, unlike RULES, the guidelines were not mandatory when a good reason existed not to follow them. The above-described problems are such reasons. I therefore believe that we did not commit any violation which would justify the ban. We are prepared to become the “guinea pig” to show that paid editing can result in valuable encyclopedic content written in full accordance to the Wikipedia rules, provided that the community would respect the terms it stated in the ban conditions (The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing AND OTHERWISE fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI IN THE FUTURE..) and refrains from acting on “presumption of guilt”. In such case, many other paid editors may choose to declare their COI, making Wikipedia writing process more collaborative and efficient. I’d like to express my gratitude to you and other Wikipedians who made an effort to seek a workable solution to the paid-editing dilemma. Kindly copy my comment to the AN (it’s frustrating to be tried “in abstentia”) AKonanykhin (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Isn't the "guinea pig" User:CorporateM, who is doing quite well? Why can't you follow his practices? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I am somewhat at a loss how to respond. I see the answer as evasive, just as before. If the ed. does not realize why his action were improper in the past, he will not be able to follow through on his promise to avoid them in the future. In particular, he does not realize that it is the failure to disclose COI that will result in encountering problems, not the disclosing of it; nor does he realize that we have been engaged in proper sockpuppet enforcement, not in stalking. At this point I can understand why people might see no reason to believe in good faith. I am personally willing to give a last chance, as I have sufficient confidence in what I am doing here to be willing to take the risk of appearing gullible in this particular instance. Whether the community is, is up to the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC) User:DGG, You wrote "..nor does he realize that WE have been engaged in proper sockpuppet enforcement, not in stalking" which suggests a miscommunication. At no point did I suggest that you were engaged in stalking. I only meant the person I specifically mentioned, and his actions I described (support of the ban based on "no initial capital sources disclosed" ground, vandalizing my profile, leaving countless postings, while dedicating no time to actually writing Wikipedia content). In no way was I meant to extend these examples to you or other participants of the discussion. In fact, the reason I decided to accept "100% COI Disclosure" requirement was that there were many Wikipedians who acted in a very reasonable and intelligent manner, refusing to judge on mere suspicions. I have utmost respect to absolute majority of Wikipedians, I was simply saying that stalkers do exists too. Also, by no means I was objecting to any sockpuppet enforcement. It was initiated against me and showed no sockpuppeting, for a simple reason: I did not engage in any, and neither did WikiExperts. No meat-puppeting either. We've been obeying all Wikipedia rules to the letter. We are pledged to accept the guidelines too. Respectfully, - AKonanykhin (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC) @AKonanykhin. Please check Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:NPA. Yes, I do believe that your BLP page fails WP:NPOV: it hides a lot of extremely important and highly negative details, as far as I remember. But unfortunately, I have no desire to fix these problems knowing about the army of paid editors that "exists and cannot be prevented", as you said above.My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I for one agree with DGG's point 10, provided that a failure to clearly and promptly disclose all accounts involved in COI-Paid Editing / Paid advocacy going forward should result in the ban being re-imposed. However I do not agree to his point 3. I do not feel that paid editing which does not constitute paid advocacy requires disclosure. DES (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Here is my problem with point 10. It tells: "In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately". This is naive and completely unenforceable. If someone who works for PR company (in a wider sense, this can be a state-sponsored PR organization) did not self-identify, there is no way to prove that they belong to organization (the problem is not really paid editing, but organizational structure), unless they do something really stupid, like editing again BLP of their boss or leaking information. From what we know, these guys are bound by official (legal) confidentiality agreements and communicate over the phone. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) It's about time to decide something here - even if it is only to kick the can down the road and start anew in another month - which is what I suggest. On the very important question of whether the previous banning discussion was closed improperly, there appears to be a consensus that it was not improperly closed, i.e. the ban stands until we have a consensus to change it. Given that, AKonanykhin is asking for a reconsideration of the ban, a favor, and he needs to show that he understands our rules and customary ways of doing things. His comments on User:My very best wishes and "being stalked by anti-paid-editing activists" suggests that he does not understand WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith Further, his continued advertising *right now* at http://www.wikiexperts.us/ including "Our Wikipedia professionals write professional articles that meet both your guidelines and the stringent rules of Wikipedia" shows that he is not respecting the current ban. He is still soliciting customers by saying he can write articles while respecting our rules, without saying that he is under a community ban. This strikes me as a logical impossibility. It also strikes me as being against US law on misleading advertising. In any case he needs to remove the advertising while the ban is in effect to show that he respects Wikipedia rules. AKonanykhin has every right to express his opinions on how Wikipedia should be run. But he should also realize that Wikipedia editors have every right to disagree with his opinions and use his opinions in forming their views on whether AKonanykhin understands how Wikipedia works and whether he will be a productive member of the community if unblocked. The opinions I refer to are that AKonanykhin has difficulty with the concept of Wikipedia being run as a nonprofit and accepting donations, rather than supporting itself by paid for ads. See this video on his front page and WikiExperts.us Founder Urges Wikipedia to Embrace Ads. If he is calling for a boycott on donations to Wikipedia, as seems to be the case, I'll suggest that he is not in tune with the community and should go elsewhere. I suggest that AKonanykhin take a month to consider his current actions and whether he wants to be part of this community, not just an exploiter of the community. When he feels comfortable asking to be a part of the community, he can ask that the ban be withdrawn. In short, let's close this without prejudice, and AKonanykhin can come back in a month if he feels he is ready. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC) See also Wikipedia Experts Call for No Donations to Wikipedia for a direct call for a boycott. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Good points. I checked website of their company, and I trust that Mr. Konanykhin is telling the truth right now [61], namely that his "Wikipedia professionals" continue writing "professional articles" and "reverse" everything that "unduly damage" their client's "brand’s image", even after the ban.My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Comment We really have to stop baiting this individual and using every minor turn in the debate to rehash the same few no votes and how they really, really don't want this person unbanned. What did the individual stay above? That there have been baseless accusations against him (true in terms of mass sockpuppetry, where no evidence of such behaviour exists, and a strange misinterpretation of meatpuppetry policies on our side), that someone here has been stalking this conversation by posting under everyone's comments and taking advantage of his personal page to inject their personal opinion (true, as I showed above) and that very few of us are willing to stand-up to such behaviour, that they didn't think they were breaking the rules before and are now willing to follow COI (he's stated that before), and a restatement that he is willing to be a test case for paid editors. Considering all we asked of the person was to reveal COI for future clients, and we're trying to force Brightline through the backdoor instead and violating BLP rules, I think it's pretty reasonable to have concerns about our behaviour as much as we have concerns about theirs. I'm personally appalled by the number of actual policy breaches in the above process, considering we banned someone for just talking about breaking a guidelines. My recommendation? Remove brightline from DGG's original recommendation and make a decision on the ban already, instead of snipping at one another for weeks on end about whether or not the future closing admin will make one decision or another. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC) During these discussions people only politely expressed their views. This is not forbidden. The only actual action was closing previous discussion as consensus to ban by Kudpung. There is absolutely no consensus right now that action by Kudpung was improper. However, after looking at this prolonged discussion, I can understand his frustration. This is also the reason why no one wants to close this discussion. If I were an administrator, I would certainly stay away and let it self-archive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Comment Only one thing bothers me about this whole discussion: Will WikiExperts also explicitly state that should documented negative issues, comments or citations be included in an article that they are being paid to edit, will they also leave that content in the article? If not then they should be banned indefinitely. Nmac-YK (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think you really hit the nail on the head. Judging from article Alex Konanykhin, the answer is definitely "not". Even my very shy attempts to make minor changes in this article led to ridiculous (vandalism) personal accusations on this very page (see above). I did these fixes (mostly long time ago) because I saw previous ANI discussions about Wikiexperts and remember reading this story in Russian publications. Yes, some extremely important negative details (such as why exactly he was "kidnapped" by his "business partners") are missing in the BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose Very sorry to disagree but no unblocking beyond WP:OFFER . . 1:A paid Editor is also entitled to the only same rights as any user in this project is entitled to nothing more nothing else.No one has been unblocked beyond WP:OFFER. 2:The User has a edit count of 34 edits with zero articles . This user as of now fails meet WP:OFFER as things stand . 3:The Banned user will not disclose previous accounts.(Please note we have nothing to do with what terms one offers his clients.Only for privacy reasons like using there real name or under WP:CLEANSTART do users not disclose there previous accounts publicly.) 4:The User is currently editing through multiple accounts even though Wikiexperts have been banned.(Note one should not editing atleast for 6 months after being banned to be considered under WP:OFFER 5:The Proposal gives them a 6 month trial. 6:Even if it fails they are banned they will continue editing with multiple accounts. Surely not close down Wiki experts 7:All he offers is that he will disclose his future accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose - the main reason for the ban was a complete lack of respect for the law Wikipedia's policies to the point that any and all good faith and even neutral faith was staked through the heart, the corpse burned, the ashes stuffed in a jar and the jar buried beneath a crossroads under a blue moon. From what I'm seeing here, not only has very little if any of the original issue been resolved (or even come close to being resolved), it's been compounded through blatant flaunting of the ban. Regardless of how one feels about paid editing this is one of the most blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:NOTHERE cases I've ever seen, and an unbanning would be nothing other than a capitulation to behavior indistinguishable from trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Topic ban for User:Guy Macon Let's not go down this path. NAC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I propose a topic ban on User:Guy Macon in this discussion for Calling stating that you will violate rules a "thoughtcrime". (Although I think that hate crime legislation assessing the intent of the alleged perpetrator is immoral, that wouldn't prevent conviction for stating that you will commit a crime. In fact, conspiracy (criminal) would be exactly that.) Making a WP:POINT by stating that he will violate Wikipedia rules, and "daring" admins to block him. The fact of the matter is that if AK violated the rules, and says he will do so again, he should be blocked. The block would be preventative, not punitive. However, GM probably shouldn't be blocked because there is no evidence that he has violated the rules. Assuming his good faith, though he should be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) One would hope that Arthur Rubin would have some diffs showing me doing the things he accuses me of, because his descriptions above are inaccurate. As is customary when someone says "the fact of the matter is" the actual facts don't quite match the rhetoric. Arthur says "The fact of the matter is that if AK violated the rules, and says he will do so again, he should be blocked", but he confuses two entirely separate issues, violating the rules and saying that you will violate the rules. I of course agree that some violations of the rules (not all; some should result in warnings) should be blocked, but, as Arthur is well aware, I do not agree that saying that you will violate the rules without actually violating them is a blockable offense, and I certainly don't think that what AK did, which was somewhere between saying that he should be exempt from the rules and saying the rules are stupid and should be changed, is in itself a blockable offense. Likewise, I flatly deny disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. What I did do is make a statement that Arthur thinks is against the rules (saying that you intend to break the rules but not actually doing so) and challenged any admin to block me for doing so. I would have done the same if he had claimed that using the word "hovercraft" is a blockable offense. Tell me that, and my reply will be "Hovercraft! There. I broke your imaginary rule. Is anyone here ready to block me for saying "hovercraft?" Even Arthur's reference to our conspiracy page shows either a bias towards punishing thoughtcrime or an inattention to what the pages he links to actually say. Ignoring the attempt to use a legal page to mandate Wikipedia policy, that page clearly says that one person alone cannot commit a conspiracy. See Conspiracy (crime)#Elements of the offence. As far as I know Arthur has never used his tools to enforce his made-up rule that one can be blocked for expressing an unpopular opinion (assuming it is done in a non-disruptive manner), but Wikipedia guidelines and policies say what you can do, not what you can think or what (on-topic) opinion you express, and Arthur should be informed that, whatever his personal feelings on the matter, he is expected to follow the guidelines and policies as written. I find it ironic that Arthur now wishes to limit my speech, but as least he is consistent. I would also ask where I was previously warned for this alleged rule violation. We don't, as a general rule, give long-term editors with a clean block record any sort of block or ban without first giving them a warning and seeing if they are willing to voluntarily comply. P.S.: Hovercraft. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Well, the crime of conspiracy requires more than one person, but does not require the conspirator to know who the other person is. However, the difference between the crimes of "attempt", "solicitation", and "conspiracy" is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that GM's comments in this thread are both irrelevant to the matter of AK and (to the extent that discussing the unban is not disruption) disruption of the discussion. No one else seems to accept the principle that saying you will disrupt Wikipedia is not necessarily a blockable offense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose proposed topic ban per WP:MEGABOLLOCKS. Arthur Rubin should know better after the Tea Party movement RFAR than to come up with these proposals, but apparently that hasn't sunk in yet... Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Can someone close this? It's now been 23 days. Nothing substantial has been added to the discussion in quite some time, and I wouldn't expect that to change. How much longer until this is closed one way or another? Do we need to put a request in section 1 above . But seriously, there are already 24 requests sitting there – if we're really that short on admins, maybe we all need to head over to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and participate in the RfA reform discussion... Mojoworker (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review open at WP:ANRFC for over one month

Wikipedia:Non-free content review has been open at WP:ANRFC for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not completely true. At the time the request was made the section had more than 100 open requests in that section alone, and now it's less than ten. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Hoping to get it down to zero. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Abuse response

I'm not sure if this is where I should post this but I was just checking out Wikipedia:Abuse response and found that there are open cases that go back to 2011. There is a very small group of volunteers that address requests but many of them are either officially or unofficially inactive. I have posted a notice on each of their Talk Pages.

Should there either a) be a drive to find more volunteers or b) a move to mark these pages inactive? It doesn't look like there has been activity since 2012. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the page should be marked as inactive. It's not like ISPs care unless it's a response from like WMF or the government. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It looked important (at least its title) but I don't know the history of this "division" of administration and how important and active it was. Anyone with long memories fill in the details? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see the Abuse response process MfD'd and marked historical. It was useful for a time, long long ago. But now, it's almost pointless - if it is going to cover all the things it should, the workload would be unmanageable. Unfortunately, I don't have the desire to coordinate an MfD discussion.. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's corporate IPs or educational IPs, they may actually have TOS to enforce, and may actually care. But the typical garden-variety ISP, probably not. --Rschen7754 05:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of times I've actually gotten residential ISPs to actually take care of it. Most of the time I simply got no response from the ISP, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, maybe this project should be marked inactive? I'm not sure it warrants deletion, but Wikipedia:Abuse response definitely should be removed as an active link on the Template:Noticeboard links which is posted in so many places and on so many user pages (it's under User Conduct>Abuse>Reporting). Its presence makes it look like a valid alternative to turn to when it is actually inactive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There would have to be a formal full-blown discussion about making it inactive, just like the BS when "we" closed WP:WQA ES&L 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

While that sounds like a project I would really not like to be involved in, it's ridiculous that this effort is listed prominently on the Noticeboard template when it is inactive (there are several other noticeboards that have low activity but not this bad). What would be involved in initiating this discussion, ES&L? At worst, there will be very little response or participation. At best, maybe it would serve to revive this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• WQA never got this dismal and obviously completely inactive. Per WP:SILENCE I believe we should just proceed with closing it due to the clear lack of interest. The main project page was already marked as historical, I just marked the nom page as well and closed all discussions there. When I have a moment I will endeavor to remove other pointers to it so nobody wastes their time submitting more reports that will never be dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, it's pretty well shut down now, but there are still dozens of pages of reports such as those in Category:Abuse response - Waiting for Investigation hanging around. I can see three possibilities for how to handle these pages:

1. Speedy delete as non -controversial housekeeping. The project is dead, what does it need all these old, unactioned reports for?

2. Mass MFD nomination. Helps us be sure what the consensus is as to the fate of these pages, but is it really needed?

3. Ignore them. This is obviously the simplest solution but should we consider the harm done by keeping record of abuse that may have stopped years ago and has never been properly investigated?

I suppose it is obvious I think number 1 is a good option, but before deleting that many pages unilaterally I'd like to just get some quick thoughts on these options. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• That's an awkward one. I feel that it may not quite qualify as being "non-controversial", but then, do we really want to overload the MfD process, or just leave things sat around unactioned? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that many of the {{sharedip}} series refer to using WP:ABUSE. Those templates will need to be updated. Shame, should have been a really great program, but I think it was hampered by procedural complexity. Like I remember that trying to prepare an abuse report case page was almost as bad as drafting a legal complaint, and in terms of the factual detail you were required to bring, much more complex. I really think a semi-automated, and much simplified, process would have gotten better results, especially if the contacts were kept extremely concise. My best guess has been that ISPs' abuse contacts are mostly for handling legal threats where the ISP might somehow be liable; so if they're going to look at our complaint, it's going to be lower priority, and tl;dr will definitely apply. That and there was the almost constantly present concern that the ISPs might be ignoring us because we didn't have @wikipedia.org or similar email addresses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, removed the AR reference from those sharedip templates that weren't fully protected, and requested edits for those that are fully protected. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for acting so promptly on this topic, Beeblebrox. I had noticed the link had been removed from the Noticeboard template but obviously more had to be done to shut down the page.

As for what to do with the files, personally, I'd argue for placing everything in a parent Archived category. I came across these files in the first place by looking through Administrative categories, trying to understand the history of administration on Wikipedia (hey, everyone has a hobby!). Rather than deleting files, which also erases their existence (for everyone but Admins), I'd argue to archive or placed them in an Inactive category. I've tried looking into several other "inactive" projects on Wikipedia and it's frustrating to find every evidence of them but a main page completely deleted. I can say, with a high degree of certainty, that not many Editors will stumble upon them like I did because now the Noticeboard link has been removed. So, they just exist for historical, archival reasons.

The second issue is that there are several other Noticeboards, linked to on the template, that are fairly inactive (no activity for 6 month) and I believe there are different Noticeboards which aren't linked to via the template. It might be wise for someone to review it and see whether they could be other additions or deletions (I assume this template is protected). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just closed the file namespace noticeboard and removed it from the template as it had not had an actual discussion of a file in seven months. I'll keep poking around, although I must admit I'd be hesitant to add anything else to the template, which is pretty bloated already. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the category noticeboard was in fact closed back in January, but that was reverted. In a perfect demonstration of why it should be closed it was another three months before another edit was made to that page. I have just proposed re-closing it at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban (Martial arts) for Kontoreg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Kontoreg on martial arts articles. The user has consistently disrupted martial arts related pages with pointy edits that are beyond reason (undue weight) and reflect a distinctly minority view. The edits invariably disrupt both the content and prose of the articles and have led to a high level of frustration with pretty much any editor he interacts with. Enthusiasm is not a bad thing but constant edit warring is - even minor corrections to English are reverted (one would think without thought). Please see User talk:Kontoreg for more recent comments. Other pages that reflect good examples of the disruptive behavior are Kendo, Abe ryu and Japanese martial arts although I would say every page he touches is affected. This has been going on for a long time and is a testament to the patience of other editors. The effort required to maintain quality of articles is excessive.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Although I defended Kontoreg's behavior two years ago [62], I find that he has not changed his disruptive editing habits. jmcw (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree I particularly find disruptive Kontoreg's habit of fighting every edit until an overwhelming consensus is against him, then waiting a few months and starting over again. I think that almost none of his edits improve the content, most of them leave wikipedia with a seriously distorted view of things. Francis Bond (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe not yet. I reviewed dozens of edits today and Kontoreg seems to have added many correct and useful contributions to many Japanese martial arts articles. On the other hand I can see a clear attitude problem and some edit warring. For example, it does not help Wikipedia if we allow endless reverts and other combatative edits about unimportant topics like Draeger's jutsu/do division (a typology that he invented and overemphasized) versus contemporary Japanese senior exponent's choice of words when deciding if we label something iaido, iaijutsu or battōjutsu. Perhaps we are dealing with a young and naive user who is obsessed enough about the topic to be a koryū cop (neologism for classical jap. martial arts fan who is mostly reading books and endlessly debating about minute details of traditions he has never practiced or experienced in first place). Since users edits are almost exclusively to martial arts articles, a topic ban would in practice equal a full ban from Wikipedia. I suggest trying WP:DRN first. jni (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought this way two years ago. How many more years would you suggest? jmcw (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The disruptive/destructive edits outweigh the constructive edits, in both number and impact and either way they do not excuse his/her behaviour, in the least. Kontoreg is not an ignorant newbie, that we shouldn't WP:BITE. Kontoreg has been warned repeatedly, and even been reported at least once. None of this has helped that much, and any effect has been purely temporary, as stated above. As to a DRN... When Kontoreg has violated the guidelines, policies and/or principles of wikipedia, it has been pointed out to him/her that he/she is in violation, of which rule and, to some extent, the purpose of those rules. Kontoreg has never shown any sign of bothering to learn about those rules, nor of later following them, but has repeatedly broken them. Kontoreg is not ignorant. Kontoreg is partially wilfully ignorant, and partially informed, but without any care for the rules or other people. A DRN would be pointless. The purpose of a DRN is to establish consensus. I fail to see the point of one, for a user who doesn't respect consensus, and besides: DRNs are for for one topic on one article, not the general behaviour of a user. It doesn't apply.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I never suggested DRN was about general behavior of a user. DR could be initiated about his recent edits to iaido. I'm hesitant to support a ban as it seems that the lesser dispute resolution mechanisms have actually never been attempted with this user (save talk page complaints). jni (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If we were to do as you suggest, it would involve three or four DRNs, at least, for the current, ongoing, issues. Also, I disagree for the aforementioned reasons. I've been through a DRN (which I asked for ...and it worked quite well). I know what it's for and I know how it works. A DRN has no purpose other than to properly discuss all the issues and thus being able to properly establish consensus. While getting things talked through and establishing consensus is generally a turbulent affair with Kontoreg (generally involving some edit warring during the process), it has generally always been possible to establish consensus (i.e. fulfilling the one and only purpose, that a DRN has). Thus a DRN would be pointless. This falls outside the scope or purpose of a DRN. Furthermore, a DRN does not stop a user from being able to continue making disturbing edits while it is ongoing (you aren't supposed to, but that's never stopped Kontoreg), nor does it stop a user from continuing to make such edits after consensus has been reached (again: You're never supposed to, but...).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you are talking about WP:DRN? The above seems to describe WP:RFC. Also, a good place to start when there is a dispute is WP:DR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please show me any evidence, to imply that WP:DRN and WP:RFC have different purposes? As far as I can see, they are merely two different ways to deal with the same thing (well WP:RFC can also be used to simply get input from more editors, but for conflicts...).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree I would like to mention his/her recent edits on Iaido (most of which I haven't yet had the time/energy to go through and correct). I would strongly disagree that Kontoreg fights until overwhelming consensus, to then wait. I know of at least one case, where Kontoreg continued after a proper and overwhelming consensus had been established.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Iaido is a good example - a huge amount of efforts pushing a point of view (Iaido is not a true martial art but a sport -reflections of his Kendo edits) with other editors being overwhelmed and giving up. I won't support a ban just for poor English but good luck trying to correct his mangling of the language.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the bad "English" is the least of the problems with Kontoreg's edits (on iaido and elsewhere). Nowhere (in this section, at least) has it been suggested that Kontoreg be banned for his/her poor grasp of English.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Far from it - I was just trying to highlight the difficulty in dealing with him.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It seems I am going towards my own ban - I can only respond to these destructive edits by simple revision. It might be 3X by now. Maybe someone should check who hit 3 first on Japanese martial arts and ban accordingly.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't just reply to multiple reverts, with multiple reverts of your own. You need to try to discuss (please read WP:BRD). If that doesn't work, then you need to resort to other means, such as DRNs, mediation or some other method ...but just responding with a revert, multiple times, is not proper wikipedia behaviour. Usually, you shouldn't revert more than once, before pursuing other means instead. I note that you haven't really written anything, on the talk page. Kontoreg has, even if none of it has been sensible. Also WP:3RR is not exactly the point at which users get banned. You can get banned before that, but when you reach that limit (which, BTW, neither of you have, as it is 3 reverts within a 24 hour period), you are almost certain to be banned. You should never even come close to 3RR. Also, "the one to reach 3 first (that'd be you, BTW) gets banned, and the other one gets let off", doesn't really sound like the kind of logic that would work here. It's not really terribly sensible. I wouldn't argue for you to be banned, but you seriously need to learn about how disputes are supposed to be resolved, here on Wikipedia. Please read up on the relevant guidelines and policies. I made a few errors in this area myself, in the beginning (though I doubt I ever let it go quite that far), but you are far from a newbie. You should really know better.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect to Japanese martial arts, Kontoreg seems to have two major points, that s/he is trying to push. First point is that one of the sources is not relevant (since the author is not a martial artist, but a philosopher, thus them translating "martial art" as "budo" is incorrect) and second point, that according to her/him "budo" does not translate as "martial arts".

There are, of course, a bunch of other edits hidden within his edit, that make the flow of the article worse, and harder to read, or adding irrelevant information.

I've replied to his comment regarding "budo" on the talk page, giving exact quote out of a major Japanese-English dictionary (and then supported it with a quote from another major Japanese-English dictionary), that literally translates "budo" as "martial arts". The onus is now on her/him to provide credible sources that would back an argument, that "budo" does not stand for "martial arts" either when translated directly, or for "Japanese martial arts" in common English usage.

Both of his/her arguments can be easily deflected by adding Kenkyusha to the list of credible sources, so I've revered the page back to the previous version (thus preserving former readability), and added Kenkyusha as a reference for the term "budo".

Not having read the book by the other author, that Kontoreg finds offensive, I've left that reference in place in good faith. Urokugaeshi (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Not having been here for long, I am not sure how much my vote carries, but what little I've seen of Kontoreg leads me to believe that benefits of his contributions do not outweigh the disruption. I, for example, am not sure what to do with ~80 edits of Iaido, that he created, turning the article into a total mess, and biasing the article towards his point of view. Urokugaeshi (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly typical of Kontoreg's behaviour. Though to be fair, it's not really such a good example of why Kontoreg should be banned (not that there is any lack of examples, though), as there hasn't been much of a refusal to cooperate in that case. After all there has only recently been a slight opposition on one point, and most of the changes are still unchallenged ...but that's only because it's so much, it's hard to deal with. I wonder if I should just revert back to before all the edits, and then go through them and add back anything reasonable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the thing - there are too many changes out there, and they all carry her/his bias, that seems to be that one organization, (seem to be DNBK? If he is a member, that would explain things) is one true one, and everything else is a sport. So I'll argue that his edits are destructive, since they do not provide neutral point of view and instead are biased.

I challenged her/him on the FIK point (like WTF? FIK has over 20,000 iaidoka in Japan only, based on stats I've seen, so how is it not a Iai organization?) but am I really prepared to split hair and look for sources for basic common knowledge, that s/he challenges and deletes? I'd agree to the revert of Iaido, and help out with putting back the reasonable stuff. And once we done, we can continue discussing do vs jitsu vs batto and two person kata on the talk page. 198.84.233.162 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the crux of the problem. Over time it has become clear that the massive amount of edits seen in such arts as Kendo, Iaido and just recently Aikido are not based on any direct experience and a view to improving an article but to demonstrate a particular minority world view. I am absolutely sure he is not a member of DNPK. Of course practicing an art or membership is not a requirement for editing (certainly never stopped me) but the result of the edits are invariably detract from the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about "direct experience" and being a practitioner, are disturbing and go completely against the principles of Wikipedia. "Direct experience" is (for multiple reasons) not a terribly reliable source of information (by itself), and it's essentially an argument about the person, rather than the content (an ad hominem/argument from authority), and thus completely fallacious. Besides, we are not supposed to write from our experiences: We are supposed to write what the Reliable Sources are saying. Thus such matters are completely irrelevant.

For example: Iaido training may be useful for being able to execute iaido techniques, but it is completely irrelevant for editing the iaido article.

A certain respect for the principles upon which Wikipedia is built and by which it is maintained, however, is vital. That's the real problem with Kontoreg. The only rule that Kontoreg seems to have embraced, is WP:Ignore all rules ...without any understanding of the rule, but rather taking it at face value.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to side track the discussion but I never said direct experience is a requirement for editing - I said the opposite in fact.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You implied that lack of experience means lack of understanding/knowledge, and thus causes a lack of knowing what is proper in articles. This is simply not true. Not only does experience not really have anything to do, with the type of theoretical knowledge and understanding that is the only kind that matters, in text ...but one doesn't even have to have a particularly great knowledge of the subject, to edit its Wikipedia page, to be honest.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, you do make a valid (and valuable) point about direct experience not being necessary (and often clouding one's POV), however, could we get back to subject on hand, please? Frankly, is this really a good place to berate Peter Rehse or Kendo 66?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well... I can't say I disagree, but I found pointing out Kendo 66's flaw was kind of relevant, in that it made his/her complaint a bit shaky (as to discussing Kendo 66's behaviour in depth, that's been done on his/her talk page. I just pointed it out here), and the issue of direct experience was part of a criticism of Kontoreg... Are they things that should be properly explored, or are they tangential? ...and when is it commenting a bit, and when does it go overboard? I kinda feel I may be going a bit overboard, but it's hard to tell when/where. Hopefully I'll getting better at it, with time.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. While Kontoreg seems passionate about the subjects that he/she is interested in, the disruptive and combative nature of this users reverts and edits is counter productive. Kontoreg expresses a POV that is counter to other widely held by other editors and then refuses to discuss or collaborate.Kendo 66 23:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs) I forgot to add that the discussion to ban (or train) Kontoreg has been going on for a couple of years at least, now.Kendo 66 23:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You should listen to your own complaints, and try to discuss the matter you are currently arguing with him about, on Kendo ...and no, edit summaries do not count as discussion.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating your advice ZarlanTheGreen Also, you know that Kontoreg rarely collaborates in discussion. Anyweay, this page is the conversation that he or she should be banned. I would prefer that user was more collaborative, as he or she has some knowledge. Cheers Kendo 66 06:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Any progress on this? In iaito, after I refuted his claim, that "iaito" means "fake sword" (it means sword for iai), and that mogito and iaito are the same (mogito is a wall hanger, dangerous to swing, iaito is designed with swinging in mind), he sprinkled 6 or 7 "citation needed" on really common knowledge things in the article.

In iaido he keeps on bringing back the pre- and post- Meiji (that's 1886), while talking regarding a term that fell into use in 1932. We are talking 45 year difference, so the two dates are not connected in the slightest. I've challenged him on the rationale for that twice in talk:, and rewrote the article sections once but he haven't replied with rationale yet, instead changing the article back.

Both of those, to me, decrease the quality of the article, and thus I consider these practices to be a form of destructive editing.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm waiting to see what happens, in regards to this proposal. I check the talk pages, but the articles themselves... I'll deal with that later.---ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I need to inform you that 89.240.244.88 has vandalised the Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series) page. I would request, as non-administrator:

1. Make sure that he hasn't vandalised any other pages.

2. Give him a severe warning

3. Notify other admins about this

4. If he continues, block him for at least 24 hours. If he stops and doesn't vandalize for 30 days, close this discussion.

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorjago (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC) --Taylorjago (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is a matter for WP:AIV, but I've blocked the latest installment of that IP editor. Don't know if a rangeblock should or can be done. I'll look around to see what else they've been up to. As a side note, I nominated the article for deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• It's an IP hopping vandal that geolocates to Aberdeen. Their other interests are (unsurprisingly) Disney cartoons. Not a serious enough matter right now, so I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing votes and discussions on paid editing

This is just a heads-up that I closed the fifth of five simultaneous open vote/discussions on paid editing (six if you count the one above!), despite the fact that I entered a vote (now removed) in the first one. My excuse is that I'm actually neutral on the larger question that's been spread out among several pages, and I've said as much. I was only in opposition to having a vote before a discussion had taken place on all the relevant issues. As always, feedback is welcome ... and additional closers would be even more welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind posting diffs to each of the five/six discussions you closed and the one iVote you removed. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I removed my vote here. My one close so far is the first hit on "Dank" at WT:Commercial editing. I'll be closing a related discussion on that same page tonight, along with WT:Sock puppetry/Employees; these will be easy closes, because no one seems to believe that either discussion gained traction, but there may be some value in writing a closing statement tonight that attempts to reflect what all sides are saying, because I'm not sure the participants are doing a good job of hearing each other. I won't be a closer for WT:No paid advocacy or WT:Paid editing policy proposal, but I will be talking with those closers after the dust has settled to see if they have any recommendations going forward. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've closed both; I decided not to say too much right now at WT:Commercial editing, because the main discussions are elsewhere, but I did offer the opinion that we have two sides butting heads here, and I don't see that stopping any time soon. I recommend the two sides formulate and pursue goals separately, for now, and I'll see if there's something I can do to help with that after the two remaining discussions are closed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Now there's a seventh vote, this time an RfC, on roughly the same question, that started off simultaneous with the other six votes. I'll discuss my intention to close it (soon if it snows, later if it doesn't) in a new section. Input there would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think none of these additional policies/essay will be required; everything should be included in WP:COI. Key point is disclosure of paid editing, and most important, disclosing who pays. It would be one story if someone makes edits in Wikipedia on behalf of an educational or a scientific organization (their inherent goal is promoting knowledge), or on behalf of a political PR organization (their inherent goal is promoting their clients and businesses). Actually, the latter type of editing should be forbidden, because these people will not include any negative well-sourced information about their clients simply by definition, but this is probably tall order.My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:대한거나

I'm not sure how high this is on the importance scale but I noticed that though User:대한거나 was banned (as well as what appears to be several socks), he has posted on his talk page Korean text that translates to the effect of "Why did you block me you SOB? (Something about a 30 minute cut off period). Die 'Bang'." [63] I know it's probably low importance but I thought it prudent to let an admin know so they could revoke his talk page access. Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This particular vandal's been active a lot as of late, vandalising pages with Korean invective that's barely kinder than what's above. Mayhaps a formal ban discussion is in order? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be typical, routine vandalism. No need to discuss banning in cases where it is obvious his edits are just vandalism. Thanks for reporting! I put the "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" setting to his block. jni (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In Korean, I hope. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please move ...

• Ralé Rašić => "Rale Rasic" : name does not exist in the wild with diacriticals, neither pronounces it anybody "Rashich," as one would do if one cared. In Yugoslavia, maybe; but there he is unknown.
• Australian National University Football Club to "Australian National University FC", if need be to "ANU FC." It does not exist in that length either in the wild.

Thank you very much to all! OAlexander (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Olexander-En Requested Moves is where you want to present this. Please note that the diacritical move is going to stir up some debate. Hasteur (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hasteut, thank you very much! I am aware of "Balkan pride." Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Korean deletion nominations by User:Kkj11210

Just been doing a quick patrol of C:NNSD, and I noticed that a lot of Korean topics are being nominated for deletion, and all of them by USER:Kkj11210. My lunch break is about to end, so I won't be able to go through all the PROD nominations. Could someone have a look at these, and see whether or not there is any validity to these proposals? Although not all of these have references, they are all about professional national sports topics, so the assertion of notability is there.

And a question to User:Kkj11210 - would you mind explaining please your reasoning for these articles to be deleted? Thanks. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I see non attempt to discuss this with the user in question before coming to ANI. Secondly, I've had a quick look at the PRODs and they seem fine, with solid reasons provided - although the speed of nomination means the user is probably not adhering to WP:BEFORE. However, I am concerned by some of the CSD tags being added. GiantSnowman 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, thank you for informing me on my talk page about the issue. The reason I'm nominating the articles for deletion is because I believe that there are not enough standards for those articles to be included on Wikipedia. I was going through the unassessed articles on WP:KOREA when I noticed that most of the unassessed ones were sports statistics. I have read through the articles and standards for deletion and nominated the articles with PRODs for not producing reliable sources to meet WP:N and specifically WP:ATHLETE. Most of those pages are created by one user, and when I looked at the user's talk page, I noticed that most of the articles the user wrote about statistics were being nominated under WP:CSD under the category A7. After determining the validity of the CSD, I have nominated most of the articles about the sports statistics for deletion. Most of the Sports statistics are not about professional national sports, they are regional or otherwise not inherently notable. I hope this helps. Kkj11210 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Kkj11210. My apologies for taking it here without running it past you first, but as I mentioned above my lunch break was about to end and work take a dim view in internet activities during work hours. I would suggest that if you think that these articles should be deleted, you might consider WP:AFD as the route to take. Alternatively, why not try and improve them?.

Quickie comment to Giantsnowman - this isn't ANI, this is AN. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:54, 14 November 2013

In this instance, that's a distinction without a difference.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply! I'll try to stick to PROD, then. Thank you! Kkj11210 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Emergency block of an editor with which I have been previously involved

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Huge issue with copyright infringement found

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have blocked User:DrMicro for 48 hours for extensive copyright infringement as discussed here [64]. This user has a history of not responding to talk page comments and edit a lot. They have made nearly 20,000 edits nearly all of which are to article space since 2006.[65]. As I maybe deemed to be involved I have no concerns if any other admin overturns this block. Do to the extent of the issues I would propose an indefinite block of this user unless they agree clearly to clean up this mess. Otherwise I am looking for people interested in helping. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can revert all 20,000 of his edits by bot? Many I would image are to all. All 20 or so random edits I have looked at so far are entirely copy and pasting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember, some two years ago there was a user with 10k's of COPYVIOs (in sports IIRC; could not find user name; was blocked and was asked for cooperation). A bot soon blanked the possibly offending pages, adding a template saying like "Must be CR checked before showing the content again" (and put them in a todo/category of course). Then there was a manual sweep, and some smart bot logic too (so the lowhanging rotten fruit was catched botwise). -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that there are some methods to help. Did issues stretch back these many years though? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It was an ad hoc action, with new bot tasks. Deleting the offences was performed very soon (for it was endangering the whole WP project: threat of expensive COPYVIO violations, by US law). I guess high wp burocrats were following & taking action too (maybe like a off-site botrequest), you could inform them too (if not already done). The User was asked to help by identifying problematic pages, I remember to little effect. Indef blocking maybe not needed if the user understands, helps, & changes behaviour. Anywway, for later concern. -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of User:Darius Dhlomo, whose many thousands of copyright violations spanned around five years. See Mass blanking of copyright violations in the Signpost for how it was handled. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes (DD had 160k edits). Having seen WP:CCI today, it looks like more sweeps are started ~every month (mostly <1000 pages) and a routine has been established. Initiatives to be expected from CCI. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This is terrible. The best thing I can think of is to have a bot restore all articles to the state they were in before this users first edit, and add the page to a hidden category. They will undoubtedly need to be checked by hand, and a lot of work since on the articles is probably useless now as derivative work. At the risk of kicking in open doors, I endorse the involved block. 62.140.132.10 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I am uninvolved and endorse the block. To be honest, I think it should be made indef unless the editor in question can provide some explanation of why a good percentage of their edits appear to be out-and-out copyvios. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC).

Generally stuff like this goes to WP:CCI for the cleanup. And I think an indef would be appropriate. --Rschen7754 09:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Have added this case to the requests here Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

After having reviewed the issues, I've endorsed the block and shifted to indefinite, pending CCI clerks processing the request. At present, 48 hours is too short to guarantee that the issues wouldn't re-occur, at least absent any comments and commitments from the user. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DrMicro. I've marked off the three articles Doc James reverted and left a note on the talk pages. I recommend removing the reviewer and autopatrolled flags. MER-C 12:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Both flags removed by KTC--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is very discouraging. As someone who has worked on cleaning up CCIs, it is a LOT of work. Adding another one with 20K edits is going to add many person-months of work. Which is not an argument against adding, but a comment that we need to find out how this is happening. I looked at one edit here How can it happen that 1800 bytes of text are added to an article as established as History of Malaria and it doesn't raise a red flag? Yes, we need to clean up these edits, but it takes longer to clean than up than it did to make them in the first place, so we need a better process of detecting these earlier.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, User:Sphilbrick, I just pasted the first paragraph of that 1800 bytes of text into Google and it returned two pre-existing documents containing large tracts of identical text. I'm no computer genius but couldn't a smart person design a simple tool that does what I just did for all recent changes (or those of a certain size), and then highlight in watchlists any edits that contain strings of words identical to strings pre-existing on Google (and maybe GBooks)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Due to Google's terms of use, that's not as easy as it might seem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So it can't be done? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think not easily. My memory has grown fuzzy on the details, but there were issues with the copyright bots that populate WP:SCV (which so needs help! pitch in, everyone! :D) a few years back when bots were blocked from searching for matches to knew articles. We resolved this one financially with the assist of the WMF. I don't know if that grease is still needed, but whether it is or not there could be issues if we tried stepping up the bot searches to match every edit of a certain size. New articles is a significant enough load on a search engine. Recent changes might be more than they can or would be willing to handle. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 11 (February 2012) has some information and links to User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/December#Whoooo!!! and User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/August#CSBot down. I believe that the WMF still pays Yahoo for searches run by the copyvio tools, but the situation with Google might have changed. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. We could pay for the infrastructure that would allow us to scour Google's web and book caches without negatively impacting their core business. We volunteers may be free but there are other things we'd rather do than manually sort these things out after the fact. Neither the volunteer community nor the donors would begrudge WMF spending money on this. Is this something you would be interested in pushing up to Wikimedia decision-makers, Moonriddengirl? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that would almost certainly require the grants processes - m:Grants:Start - which are overseen by community committees. The question is which stream of grantmaking would review it, and that would be determined in part by how much money it might actually cost and who would spearhead it in the community. If realistically it cost under $30,000.00, that would be the easiest avenue to go, as it could quality for an Individual Engagement Grant. If it is more, it would require an Annual Plan Grant, which requires that it be sponsored by an affiliate organization (new or existing, like a chapter). We would need to start with somebody who can make the bot (like User:Madman, maybe?) figuring out whether it's possible and probably estimating the server load before approaching Google or Yahoo! or whoever to find out if it would be permitted. It would also probably smooth acquiring funding if there was a good show of support for the idea and for implementing it. It's a hard sell to ask somebody to invest significant money to flag problems that nobody will touch. :/ So, practicalities may matter, particularly when funding requests compete for community support. Speaking of server load - not being particularly technical myself, I wonder what it would do to our own processing speed. Anybody technical here with an idea? If we had a bot check every significant new text addition to an article against a search engine? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems clear to me that this can be done, technically. It also seems to be something we should do, to lighten the burden on volunteers, and protect the WMF from charges of negligence if they have a relatively simple method to highlight copyvios and the money to implement it but choose not to. I'll bow out at this point. I'd appreciate it if you could draw the attention of a relevant WMF decision-maker to this discussion though, Moonriddengirl, in your community liaison role, and perhaps mention here whom you have alerted. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"lighten the burden on volunteers"? Who do you think is going to respond to all of these flagged copyright concerns? :/ (I can draw this to the attention of staff, but I'm afraid that it won't help. There is no "relevant WMF decision-maker" for something like this; as I mentioned above, these are community-governed processes.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I and other recent changes volunteers will delete them as they arise. I patrol Recent changes/Medicine. If this tool had been in place we would have picked up this current mess years ago. Please forgive my ignorance, I've had very little to do with development here. Assuming we can establish community support for such a tool, what is it about this proposed tool that determines it must be developed in a volunteer-driven project, and not simply taken on by the WMF's development team? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this might actually increase the burden on volunteers, given the tremendous backlogs we already have in copyright cleanup and the small number of people who work them. I say that having spent years as one of the most active volunteers in that area. That doesn't mean I don't support it, although I'm unsure of its technical feasibility, but I don't think this is going to lighten anybody's burden, really - although it would be lovely if it could prevent new recurrent problems. We've only just now gotten the copyright problems board listing known and identified issues from such a tremendous backlog that it no longer functioned into working again. We've had articles sitting blanked literally for months waiting for attention.

The WMF's development team has specific assigned tasks and roles, given them in furtherance of Board directives. wmf:Vote:Narrowing Focus is the Board Directive instructing the WMF to focus on the following priorities:

• Visual editor — creating a first-rate editing experience for users that no longer requires complex document markup
• Editor engagement — finding and developing ways to engage new users
• Mobile (Wikipedia Zero + mobile engineering) — enhancing the user experience for users who use mobile devices
• Funds dissemination committee and grant-making — improving the funds dissemination processes to be more transparent, democratic, and accountable

Staff are heavily engaged at the moment in these. What you're talking about here does not seem to fit into any of the priority work areas, so it's not really an easy matter of taking staff off of assigned duties that are and shifting them over to a new project. As I said, I have no problem mentioning this to staff, but I suspect it will take community initiative to make this take off. Shifting the focus of developer time is no small thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. It sounds like it'll need to come from the board, then, if the WMF is going to do it. It'll need your unreserved enthusiastic approval before anyone on the board would take the proposal seriously so I won't pursue it with them. I'll speak to some tech volunteers and see if they can bolt something together just for Recent changes/Medicine - that might be light enough to not perturb Google and will give us a sense of its usefulness and effect on workload. I'll let you know if anything comes of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If we block editors like this or educate editors like this before the problem is ongoing for years it will save work overall. That means more editors can work more on content work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly true. One way we could do this better is to have more people helping at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, which is currently maintained by a handful of stalwarts. This morning, through that list, I found a contributor with 200 edits who seems to have copied content into every article he's touched. I've cleaned some and flagged others and given him the {{uw-copyvio-new}}. Anyone who wants to help avoid cases like the one we're dealing with now would be very welcome to join in there. It will not find all of them, but it finds quite a few. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I support lifting the block. I think we've overreacted. Maybe DrMicro will help us tidy things up. If not, then they can be blocked if they continue to violate our policies and guidelines. This is a punitive block and not a preventative one, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen an unblock request yet. If the user can help mopping things up, then it seems, under close supervision, a good idea. But lets not start discussions on unblocking before we hear what they have to say. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Keep blocked-- previous warning in 2010 [66] and 2012 [67] along with recent posts on his talk page indicating he doesn't understand copyvio. Bios, why would you advocate lifting the block when we haven't even heard from him? As far as I can tell, I have never encountered this editor in a medical article I edit, and I don't know, consider the previous warnings, that we are yet in a position to know what to do about the block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • They've given me a productive response before when I was working on malaria. I assume good faith that they might pitch in and help, now that they see how serious the issue is. Like I said, I think it's a punitive block. They might be a wonderfully productive editor from here on out. If they aren't, then we can re-block very very easily. The risk vs. reward ratio tells me to unblock. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It isn't a punitive block, it is a prophylactic block. I am likely to be supportive of an unblock if the editor expresses a desire to help, which I think is possible. Oppose to unblock prior to hearing from the editor.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Of course it's punitive. They've expressed a willingness to help. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really. They have asked that I restore their edits and referred to what I did as vandalism.[68] They are still arguing that their edits are okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Question for admins and CCI folks: many of his edits were to articles/stubs he created, and some of his sources are behind paywall (meaning, can only be checked by those who have journal access). Considering the magnitude of the violations, that we don't have enough resources to check all of this, and that we have a similar problem occurring with student editing where we can't check sources because they are behind paywall or textbooks we don't have access to (although the WMF continues to deny this problem, based on faulty analysis, limited only to sources not behind paywall)-- is a mass AFD of all articles he created a possibility? Then we could see how much is left, and determine if we have the resources to check the remainder, or consider rollback on the remainder. Many of his edits are to bio/germy stubs; unless a good reason appears not to, I suggest that mass AFD will solve a big portion of the CCI work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I would prefer some form of soft deletion like blanking or reverting pending a copyright check over AfD, but that should be up for wider discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

On many of his articles, he may be the only substantial editor, so that if you revert, it's the same as AFD ... I think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, in those cases I would prefer blanking the article with a banner indicating the article is pending a copyvio check. That makes the task to check the copyvio status managable. It's big enough as it is. If it would require an admin to check, this task will never be completed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumptive and summary deletion is permitted in cases like these per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. MER-C 02:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Continued support of block DrMicro still does not appear to understand. He considers my removal of the copyright issues on pages he has edited to be vandalism as per [69]. Of course the reason why I have previously rewritten the content on pages that I have seem him edit was that it was way overly technical. And now the reason for that becomes clear, much of it was simply copied and pasted from the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, and fully support the escalation to an indef. Users who create messes to be cleaned up need to be stopped. Suggest using the "nuke" feature to just remove any pages created entirely by this user. They can always be restored if any of them are found not to be copyvios. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support block and trout Biosthmors: Editor knew exactly what he was doing with the disruption he caused. Wizardman 23:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support block, especially in light of the talk page post Doc James highlights. Indefinite blocks are not bans. It isn't punitive to prevent somebody editing until we are sure that they understand and will comply with our Terms of Use, not when they can be shown to have violated them repeatedly. policy says, "Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue". While I don't often support blocks prior to warnings anyway, Sandy Georgia notes that this gentleman has had them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support block as regrettably necessary. While I don't believe that this editor is intentionally doing harm, the harm that he is doing is nevertheless significant—and appears to persist despite warnings. Biosthmors, though I appreciate your willingness to extend every benefit of the doubt, DrMicro appears unwilling or unable to accept and understand the way that his edits have been problematic, and there seems to be no evidence that this problem wouldn't recur going forward. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef as preventive - Several previous warnings plus their User Talk comments give no confidence that their COPYVIO problems won't continue, much less that they will be productively involved in the cleanup. Agree 100% with Wizardman. Zad68 14:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll ask Wizardman to explain the trout, I guess (unless you're up for it because I don't get it), but might you explain that? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef. The CCI is uncovering multiple serious problems (as if the ones mentioned here weren't enough already) and DrMicro shows no recognition that he has caused a problem let alone willingness to help clean up his mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction to general disclaimer

On Wikipedia:General disclaimer, would an admin please delete (or insert "not" into) this sentence: "We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of articles"? Cheers. It may have been true in 2004 but it's certainly not the case now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be a bit above our pay grade. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am not so sure anyone but WMF staff or even the legal department should be modifying the disclaimer. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Had a look, if you actually go to edit the page this pops up:

Wikipedia:General disclaimer is permanently protected from editing, as it is a page which should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should be proposed on the disclaimer's discussion page, here; such changes will be made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or when it has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.

So apparently that is how to get this done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team? I think it's still a bit active? I notified them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Enric. Version 1.0 is less unreliable than en.Wikipedia.org but it is not and under its present model never will be reliable. Our FAs are not reliable. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've left the request at Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer#Edit request November 2013. Although it might feel like hallowed ground, this is an obvious, necessary and uncontroversial request, so I'd appreciate some action. The present wording is misleading in a very fundamental way. It implies we actually care enough to do something about the unreliability of our articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The general disclaimer isn't legal text and doesn't require Wikimedia Foundation (legal) staff to edit. That said, I think it would make sense to centralize all of these disclaimers on Meta-Wiki at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The text in question has now been removed by Killiondude. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Kendall, Tay­lor and Com­pany and Kendall, Tay­lor & Com­pany

Resolved

Would an administrator please redirect these pages to Henry H. Kendall, where the firm is covered. This request is per the instructions on the protected from creation pages. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing create protection on either of those titles. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: It was probably a title blacklist issue. Graham87 08:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Both contain soft hyphens after the "y" and "m". 46.233.72.112 (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Errors

This website error has happened over a dozen times in the last hour:

Request: GET http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heaven_Below&action=edit, from 10.64.32.107 via cp1054 cp1054 ([10.64.32.106]:3128), Varnish XID 2255588155 Forwarded for: 4.71.223.168, 208.80.154.75, 10.64.32.107 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:05:38 GMT --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Problem resolved since yesterday. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Please don't block me.

I recently requested the IP Block exemption because I run VPN software on my computer. I was granted the user right. I was told not to edit from an open proxy by User:TParis. Now I think I've accidentally made 3 or 4 edits that I think might be from an open proxy. I am not sure. I will sign this edit then manually disable my VPN software until I am more knowledgeable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you will be fine :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is my reversion of vandalism on Jamaal Charles showing as a "pending revision"?

I have almost 2,000 edits, with no problems. I'd think that a simple vandal reversion wouldn't need to list as pending. What's going on here? LHM 06:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Since you are not a reviewer, you do not have the technical capacity to accept pending changes. Now, you have been here long enough that the pending changes extension will not normally mark your changes as pending, but it did so here only because there were already pending changes awaiting review. You'd think it would work the way you seem to expect (that if someone reverts all pending changes, they count as reviewed), but apparently it doesn't. I'm surprised, honestly. Perhaps it is a technical limitation. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way I could be made a "reviewer", so that I don't run into this type of thing again? Or do I need to apply for that tool, like with admin status? LHM 06:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of just giving you the reviewer user right, but I am ever so slightly concerned about this revert, which really needed an edit summary. It's probably best if you read Wikipedia:Reviewing and then make a request at WP:PERM/RV so that people can review your contribs properly. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I used the "Rollback" button, because it was an obvious case of someone simply removing basic, uncontroversial content from an article. I never saw an area where I could put an edit summary. It just rolled it back and took me back to the article. Not sure why that's viewed as a problematic revert, especially given that I'm not just some guy asking for the tool. I had a specific reason for wanting it, as well as a clearly demonstrated need for it. I'm not certain I want to get involved in the political side of things, which WP:PERM/RV seems to be. If the tool's that big of a deal, that an editor with my contribution level needs to "apply" for it, then I think I'll just putter along without it. LHM 08:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you recognise the version you reverted to says "Several actors appeared in multiple films directed by Hughes. The late John Candy appeared more than any other actor, with eight film credits. Other frequently cast actors included:....John Candy (three films)". My OR suggests the IP was right, the part to be removed was John Candy appearing in the list with 3 films not the sentence saying he was the most with 8 films. But even without OR I presume you agree, if you are unsure the best thing to do is to tag the sentence and not mention John Candy twice in contradictory fashion.

While it's the sort of thing easy to miss since the IP unfortunately provided no edit summary (considering the whole thing is unsourced and the statement clearly made no sense, I don't think anything more than an edit summary can really be expected), it is a reminder it's generally best to read slightly more than the change you're reverting, particularly in cases when it's not obviously pure vandalism (e.g. some random person being gay).

Anyway more to the point, I'm not sure what "politicial side" it is you don't want to get in to, but for the various tools that are made available whether automatically or that you need to request, it is your responsibility to learn how to use them, how they work and when you can use them. I have no idea whether you were granted rollback by someone automatically because you'd been here long enough or you specifically asked for it, but your comments appear to suggest you at least didn't really know how it works. In such a case, it would be wise to learn a bit more WP:Rollback before asking for further rights like the reviewer right. And you should resonably expect people will not grant it even if it seems clear it would be helpful to you, regardless of whether or not you requested it, if it's clear you knowledge of existing tools is limited.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Hughes article, the IP edit was clearly not rollback worthy, though as it appeared in both my watchlist and using the diff function, it seemed cut-and-dried. Both views made it seem a clear case of blanking content. As for not leaving an edit summary, that was unintentional, since the screen that allows an edit summary never popped up for me, for whatever reason. I'm still not certain how that demonstrates that I don't need or understand the rollback function. I used it in a way that, had my perception of that edit (simple blanking) been correct, my use of it would've been acceptable, would it not? As for the "political" side of things, I just don't have any real interest in even getting into it, other than to say that I was referring to how people gain adminship, extra tools, etc. It's a political process, whether we like calling it that or not. LHM 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: I believe it's an anti-abuse measure... Some PC-protected pages are particularly prone to edit wars, so if non-reviewer reverts of pending edits aren't subject to review, it disadvantages non-autoconfirmed editors. Plus there's no real harm in having reviewers give reverts a once-over, since at that point the pending revision and the "stable" revision are identical. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• It seemingly violates the definition of PC level 1 protection, in which autoconfirmed users should get automatically accepted. However, the vandals aren't autoconfirmed, and technically their edit is part of yours, so for yours to be accepted, theirs have to be as well, and that could only be done by a reviewer. It's not unique to here, it also occurs on MediaWiki.org, another wiki that users various PC settings.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, now that makes sense. So, if I manually removed the BS they tried to insert, would that make my edit automatically accepted? Or am I still misunderstanding the "guts" of the whole "pending revisions" thing? LHM 04:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  It would not unless the previous edit had already been accepted. Basically if there is a pending revision until that revision is either accepted or rejected all future edits are going to be pending as well. But IIRC any pending revisions are not shown to anyone not logged in unless they manually choose to see the pending version of the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  So, if I'm understanding this correctly, an article is effectively "locked" if there are "pending revisions", even to those of us who are experienced editors in good standing?!? That doesn't seem optimal at all. LHM 18:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

Hi, I don't know if this the right place to ask, but Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files has developed quite a backlog (in excess of a month past the normal one week review). Could an Admin process some of the older discussions? —RP88 ^(talk) 08:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, help would definitely be appreciated. I've been trying to clear some of it but it keeps growing :/ Legoktm (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20 by User:Sandstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the second time I have brought the issue of excessively long blocks by User:Sandstein of User:MarshalN20 under WP:AE. The first occasion was earlier this month Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Block Review Request.

First of all, I think it is necessary to clarify a few points from the earlier post.

• My advice to Marshal was clear, the exemption in WP:Banning policy for vandalism only applies in clear cases of vandalism[70] However, in the case of a topic ban, unless a clear case can be made I advised Marshall not to intervene.. If there is ambiguity in whether the edits were vandalism he should not act. He took that advice two weeks before the block was imposed. There was no attempt to wikilawyer about what constitutes vandalism as indicated by User:TenOfAllTrades.
• Several edits felt that AN was not a suitable venue for this, the only way an AE block can be overturned is by community consensus:

“ Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped. ”

• I brought this case previously only because User:Sandstein refused to reconsider a block over a stale issue, it was only after I lodged this appeal he changed his mind.
• User:Sandstein considers any appeal to AN to be null and void as only the banned editor can make such an appeal. It is rather Kafkaesque in the extreme to suggest that a blocked editor should make the appeal; they can't because they're blocked.

Onto the subject of the reason for the appeal. Relevant information

• The topic ban is for Latin American history, broadly construed. [71]
• Further, the originally broadly construed block was clarified to allow edits for recent history [72].
• WP:Banning policy clearly allows editing of articles unreleated to the topic ban but not on parts of pages that are:

“ Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic ”

This arbitration enforcement block relates to the article Chile–Peru football rivalry, a sports article and specifically the establishment of a football league team in 2013 [73]. User:Sandstein's rationale for this block is there is a vague reference to the War of the Pacific in the article lede. It is clear from the above, even with a broadly construed topic ban, User:MarshalN20 is entitled to edit Chile–Peru football rivalry provided he avoids any reference to Latin American history; it is clear that he has.

The earlier block occurred two weeks after User:MarshalN20 withdrew and ceased activities after they were informed their interpretation of policy was wrong. Whilst a technical violation of his topic ban it was a genuine mistake. This is now being used to justify an escalating block to two months for what is clearly not a violation of his topic ban.

I urge the community to review this and in the interests of the project:

• User:MarshalN20's block is over-turned immediately. His value to the project is demonstrated by his GA of Falkland islands.
• Both blocks should be stricken from the record as neither are violations of the topic ban but could be used in the future to justify further excessive blocks. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You were given a lot of advice last time ... most of which you're ignoring. Here's some more:

1. ) You were advised that MarshalN20 needs to make the appeal themself, based on it being AE in nature
2. ) "value to the community" is not ever going to be a defense
3. ) Blocks are only in very extremely rare cases "stricken", and admins cannot do it

ES&L 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fully-protected templates from Wikipedia:Template messages/General

Shall we allow "template editors" to edit fully-protected templates? Obviously, I can't request allowing other non-administrative editors to edit them, now that we have "template editor" position. --George Ho (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're asking. Are you requesting advice, or are you asking us to reduce protection on some templates, or something else? Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fully-protected" templates do not allow template editors to edit. I want to do case-by-case at WP:RFPP, but there are too many. But I can't request lowering protection to all templates. How about templates transcluded by less than 10,000 pages? In other words, reducing protection on some. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation grows severe

There are over 2000 articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions; this is also concerning because new users sometimes approve bad articles by accident. If the active admins can help pitch in we can help better articles get published. Shii (tock) 23:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why "Articles for Creation" exists.

In 2005 in response to the Seigenthaler incident, unregistered users were stopped from creating new pages. So why do we bend over backwards to help them do so via AFC?

Why shouldn't they make a user account, and just create the article in the regular way, so that it receives equal treatment to any other new article?

It's worth mentioning that about 90% of AFC requests seem to have COI, which according to policy is "strongly discouraged".

With AFC, it seems we're putting a massive effort into helping people who don't bother getting involved in Wikipedia other than getting one article written for them - that same effort could be better used in improving other pages.

Just a thought.

Also, that backlog is just going to keep trending up forever, because there's simply not enough people that want to help out there - eventually, AFC will be just as pointless and useless as WP:Requested Articles. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I made another try at it, and found that at about 10% could be accepted unchanged, 10% needed speedy, and for most of the other 80% (which ranged from almost ready to very unlikely) what was needed was specific and focussed advice that could only be provided by ignoring the system's messages, and replacing or removing the templates it leaves, and in many cases explaining why the previous templated advice given was not the actual problem. Giving people assistance is necessarily a slow process. Trying to do so while fighting the constraints of a fundamentally faulty system which has refused to make even such basic changes as allowing multiple templated reasons or viewing & modifying templates before posting them, makes it much harder. I think I did manage to help a few people, but I also have the frustration of knowing that a some very worthy topics will only become articles if I rewrite them myself--this however would be true regardless of the system for working with them. I will continue to work on these submitted articles when I feelI have enough patience, but I'm still trying to find an efficient way to bypass the assorted paraphernalia. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Input requested at WT:RFPP

Please comment at WT:RFPP#Mass protection lowering from "sysop" to "editprotected". Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

OTRS needs help

Hi all, This happens every so often. We get a huge influx of emails and we fall behind. Some of the responses are 7-10 days overdue at this point (speaking specifically about the info-en queues - not permissions). Anyhow, if you are interested in volunteering, review the information on Meta and apply at m:OTRS/V. Note: You don't have to be an Administrator to be an OTRS Agent. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us or me directly. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

AfDBot

As many or not many of you know, Cyberbot I has taken over AfDBot. I have just finished converting the script to PHP. The bot seems to be functioning normally now. I've also relocated the pages that provide reports on AfD's to User:Cyberbot I/AfD report, User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's, and User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

83.254.151.33

This IP recently made a personal attack against me, in violation of WP:NPA. The comment is visible [here. I've warned it. I'd like to see the IP blocked if it keeps this up. I'll notify the IP of this discussion in one moment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Improper use of rollback

An editor has made an improper use of rollback here [74]. This rollback did not revert vandalism to the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ANZAC or Anzac. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... ES&L 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. [75]--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a roll back. [[76]]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@North8000: The aspect is not trivial - per RBK, rollback is not to be used in situations like this.

I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.

That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. m.o.p 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Wikipedia. Thanks you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: This is a rollback. m.o.p 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to Help:Reverting, and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. m.o.p 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here [77] --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks m.o.p!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many soccer fans, and football too, as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—John Cline (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Third Transjordan attack [78] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated impugning of reputation

This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name five times since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that "these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet." a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nick-D your link regarding the carpet does not work. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

while you're at it, could you please move Henry G. Chauvel back to Harry Chauvel for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Just passing by ... Graham87 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an article in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ownership issues with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jim Sweeney cut the Populations living on the battlefields subsection of the article after it had reached GA. Given that the article was about a wide stretch of territory I thought it was useful, but Jim Sweeney is a cutter. See also Occupation of the Jordan Valley, Capture of Damascus (1918). In one instance after only five hours he cut a quote because I hadn't got round to paraphrasing it. You have blinkers on. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The comment which Blackmane took exception to was made after I had suggested leaving the subsection so readers could make up their own minds about whether the "Populations living on the battlefields" subsection was relevant as the GA reviewer had not seen a problem. Blackmane wrote" I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance" and I wrote "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light." This comments were made here [79] when Jim Sweeney wanted the subsection cut. --Rskp (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. ES&L 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I first interacted with Rskp quite about two years and tried to assist them to understand Wikipedia policies and generally help out. At first, I was very keen to help Rspk with their articles as I felt her work had the potential to go to featured status and wanted to help (I still think this, and I still want to help); however, because of the way in which Rskp has interacted with other editors, I have limited my involvement greatly over the past year because frankly working with them is not fun and quite stressful. A key part of working on Wikipedia is the ability to collaborate. That sometimes means compromising, accepting consensus (even when it goes against you), and moving on in the interests of progressing an article. It also means assuming good faith, maintaining a degree of friendliness and accepting that it isn't a case of "one editor against the world". I agree with Nick-D's summary, particularly in relation to WP:BATTLEGROUND. On a number of occasions I have witnessed this editor WP:EDITWARRING rather than seriously discussing the issues in a collaborative manner and attempting to gain consensus (for instance [80], [81], [82] as examples). When other editors attempt to discuss the issues, these attempts usually meet with frustration. If they disagree with Rskp, their talk page posts have on a number of occasions been dismissed as "personal attacks", at which point Rskp has refactored those editors' comments, essentially removing them for anyone to read (for instance this just today: [83]), and/or the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with Rskp are derided on Rskp's user page, which frankly borders on an attack page in my opinion. Further, efforts to come up with compromise solutions are greeted with responses using language that is not conducive to creating a collegiate editing environment. For instance, an attempt by myself to resolve one of the issues of contention on the Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division article (i.e. the issue of whether to use the term "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey") is basically labelled as a conspiracy because a couple of editors happen to disagree with Rskp's interpretation. I will reiterate, I have no dog in that fight and frankly don't care what term is used, but I do want editors to stop constantly reverting and actually attempt to progress the article; that is what I would like to see from this whole episode across all the articles affected. Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and find a way to collaborate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert I am at a complete loss to understand your three links regarding attempting to gain consensus. They are in fact to other editors' reinstating Harry Chauvel twice and a change of file name, all of which stand. And your final link is to the personal attack made on the Talk:Anzac Mounted Division article which I identified as offensive and collapsed a couple of times. Then when reverted, I twice attempted to add the Remove Personal Attack tag, both of which have been cut. And remain cut. I thought when a personal attack was made on an editor, when I was insulted and disparaged, "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done" and so I took steps to cut the comments. I really don't understand you at all. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert I am also completely at a loss regarding your comments considering the very good working relationship we have been enjoying during our editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), and there are many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully to improve articles and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Rskp, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you called my intentions into question here: [84] I was trying to promote collaboration by seeking a compromise to one of the issues that had developed between you and Jim, but your "the lock step trio" comment essentially labels my efforts and anyone else's as being part of some conspiracy. That does not produce a collaborative editing environment and frankly, I took it to be a personal attack. I remain impressed with your articles, and the effort you have put into the Sinai-Palestine topic, but I remain concerned about your ability to collaborate. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, AustralianRupert, you are right. That was not a well thought out comment on your contribution. I was unfortunately expressing my exasperation. For that I apologise to you. But really, it was the Ottoman Empire which was fighting during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. While I acknowledge that Turkey existed in the 13th century (I think) and was re-established after the war, but using Turkey during S&P can only be pejorative and POV. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I appreciate your apology. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments On top of the snarking about the improper rollback, now I am being impugned, here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go for resolution not to be subject to attacks. I have been amazed at the level of harrassment that I have been subject to during my editing of Wikipedia. I made one comment to do with the issue of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey here [85] In 1299 it might well have been the Turkish Empire, but the Anzac Mounted Division is about the First World War, when the country was the Ottoman Empire. Many english language publications refer to Turkey, its pejorative in this context, and POV. The fact that this was the second time the editor had made improper use of the rollback has gone completely unnoticed in the rush to impugn me. See here [86]. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the move of the Harry Chauvel article as soon as the Trove information was forthcoming, I immediately voted for a return to Harry Chauvel. I had been comparing Harry Chauvel with Edmund Allenby, Philip Chetwode et al and thought it was wrong to have him the only one with a nickname. The Trove survey alerted me to the extremely wide use of the name Harry Chauvel and my reaction was immediate here [87]--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding the personal attack and my several attempts to collapse and then to add a REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS tag, these have all been undone. This is despite the comments being insulting. They disparaged me, and according to Wikipedia "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done". Why should I have to go to ANI what ever that is? Why is it not possible to add a personal attack tag without it being cut? This links to the final revert [88] Why is it not possible to collapse a personal attack?--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• The issue of the Anzac Mounted Division attempts to move the article are clearly on holiday for two months.
• However, as the article itself has developed into a battleground for the names of the division, I thought it was important to add the sources for all those names, so readers could clearly evaluate the situation. However, using the British official historian for the first and second mentions has been repeatedly undone in what I am beginning to think of an an OWNERSHIP issue. See discussion here [89] Now I see that the links are to the Australian War Memorial Web Site and the War Diary. Given the limited use War Diaries can be used as sources, I would have thought the British official history of the campaign a better source for these two versions of the name of the division. Further the editor refused to accept that Powles book formed part of the official New Zealand history, repeatedly cutting it. Even when it is clear that its the third volume of the official history. See discussion here [90] On top of that the citation to the Australian War Memorial's copy of the Australian official history's contents page has been repeatedly mangled. See discussion here [91] The other editor was under a misconception that the link was to a particular page in the history and not to the contents page. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Ownership. Given that these are among the few edits to the Anzac Mounted Division article that I have made, the amount of edit waring associated with them points very clearly to Ownership problems by the same editor who made the illegal rollback. But it appears any criticism of that editor is not to be heard. What about my work? What about all the articles that have been written or rewritten which have got to GA? Don't I have good standing? --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [92] for related edit warring discussion. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. There has been no discussion about the edit warring at this link. Its only been mentioned once during the rollback discussion, and twice during Nick-D's unsubstantiated contribution. --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There continues to be no discussion of Jim Sweeney's dubious reporting of an edit war. After pointing out the problems with the links that editor provided to substantiate the report, nothing has been done, except for linking it to this discussion, which has not dealt with the edit war element at all. Further I am still waiting for some form of, at the very least, recognition of the extremely dubious nature of the series of posts in this subsection of the Administrators' noticeboard. The unsubstantiated impugning of my reputation should not continue to be ignored. --Rskp (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The word is "impugn". The header you added made it look like Nick-D was the misspeller. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Call for sanctions for impugning reputation

What can be done to correct these wrongs? --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well as you're no doubt aware of there is some discussion below about opening and RFC/U on the matter. Outside the RFC/U there's the usual stuff: block editor(s), protect page(s), find consensus, etc. Its unlikely that this is gonna end soon, and its unlikely that either party's gonna walk away happy when the dust settles, but it will give the rest of us our course of action for how to approach the matter vis-a-vis your actions and the actions of the other editor(s). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am talking only about the impugning of my reputation by editors here on the Administrators' noticeboard - just above. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TomStar81 said above: "To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp." What is this comment based on? Certainly all the other comments above are equally unsubstantiated. This impugns my reputation and requires expunging at least. --Rskp (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you're more concerned about your reputation than the editorial issues presented above reinforces my belief that interacting with you will be to my misfortune. People who can not accept responsibility for their actions, or their part in a larger action, bug me because any effort to correct the troublesome behavior in a civilized manner fails before it even starts due to the other editors inability to recognize a problem with the edits in the first place. As the first step to fixing any issue is recognizing that you bare some responsibility for the situation in the first place, and you have yet to reach that revelation, I am firmly convinced that any attempt we (by which I mean the community) make to act with the best interest of the article(s) in question will end up repeatedly undermined by you. Worse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass). While I do find it admirable that you believe that you stand for something, on this site you need learn diplomacy and acceptance of those positions that run counter to your thinking, otherwise you'll end up back here again, and that will be your reputation whether you like it or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a minute.

1. The reporting of the rollback was found to be perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was clearly dealt with by Master of Puppets also. See above.
2. Jim Sweeney's appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the edit war has been noted as being referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but has so far not made it there.

I simply have no idea what TomStar81 is talking about, and I suspect he doesn't either, because the number of articles which have been improved to B-class and GA, which I have been associated with, prove that I can and do collaborate with Wikipedia editors, all the time. So, I can't understand the attitude of the editors who have impugned me. They haven't even followed basic etiquette and have made personal attacks. These are banned on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, where a personal attack is considered to be accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Serious attacks, (which have been made here), need serious evidence in the form of diffs and links e.g. TomStar81's most recent uninformed/misinformed edit which doesn't have one link or diff. In any case, all the links and diffs which have been added in this discussion don't substantiate any of the accusations. These need to be fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It's pretty obvious that the ensuing commentary has taken this into the realm of an RFC/U. Perhaps it would be preferable to put a pause on further additional commentary and reserve it for the RFC/U that will probably be inevitable? Should this be wrapped up as "no consensus that rollback was abused"? Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're gonna move the discussion to a new venue then leave a link behind so we can find the new location for the talk. That's all I ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot understand your negative comments, considering the very good working relationship I have been enjoying with AustralianRupert, during our collaborative editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia). And there are many, many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully, to improve articles, and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to participate in an RFCU. I have never worked with this person but the diffs and the discussion here bring to the unfortunate conclusion that there is a battleground attitude which must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I've never done an RFCU, but as a coordinator for milhist I feel I've an obligation to the editors of the project to resolve this problem so we can all edit in peace (or what passes for it) here on the site. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Those diffs don't support any of the wildly imaginative personal comments directed at me. Nick-D's one diff does not work, he was informed of this on 3 November. AustralianRupert's first diff links to an edit by KylieTastic, the second to an edit by Sadads, the third to an edit by Anotherclown, the fourth relates to a personal attack on me which I cut. All the other diffs are either mine or Master of Puppets'. There is simply no evidence to support the attacks by "Cloud Cuckoo Land" editors, many of whom acknowledge they have never had any contact with me! What tha!!

Further, the reporting of the rollback was perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was corrected by Master of Puppets also. Further this is not the first time that an improper rollback has been made by the same editor. See here [93]

Nor is this the first time that I have been attacked here on the Administrators' notice board. See here [94] when the disruptive edits complete with diffs which I hoped would be investigated, were never even discussed. --Rskp (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Rskp, to clarify, my links were not diffs to any specific users' edits, my links were to the articles' history pages showing all edits made to those pages in an attempt to show the general editing trends on those pages. I understand, though, that I could have been clearer in stating that, or in what I was attempting to show. Sorry for the confusion, please accept my apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that AustralianRupert. The first link was regarding the renaming of a file and I did attempt to discuss the matter here [95] on Widr's userpage. The second link to the Battle of Megiddo is interesting because the article is developing despite each of my contributions being strongly contested. I would suggest there is an ownership problem with another editor of this article. But I have been endeavouring to work around it in a cooperative fashion, rather than confront the editor. See link to the article's talk page where I asked a number of questions about the article. [96] Your third link to the Capture of Damascus can only be regarding the IP who deleted the article during the 95th anniversary because that anonymous editor thought there were too many long quotes. Having put the article out of Wikipedia the IP didn't even complete the process of getting the article accessed and so it languished for over a week. What particular behaviour of mine was so at fault here? Certainly not collaboration as the talk page of that article will verify, here [97] The fourth link is when the Remove Personal Attack tag was reinstated by me (Undid revision 579701134 by Abraham, B.S. (talk)This is the 2nd time tag reinstated. Insulting or disparaging an editor is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done). A quick look at Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks will show that evidence should be produced when none was forthcoming. On a number of occasions I have attempted to replace offensive posts with the tag only to have the tag cut and the offensive posts reinstated. This is against Wikipedia policy. Or have it got it wrong? Can you tell me why you think that particular edit, is not a personal attack?

So although you claim I did not collaborate with other editors during the editing of the articles you linked to, if you had looked to the talk pages you would have found proof that in fact I did collaborate and discusss the issues. Its only the personal attack, which I thought was PERSONAL and that I therefore, had a right to delete, without discussing it with anyone else. I replaced the offensive comments with the RPA tag so the editor would understand why the post was deleted. Abrahams, BS did not have any right to cut the RPA tag as it wass not that editor who had been offended. --Rskp (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Wikipedia:Personal attacks reads "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. ... What is considered to be a personal attack?

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. First offenses and isolated incidents Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all."

Removal of text Policy shortcut: WP:RPA There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The (Personal attack removed) template can be used for this purpose." --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the unsubstantiated personal attacks by Nick-D, Blackmane, and TomStar81 on 30 October, remain on the Administrators' noticeboard? --Rskp (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

'Cause no one gives a shit about your whining? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. If you're here on the board, then you've screwed up spectacularly, and because your reputation for bullshit has long since preceded you we have absolutely no interest in any of the crap you drag here. Just for once, this really is all about you, but it isn't about your misguided and fanciful 'victim role playing' ponzy scheme, its about how we can sanction you, or block you - or better yet, topic block you - for a long period of time so the rest of the people who actually do the stuff that you have staunchly refused to let them do through your multiple blatant and apparently proud to have infractions of the various guidelines and policies on site. To that end, then, please continue to contribute from the victim's perspective under these posts on this board so that when the RFC/U on you and your behavior is opened we can present plenty of evidence that the only way you'll grasp the message and/or take the hint is the hard way, which will give us admins and the coordinators the leeway to block you and/or revert your edits by consensus of the community as a whole. (PS: Thank you for proving me earlier point, specifically that" [w]orse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass).") TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TomStar81 you acknowledge that you have never worked with me on any articles on Wikipedia, yet you imagine you can project into the future and devine my behaviour, without any apparent self-awareness that you are making an unsubstantiated personal attack. Is there any Administrator who can tell me why TomStar81's behaviour is not being criticised? And why the personal attacks in the posts by Nick-D, Blackmane, and TomStar81 on 30 October, remain on the Administrators' noticeboard? --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On the latter, because as we have said you have no sense of responsibility, and these are not attacks, they are facts, sadly. On the former, I presume to to take an educated guess as to how this will play out between you and the community because I was once in your shoes, having experienced WP:OWN the hard way, and like you I raised a fuss on any soapbox I could find - here, WP:AFD, Jimbo Wale's talk page, etc. Like you, I thought myself to be in the right, and like you I was disappointed when no one took my side, or defended my edits, or acknowledged my effort. And as a result of that experience I came to the conclusion that if everyone else was against me in the matter I must be doing something wrong, so I looked at the problem from another perspective, adjusted my course of action, made amends for my mistakes. If you are offended by the so-called personal attacks then I apologize, but I will not apologize for speaking my mind on the matter, and from where I sit the problem isn't us, its you. If you can approach this from a learning perspective then you will evolve as I did, and that will make you a valuable contributor, but if you stick to your guns then you will most likely lose. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If they are facts, TomStar81, substantiate them. Show us your evidence for these serious claims. --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For that I'd need to request clarification from you. Are you asking me to present evidence that I had WP:OWN issues, evidence that the alleged personal attack posts remain in the section, or evidence that the information above is based on facts related to your behavior? You're unclear on which of these you want, and I would rather not waste our collective time going down the wrong road to provide an answer from a misunderstood question. If you'd clarify, I would look into it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to "On the latter, because as we have said you have no sense of responsibility, and these are not attacks, they are facts, sadly." --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Totally NPOV stalker I am a member of Milhist too. I have seen (but not been editorially involved) in the excellent Palestine campaign articles that you have contributed greatly to. You are a good ed. But I would respectfully urge you to re-read User:TomStar81s post. The editor has undergone a growth process through a similar issue in the past. I see it as compassionate advice. It happens to many of us. Reflect and engage in the spirit in which I think it was meant. Happy editing! Irondome (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TomSTar81 for your apology and thank you Irondome for drawing my attention back to this post. However, I can't understand why my correct identification of an improper rollback resulted in this outpouring of imaginative negative thoughts, mainly from editors who acknowledge they have not worked with me. The one thing I thought Wikipedia stood for was equality; equality of all editors, based on polite respect and reasoned evidence based argument; that if an editor felt they had been personally attacked they were entitled to use the RPA tag. --Rskp (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward?

We do stand for equality, in so far as policy dictates equality and neutrality one site. It goes without saying that in editing this site there must be moderation in all things or the purpose of the project will be lost. For bringing the rollback issue here you acted correctly, and when this post is closed the editors in question will be admonished for the their roles in the matter of the rollback, but as this is still active that has yet to occur because the posts here have uncovered issued beyond the rollback. That is what has lead to the ongoing (and at times uncivil) conversation here, which is what has brought us to this point: for us to act ALL parties (and that includes me as well) need to come here with an open mind, and accept that to a greater or lesser extent we all share some of the blame. Philosophically, this is an unjust website, since according to Plato in his work The Republic justice is, on some level, "...minding ones own business", yet the nature of the both humanity and Wikipedia demand consensus from groups of people, which of necessity means that we must involve ourselves in the business of others for the sake for the sake of peace among the collective whole.

With this in mind then when a problem reaches the pages of the administrators notice board, or the mediation cabal, or the arbitration committee is due in part to failure of both parties to back off a little and try to see the view from the other party's perspective. Having seen you capacity to forgive there is yet hope for all parties in this matter if the parties will sit down and discuss the issue with an open mind. Upon his enlightenment, Siddhārtha Gautama explained to his monk the concept of the middle path, one that leaves no one happy but everyone content. I learned to apply this thinking here, and it has served me well in that I know longer take the extreme views on either side, but work to see the wisdom in the positions presented by both sides. Having come to walk this path here I've found that it makes working with people on the site easier since you come into a discussion on conduct or the inclusion/exclusion of material or sources expecting that your work will be trimmed or removed to some greater or lesser extent, or in the matter of behavior that I am already partially to blame for a user registered compliant, and therefore accepting this I can work with all parties to find a solution that works for the parties, even if it comes at my expense.

As it relates to this page, and the matter at hand, your apology is a hopeful sign that we can resolve this matter here without the need for it to grow beyond the pages of the administers noticeboard. It appears to me that while it may have been the questionable use of the rollback tool by Jim Sweeney that initiated this discussion your fellow editors feel that there is more to this issue than a simple case of rolling back an edit made to an article. My question to you now, then, is that if we were to bring the parties here to discuss the edits, and if so would you be willing to work with them to find find a solution to the underlying issue(s) even if it means that the result would not necessarily be in your favor. Know that in the course of the discussion, the rollback issue you raised would be addressed as well. Are willing to make that leap of faith? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I would really like to know what this has all been about. --Rskp (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Then for the sake of enlightenment and peace among the parties and articles privy to this section let us begin our journey here, accepting that no one involved in this quagmire has acted with the best interest of the community in mind. In a review of the section as a whole I make the following findings as it relates to the discussions above:

• On the matter of the articles in question the underlying issue is not editor conduct per se, but a disagreement over the content in or pertaining to the articles that has resulted in editors taking an increasingly hawkish approach to each other, which in turn has stalled the process of consensus by rendering any edit by the involved parties in these articles to be suspicious in nature. This in turn has lead the editors in question to alienate other participants and to assume a cold war-ish wheel war mentality in the articles. As it is unimportant to the matter at hand, the issue of who started the chain of events is irrelevant, and therefore we need to seek a solution to the issue that will leave everyone content - not happy, mind you, but content - so as to allow for the article's development to continue peacefully. Specifically, the article mentioned are the Harry Chauvel and ANZAC Mounted Division, with the articles Occupation of the Jordan Valley and Capture of Damascus (1918) mentioned in passing.
• On the matter of Rollback use, the allegation is that editor(s) are misusing the tool by rolling back additions to or subtractions from the articles in question that are not considered to be test edits or vandalism. As this matter falls within the scope of RBK it will be looked at as a matter of improper use, and if the findings warrant actions will be taken against the parties involved in a manner consistent either with an agreement reached here or in accordance with established guidelines and policies on site.
• On the matter of party participation, editors are reminded that we are not here to assess blame or seek compensation, but to work together in order that a solution can be found that we can agree to abide by with regards to content.

Having laid out these points, I now ask if the editors involved in this matter both here and in the article spaces are willing to work together in this section to find a solution, and if so would you individually be willing to agree to a status quo ante bellum where by no involved editor works on the articles identified above until an agreement is reached here on the best way to resolve the issues in the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought a status quo ante bellum was already in place regarding the Anzac Mounted Division. The Damascus article needs some quotes to be paraphrased which I haven't got round to yet as I've been working on operations a year earlier in 1917. See the talk page for this discussion. Is there something else? But I have no idea what the issue with the Occupation of the Jordan Valley article is. --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh I mentioned the Occupation regarding demands to paraphrase or cut quotes. See the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• TomStar81 I was under the impression that the rollback issue was sorted here User talk:Jim Sweeney#Rollback? The Harry Chauvel article was an issue which I was not directly involved with but has been sorted by an Admin. The Talk:Capture of Damascus (1918)#Copyright violations issue was identified by a third party and I believe that is no longer an issue as the potential copyright problems have been resolved. Same with Talk:Occupation of the Jordan Valley#Over use of quotes was a concern over copyright and the extensive use of quotes. But I am glad to see that Roslyn has said there is status quo ante bellum in place regarding the ANZAC Mtd Division article. There has also been mention of cutting information populations living on a battlefield, see Talk:Battle of Sharon this was not me acting alone but a community consensus, which Roslyn had difficulty accepting. It also pleasing to see that Roslyn has identified what is a personal attack, and may stop making them. This is a personal attack and as its in an edit summery it can not be recanted of struck out [98] and here Talk:Raid on Nekhl#Wikipedia: Disruptive Editing adding a Wiki link and a couple of words is not disruptive. But I am all for moving forward that's why until now I have not been involved in this discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See [99] status quo ante bellum in operating 3 November and here [100] on the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that we were on first name terms but as it appears we are, Jim, regarding personal attacks, yes I will in the future, ignore them - considering them exercises in creative writing. It does, however, seem a shame when Wikipedia purports to be a place where editors are polite to one another, that these attacks are sanctioned and indeed practiced even here. --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Jim, I've gotten wrapped up in work, it'll take me another day to read through and get up to speed with your comments here, but thanks for the reply and your willingness to participate. Now I've got to go shower and hit the sack cuz I gots to be up early tomorrow for more fixing the house work. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So the status quo just could not last [101]. TomStar81 suggest you also read Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division along with the above comments.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, a white peace doesn't mean a cold war, it means nobody messes with the article(s) in question until all parties work out an agreement they can live with (even if it is a reluctant agreement). I am still reading through the material, and now with the new material, I'm gonna need a little more time yet. Please be patient... TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in getting back here, they are tearing down more of my house to fix years-long maintenance neglect issues, and its interfering the electricity and the water and just about everything else in my house at the moment. Anyway, moving one here...: Jim, the only rollback post I can find there is from 2011, was that the one you are referring to? Also, as it relates to the issues of the block quoting and the copyright violation allegations, according to what I can tell from the policy/guideline material here you are correct and did act accordingly in defense of the material in the articles. Rskp, you do have to understand here that where it relates to article content unless the material is lifted from a copyfree site (DANFS, for instance) then it needs to be paraphrased a whole hell of a lot if you expect it to stay. In this respect then, Jim did in fact move to save the article from being censored by the copyvio people, and in an ironic move from what I can tell this likely saved you from ending up blocked or topic banned from the subjects altogether. The copyvio people are very unsympathetic towards those who add copyright material of any type, and moreover the true joy of article development doesn't come from quoting what others have written, it comes from remixing their music to form your own beat with the underlying information. For example, most of the weaponry material in the Iowa class battleship articles comes from navweapons.com, a copyrighted site, but its been rewritten so much so that its more my work based on the work than it is his work that I quote. A little less direct from the manufacturer quoting would likely help the articles in the long run, and in addition cutting down the information helps those with a dial up modem or an otherwise slow connection get to the material that much faster (so much so in fact that way back in my day the article lengths were strictly limited at 10kbs). Now I'll remind both of you that while the white peace is in effect you have agreed to refrain from editing the articles, and while I am amenable to helping us reach an agreement on the course of action to be taken I will block you guy(s) or fully protect the pages in question if I see that its not working. I'm meeting you half way here, so try and do the same for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page for ANZAC Mounted Division, I presume talk page discussion is allowed under the White Peace (like that term).Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, under the terms of the White Peace you two may discuss at length the material to be added/subtracted or the issue(s) you currently have with the page on its associated talk page. That does help further the cause of the peace by promoting diplomacy, so it should be allowed - in fact, it should be outright encouraged. Just remember to remain civil - firm but fair such as it were - so as not to come off as a dick (and that goes for all of us, including me). As for the ANZAC talk page, I'll read through it when I'm done here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

General sanction notices by non-admins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's my understanding that, when there's a general sanction affecting an article, an administrator has the option of placing an editor on notice by warning them and then noting the warning on the sanction page, like this. I would appreciate some clarification about non-admin notices, like this. In particular, are they allowed and are they treated like admin notices? MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I answered this question here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The template ends with "This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS." so how can an involved non-administrator give an effective notice?! MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to read what I wrote at AQFT's talk page. You also need to read WP:AEGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, the template reads, "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

The ambiguous part is "despite being warned". Do we mean warned by any uninvolved administrator or just some involved editor trying to undermine someone they see as an opponent? MilesMoney (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of your problem is your focus on "opponents". If I were you, I'd spend more time trying to change your mindset rather than wikilawyer the language of the template. I don't think I'm getting through to you (I'm referring in part to our previous discussion on my talk page), so I'll let others try.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my experience, the "warning" part is to make 100% sure that people editing articles under sanctions are aware that there are sanctions, and as far as I can tell, all the regulars here, who participated in the AN/I thread, are sufficiently aware of the sanctions. In other words, I think this arguing about who has been "warned" and who hasn't is overly bureaucratic, since everyone doing the arguing knows about the sanctions. If we insist on the bureaucracy, I suppose we could simply give a formal "warning" for all the users involved here and move on. Is this what people want? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two distinct things here. The first is that rules about sanctions make frequent mention of ensuring that the editor is aware of sanctions, so editors must be warned of them. Since Steeletrap voted to approve those sanctions, it's a bit pointless to officially remind her.

The second thing is a concrete warning. For example, I received one from Arsten regarding Ayn Rand, somewhat redundantly ordering me to accept the RfC that I had already accepted, lest I be article-banned. That's a formal warning, and it's the first strike, to be followed by a more violent second strike.

Now, pretty much anyone can notify an editor that there are sanctions, but I can't imagine anyone but an uninvolved admin leaving a warning. Can you? MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I seem to remember warning people about sanctions before I was admin. I don't think I used the template, though, cause I'm not a template kind of person. Those were 1RR sanctions imposed by Arbcom, so maybe that's different? I dunno. If you're looking at this as getting getting two "strikes" before you're out, I think you're looking at it entirely the wrong way. I would compare it to looking at the 3RR rule as getting three "free" reverts... ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the terms of the sanction -- 3rr anyone can give. The specific sanction for Austrian Economics in question says "admin," the draft ArbCom put out for their general sanctions said any editor... it's pretty much RTM. NE Ent 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

[ec]::I think the question is this -- as I understood it: The Sanctions say, Editor A may be warned, and if the behavior is repeated then Editor A may then be blocked. I understood these formal notices to be the unambiguous, specific and official warning that would activate the Admin's prerogative to block if the behavior were repeated. Obviously any editor may warn any other if for legitimate cause, without having to do so on the official Sanctions log. So how can there be an official posting on the log by a non-Admin who does not have the authority to block? We already have a template on the talk page identifying the article as subject to Sanctions. Moreover, the prohibited behavior is not allowed anywhere on WP, so even if an editor were not previously aware that the article is under Sanctions there can be no problem with a formal Admin warning and subsequent block if warning is violated. I don't see what purpose an additional "informational" non-Admin warning would serve. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the logged warning as invalid -- the draft language I plagiarized re used under creative commons share alike said "admin," the close of the discussion said "admin". NE Ent 03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're done here. NE Ent's interpretation of the sanctions may be one possible interpretation, but it's not necessarily the correct one, and it's certainly not the only one. When you add past practice to the language, I believe a different interpretation is more reasonable. But let's start with the relevant language (just the first sentence):

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The issue is whether the phrase "despite being warned" implies that the admin who imposes the sanctions must also be the user who issued the warning or whether it means that the sanctioned user had to have been previously warned by anyone. FWIW, I interpreted it to mean the latter; apparently, NE Ent believes it is the former.

We had a discussion about different sanctions once before and whether a non-admin could issue a warning using a similar template. The result was that a non-admin could not use a template that said it was being issued by an admin but they could use the template's language in a hand-crafted warning that eliminated the assertion that they were an admin. As A Quest For Knowledge states on his talk page (in response to what I said there), "I do know for a fact that in AE enforced discretionary sanctions, any editor is allowed to make these warnings/notifications." My experience with ArbCom sanctions (I don't have experience with all of them) is the same, although I stress again that it's unusual for a non-admin to issue the warning. Taking WP:ARBPIA as an example, the language there about notifications is: "For convenience, the template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information." At WP:AEGS, I used that identical language (except for the template): "For convenience, the template {{Austrian economics enforcement}} may be used by an administrator, or an individual message containing the same information."

Based on NE Ent's statements above, I imagine he would say that it doesn't matter what ARBPIA says. Nor does it matter what I wrote at AEGS if both are contradicted by the sanctions language itself. I believe, however, that all of this is evidence in support of my interpretation of the closing language. But let's also look at the authorizing language in the Remedies section of ARBPIA: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Somewhat similar to our language, it isn't clear whether the admin must be the person who issues the warning. Certainly no one would say that the sanction-imposing admin must be the same as the warning-issuing admin as that would be silly. So, why would it imply that the editor issuing the warning must be an admin?

Let's get back to our language. It was cloned from the mixed martial arts sanctions. If you look at the way that's been handled subsequently at WP:GS/MMA, you'll see that Hasteur, a non-admin, has several times issued warnings.

Bottom line: I believe NE Ent is wrong. That said, I don't have a problem clarifying the sanctions to be similar to his interpretation. I prefer personally that only admins issue warnings, so NE Ent's interpretation aligns with that preference. More important, I don't think involved editors should be issuing warnings as it lends itself to abuse by the editors who are fighting with each other. (I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with an uninvolved non-admin issuing the warning, but I don't see that many uninvolved non-admins would be interested in issuing warnings in topic areas that they don't normally contribute, and often uninvolved admins issue these warnings because some editor complains to the admin, and it's less likely that the complainer would go to a non-admin.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification Questions:
  • Just discovered this thread. I think it would help to clearly differentiate between the {{Austrian economics enforcement}} user talk page warning that I thought anyone can leave and the Log Notices on Austrian economics/General sanctions which I assume is what we are discussing.
  • Also, I assume any warning about any single or group of policy violations on a talk page would have some relevance, not just behavioral issues. WP:BLP already has been applied once under these sanctions.
  • Also, is there a warning template for editor(s) who reject, say, more than a dozen WP:RS for a factoid, ala this WP:RSN in the Austrian economics sanctions area??
  • Also, if there is a long term policy, is this an attempt to change it or to just change wording on this sanctions page? CM-DC talk 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the first sentence of the sanctions be changed to read (the bolded phrase is the change):

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by an uninvolved administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Myself, I prefer more sentences rather than trying to squeeze everything into one, but the proposed change is a minimalist approach to what we've already got.

• Support as proposer.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm sure the arbs have looked at this recently and their comments are that this is a notification not a warning and is simply drawing a users attention to the existence of the sanctions not warning them they are breaking them. On that basis this is all rather moot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I dunno about "moot", but the arbitrators have looked at this issue in the context of discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee (WP:AC/DSR). The proposed language in this regard is "Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict. These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed." Obviously, that means it doesn't have to be an administrator. They also eliminated the template/admin confusion by using a template that doesn't say the person issuing the warning is an administrator: "These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed. The alert links to Committee's authorisation and is issued by placing the standard template message – currently {{ArbCom-Alert}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged." The community's sanctions don't have to be the same as ArbCom's, but an alternative to my proposal is to permit any editor to issue the notice but use a different template from the one we have now. My biggest problem with that is I don't like involved editors issuing the warning, even if the language of the warning is less threatening, although ArbCom's proposal doesn't say that the party issuing the warning has to be uninvolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• If these truly are notifications about the presence of discretionary sanctions, then it shouldn't matter who tells them about it. If that is the case, instead of "by an uninvolved administrator" it should be "by any editor". VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 13:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• But who would you pick to tell you? If I'd just started editing somewhere without knowing discretionary sanctions existed, then a notification from an involved editor might seem rather an aggressive act. All in all, I think I'd prefer to be told by an uninvolved admin. NebY (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - An official log of notices clearly is not a friendly FYI. It's a notice that the editor who received the notice has violated policy and that renewed violation may result in an Admin blocking the editor. The talk pages are templated with the fact that GS are in effect. No editor has the right to violate policy in any article, Sanctions or no Sanctions. Not knowing about the Sanctions is not a license to violate WP policy. @Bbb23:'s proposal is clearly in the spirit of the ANI discussion and implements the intention and spirit of the General Sanctions. The log of Notices is to verify that the warning stated in the GS has been delivered by an Admin for specific editor behavior. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'd prefer warnings to come from an administrator in the case of discretionary sanctions, particularly as they are logged. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Logged warnings should only come from uninvolved administrators. If it's a meaningless notification, then why keep a log? If we're going to keep a record of it and use it as evidence for future potential sanctions, we should insure everything is on the up and up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Modify to read: Administrators may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being notified by any administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or expected standards of behavior or editorial process. Rationale: 1. We already have WP:INVOLVED, which goes without saying; 2. "Notified" allows for milder admonitions rather than sharper rebukes (of which I am quite aware); 3. Is a bit more terse in presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, can we please just keep this simple and get done with it? @Bbb23:'s proposal gives us the wisdom of his judgment and the stature of the Admin who closed the ANI implementing the Sanctions. Involved editors such as ourselves should not try to jockey for position here, where we have the benefit of Admin attention and judgment. Please do register your Support or Oppose view, but let's not fragment and derail the process here. Gracias. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure we have enough to close this discussion with a consensus. I don't care about whether my proposal is adopted as much as I care about clarifying the notification issue one way or the other so we don'tfight over it later on. If someone wants to propose an alternative (I don't personally like S. Rich's, partly because it changes too much, partly because it makes assumptions, and least because it's not quite grammatical), that would be okay as long as there's enough input from the community to establish a consensus. The most obvious alternative is to follow ArbCom's proposed model (I noted it above).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the involved editors all know about this thread and AN has lots of eyes on it, so I would think you may be too cautious. I would say there is consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think involved editors all know about this thread? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it depends on what we see as a "notification" or a "warning". A notification is just someone saying "Discretionary sanctions can be imposed if necessary for editing in this area. Be aware of that." It's not an accusation of wrongdoing, just making sure someone knows the topic area is subject to sanctions. That's only fair, as not every editor on a given article may know that sanctions can be imposed there. A warning, on the other hand, is generally of the form "You have been behaving inappropriately at X in Y manner, and if you keep it up, you will be sanctioned." Since an uninvolved administrator is the only one who can actually impose such a sanction, a warning of that nature would be much less effective from anyone else. However, as I see it, the purpose of a notification requirement is to make sure editors aren't hit out of the blue with sanctions they didn't even know were possible. I don't see why someone would need to be either an administrator or uninvolved to give such a notice. In practice, at AE, we've sanctioned editors who had given such notices to others but had never technically received one themselves, because the fact that they were warning others of the sanctions clearly indicated they were themselves aware of them. Placing a highly procedural setup on such a simple notification seems to me to be pointless bureaucracy; the essence of the matter is that the sanctioned editor must be aware of the applicability of discretionary sanctions to the area they're editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I absolutely understand what you're saying, and as I've now said multiple times, all I want to do is straighten out what we will allow for these sanctions. I have no objection to allowing editors, even involved editors (although I intuitively like that less), to issue the notification, but if we're going to go that route, we need a template that is not threatening, and editors would have to use that template or at least the same language. Otherwise, things could get a bit nasty. If you prefer that, Seraphimblade, you could create an alternate proposal, and we could see what the consensus is. If you decide to do so, I'd personally appreciate a proposal that amends the closing language as little as possible to achieve the objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue we're discussing is warning notices which are logged after a specific violation of WP behavioral policies, not informational notices such as you describe, but which are not logged and may just be informal fyi's. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

With Specifico's comment in mind, the language should be Administrators may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being notified by any administrator, that editor has committed a specific violation of WP behavioral policies. I can live with that. – S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not our role to instruct the Admins as to how they exercise their authority. Your proposal is nonsense and as I said above, it's fruitless and inappropriate to diffuse this thread by trying to twist and tweak Bbb's proposal. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think my proposal is nonsense. I was incorporating the phrase you had posted shortly earlier: "after a specific violation of WP behavioral policies". (And I'm sure admins will feel free to ignore my comment, but less my "instructions.") In any event, Specifico, if you have another version to suggest, please feel free to post it. – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing to suggest that my words were intended or even appropriate as a modification of Bbb's proposal. This is now the third time I've explicitly posted to the contrary in response to you. Have you actually read my comments in this thread? If so you would know that I do not favor modifying Bbb's proposal. Srich, of all the places for you to display this kind of behavior I would guess that this is one of the most foolish and most conspicuous.likely to further tarnish your reputation here. Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, just because you don't like S. Rich's proposal doesn't make it "nonsense". The "further tarnish your reputation" comment is a personal attack, and you should at a minimum strike it. I, happily, don't follow the endless battles in this topic area, but, generally, I am unaware that S. Rich has a tarnished reputation in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support version modified so that it does not require the Administrator warning an editor to be uninvolved. This is too limiting for a notification. And if the Admin is involved, then they are aware that the warning applies to them. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Doug, just to be clear, is this the language you would support? "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by an administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process." (bolded language is change from current sanctions language).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine. (Do we have instructions for involved editors as to what they should do if they think the warning has been ignored)? Took me 10 minutes and several FireFox crashes to respond, sorry (now using Opera - must try to get the number of tabs in Firefox down below 200).Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• 200?? Lord, doesn't that make you dizzy? Do you like Opera better than Firefox? As far as I know, no such instructions. Because these are community-based sanctions, an editor could report a violation to an admin noticeboard, or, as often happens, directly to an (overworked) admin, potentially causing the admin to open a 201st tab.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Break

The closing statement at ANI is Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them or the administrators' noticeboard. There's nothing in there mandating or even discussing the creation of a log ( WP:AEGS ) and nothing saying an admin can't revert a bad block (as asserted at Wikipedia:AEGS#Remedies).

It's fairly absurd that Bbb23 would write {{Austrian economics enforcement}} with the provision This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS. and then claim I'm wrong in thinking a non-admin can't post the notice.

As Seraphimblade explains above, this has escalated from hopefully simple and useful to mini-bureaucracy. The idea -- which admittedly I didn't make crystal clear when I copy / pasted the proposal from the prior Mixed Martial Arts sanction -- was simply that an editor can place a notification on user's talk page and, if necessary later, use the diff when reporting disruption to ANI. My recommendation is that the "Remedies" and "Log of notifications" section of WP:AEGS and the overly long {{Austrian economics enforcement}} be trimmed down to pretty much just the closing statement of the ANI. NE Ent 11:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are so many distortions in your statement that I'll just say I oppose it, even though a small part of might be unobjectionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The proposal is meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admins required

So, who are the admins willing to monitor the Austrian Economics topic-space and issue warnings/sanctions? The problems with this topic space were so serious that they warranted general sanctions, but since the general sanctions have been put in place, only a single editor has been sanctioned and that only happened because an uninvolved editor (me) filed an AN/I report. It's all fine and dandy to say a topic-space is under generation sanctions, but if we don't have admins to patrol this topic space and nothing changes, it's meaningless. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Since they were community passed sanctions, the community can modify them. Not all article probation requires an admin to place an initial notification, the purpose of which is to ensure the editor is aware of the sanctions, and afterwhich they can be sanctioned by an admin for any violation of them. It might be a good idea to change it so that admin warnings are not required. You could look at the Men's rights movement probation for verbiage. It requires sanctions to be done by admins, but not notices themselves. Once all involved parties are notified, if uninvolved admins aren't actively looking over for violations, I'd suggest that any party who detects a vio take it to ANI. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to the change above, editors can no longer issue notifications. Instead, an admin will be required to issue notifications. So who are the admins willing to patrol this topic space? The only admin to actually enact a sanction has just stated that they are not interesting in admining this topic-space.[102] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly crazy. We need to reopen the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Reopen it for what reason, that the closure is incorrect or that more administrators need to patrol the pages subject to sanctions? I don't get it. If you have a problem with the closure, Doug, you should take it up with TParis. As for the other, as we all know, no administrator is required to use the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in the close, I see something entirely wrong in the proposal itself. But it's not my place to supervote. I think that "only administrators may warn editors" is a bad idea to start with. If you want to overturn the proposal, I suggest a new vote along the lines of "Ok, we were a bit silly with our ideas, lets go back to the standard 'anyone may warn.' (no offense Bbb23).--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

TP, I'm not in the least offended. I disagree that there's any "standard" way of dealing with these kinds of community-based sanctions. However, I've said over and over that I don't care much how this is done. I made a proposal but I mentioned repeatedly alternate proposals that would be acceptable (to me). My principal goal was clarity, so editors and admins know what they can and can't do with these sanctions. ArbCom may be able standardize dealing with discretionary sanctions, but it's highly unlikely the community will ever do so. So, there are two other (reasonable) possible proposals: (1) any admin, involved or not, can issue a warning or (2) any editor can issue a warning. In particular, if we were to change to #2, I would want editors to issue a standard template, whether it be the one currently in place for these sanctions or one more similar to the ArbCom warnings (I prefer those myself). In that way, although an editor's motivation might be suspicious, at least they couldn't create their own warning language. In either alternate, the issuer must log the notification.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If I understand this point correctly, the issue is not who may "warn" in the sense of informing an editor of the GS. I understand the issue to be who may log a warning on the GS page as a precondition for an Admin-issued block, without going to the usual ANI or other process. There's a log of every informational warning in the talk page histories, so I don't understand why there's particular concern about informational notices. The formal notice which can precede a block seems like it only makes sense if it comes from an Admin, per the close of this AN. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer "A Quest For Knowledge"'s question (as I see it and correct me if I'm wrong): Admins do not necessarily have to patrol pages. If they see troublesome issues arising at a noticeboard (WP:BLP, WP:RSN, WP:NPOV, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, etc.) and are made aware of the community sanctions, they can do something. Complaining to an admin who has put on the sanctions or who has commented on behavior in a specific article also, I assume, would be ok. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The 'standard method' for sanctions, being that community sanctions is one of the topic areas I actually do work often enough (see Abortion, Men's Right's, US Election 2012, ect) is that an editor must be notified/warned that sanctions exist before an administrator may action on them. This notification/warning (in the informal sense) is generally carried out with a {{Uw-probation}} which carries the notice "In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation" and "The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you." Any editor may give this message. It is logged on the community sanctions page because administrators need to know that editors are aware of the sanctions before acting. Instead of forcing us to search talk page history, or anywhere else an editor may have been given the heads up, a log is kept of "Ohh hey, this person has been given a heads up that article probation exists". Now, when sanctions say "after a warning", they do not mean that editors get a freebie before getting blocked. It means that editors were given a heads up that sanctions existed and that the risk of a block is higher. If anyone doesn't understand the difference there, feel free to ask me for clarification. No editor has a 'right' to a formal warning by an administrator before a block. However, it would be unfair to block someone who didn't know they were entering an area where administrator's wield larger sticks. That's what the 'warning' in sanctions refer to when they say 'if after being warned' and when we warn folks on their talk page. "WARNING: ADMINS HAVE HUGE STICKS ON THIS PAGE!" is all folks get. That's why I think this proposal is silly. It doesn't take an administrator to tell someone that they are entering a contentious topic area with general sanctions. It takes a friendly editor. If we only allowed administrators to notify/warn editors of sanctions then why are none of the community sanctions or arbcom sanctions pages locked to sysop-only? Bottom line: The 'warning' is a warning about sanctions, not a warning about an editor's behavior.

  My closure of this proposal was purely on consensus, because clearly if I had supervoted it would've gone the other way.--v/r - TP 20:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I have just updated WP:General sanctions to add what I have just described above. I believe this is already de jure protocol so I've just codified it.--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And on the other hand Editors who clearly have been a party to ANIs that led to community sanctions in an area or or clearly involved in discussion of those sanctions on one or more articles do not neccessarily need a talk page warning because it is assumed they know. Unless it's left by someone who doesn't know the editor knows about it, obviously. ;-) User:Carolmooredc talk 20:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The talk page warning is to prove that they've been notified. Whether that happens on their talk page or if it happens somewhere else, as long as they themselves are explicitly told that sanctions exist and that explicit notification is logged. Otherwise, whether or not they were 'warned'/notified can be wiki-lawyered. Keep in mind, Carol, that even Arbcom leaves notices on user's talk pages when Arbcom cases are closed and then logs that notice no matter how much participation a user had in the case.--v/r - TP 20:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it's as "standard" as you say (I looked at several), and I disagree with the change to WP:General sanctions for the same reason. I'm bowing out of this. As far as the Austrian economics sanctions notification is involved, unless there is some clarity I can live with, I will not monitor changes to WP:AEGS; nor will I sanction anyone. Other administrators/editors can deal with it without me, I'm sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, better safe than sorry reminding specific individuals then probably is the best approach, even if they've been involved in 4 or 5 threads where it's been mentioned. BBB23, thanks for your patience in hanging in there as long as you did. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did two notices to users. Did I do it right? One is here: User_talk:MilesMoney#WP:RSN. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia:General_sanctions warnings/notifications ok?

Starting fresh today decided to review all this and now understand what is going on. Yeah! I see this whole new policy section in WP:Sanctions written by TParis on Nov 16. The new "Community" section reads among other things: Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions and then log the notification. The notification may not be revoked because it is not a warning about editor behavior; it is a warning about general sanctions. Typically, administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor is made aware of the existence of these sanctions. Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions and then log the notification. I don't have a problem with the warning, though I think the notification by editors will lead to a free for all once anyone actually does it, especially in Austrian economics. I also don't see anyone objecting on talk page of General sanctions.

So what's needed now is someone to rewrite the templates - including {{subst:Austrian economics enforcement}} - so that they now say that editors and not just can leave a warning and a log entry. Should I post a question at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions?? User:Carolmooredc talk 17:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit history of the user page showing the template would seem to be evidence of notice. Why a separate log of informational notices? SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Because if someone was notified a year ago, it's a pain in the ass searching their archives and then user page history for the warning when we could just log it for convenience. See Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log, Talk:Men's_rights/Article_probation#Log_of_sanctions, Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Mixed_martial_arts, Wikipedia:GS/SP, Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Keep in mind, I've selected these ones demonstrating where this has happened. There are others that don't follow this structure, but logging the notification is just so much easier when it comes time to sanctioning someone.--v/r - TP 17:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think the issue is, possible multiple loggings. Once someone has to be logged as a warning, do they have to be logged again? That's the abusive type of free for all I was thinking about. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The log is not intended as some sort of wall of shame. And once you know, you know. I really can't believe that this is still going on but given that it is the usual AE crowd, perhaps I should. The topic area in which I contribute most frequently is subject to sanctions and as an act of good faith I was among those who self-certified their awareness of the situation. I don't see a reason why others could not do the same if they so chose & it takes some of the legwork out of the blindingly obvious - see WP:ARBIPA. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds settled. So I think what we need now is the official templates changed so they don't say only the admins can log. (I assume admins have to do that.) I didn't leave that in my warning to two editors because of that and don't want to log them til have something more official or it's said my "warnings" were ok - or I don't get a response? User:Carolmooredc talk 17:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Advertisements on Wikipedia by the WMF

{{hat|NAC: Closing again. Wrong venue, not a matter for administrators. Please express your concerns on WP:VPP or directly to the WMF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}} {{hat|1=This will only be a concern if they start selling sausage inna bun. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}} {{archive top|Reopen when admins get free t-shirts. John Reaves 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Seriously? Advertisements for the "Wikipedia store" are now displayed in lovely banner ad format when reading or editing pages? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for the administrators noticeboard? Take it to WP:VPM or something. Legoktm (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Legoktm: This noticeboard has been considered a general discussion noticeboard for a very long time. It's certainly more watched and used than an obscure village pump. In this case, these points are largely irrelevant, though: local administrators are in control of the local site interface. This noticeboard is a perfectly fine place to discuss whether we should have ads. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely the community are in control of the local site interface; and admins merely the functionaries who carry out the community's wishes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is the community? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS answers that question nicely. I would like to hear your answer to Andy Mabbett's question. --04:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who I'm addressing, but the actual answer is that various parts of the site interface come from various places. Most of the user interface comes from the MediaWiki software, which is controlled via developer consensus, though individual local administrators (including myself) have also made substantial customizations via the MediaWiki message namespace. The banners themselves largely come from m:Special:CentralNotice, if they're not local banners. You can read more at Wikipedia:Software notices, a page I created in 2008. Let me know if you have additional questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If people don't want AN to be for general discussion like this, then perhaps an Administrators' Noticeboard/Discussion is in order ? Sportsguy17 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank

There certainly could be worse things than an ad for our own non-profit organization offering discounts on our own products. Until the banner says "I'm Lovin' It", I don't consider it much an ad. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[103] -- KTC (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The ad is spammy and distasteful and should be removed ASAP. We are an encyclopedia, not a discount outlet. It is not our business to be selling stuff and I personally don't want to be associated with "academic" projects who advertise in this sort of manner. ThemFromSpace 20:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The banner doesn't particularly bother me. I actually think it's kind of neat there are Wikipedia scarves. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not great, but that "X" in the upper right hand corner takes care of it pretty well ;) Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not got it?! Is it some admins equivalent of the GUM (department store) a la 1955, where the WP elites can buy otherwise unavailable to the community luxuries such as soap, metal false teeth and Max Bygraves records? I think we should be told. Irondome (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's displayed for US only, per the post that KTC linked to (but anyone worldwide will get the discount, currently).

If the ad were displayed to all readers, it might be worth grumbling about, but it's only displayed to logged-in users, which seems entirely reasonable. –Quiddity (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with it at all. My old uni as far back as 81 was selling scarves, bags, mugs etc. I see an analogy. My post was satirical, and I agree with User:Guy Macon that the posting here was arguably problematic in board choice. From the UK, I would like to see the stuff on offer. It is hardly a commercial Mcinvasion, as someone mentioned above. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

When someone posts something that is completely off-topic (administrators have no power to remove the ad in question, and thus this does not need administrator attention) answering them only encourages more off-topic material. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon. Local administrators are most certainly empowered to suppress the ad in question, either directly by editing the site-wide JavaScript or CSS pages or indirectly by requesting that a Meta-Wiki administrator disable the banner. I'm not sure why you think this discussion is off-topic. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I go by what the top of this page says is and is not appropriate for posting here. If English Wikipedia administrators are allowed to request that a Meta-Wiki administrator disable the banner and ordinary editors are not, that would make it on-topic. I believe that anyone can make such a request. If English Wikipedia administrators are authorized to decide that the ad should be removed, that would make it on-topic. If something is made possible by the software but admins are not allowed to do it, that doesn't count; making an AN request asking an admin to do something that no admin is authorized to do is off-topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that if an admin were to decide that there those ads should not be there and suppress them, he would be in trouble. Of course he could seek community consensus, but so could any editor.

Earlier, when someone else posted an opinion that this is off-topic you wrote "This noticeboard has been considered a general discussion noticeboard for a very long time. It's certainly more watched and used than an obscure village pump." I didn't say anything then, but I do not believe that you have a consensus for such a radical change to the function of AN, and if you have consensus for it, you should change the instructions at the to of the page.

Ignoring a certain amount of off-topic material as long as it doesn't become excessive or disruptive is one thing. Deciding that everything is on-topic and correcting anyone who says that something is off-topic and should be taken elsewhere is quite another. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: paragraph 1: administrators are definitely empowered. Take a look at what happened with VisualEditor (I think the relevant discussion took place on this very noticeboard) for a recent example. Local administrators largely (though not exclusively) control the site interface. I wrote a bit more above. (By the way, can you link to the community consensus to run these banners? ;-)

Re: "radical change": this isn't very radical. And I'll point out again that it was a pretty experienced Wikipedian who opened the thread here, in addition to another pretty experienced Wikipedian (me) saying that AN is a general noticeboard. It's possible we're both mistaken, but perhaps it's the other way around?

I don't think anyone suggested that anything and everything is suddenly on-topic. Though if the discussion location really gets you so hot and bothered that you want to re-locate it, okay, just leave a pointer and be neat about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}} {{hab}}

Unarchiving this section to properly address some of the incorrect comments here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The "scarf" banner certainly looks like an ad to me. I can't see how anyone could say that it's not an advertisement. We should discuss whether such ads are appropriate here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is any different than the fundraising banners. It can be easily dismissed if it is really bothering you that much. Of course every time we have a fundraising drive a thread like this pops up as well. Yes, if we had a massive RFC we could decide not to do this. the chances of that getting done before the current sale is over are basically zero. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Fundraising banners aren't trying to sell anything. I imagine most editors don't object to this particular advertisement, but it's a reasonable topic to discuss, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Beyond My Ken: Perhaps you could focus on the substantive issues in a thoughtful reply rather than simply trying to close the discussion? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to close down discussion on this topic, I'm merely pointing out what you ought to know already, that this is not the appropriate place to have the discussion. This is a 'community matter, not one for admins, and this is the administrators' noticeboard.

Could someone please close this inappropriate discussion for the third time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, it has morphed into something that actually is on-topic: MZMcBride's claims about what is and is not off-topic. In my opinion, it should be left open until that meta-issue is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Guy Macon:

This has been a general noticeboard for a very long time.

In any case, if you're really concerned with only the discussion's location, you can move the discussion and leave a redirect. We do this all the time with articles. Collapsing a reasonable discussion and shouting "wrong venue" is, um, unkind and probably harms the attempt at having an honest discussion about whether these types of ads are appropriate.

Perhaps it also wouldn't be unreasonable to extend a bit of good faith that the experienced admin (and apparently also a checkuser) who opened this discussion can be trusted enough to post here, presumably having exercised some judgment in deciding where to post. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. According to m:CentralNotice/Calendar, the proper person to contact is User:Meganhernandez. :) Legoktm (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was hoping for some kind of hipster irony with a banner proclaiming "we can pickle that!" or some kind of artisan, lovingly hand-crafted encyclopedia knit baseball cap with a logo. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And WP logo brass key fobs, lovingly created by the famous Blind monks of Prague. Damn. Seriously. is this discussion really viable in its present form? I suggest closure. This may be a complex issue. It should be redrafted and posted on meta, maybe. Irondome (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dude. You are harshing my mellow. Forget the blind monks and all hail the Monks of Doom. Represent. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to have voiced myself: "Community"-Me is against that nonsense! Cheers, "Community"-Others, OAlexander (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"This one-of-a-kind Wikipedia sweater was handcrafted out of ten years worth of Jimbo's own belly button lint." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose slipping this into the rotation would be right out? —rybec 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Has at least nostalgic qualities. OAlexander (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support an admin to block the advertisement technically if possible. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one in WP:the community to post at User:Meganhernandez? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am neutral. There are some good thing about it potentially such that if people on campus start wearing Wikipedia clothes stating that you to can edit, it may increase contributions. Than there is the issue of it being advertising. Maybe a RfC would be the next step? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The merchandise banner came down last Friday, Nov. 15. We ran a four-day campaign as an experiment to spread awareness of the shop as well as to get valuable feedback. In the aftermath of this campaign, we would like to sincerely thank not only the users who purchased merchandise, but those who gave us feedback through surveys and on talk pages. These comments are invaluable to our ability to better tailor the store to users’ needs. We're working on improving the shop and will send more news on future changes. Thank you for the feedback. CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There may be a discussion to be had here, but as with at least 4 other people have said, I don't get why this is at AN which as is common for discussions being held at clearly the wrong venue, seems to be discouraging participation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Need some Admin assistance please

Due to getting some bad advice from someone at the Teahouse, a new editor did a cut and paste move on an article in AfC, recreating it in mainspace. Could an admin possibly clean this up? The improperly moved article is at Victor Channing Sanborn. The original, which will need to get moved to the name the cut and paste is on, is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victor Channing Sanborn. Thanks in advance. I didn't give you any editor's names here, because I am not looking to cause anyone any problems. I would just like the cut and paste move fixed please. John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yunshui 雲‍水 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cut'n'pasted from User talk:MarshalN20#MarshalN20 Block Appeal by Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am currently topic banned from topics related to Latin American history. Sandstein blocked me under the assumption that I broke my topic ban restrictions, specifically the "broadly construed" clause of the topic ban. I disagree and request my topic ban appeal be taken to a community discussion board due to the following reasons:

1. I am topic banned from history of Latin America articles. I am not banned from Latin American culture articles.
2. My edit summary was not appropriate, and I should not have edit warred in the article in question (however, I did not break the WP:3RR). But this does not justify a 2-month AE block.
3. The arbitration enforcement block is due to my participation in the article "Chile–Peru football rivalry" (see [104]), a sports article
4. The Chile-Peru football rivalry is a current event.
5. The history section of the Chile-Peru football rivalry section is clearly delimited. I have not edited it since the topic ban. WP:Banning policy allows me to edit articles unrelated to the topic ban but not on parts of pages that are:

“ parts of other pages that are related to the topic ”

1. The non-history sections of the article are related to sports (statistics, facts, etc.).
2. The first football match between Peru and Chile took place in 1935 (see [105]). This is well after the time of the War of the Pacific in the 19th century.
3. As part of the unblock request, I would like to apply and obtain a WP:MENTOR. As a friend recommends, I need to learn how to edit smarter and stop becoming a target of others.

Therefore, given the points above, I kindly request the community to remove my account block. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

At the request of User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, I draw attention to the discussion we had yesterday User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves#Your revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I would draw everyone's eyes to about halfway down the discussion that WCM links to above. The short form is this:

• MarshalN20 has a topic ban concerning Latin American history, broadly construed.
• An editor can break that topic in two ways: 1) make a Latin-American history-related edit anywhere on the project, or 2) edit an article that is clearly and obviously related in any way to Latin-American history.
• At the time he edited the article, the lede of this article stated "Peru and Chile have a rivalry that dates back from the War of the Pacific. Previously, the two nations had been on friendly terms sharing mutual alliances during the South American wars of independence and Chincha Islands War. Territorial, maritime, and cultural disputes have fueled tensions since the ending of the War of the Pacific. These historical feuds and lingering bitterness have led to a large football rivalry between both nations" - thus showing that if it wasn't for non-sport-related history, then the rivalry (and thus the article) would not exist. Thus, this article is about Latin American history, broadly construed.
• This is his second AE enforcement block - the first 30-day block was removed early due to his promise that he understood, would not push the envelope, and would behave accordingly. As such, by escalation alone, this is a valid 60-day block
• As such, regardless of his individual behaviours (i.e. edit-warring, NPA, whatever), he should not have touched that article with a 10 foot pole

ES&L 11:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Further comment I know that I said I didn't want to discuss "further behaviours", however, I just dropped by his talkpage. This edit that he made there is atrocious, inflammatory, inappropriate, and shows a continued battleground behaviour. Considering what everyone knows I do for a living, and everyone knows of my ethnicity, "User:EatsShootsAndLeaves went to Peru and Chile during his professional life? Good for him! That doesn't make his position any more valid than if he was to claim "he had black friends" and is, based solely on that, "not racist"." is a more-than offensive statement. If his response to my very polite discussion with WCM is to directly attack my profession AND my ethnicity, then 2 months is too short ES&L 11:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments at 11:27 above and also refer to the reasons I gave when making the enforcement block. I recommend to decline this appeal.  Sandstein  11:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose History is indeed a broad term, but Latin American history is more specific and this edit represents the second violation by the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock with an admonishment for edit warring. I can see the rationale behind Sandstein's decision, but having looked at the revert in question, the dispute is clearly over what is a current event. Even though there is history in the article lead, the topic is more in the sports culture field, so I can understand MarshalN20 believing that the article was beyond the scope of the topic ban. Even if the article is covered by the topic ban, I would have issued a warning to cease editing that article before going to a two-month block. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• unblock with admonishment as per Sjakkalle. In spite of the lead section, this is clearly a sports and culture article, not a history article in any reasonable sense. The edit dealt with a current, not a historical event, The edit summery was uncivil, regardless of the merits of the actual edit, but that is a matter unrelated to the topic ban. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock The edit in question, and the article itself are obviously a current event, not history. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Decline unblock - Clearly and obviously within the terms of the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock: It is a sports-related article, not related to historical topics. In fact, the inclusion of national wars is off-topic in the lede of that article and should be removed. Don't confuse the article with Chile–Peru relations, which is the one about the bilateral relations of Peru and Chile in history. Only a passing-by view of the article of the football rivalry may make someone think it's a historical topic. The rivalry is influenced by history, as most cultural topics, but it does not belong by itself in the realm of history. That is, you'll never find references to this rivalry in actual history books (except in specialized "history of football" books). Compare with England–Scotland football rivalry, I don't think you would include such article in the "History of Europe" topic, specially if the disputed portion was about the "August 2013 friendly" section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment To suggest that sports-related articles cannot be historical topics as well is a bit nonsensical. That said, this one is a current event. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if my comments will have any merit on this discussion but in my opinion this rivalry is an extension of the ongoing historical dispute between chile and peru. I've noticed that some are arguing that this rivalry is purely on football terms, my answer to that is look at the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry. Tim Vickery a popular BBC commentator and south American football correspondent sums up this rivalry on the first paragraph (see[106]). That rivalry is purely about football there's no "real military history" between the two. In case of chile and peru there's no evidence the rivalry is purely on football. You've got to judge rivalry on its merits. Eitherway that's my two cents in. --Chelios123 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Unless I'm missing something, this, and other iterations thereof, are the only edits in question. To quote WP:TBAN, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Blocking Marshal for this edit is like blocking the weather-banned person for editing the New York article's section on the Erie Canal. Neither one is a violation of the ban, and neither one is grounds for a ban-related block. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. Marginally bad block to begin with and MarshalN20 promises to give the topic he is banned from an even wider berth. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - I don't normally comment here on AN, but this was such a poor block I thought it would be best if I did comment. To call his editing of a current event historical seems like really poor judgement. Thankfully we have places like AN to fix mistakes.--Rockfang (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Uninvolved dmin note I see a 64% favorability toward removing the block with a strong warning for edit waring, but I see stronger arguments made by those supportive of the block who make a strong case that this is about Latin-American history. So, I'm going to request that other uninvolved admins give this discussion another day or so.--v/r - TP 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: When someone says the "history" topic, the usual things that come to mind are biographies, wars, turning-point events, former heads of state, national heroes, "history of..." sections, historical periods, etc. Even if some users may argue that a sports rivalry should be considered historical, it's clear that it's not among the obvious things that everybody would consider as such, and so MarshalN20 has not edited a history article on purpose. If it's unclear if the sports rivalry is historical or not, the best way to proceed would be to unblock MarshalN20 for the moment, and request a clarification from the Arbitration Comitee on this; with MarshalN20 avoiding the article as if it was included in the ban in the meantime until we get the clarification. Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• As an IP I cannot vote...but I can comment and I want to state that this is exactly the sort of senseless abuse that I have come to expect from Sandstein, Arbitration Enforcement and the idea that "Broadly construed" topic bans are any benefit. They are not, they are setting the editor up for failure and are impossible. By their logic if I had a topic ban of Latin American topics I couldn't edit Christopher Columbus because he sent a couple nights there; certainly California, Texas and New Mexico are off limits because they are "broadly construed" Latin American related. This block was based on too broad of an interpretation of the badly worded and poorly thought out broadly construed language. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "As an IP I cannot vote..." then why not login to your User:KumiokoCleanStart account? Fram (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Why, Sandstein and AE have been allowed unlimited power by Arbcom to do whatever they want with no questions or review. Even if the community votes to undo the block here there is no requirement for Sandstein to do so. Whats more, the broadly construed language will just get them in AE jail again by someone who doesn't like their edits or point of view and they will just keep justifying it with this is the X time, each time looking worse for the editor regardless of the credibility of the accusation. So in the end there is no reason to vote either way because in the end, the editor is eventually going to be blocked anyway. The only way not too is for the user to not edit at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Chile-Peru football rivalry mentions the War of the Pacific once in the lede, the rest of the article looks at win/loss statistics, the two national teams and comments on the nature of the games between the two nations. The lede as currently written does not conform to WP:LEDE in that it doesn't summarise the article and were it not for that single brief reference there would have been no connection to the topic ban. It is clearly a sports article not a history article and with respect to User:TParis I am concerned you would think a brief mention of a historic event in a poorly written lede makes for a strong argument for a AE block. WP:Banning policy clearly allows the editing of sports articles that reference history, provided the topic element of the topic ban is respected. We have here a poorly worded topic ban, one that arbcom itself acknowledged at the time [107] was over broad (see comments by NewYorkBrad). Hence, I am concerned at an overly inclusive interpretation of a badly worded sanction is being applied, which is in turn leading to an editor being blocked for two months. The suggestion to unblock and admonish, together with a reference to arbcom is a proportionate resonse in this case. However, a 2 month AE block is disproportionate and is punitive in nature rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not the lede is conforming or not is a red herring: after all, Marshal says he wrote the current lede, and therefore he knew exactly what it said! We have to go by how the article - and thus the lede - read when the supposed action took place. Based on the article at the time, the action was against the topic ban. With regards to 2 months block: that's due to recidivism - nobody's fault but his own. Indeed, he wouldn't have any topic ban if it wasn't for his own behaviour. Note: I have NOT !voted on whether to unblock or keep blocked - I'm merely clarifying some rather mistaken statements ES&L 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• The topic of an article is not defined by the users listed in the article history, and neither which content is on-topic or off-topic in them. If a sports article that mentions wars in the lede was MarshalN20's mistake years ago, or someone else's mistake, is irrelevant for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't get your point. The job of the lede is to introduce the topic. If the lede says that the football rivalry is the direct result of incidents in Latin-American history, then it's completely relevant. ES&L 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• ESL, you and I have already discussed this and agree to disagree as to whether this is a red herring. It is also clear that other editors have looked at the same case and a number agree with my position on this. I'm also sure you would agree it would also be pertinent to note that he has apologised for the remarks you refer to above as evidence of battleground behaviour and clarified they were a poor choice of words rather than a deliberate accusation of racism. Taking the issue of alleged recidivism in hand. His first month long block occurred two weeks after the incident in question, which is acknowledged by all as a technical violation of his topic ban. However, he believed a comment was in order because of the vandalism exemption in WP:Banning policy but it was pointed out to him this only applied in clear cases of vandalism (eg penis comments) he withdrew his comments, struck them out and took no further part in the discussion. Two weeks later after acknowledging his mistake and withdrawing, he is then hit with the block hammer with only a cursory examination of the AE case. The block cited as a basis of charge of recidivism was of itself inappropriate and as an argument for further sanctions is compounding injustice upon injustice. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock MarshalN20 should have known better than to get anywhere near anything that might possibly be construed as being under the remit of his topic ban, however I am not of the belief that his edits are in violation of his topic ban. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• unblock per Nyttend and Sven. Doesn't appear to be an edit in violation of his topic ban, but he should try to steer even "wider than reasonable" around his topic ban. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I realize I'm going against popular opinion here, but I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock The basis for the block and thus the only question here is whether the discussed topic / editing falls under "history". And I think that the answer on that is clearly "no". North8000 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. The topic ban very specifically refers to the history of Latin America, not everything on Latin America. They aren't the same. Neither the edit nor the topic is related to Latin American history, so the topic ban was not broken. I'm also a bit concerned that the previous block - to deal with a dispute that Marshal had already long since withdrawn from (thus a violation of WP:PREVENTATIVE) - was taken into account when setting the duration. Kahastok talk 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass revert of AnomieBOT II needed? (Answer: No, carry on.)

AnomieBOT II (talk · contribs) has been making weird edits on various templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disambiguation_needed&diff=582080428&oldid=581202663, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASelf&diff=582081088&oldid=581995440).

I'm unsure of how much damage has been done, and if all those edits are undesired, but someone should take a look at things. I started reverting some of the edits, but since I'm unsure which were done erroneously and which actually worked, I've created this thread instead so people can take a look at things.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

See Module:Unsubst and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT II 2. The only problem I'm aware of at the moment that is to Template:Self, and the bot is stopped now while I work on that and then check if any other edits had the same problem. Anomie⚔ 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nothing to see here. I jumped the gun based on some confusion. Sorry for the panic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've gone through the bot's edits and reverted any others that had this problem. I've also updated the bot to prevent this from recurring. Anomie⚔ 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2014

This article was re-created since its 2nd AFD. It was tagged for "speedy deletion" twice, and someone else removed it, insisting that addition of references change everything. I wanted to request undeletion in WP:REFUND, but I guess I must discuss this first with you. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As an editor who did not create the article I am able to remove the speedy deletion tag. You have said[108] on my talk page: "I don't know whether changes are substantial or not". So why are you proposing it for speedy deletion for being significantly similar to a deleted page when you don't know that it is?

The article in question was last deleted in May of this year, but the current article includes no fewer than 9 references that were written after the deletion. They are facts like who the contestants are going to be, which weren't decided until after the last deletion. I submit that it can't possibly be "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the old article. ParacusForward (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogspot and some primary sources do not count as a drastically different article. I've deleted it under CSD G4.--v/r - TP 01:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say I don't understand this decision. When the original discussion[109] took place one of the editors agreeing with deletion thought the article should be recreated in 2013 or 2014. And at the last deletion discussion[110] one of the 2 voters said: "Too soon. Don't yet know where it will be, or who will be there." The page is gone now, but I recall that we now knew where it was going to be and at least 9 of the contestants.

I can't really judge the decision properly because I can't access article that existed the last time deletion was discussed. I guess while anyone can nominate an article for WP:CSD#G4 only administrators can truly judge the merits of such a request. I'm surprised it fulfilled the speedy deletion criteria, because the reason for deletion no longer applied (new facts had come forward) and it was a different article (new references). ParacusForward (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Read this policy and then find sources that meet it--v/r - TP 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are linking to that page. The reliability of the sources has absolutely nothing to do with even an A7 speedy delete. This was a WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete which has a completely different criteria: the article must be a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted". There are two reasons why a speedy delete would not be appropriate: an article which is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" or "reason for the deletion no longer applies." It seems logical to me that the page that was speedily deleted fit both of those criteria. I don't know that I object to the article being deleted, but I don't think a speedy delete is appropriate. I would appriciate it if someone else who can see the original article can confirm that it meets the strict WP:CSD#G4 criteria. ParacusForward (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've checked two different pages — 2014 Miss Universe and 2016 Formula One — and can confirm that they're nowhere near being reposts. G4 is definitely strict, and it's completely unrelated to matters of sourcing. Keep it up, because the application of this criterion to these articles is blatant abuse of our speedy deletion policy. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

2016 Formula One Season is mostly a cut and paste of 2015 Formula One season. Everything from Team and driver changes down. The section is partially a cut and paste....William 23:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ParacusForward's other contributions

User:ParacusForward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I notice that ParacusForward declined speedy deletion on Christmas with Irving James & Friends, but this article is a mess and may not meet WP:NMUSIC (or indicate importance). Check his other contributions. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Christmas with Irving James & Friends is a mess and may not meet WP:NMUSIC. New pages often are, but I don't believe it meets the requirements for speedy deletion. It plainly says at WP:CSD#A9 that this is a lower standard than WP:NMUSIC. It says that "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist." I showed that it did not meet this requirement here[111]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParacusForward (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So? Having a minor contributing artist with a Wikipedia page still doesn't establish notability. Irving Jame himself does not have a page and can be deleted as such. I don't know why you turned down my CSD nomination. KonveyorBelt 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I turned down the nomination because a speedy delete has specific criteria, and, as I explained above, this article did not meet it. We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of this page: WP:CSD. It says "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines." Irving James is the producer of the album, the WP:CSD#A9 page does not say the producer must have a Wikipedia page. ParacusForward (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The article can be PRODded anytime. Feels that the whole system is either manipulated or abused, and I won't say that it wasn't you. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• ParacusForward with only 25 edits to mainspace clearly lacks sufficient experience to patrol pages. Either they agree unconditionally to refrain from patrolling and tagging pages until they have a knowledge compatible with the task, or be Tbanned from patrolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

See #Miss Universe 2014. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize my actions constituted patrolling. I think all of my actions followed a plain-text interpretation of the WP:CSD page, but I can see how WP:SNOW applies in this area and it seems that there is a culture of rubber stamping these that I wasn't able to pick up from my reading. If no one here cares to defend me, I clearly need more experience. ParacusForward (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rubber stamping is exactly what we endeavour to avoid. You certainly need more experience before tagging pages, but this is not a criticism - everyone has to start somewhere. If my comment on your talk page or here appeared to be a little impatient, it's because we have enormous problems at NPP, such as this morning with only one patroller on duty, and up to 1,000 pages a day being created. If you can learn fast, you are welcome to help out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being the first to be even a little supportive of a new editor trying to help the project. I feel I have been rather shabbily treated in all this. The first indication that anyone objected to any of my edits was this[112] post here on AN. George didn't talk to me before relisting the article for speedy delete nor did he reference the concerns with a speedy delete I had originally brought up when adding his to the article. It seemed reasonable to me that he hadn't even seen it.

Rather than discussing the topic with me there was an immediate post on the administrator board, a witch-hunt: "Check his other contributions"[113], and accusations of bad faith[114]. And then you propose I be banned from the area when no one has pointed to policy I violated and I haven't done any changes since objections were raised. I was hoping someone here would support me even a little, but this place isn't very friendly to newbies. I can understand why the area is understaffed. ParacusForward (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents here is that neither of his declines were hugely unreasonable. In one case there were new sources and in the other, it did does have a credible assertion of notability (Emmy award-winners being involved will do that, though I don't know that I believe the statement is true). I personally would have declined the one on the album and either sent it to AfD or prodded it (there is nearly no chance it meets WP:N). I'd probably have let the Miss Universe speedy stand. In other words, I think you all need to back off a bit. In any case, a trout to George for apparently bringing this to AN before discussing it with the user. That seems outrageous given that there was no pressing issue that needed to be quickly resolved. WP:BITE and all that... Hobit (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Hobit. Had I encountered the G4 tag on Miss Universe 2014 I would have removed it myself, for the obvious reason that the article does have some substantial differences to the version that went to AfD. Christmas with Irving James & Friends is a slightly closer call, but there's certainly no reason to censure someone for removing that tag. If anything, Paracus appears to be one of the good guys who applies the CSD as they are meant to be applied - highly specifically, and with close attention to the possible exceptions. There's certainly nothing in his editing I can see that merits dragging him here, and I'd recommend this thread be closed and archived as soon as possible. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I support his declines. For the record album. It unambiguously does not meet the speedy criterion, and anyone who did tag it was wrong, and any admin who deleted it on that ground needs a review of WP:CSD. In the other case there were news sources; as non-admins can not see the deleted article, it is reasonable to remove the tag is they think it might be an improved version. Lack of notability is not a speedy criterion. , I'm surprised at some of the comments. The new ed may need experience in other respects, but these two actions were correct. I think we need to apologize him for the actions of more experienced people who understand less than he does. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having looked over a number of ParacusForward's other speedy declines again a bit more thoroughly, I'd say he's doing a bang-up job removing inappropriate CSD tags. CAT:CSD is a page I patrol almost daily, and I've lost count of the number of times I've had to remove hastily-added tags where the CSD criteria were not only unmet, but completely irrelevant to the page. If anything, we need more non-admins who are willing to look through that category, find sources and delist articles that don't deserve the swift guillotine of speedy deletion: as far as I can tell, ParacusForward is just such a contributor. He's to be commended, not condemned. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He is? How about his removal[115] of the CSD tag on 2016 Formula One season? That article went through AFD but has constantly been recreated(A problem all future Formula One seasons have had. Would you believe there was a 2019 Formula One article in 2010? The 2013 or 2014 FO article was speedy deleted five or six times.) since. Twice in the last month before a third time yesterday. It was speedy deleted two times and should be again with a healthy dose of WP:SALT till at least next summer or it will be recreated again before Christmas. Heck I'd give even money its up again less than 10 days after an AFD closes as delete. Which is where it is headed at present....William 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

William, have you ever made a mistke at CSD? I certainly have., and I feel much worse about the ones I;ve deleted thant shouldn't have been, than the ones that I could have removed by speedy, but got deleted later. The rule there is that except for vandalism and libel and BLP violations and undoubted copyvio, it's always safer to delete the tag. If something still needs to be removed quickly, you can ask for a speedy delete at afd; if the content is a real problem, you can blank it in the process. G4 is a perennial problem criterion because a non admin cannot see the deleted content, & there are always disputes about how far something must be improved to pass it 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

<ec with DGG>OK, first of all the article is at a different name than it was deleted at via an AfD and the person who placed the speedy tag didn't link to the other discussion. That would make it appear to be an invalid speedy. Secondly, speedy deleting something like this based on 3-year-old AfD isn't the right call. So even if he did find the history, it's a reasonable decline. Sure, it will likely get deleted at AfD but A) it was reasonable to decline and and B) that something gets deleted at AfD doesn't mean that removing the speedy was the wrong thing to do. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody is playing games with these constant recreations and I'll give you two reasons for my opinion- The present article reminds me too much of one of previous creations. Not the last one, but one from October or earlier. The editor who created this version is almost brand new to Wikipedia. That suggests somebody's sockpuppet. Who it belongs to, I have no idea. Secondly- The newly named article is ever so slightly spelled different(Season rather than season) than its previous versions. I don't think that's an accident but an attempt to escape detection. At least one other editor, other than myself, have confessed to having 2016 Formula One season and some more distant years on their watch list. If it is deleted again at AFD, the article will be back again within the month if not much earlier as sure as snow will fall in Alaska between now and Christmas....William 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of that, these pages do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. For example, the 2016 Formula One season is a completely new page, not a repost, and the 2014 Miss Universe page before AFD was three gibberish sentences, two empty sections, and a tiny list of a few countries. Nothing like the new creations! Deleting these articles under G5 is a blatant abuse of the process; you're going to have to get consensus for a new criterion or for a vastly expanded current criterion if you want these to be eligible for deletion based on these AFDs. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The page was deleted in October, what did it look like then?(BTW I said this version didn't look like the one before it) Or the one deleted last June? I think the Season page was deleted too once before(Like February of last year). Did you check this section in the 2015 article[116] against the 2016 article[117]? It is a cut and paste of 2015 onto 2016 and even says it. There's a citation needed tag on both articles in the same place.

No the abuse of process are the sockpuppetry that's going on. Look at the editors of the the most recent version, and the one before that. A brand new editor doing an article. In the last case, a article with numerous citations. That, these editors disappearing shortly after the recreations, and being SPAs and the constant recreations, three since March 15, smell of somebody's socks. I've done enough Ryan kirkpatrick hunting to know the tell tale signs....William 23:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to ask for pages to be deleted under G5, "created by sockpuppets of blocked or banned users", you can do it. Don't abuse a different criterion to get pages without spending the effort to demonstrate that sockpuppetry is going on. You could have made it far easier if you'd tagged the page as a copyvio, which it is, because it's a copy of the 2015 article without any attribution whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

• The template at the top of the page states that it's a guideline, but then the template right under it states that it's an essay. Which is it? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Irony. At any rate, SilkTork made the change on November 19, 2012 per this discussion and this ambiguity has existed since then. I've removed the tag that said it was an essay, since the discussion he closed was a proposal to make both one, consolidated guideline. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Poop

This article was speedy deleted numerous times before salting in 2007. However, several commercially published books have since written about the term, meaning it's now (IMHO) notable. A new version of the article is parked in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YouTube Poop, but it can't be moved to mainspace because of the protected title. Could an admin please unsalt this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance of doing the talk page too? ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

One day left to nominate, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

There is just over 1 day left for candidates in the December 2013 Arbcom election to Nominate themselves. There are currently only 9 candidates running for 9 open seats, and while there are often last minute nominations, I wanted to remind everyone that time is running out to nominate yourself. Nominations close at 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday the 19th. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never voted in the ArbCom elections. Is there a place to sign up for a notification when voting begins? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Voting starts on November 25th. 28bytes (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe another year. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

28bytes, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

template:very long

I'm unsure if this template is overused. However, I don't find size a major issue, unless I find size obstructing my readability and ability to edit per WP:article size. Cat was tagged as "very long", but the tag was removed as unproductive. Can someone here check its transclusions? --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

People have to remember that we're aiming for page delivery to the broadest possible audience, meaning that while myself and probably most regulars on WP have no problem with pages greater than 50k of prose, readers with low-end computing devices, smaller screens, limited bandwidth, or other reasons will have problems, and hense why WP:SIZE needs to be kept in mind. Cat is 93k of prose text which just sneaks in under the "split" recommendation of SIZE, hence why it was considered unproductive; at least, in a case like this, if you believe the article was long, you probably should have a recommended course of action for how to deal with it than just tagging it. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Coffee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure what's going on with this Admin, but he seems to be acting in an aggresive, unseemly and uncostructive manner towards good fath contributors. He threatened me for using the argument "Keep per substantial coverage in reliable source" at articles for deletion discussions. He's removed a very experienced and competent editor's autopatrol rights because he thinks some of his articles should be deleted (the three I just checked at actual Articles for Deletion discussions all appear headed towards keep outcomes). He's made snide comments to me and other veterans including DGG. I think this admin needs to be reined in. He's acting inappropriately and like a jerk. Maybe he needs a break? Thanks for any assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs linking to where the behavior you're complaining about has happened? It can be very difficult for someone who has no idea what you're talking about to wade through your and/or his contributions and find what you're referring to, and until we know what you're talking about we can't analyze what's going on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff for the revocation.[118] There are no other diffs on this issue (I'm sure User:Candleabracadabra provide them for the other issues) - it came right out of the blue. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was stunned to see User:In ictu oculi's rights revoked. Am I missing something? It was for creating articles that should be speedily deleted, but I don't see any deletion notifications on the user's talk page. In the absence of a good reason, the In ictu oculi's rights should be reinstated immediately. As for User:Coffee, it certainly looks like he/she was an involved admin (as the nominator of the deletion discussion on the biblical articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath), and the revocation seems like it's being used a weapon in deletion debates. StAnselm (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Candleabracadabra - I've checked every page where you and Coffee interacted and I see nothing like what your describing. [119]--v/r - TP 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

He told me that making the arugment "Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources" may be considered disruptive twice (on my page and on his). Coming from an admin this a serious threat. He should take back these statements, as there's no basis in policy stating that sources have to be provided in support of statements at deletion discussions. No good faith editor should be bullied and threatened in this manner. It might seem minor to others, but when you accuse those acting in good faith and in a manner consistent with policy of disrupting Wikipedia that is highly problematic. Do his statements constitute a warning and will I be subject to a block if I argue that something should be Kept because it's covered substantially in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In other words, the editor interaction analyzer is broken. This edit, for example, doesn't show up. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this subject an appropriate speedy deletion Bartholomeus Ruloffs and what about Raffaele Mertes (noted in existed articles)?

I am not an admin so I cannot view the deleted content, but given the links and mentions in existing articles regarding the subject I think a proper deletion discussion would have been more appropriate. It is my understanding that speedy deletions don't show up in an admin's editing log (although I think there was some other way to see them), I would appreciate it if someone could review those undertaken by Coffee. These articles seem reasonable to me so I'm not sure on what basis they are getting blasted? Again, I don't have access to what was there, so maybe I am off. But given his other recent actions I think it's worth someone having a look. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Turgay Erdener. I am only able to see these because he's also removed wikilinks from numerous articles to these now speedily deleted articles. If someone wants to provide me a list of the articles he's speedily deleted I will try to look through them. But it might be better if others (one or more) had a look. I'm not looking for a fight. I just think that good faith editors and their work should be treated with some respect. Isn't that at the core of what civility is supposed to be about? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - St Anselm alerted me to this discussion. I wonder if User Coffee's use of admin tools relates to my response (listing the notability criteria) on Lingdian (band), not exactly well known in the west, but one of the top dozen Chinese rock bands of the 90s and internationally promoted after signing to JVC.

I was unaware of 19:20, 18 November 2013 Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page Raffaele Mertes (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person) (TW)). The A7 was placed without notification despite interlinks to it:Raffaele Mertes, de:Raffaele Mertes, pl:Raffaele Mertes. Again not well known in English-speaking countries, but even if I used Italian sources (quite likely, I can't remember) a simple Google Book check would find entry in Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors Jerry Roberts - 2009 p385 "RAFFAELE MERTES Movies: Esther (1999), Mary Magdalene (2000), The Apocalypse (2002) A cinematographer who has shot many international co-productions, Mertes's Biblical films as director of photography include Roger Young's ...". I would expect a notification for a deletion of a sourced BLP on someone with it. de. and pl. interwikis.

My question would be, was Raffaele Mertes "targeted" because I was the stub creator, or is it statistically likely that it was coincidence? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks like User:Coffee needs to explain his or her actions in these matters. From the information above, I suggest that we reinstate the Raffaele Mertes article. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Second comment - I was also unaware of Turgay Erdener. The composer tr:Turgay Erdener is a widely noted figure in Turkish guitar and film music. I can remember that footnotes included (1) his bio in Evin İlyasoğlu 71 Turkish composers 2007 p211 and (2) Ahmet Say The Music Makers in Turkey 1995 "Turgay ERDENER (b. 1957) The first most important composer of young generation, Erdener has proved his prolificacy with his recent works. At the State Conservatory of Ankara he started in 1968, he studied ..." etc. But that isn't the issue. Normally with deleting a reasonably well known Turkish composer an AFD rather than a speedy should be used, in order to allow Alerts time to register with WikiProject Turkey and WikiProject Composers for example.

Again, was this coincidence or was Erdener's BLP stub speedied because I created the stub? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I currently only have access to reply via my cell phone, so I can't write the long dissertations I normally do for these matters. I can only state that all of my actions were done within the realms of policy and nothing more. What Candleabracadabra's intentions are here, well I'm not entirely certain. The one direct interaction I've had with this user was regarding him treating the AFD process like a vote and failing to provide sources along with his argument. This was of course after I had seen him do this on several different AFDs that I was reviewing, and I perceived this as disruptive behavior and told him to cite the references he was claiming were available. I found this to be a simple request, obviously he did not. Nonetheless, fellow admins can review the articles I deleted and ensure they were done in accordance with policy. If someone informs me this is not the case I'll gladly restore them, but I'm fairly certain that won't happen. Lastly, it's standard procedure to remove the autopatrolled right if there appears to be a pattern of creating articles that can be speedied... again I'm feeling fairly confident in my actions here, but I'm always open to constructive criticism. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Third comment - likewise I received no notification for the deletion of Bartholomeus Ruloffs. The composer who created what was noted as the most successful 18th Century opera in Dutch and has 3,000 Google Book hits is not a natural candidate for unnotified speedy deletion. I cannot remember what the sources were, presuming they included Dutch Culture in a European Perspective 2004 and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Opera 1996 in both of which the composer receives extensive mention. The article was tagged with WikiProject Netherlands and WikiProject Opera, both projects should have been given the chance to see an alert for this deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with these articles is that information wasn't in them, as they stood they simply did not assert notability (unless I'm losing my ability to read). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite apart from whether the articles should have been speedied, there are still the questions remaining as to why User:In ictu oculi wasn't informed about the speedy nominations, and why he wasn't warned before his rights were revoked. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Although I've not found the threats and snide comments to which Candleabracadabra refers, I've checked the speedy deletions, and I can say this: Coffee isn't going to be able to restore at least some of these pages, because they're so far from good candidates that I've simply restored them outright. In ictu oculi has unambiguously demonstrated notability for Raffaele Mertes and Bartholomeus Ruloffs, so I restored RM and will restore BR momentarily. I'm tempted to restore the autopatrolled right as well, but I'll leave that to someone else to prevent objections of "WP:INVOLVED!" Let me suggest that the presence of articles in several other Wikipedias is by itself a sufficient claim of importance to ward off an A7 deletion: it may not suggest notability, but it shows that the person either is deemed important internationally (in which case we shouldn't delete without AFD), or that the person is spamming himself, so the article should be deleted as spam, criterion G11, which is "firmer" in the sense that it won't be overturned as easily as an A7 deletion will. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with those pages being restored if the assertion of notability is formally established. As the articles were wrote at the time of my deletions this assertion simply wasn't there, and interwiki links do not make this assertion (unless there's some huge policy I've failed to read on that). As to the failure to notify, that is my fault. I thought Twinkle did it automatically, but this is evidently not the case. Regardless, until IIO can convince me he's not making stubs that are empty of a notability assertion I'm not certain why he should have it restored. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't any discussion of the deletions on In Ictu Oculi's talkpage, so I'm puzzled; which discussion led to the removal of autopatrolled? Was it a discussion at a different AfD? bobrayner (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed it thinking it wouldn't be that controversial of a decision if he had made articles that qualified for speedy deletion... As the autopatrolled right does nothing more than cause the articles to bypass the patrollers. It was a strictly pragmatic move. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You revoked the user rights of an editor with 74,000 edits, and you didn't think it would be controversial? StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. It seemed like a rather run of the mill action to take. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am depending on you administrators to behave in certain ways. One thing I depend upon is that if I do something wrong I will be warned on my talk page so I can voluntarily stop doing it instead of having one of my user rights -- even a minor one like autopatrolled -- removed. I am counting on the fact that, even if I think the warning is totally bogus, if I stop doing whatever I was warned not to do and open a discussion about whether I should do it at the appropriate forum, the "preventative not punitive" rule will be satisfied. In other words, if a warning alone is effective in preventing me from doing it again there should be no reason to remove a user right. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• De-linked - based on Candleabracadabra's comment above I just checked and see User:Coffee delinked 20 articles from the Dutch and Turkish composers and Italian filmmaker unnotified speedy deleted. Can User:Coffee be requested to restore the blue links please? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'd gladly do so (if we're taking about the ones notability was just established for)... but I'm obviously limited by being on my phone. If another editor/admin wants to, they are free to do so. Otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow morning when I'm back at my computer. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems User:Nyttend has already restored 16 of the 20 links, waiting on the Turkish composer for the others. I have just seen another one on my Watchlist. vi:Phan Văn Hùm which is preserved on Google as Phan Văn Hùm as follows: Phan Văn Hùm (9 April 1902 - 1946) was a Vietnamese Trotskyite. He was killed by the Viet Minh in the days following the Japanese surrender in Vietnam at the .." Phan Van Hum + Trotskyite gets 82 hits in English Google Books, which of them were used in the stub I have no idea. But this and the contributions history makes it evident that Coffee's Speedys and AFDs were selected on the basis of the editor not the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply to your final point there in the morning.— Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The speedy's and AFDs came after a review on your recent edits (sparked by my response at the aforementioned AFD)... however, the decision to either delete the articles or create the AFDs was not based on them being yours, but instead on my perceived observation that these articles didn't pass WP:CSD or other relevant policy. I had intended on you being notified of this through the WP:TW system I use... but it appears that is not an automatic feature of the extension. As such, it seemed in my eyes that you would have been able to contact me on my talk page if you had an argument for how these articles did indeed meet the intent of WP:CSD (in which case they would have been restored)... obviously this was not the case, and I have to take full responsibility for that. At any rate, there were no malicious intentions against you in my actions. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tired admin needs his rest - It's been an eventful discussion gentlemen, but I'm afraid I need to get some rest. Please be aware that I won't be able to reply to your questions or concerns until tomorrow morning (I will ensure to set some time aside to do so). Thank you for your understanding, and a good night to you all. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tired admin - ? seriously, what about the rest of us?

I'm sorry but neither that, nor the attitude to WP:SNOW Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath seem to show any step down from the stance being taken. There are two sets of issues here:

(1) relates to normal editor/User rights/behaviours - were the Prods/AfDs targeted against a particular fellow editor?

(2) use of admin tools. I'm not familiar with the rules here. Is it normal to both A7 prod and then self-implement immediately one's own prod on a sourced article? Since the edit history has vanished it is impossible to tell how much time elapsed between prodding Raffaele Mertes, Bartholomeus Ruloffs, Turgay Erdener, Phan Văn Hùm and implementing own Prod.

User:Coffee/PROD_log does not show these prods, it only shows Raising of the son of the widow of Nain: PROD; notified 69.10.125.10 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC) and Raising of Jairus' daughter where the creators were notified. Also the use of admin tools in unnotified removal of reviewer/autopatroller status.

In the meantime can someone please restore Turgay Erdener and Phan Văn Hùm - if needed quick look at tr.wp and vi.wp as per comments above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Turgay Erdener restored, incorrect speedy, sources provided make it at worst an AfD candidate, at best an acceptable article topic. Fram (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? I'm always willing to see things through a different perspective, but I'm not quite understanding how two brief mentions about a person establish a claim/indication of importance. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind this request... MLauba seems to have answered my question. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've restored autopatrolled, as the grounds for given for removal have been mooted. There's one thing my tired colleague may have forgotten yesterday, the nuance in the WP:CSD#A7 criterion which excludes any article that makes a credible claim of importance - articles that do so even while failing to pass the WP:GNG cannot be speedied under A7. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm still failing to see where the claim of importance was in any of these articles at the time of their deletion. If we're saying it was in the references, I still don't see it (except perhaps in the case of Bartholomeus Ruloffs). And if we're saying it's the fact that they had references at all, well that's simply not in the policy (as far as I know). I read and re-read the policy yesterday and I tried to ensure these deletions were done in accordance with it. Obviously I'm still missing something or perhaps... fell down a flight of stairs. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Coffee, I may be suffering from that same problem involving stairs and an over-zealous enforcement of the laws of gravity, but it was my impression that by long-standing consensus, any reference in an article that isn't obviously bogus is to be interpreted as a claim of significance. Indeed, it means at least one third party independent source has taken note of the article's subject. Now those references may not stand up to scrutiny, they may be trivial mentions, they may not be reliable, but when any of this needs to be determined, A7 is ruled out. The claim hasn't to be proven in order to disqualify for A7, it merely has to be made. Now some of these articles may be borderline, but "was a significant early step towards producing an opera in Dutch", or an inclusion into a reference work on contemporary Turkish musicians, really are claims of importance that merit a closer examination. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well in that case I'll just go back in my corner. But, can we get that added to the actual policy anyways? As, I was not aware of (or have forgotten) that particular stipulation... and I've been here for several years. Also... I imagine then that this too would be creating a claim of importance via the presence of a reference (the idea that she was signed by a particular label doesn't seem to make that claim on it's own...)? I seem to have a habit of learning through mistakes like this... perhaps one day I'll eventually be infallible. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not active enough by several orders of magnitude to offer any more substantive input. I've taken the liberty of userifying that article and bring the matter up at WT:CSD, I could very well do with a good cup of clarifying third party opinions myself. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Outstanding questions - There are some outstanding questions:

(1) why, Coffee, did select these 8 article stubs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath, Lucky Star (Gene Vincent song), Raffaele Mertes, Bartholomeus Ruloffs, Phan Văn Hùm, Turgay Erdener, Genie Pace. They appear to have been selected because of the editor, is that correct?

(2) is the reason for these edits because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingdian (band)

(3) why did not you not notify a prod on Raffaele Mertes, Bartholomeus Ruloffs, Phan Văn Hùm, Turgay Erdener, Genie Pace?

(4) how much time elapsed between A7 prod and implementing own A7?

(5) above you state that to have "revoked the user rights of an editor with 74,000 edits" (St Anselm's words) was "a rather run of the mill action to take" (your words). Does that mean it is an action you have done before without warning and would do again?

(6) is this an isolated incident? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I would add a (7) which is why is an admin closing an AfD and then going to the talk page of a user who made a reasonable, if admittedly not properly detailed, !vote to warn them that their behaviour 'may be considered disruptive' [120]? I think Candleabracadabra has a point that this behaviour from an admin carries a subtle implied threat, and is inappropriate.--Korruski^Talk 08:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• All of the relevant questions have already been answered above (this includes 1, 2, 3, and 7). 4 shows the editor has confused the PROD process with the A7 process. 5 is worded in a manner that removes those particular statements out of the context of this entire discussion. 6 seems to insinuate that the editors/admins in this discussion would have missed other incidents of this order, which I feel is somewhat disingenuous. - It is my goal to remain civil throughout this discussion, to answer every legitimate question proposed, and to hopefully walk away from this with a better way of handling issues like this in the future. But I would appreciate if we could at least not re-ask questions I've already answered. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see that you did, sort of, engage with that issue above. I don't find your answer especially convincing, but let me rephrase my question (and it's not directly aimed at you) - a) Are we, as a community, happy that making a !vote that refers to supposedly available sources but doesn't actually link to any is 'disruptive'? And b) are we happy that it is proper for a closing Admin to go to the user talk pages of people who made a good faith !vote on the AfD in question and tell them they need to !vote better in future. For me, the answer to both is 'no', but I simply seek consensus so that we can all behave better in future.--Korruski^Talk 15:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Korruski: I had no harsh intentions against Candleabracadabra, but merely requested that he back up his arguments at AFD. To point a: My assertion of disruptive editing was not in relation to the overall project, as most editors might assume, but instead was directed at being disruptive to the process (I did not threaten to block and did not mean for such a move to be implied... apparently I could have been more clear in that regard). To point b: I would respectfully disagree. Instead I think there should be more things we're (community wide... not just admins) willing to tell people to help improve their editing etc; much to the same effect as this discussion happening. It's part of the evolutionary process of the mind. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Coffee needs to disengage from both Candleabracadabra and In ictu oculi immediately. He's essentially hounding them, and even if he wasn't, his bullying of votes and user rights removal were done improperly. Disengagement means not posting on their talk pages, not nominating their articles for deletion, and not closing discussions either they started or were about articles they created. Non-admins have been blocked for that sort of thing, and he should expect calls for him to relinquish his tools if he doesn't. pbp 14:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• For some strange reason I get the feeling you're jumping into this discussion has a lot less to do with the civilised discussion going on here, and a lot more to do with this whole situation. Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black... if I say so myself. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• How 'bout a little less ungermane diffs and a little more apologies for your unacceptable actions. Your close was unacceptable in my mind, but not worthy of defrocking you. Hounding other editors and misusing your tools is. Please stick to the topic at hand! Thank you pbp 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Those who seek to remove content from context, will deceive no one but themselves. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• You've done things that people have blocked me for. Either you're a hypocrite or you should be blocked. Furthermore, I don't see why it's necessary to badmouth me when I'm not the subject of this thread. pbp 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that the first thing you did when I criticized you was criticize me back does not speak well, Coffee. It's not the behavior I want an admin to have. Furthermore, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of space defending your actions. I've never seen other admins make as many comments when their actions are criticized as you have. pbp 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• That may be the most ridiculous statement I've heard brought up here yet. This is a discussion board which specifically states (at the top) that it is used for "discussion of administration methods". That seems to be what's happening in this thread, regardless of whether you like it or not. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• PBP, is there a reason to reignite drama almost 2 days after the last action was taken, the issues were repaired, and while a series of civil discussions are taking place to ensure that any mistakes won't be repeated? MLauba ^(Talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• MLauba, no offense, I'm turning your question into a rhetorical one by hatting this section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Coffee, this ain't a discussion. This is mostly just you saying "I'm right" a bunch of times (more than is needed, IMO), while continuing to badmouth the two people you hounded, and now you're badmouthing me or anybody else who criticizes you. You should be saying, "I understand the community doesn't like what I did. I'm sorry for what I did, and I won't do it again." Again, if a non-admin had done what you did and followed it up by criticizing his detractors, he'd probably be slapped with a substantial block. All I'm asking is you self-impose an interaction ban on yourself with those two editors, and not do what you're doing to other editors. That doesn't seem grounds for attacking me in the way you are. pbp 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• That statement is evidence that you failed to even read this thread before commenting here. And I've yet to attack you... instead I've brought up the very valid point that you've been banned from a sister Wikimedia site (interestingly enough for exhibiting this exact type of behavior), and have a vested interest in this matter as a certain DRV didn't go the way you'd hoped for. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Saying I have a "vested interest" is a stretch. Having your tools taken away won't get the article deleted, and I said above. I think your conduct toward the two editors is unbecoming of an admin, and I'd think that no matter how you closed the AfD. And you continue to disparage me rather than explain your actions, which in my opinion is conduct unbecoming an administrator. Berating me doesn't make your actions; noting that they have gotten other editors blocked actually makes the case that you should be blocked yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself. pbp 17:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note to fellow admins: pbp removed a hat placed here by Floquenbeam unilaterally. I reverted pbp once, but I'm not reverting it again as I'm too involved. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Rather than re-hat and get into a silly back and forth, it might be more productive to ignore further comments from PBP. A "virtual" hat, if you will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • My comments are as valid as anybody's, Floq. The hat was inappropriately placed and amounted to a supervote. Floq was wrong to put it into the thread in the manner he did, and Coffee was wrong to war to keep it that way. pbp 17:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Coffee's clarification and comments above in reply to Korruski. I think this matter can be closed. Coffee, I would like to point out that there were instances where you included aspersions in your comments along the lines of "I'm not sure why he brought this matter up here", where you suggested that an editor was using their autopatroller status to intentionally create articles that didn't pass muser, and where you brought into the discussion content disputes not directly related to the discussion to suggest that someone is inserting themselves out of tainted motivations. Please keep in mind the importance of assuming good faith, even when it may not be readily apparent in the moment. I understand that you were away for a while and I thank you for your service. If you ever have concerns about my editing you are most welcome to let me know and I hope we can be collegial going forward. Thanks to those who have taken the time to look into this matter and help get it resolved. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for your understanding in this matter. I attempt to act in a civilised manner regularly... but there are times where I don't fully plan according to the inherent perception given off by my actions/words (this is usually sparked from my passion for making this site a superior knowledge source). Indeed there are ways that I can always improve my knowledge and actions, as I'm sure we all can. As such I've used this entire discussion as a learning experience, and in that regard appreciated this discussion. At any rate, I'm sure our paths will cross on this site many more times. Therefore, I too am looking forward to fully collegial interactions in all our future collaborations. (Unrelated to those more important points: pbp's intentions are unquestionably not in good faith, you may not understand this as you're most likely not familiar with the surrounding situation (or perhaps you are... I'm assuming here) but I would be willing to bet my life on what his unstated motivations are, and I tend to be pretty good at these sorts of things). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cosplay image back and forth

Not sure how to handle this one: New user, Queen Azshara with a total of four edits (half of them reverts - more on that in a sec) has uploaded a cosplay image of the character Mara Jade in the article of the same name. The image is from Commons, and normally, we use images from commons, but…its a cosplay image of some person dressed up like the character.
After the cosplay image was uploaded to Commons, it was inserted into the Mara Jade article, and the new contributor has reverted it back in twice already without explanation. If I didn't AGF, I'd suspect that the contributor is an SPA with a personal stake in ensuring that the image remain in place (its easier to get a convention gig - and better pay - if your image is the one actually used in Wikipedia for a fictional character).
I've tried contacting the user, to no avail. I have reverted it out twice already. I suspect that Queen Azshara will undoubtedly revert it back once again. I am unsure how to proceed, apart from either asking for a semi-prot'ing of the article and addressing the Commons licensing; the image is not actually that of Mara Jade, but an amateur pretending to be her. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User: Queen Azshara notified. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's forget about motives for a moment; sadly we have yet to find a way to reliably investigate the contents of editors' minds, let alone base policy on it. (A large proportion of images are added to articles by those images' creators).

Let's focus on three other points: Does the image improve the article or not? Is there a genuine copyright problem on Commons? And does this issue belong at WP:AN? bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Answering the questions in the order asked:

1. No, as the image is not of the article's subject.

2. I haven't a clue, except for the aforementioned problem with the labeling of the image as someone it is pretty definitely not.

3. Seeing as I am unsure how to proceed int he face of a new editor willing to revert themselves into oblivion, I thought that one of you fine, experienced peeps might help ejumikate the new contributor. They aren't listening to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Independent reviewer

1. There is already an image (if used under Fair Use arguments) that is more canonical in terms of what the subject of the article looks like, so no this image does not improve the article.
2. Taking a photo of your own creation is not a copyright issue (unless the photo is not theirs to begin with).
3. This probably belongs at WP:ANEW, but since it's here we might as well deal with it
4. (and this is the big one) Queen Azshara claims that the image is their own work so they have a conflict of interest in promoting it. Edit warring to get their image in is a real big no no. That they refuse to discuss is indicative that they don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia.

I was independent up to the point that I reverted the addition as well.Hasteur (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Independent until I reverted the user) Agree the image is not appropriate and almost certainly a COI, but the more pressing issue is the blatant edit warring and failure to discuss either via edit summaries, the talk page, or the user's own talk page. I have opened a report at WP:ANI/EW but, as Hasteur rightly points out, it would be better to keep discussion in one place, so if we can handle it here then all the better.--Korruski^Talk 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Queen Azshara is now blocked 48 hours per the complaint at WP:AN3#User:Queen Azshara reported by User:Korruski (Result: 48 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WMF cease and desist against WikiPR

Hey all,

Because there has been a substantial amount of discussion on this topic here I wanted to point out a blog post (and linked file) that the WMF just posted about a cease and desist that was sent to WikiPR regarding the community ban and sock/meat puppetry. Jalexander--WMF 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Its great to see the WMF stepping in. I'll post a link to here from relevant notice boards. Thanks Ross Hill (talk) 21:06, 19 Nov 2013 (UTC) 21:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! Thank you, WMF, for bringing out the big Gunn to stop Wiki-PR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'ma get legal on your ass." GiantSnowman 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

<joke><wikilawyering>Great, now we have to levy a WP:NLT block on Sue Gardner.</wikilawyering></joke> Definitely agree with this action; I don't understand relevant law enough to know whether this will directly have an effect, but I appreciate how WMF's publicly denouncing the situation instead of leaving the denunciations to the editors alone. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WMF, you are the wind beneath my wings. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am truly shocked (pleasantly!) by this. Nice to see WMF with a bit of backbone here. Ravensfire (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good news. But, just for the sake of pedantry, why is this an issue for administrators in particular? ;-) bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't, just seemed like a good place to leave a note since it's read a lot more then WP:VPM, It was involved in the ban and I knew people (like Ross above) would be great at taking it to other important spots :). Jalexander--WMF 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case, it seems to me this is an administrative issue in so much that if an administrator finds themselves dealing with someone they believe to be WikiPR in the future, they may want to let the WMF. 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I add my thanks to the WMF for this. It really was a step that needed to be taken, and I, for one, appreciate your taking a stand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales's talk page, related to this discussion. Regards, Ross Hill (talk) 00:52, 20 Nov 2013 (UTC) 00:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection Template Errors

When articles get protected, semi-protected, or pending-change protected, etc., they sometimes don't have their templates or their expiration dates displaying. Is is clear that bots and other users who put the templates make mistakes by forgetting to input the expiration date or the template while the article has page protection. Some registered users correct the mistakes up to the semi-protection but some say it's forbidden and only administrators can do that. If you could please, could you look into the "Requests for Page Protection" topic and check the articles that receive page protection to see if there's any errors including the missed templates and expiration dates? ModernSportsEra (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't understand you. When we protect a page, there's always an expiration date, unless the protection is specifically set to be for an indefinite period of time. What do you mean by "their templates", as well? Do you mean the little padlock that appears atop protected pages? Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The protection templates which generate the padlocks have code in them which tries to figure out a page's protection level. If they think the page isn't protected, they won't display the padlock. If the padlock isn't displaying but the page is protected and has the correct template on it, try purging the page or performing a null edit on it. Graham87 03:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there was an upgrade to mwparserfromhell that caused my bot to skip over many of the pages it was supposed to edit. Perhaps the fix I have applied will help. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Loomspicker_again

The closing user has admittedly failed to notice the only users supporting this action were already involved in a dispute with myself in the topic area elsewhere. For reasons unknown, the closer has declined to review the close, would another editor do so.--Loomspicker (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at User_talk:Armbrust#Loomspicker_topic_ban (will be archived to User_talk:Armbrust/Archive 15#Loomspicker_topic_ban sometime in the next 4 days). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• No issue with the close. Appears to be a well-read version of policy, the provided evidence, and therefore consensus. Note to everyone: if you've pissed off 6 people in a specific topic area, so much so that they all drop by to provide valid evidence, you might want to re-think how you interact with people in that topic area ES&L 11:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

General sanction notices by non-admins redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This refers to the closed discussion above ([121]) and the discussion below it. I propose that the wording should be "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by any editor, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

This is more in line with normal processes related to other sanctions, and although warnings of any kind can be misused, I can't see a compelling reason to require warnings to be made by Administrators. See for instance Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions where I see a number of non-Admins logging warnings. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• For articles under community sanctions, I 100% support notifications being able to be placed by anyone and everyone. The purpose of the notification is to make sure the person is aware of the sanctions. Even the template used for such purposes makes clear that it's not necessarily a suggestion of guilt. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, wasn't the view you state here also stated above by at least one editor in the original thread above, and rejected with the consensus adopting the alternative proposed by Bbb? If so why reopen on an issue that was settled so recently? SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the posts below by Bbb and the clsoing Admin you may see why. And it made the sanction pretty toothless, which may make some of the people directly involved happy but was not what the community ever intended. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, could you explain why requiring an admin warning prior to action makes the sanction "pretty toothless". As I understand it, the most this would mean is that an admin would have to warn before acting. On the other hand, the suggested version would create two classes of editors: those who have been warned by anyone and can therefore be blocked immediately and those who get to be warned first. Is that the intent? If so, then it should be clear how this would lead to editors stacking the deck by "warning" other editors. MilesMoney (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of any Admins willing to keep tabs on this area. I have no idea what the difference is between "those who have been warned by anyone" and "those who get to be warned first" as they seem to be the same - not that it matters as the suggestions below wouldn't do that. Nor can I understand why a warning would stack the deck. Warnings give the warned editor 2 choices - ignore the warning and get blocked, respect the warning and don't get blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone hasn't been informed of the sanctions, we presume that they're unaware, so we inform them but don't immediately apply those sanctions. Once they've been informed, though, we go straight to punishment, as they ought to have known better. Therefore, being informed is harmful to an editor. Furthermore, an editor who goes out of their way to inform editors they disagree with but don't inform editors they agree with would be doing the former a disservice. MilesMoney (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles, if I were an admin then I'd seriously consider topic banning the lot of you right now for general disruptiveness and drama-mongering across a swathe of articles. Hasn't it sunk in yet that this almost-endless lawyering, bickering and pedantic searching for clarificatino of ever more specious points that work in favour of one "side" or against the other is, well, tiring everyone else out? Most admins will walk away when it gets like this, and then they'll snap and come down on you like a ton of bricks. Thery're human, after all. It wouldn't be so bad if the various contributors concerned showed an interest in other topic areas but there are only one or two who seem to do so and this thus becomes something of a travelling circus. You don't need a warning and nor does anyone else who was involved in the original sanctions discussion: you are de facto aware of them and any warning issued is mostly a matter of courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find anything in your comment that seems relevant to what I brought up, so I'm just going to let it sit there. MilesMoney (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise. The relevance is that I wouldn't like to see those currently involved in the AE drama trying to lawyer their way out of a sanction on the basis that they have not been warned of WP:AEGS, and I know that those involved are apt to lawyer. There is currently an open thread at WP:AE where just this issue has arisen wrt WP:ARBIPA. Your altruism is fine and dandy but do you accept that you and the other regulars in the drama are already sufficiently knowledgable of the sanctions? - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:GS/BI doesn't appear to require any warning at all. WP:SCWGS uses a completely different template. WP:GS/MMA is completely different. Even Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions doesn't require {{Uw-probation}}, although it appears that most people use it. Also, it can be tailored by extra text. Nonetheless, I would have no problem if we standardized community-based sanctions with the mandatory use of Uw-probation and that it could be done by any editor. One extra detail: I would prefer to change the language of Uw-probation from " Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits" to " Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits" (bolded change) as often the warning is issued after there is a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with what Bbb23 said above. This should be applied to WP:General sanctions and it should be marked as a guideline.--v/r - TP 22:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me also. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I apologize for asking the community to vote again, but based on the above, I propose:

1. The identical sanctions language proposed by Doug above (added bolded phrase per TP's suggestion below): "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by any editor that sanctions have been authorized, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
2. Change Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions#Log of Notifications to read: "Any editor may alert any other editor that sanctions have been authorized. The alert links to this page and is issued by placing the standard template message – {{subst:Uw-probation}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged here and include the diff of the notification."

(As an aside, I intend to add the word "necessarily" to Uw-probation as I mentioned in the above section. If someone feels that's too bold and requires discussion, they can revert me.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Change "despite being warned by any editor" to "despite being warned by any editor that sanctions have been authorized". The way yours is written implies that editors get one freebie violation before they can be sanctioned.--v/r - TP 15:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've incorporated your change above. It's a bit wordy, but I understand the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support then.--v/r - TP 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support – EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Presenting the mace in terms of what sanctions have been authorized is a way to make sure we don't get "But I didn't know" arguments. In practice, the first presentation is in context of a percieved violation of the authorization, but any editor in good standing should be able to irrevocably give notice of the authorization. I know I've had to remind disputants of sanctions in effect to greatly improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• 'Support' - Putting people on notice is all that's required and requires no special status... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Closure? It would be great if someone could close this. I know not too many people have voted, but there's been no opposition ...--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

I don't like to come here, but there is an administrator who seems to be acting under the misapprehension that any edit can be considered a revert as long as it occurs within 24 hours of the user's other edits. [122], [123], [124]

The administrator has today accused three different editors of edit warring at Rupert Sheldrake: [125], [126], [127]. Now this article is subject to arbitration restrictions due to pseudoscience problems, so I do believe Bbb23 is right to say that (s)he can block without notice as per administrator discretion. However, all three of the notified editors have taken issue with his warning at both our own (User talk:Vzaak, User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, User talk:Barleybannocks) and his talkpage (User talk:Bbb23). I, in particular, asked that this administrator consider removing themselves from acting as an administrator for this particular situation: [128].

The administrator, however, seems to be persisting in their peculiar interpretation of edit warring and I believe we are at risk for having an administrator block users on the basis of normal editing practices -- modifying the wording of another's contribution, for example. I was hoping that the administrator would be willing to consider our concerns, but instead, I have been told to no longer post to their user talkpage: [129].

Thanks for your consideration.

jps (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly appreciate a second opinion on the revert rule. As I read it, it seemed to be about changing back to a previous version rather than merely changing the text in a substantive way. I have only made 5 edits in total to the article in question [130] and while I can understand the first and the fifth being reverts, I can't understand the others. Barleybannocks (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• We need more info here. Did you (and/or the other editors) make three or more edits today undoing, in whole or in part, another person or people's edits? It's hard to tell from your summary and a glance at the article history; I'd like to hear from Bbb23 about which edits he felt you each were reverting with your changes, and from jps et. al. about why they believe their edits were not undoing, in whole or in part, another person's edits. Keep in mind that the policy does not say that you have to be reverting the same user or the same edit/content; it says that you cannot perform three reverts of other people's edits in a day. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether this is 2RR or 3RR is equivocal. When we have arbitrary rules, we end up quibbling over the interpretations and definitions. The real point of WP:3RR is as an alert to keep one's editing on a particular topic in proportion, especially when it involves direct controversies between editors. I really don;t see the point of escalating this here. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, without commenting on the particular case here, let me disabuse you of some common misconceptions and see if that doesn't help sort things out. First, a revert is not defined by any sort of technical process. You don't have to hit "undo" or any equivalent process - rollback, edit a previous version and save, etc. A revert is any time you reverse, diminish, qualify, or otherwise attempt to lessen the impact another person's contribution. Adding the word "not" into an article is a revert. So, taking that in mind, does this help to explain most of the actions of Bbb23? It may not need to explain them all - admins are, after all, human - but I have a feeling that this is the sort of behaviour that (s)he is seeing that you may not recognize as a revert. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with your analysis of what constitutes a revert. However, in this case, I do not believe that the analysis went even as deep as this. In fact, I believe that the administrator is simply arguing that because we are editing in the same part of the article and trying to work each other's contributions into a meaningful block of prose, this must be reverting. This isn't a case of identifying a case where someone game-ily added "not" to negate an edit, this is a case of someone claiming that collaborative editing is actually "reverting". jps (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Of all the interactions with Sheldrake supporters in recent memory, this one had the best results. Through collaboration, the phrase "public support" was shortened to "support", a net win both for clarity and for Sheldrake supporters. The collaboration following my initial correction of the "omniscience" quote produced a fine result, with both parties leaving satisfied (thanks to the final edit by jps). These are textbook examples of how WP should function, and it is ironic that sanctions warnings have resulted from it. vzaak (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 issued me a sanctions warning alleging misconduct on my part, but when I asked Bbb23 to specify what the misconduct is, I was stonewalled. vzaak (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

vanisaac, thanks for that, but if that's the case why use the word "revert", which clearly means changing something back to a previous state rather than simply changing something in some ill-defined way? I've also had a look round at a few busy pages, and if that's the rule, then almost every busy editor is riding roughshod over the rule many times a day. I don't really understand the thinking behind this at all, or it's application. For example, the edits listed below by JPS don't seem to me to be reverts at all (even though they clearly modify the meanings of the sentences other editors wrote in ways that could easily be construed as "undoing"). To me, however, they just look like run of the mill edits I see everywhere I look and are, imo, the way many edits should be - small changes to wording to clarify and, hopefully, improve the article (which I think in this case was successful). Barleybannocks (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Because edit warriors try to game the system, and a term which may have originally been coined in developing policies to combat specific actions (ie, undos) eventually have to deal with all the related behaviors that may not match the original technical sense, but nevertheless are used by editors in conflicts to accomplish the same thing. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't like what's going on here. First of all, rewording is considered by almost anyone to not fall under the category of a type of reverting, although the letter of the law does encompass it. But I would go so far as to say trying to warn someone for 3RR under the basis of reverting by rewording or changing the grammar of a sentence is gaming the system of the worst degree. Secondly, issuing someone who you think is wrong in their edits a discretionary sanctions notice specifically because of that edit is just flat-out POINTy behavior. The lack of communication by Bbb isn't helping either. Some of the editors here are actually trying to build an article, and intimidation is not the way to encourage them. KonveyorBelt 04:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• From WP:EW: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. ". Sounds simple, right? However take this series of edits to a sentence:

• Bob Smith is a CEO, known for being aggressive
• Bob Smith is a jerk
• Bob Smith is a CEO, known for being aggressive
• Bob Smith is a CEO, known for being an arrogant and aggressive jerk
• Bob Smith, the CEO of ThisBusiness, has been regularly compared to a cross between Steve Jobs and Adolf Hitler
• Bob Smith is a CEO, known for being aggressive
• Bob Smith is a CEO.

• Edit-warring? You bet. Is it formally a revert? Maybe a couple of times, yes - but they're all trying to either insert or remove a similar message ES&L 12:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK but consider:

• Sheldrake has some public support
• Sheldrake has some public and scientific support
• Sheldrake has some support

This is a real-life case of collaboration and compromise which yielded an improved article. Also:

• Citing scientific mysteries such as dark matter, he accuses scientists...
• Citing [a bunch of stuff for which no source was given, and in WP:OR fashion doesn't connect with the upcoming quote], he accuses scientists...
• Citing scientific mysteries such as dark matter, he accuses scientists... (required revert for BLP)
• He accuses scientists...

Again, the end result was an improvement, with all parties agreeing. Discretionary sanctions warnings were given out to all parties involved. vzaak (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of jps diffs

Since I was accused of reverting three times today and I only made three edits to Rupert Sheldrake today, it must be that User:Bbb23 thought I was reverting all three times:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]

None of these are proper "reverts" in the sense of going back to a previous version of the page. However, maybe one might argue they are effectively reverts by "undoing" another editor's work. However, I argue below that each of these edits were meant to be collaborative and building off the edits of the others on the page (as I have been trying to do for some time now).

In the first instance, I thought it wise to clarify that it was not just scientists who had criticized Sheldrake. This is a turn of phrase which had been used elsewhere in the past, so I thought this clarification uncontroversial. You can ask others if they disagree.

In the second instance, I simplified some rather cumbersome syntax. This was disputed, mildly, by Barleybannocks on the talkpage, [134] but I don't think this kind of wording had ever appeared in the article before. Ever.

In the third instance, I removed a dependent clause on the basis of "simplicity", or, that is to say, WP:SUMMARY. This edit was then praised by the same editor who criticized my previous one. [135]

Be that as it may, I am open to suggestions and criticisms as to whether these three edits were actually reverts or not. In fact, I asked for this clarification explicitly from the administrator and have not received any indication that an explanation for why those three diffs should be considered reverts will be forthcoming.

In short, I think there is a contentious but still productive editing environment happening in article space, and certainly plenty of discussion on the talkpage. The claim that I was reverting, however, is startling and makes me scared that in the future this administrator may see work similar to what I did today and block me for it.

jps (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of vzaak diffs

My first edit on Nov 19 requires explanation. As a rule I eschew verbosity, but I have been accused of misconduct so I must explain everything.

Some background for the uninitiated: since October, off-site canvassing (see The 'New Republic) has produced an influx of Rupert Sheldrake supporters. The New Republic linked directly to my response to the canvassing. I am the person most worthy of scorn from Sheldrake and Chopra for bringing the Sheldrake article in line with Wikipedia policies on pseudoscience.

After a 5-day wikibreak, I come back to see a botched RfC regarding the Sheldrake article lead. I proceed to formulate a new RfC and analyze the extremely controversial, newly-created lead which appeared in my absence, ultimately recommending that we restore a stable version of the lead.

1. [136] Restore this stable version of the lead, with additional compromises as suggested in my explanation. In my edit comment I linked to both the explanation and the new RfC proposal.
2. [137] Remove a strange timeline problem introduced in my absence. The Life and Career section here jumped from the Cambridge era of Sheldrake's life, then to the India era, then to the post-India era, then back to the Cambridge era. The cause of this problem was a careless cut&paste job in the first paragraph. This edit is not the least bit controversial.
3. [138] Fix an WP:UNDUE issue introduced by one of the recent Sheldrake SPA arrivals. Sheldrake has effectively no support from the scientific community, contrary to what the lead was now suggesting. However this was not a straight revert -- it was in fact a compromise: the original said that Sheldrake had "some public support", then someone changed it to "public and scientific support", then I changed it to "support". This was a good change: the lead no longer implies that Sheldrake has support exclusively from the public (as contrasted with the scientific community). By saying just "support" we include the possibility of scientific support. Good.
4. [139] Remove a dildo joke.
5. [140] Correct the context for a direct quote.
6. [141] Uncontroversial copyedit.
7. [142] Remove improper context for a direct quote, unsourced statements, and original research as described in talk. This problem was also introduced by the new Sheldrake SPA.

I demand again that Bbb23, after having stonewalled me, explain why I have been issued a sanctions warning for misconduct. In light of this allegation, please permit me to quote from DGG's recent comment,

...the substance of Vzaak's recent edits to this article have, in my opinion, been consistently in the spirit of the pseudoscience policy, wholly constructive, and exceptionally helpful. I am quite impressed by his solution to the dispute over the lede paragraph, which is always a tricky matter in this subject.[143]

vzaak (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 didn't "stonewall" you, you tried to put words into his mouth and Wikilawyer him using obviously deliberate WP:IDHT tactics. I don't blame him for shutting down the discussion, since you clearly had no interest in understanding what he was telling you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah! User Beyond My Ken, where did that come from?!!!!!! I would consider removing or striking out your above comment to Vzaak. It was totally nasty and uncalled-for. Just from my look at this whole situation, it looks like a mistake on Bbb23's part. I think the admin could definitely do with a suggestion to assess situations more carefully before jumping on people. There were no 3 reverts as far as I can see and contending that a revert qualifies as even any slight move to take away from someone's edits is pure nonsense. I think these group of users came here with a legitimate complaint and that it should be looked at and taken seriously. AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did it come from? It came from reading the "discussion" on Bbb23's talk page and evaluating it, where do you think it came from?

My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the revert question, it has to do with Vzaak's claim that Bbb23 "stonewalled" him. That's a damn serious charge. Anyone admin can make a mistake about reverts or whatever, they're only human, but admins are expected to explain their actions when questioned about them. Bbb23 tried to do that, as he should have, and Vzaak's wasn't interested in hearing it at all - the only one "stonewalling" there was Vzaak. Bbb23 was totally justified in saying "enough" - he did what admins are supposed to do, he explained his action, but he can't force the other guy to actually listen to what he has to say. For Vzaak to come here and throw around serious charges like stonewalling is totally ridiculous when he was the guy blocking any possibility of meaningful discussion.

So can the "woah woah woah" stuff, I'm calling it as I see it, based on what I read. The question of what's a revert, three reverts or four, that's arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin, I'm talking about bad behavior, and from what I see, it's not Bbb23 who's guilty of it, it's Vzaak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you understand Bbb23's explanation then please tell us. Which edits call for the discretionary sanctions warning for misconduct? vzaak (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Misconduct" is your word, not his, and you keep trying to shove it into his mouth. Go back and read the discussion without that misperception and you might understand what he told you. I'm certainly not going to do it for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It went something like this:

• You: "Tell me why this is X"
• Bbb23: "It's Y and Z"
• You: "But why is it X?"
• Bbb23: :I never said it was X, it's Y and Z"
• You: "What part of it is X?"
• Bbb23: "It's Y and Z"
• You: "Tell me where the X is"
• Bbb23: "Enough"

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions warning, as described in that link, is for misconduct. The warning has serious implications for me as an editor, and this state of affairs is not mitigated or erased by Bbb23 denying that the discretionary sanctions warning is for misconduct, or by Bbb23 not using the word "misconduct" in issuing the warning.

I am still no closer to understanding which of my edits above (1-7) call for administrative action of any kind. vzaak (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A warning is not a sanction. If you had engaged in disruptive editing, you would have been blocked. But you weren't; you were warned. Continuing to engage in multiple reverts will become problematic if you continue to do it. Continuing to engage in WP:IDHT behaviour will become problematic if you continue to do it. Just like drinking a couple beers after work isn't necessarily a problem, doing so every day can be a significant problem. Bbb23 is telling you not to stop at the tavern every day. Ken is telling you not to stop at the tavern every day. Even though I'm not an admin, I'm asking you not to stop at the tavern every day. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, let us put all talk of emotionality aside. This is a non-emotional question. The implications of it are far-reaching, extending beyond this one case. We require the following information: which of my edits above are "multiple reverts" or are otherwise problematic? Which require administrative action of any kind? Why? vzaak (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh User: Beyond My Ken, I will not "can" anything. And unless you can fill in for X and Y, I would not use such generic description tactics of Vsaac's arguments to try and uphold your position. It's deceptive. And the only one who is guilty of WP:IDHT is you. Vsaak has explained multiple times now that the word misconduct comes up under discretionary sanctions so he's not "putting words in anyone's mouth." Here are the quotes Vsaak speaks of:

Quote 1: Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia

Quote 2: Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

Quote 3: Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process

Bottomline here, there were no multiple reverts or problematic edits so the action was unwarranted. Plain and simple!AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think highly of the quality of your editing, but that does not mean you need to push. You're contending with people who are promoting pseudoscience, and there it is not necessary to come so near the limits of edit-warring in order to deal with then. Six or seven years ago, I recall that it was somewhat different, and the promotion of pseudoscience was a real problem, but that is no longer the case. Over the years a number of people trying to guard against pseudoscience have gone over the limit, and some excellent editors have gotten banned for it. It's not necessary to sacrifice yourself for the cause of science on WP.

You were not sanctioned, you were warned. A warning was not inappropriate. Treat it as it is intended, as a caution signal. If you get too upset over a mere warning, you will eventually run into sanctions. Everyone is telling you to step back a little. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have recently arrived after stepping back. The warning has serious consequences, and no comprehensible reason has yet been proffered for it. Seeking to understand the accusations against me should not be dismissed as emotionality. vzaak (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. There are no serious consequences for you unless you misbehave. I am not an admin, and this whole slew of stuff gives me reinforcement of my refusal ever to be one. I see an admin who issued a warning, one which you have no need to ever need to see invoked. All that is happening here, however good or poor your editing track record, is that you are creating more and more eyes who will inspect your edits in minute detail. If you are a positive asset to Wikipedia, great. Accept the warning and move on. Life is too short. If you are a negative asset then note the warning and move on. Life is also too short. Things happen. This one has happened. If you go out into the rain without waterproof clothing you will get wet.

Nothing about Wikipedia is urgent. Reverting bad edits can be left for more than a day if necessary, doing a whole lot at once. The article talk page is a powerful ally. Use it to effect and you will never need to revert anything again except under consensus. Fiddle Faddle 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the last comment shows the problem here. Reverting bad edits can indeed be left a day, but if normal editing (by all concerned) is called reverting then editing can't always be put off until tomorrow, because at that point it will have to put off to the next day, and so on. That is, if every edit where the meaning of the edited sentence is changed (almost all edits do that) is considered undoing the work of another editor then any mod can, on a whim, ban any editor for simply editing the page in the normal fashion more than three times (more than one time apparently at the discretion of the mod I'm told). Thus all three of us, in a rare moment of almost total agreement, are perplexed by the interpretation of this rule and are seeking clarification (other than don't edit) on how exactly we are supposed to proceed.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@ User:Fiddle Faddle: You said that you are not an admin. And with your mentality, you are advised not to ever run for one either. This isn't just any type of warning that was given. In this case it was a warning in which an immediate block could be instated the next time. A wrongful warning in any case is pretty serious if you ask me if coming from an admin as they have blocking tools.AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Simmer Down Before anybody goes any further in their Assumptions of bad faith it might be a good idea to let BBB explain themselves as to why they dropped the Pseudoscience DS notice on both editors. There has been some recent discussion as to "Does dropping the DS notice on an editor imply a fault?" with the resolution that it's just to inform the notified editor that there is a special ruleset on the page. I strongly suggest that all editors take a deep breath, a walk, and let go of the fact that they were notified of the DS authorization. Hasteur (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot here, and I haven't read everything, but let's recall that Barleybannocks just barely reached triple digits in edit count, so it should be understandable that a new user might think "revert" means "revert". It doesn't, but it is understandable. Once explained, it should not be breached again, but having made the mistake myself once of thinking that a rule called 3RevertRule was a rule concerning reverts, I think some slack ought to be cut.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

When is a revert not a revert?

I would like to get back on track. To reiterate:

1. The issue is not with the notice of discretionary sanctions. Any administrator has the right to notify a user of such, and this should not be taken to mean anything more than a notification.
2. This is an issue with the rest of what the administrator said to me: [144] and what the implications are of this statement for future actions he may take. (For the time being, I'll focus on how the administrator is treating me, since I am the one posting here.)

To quote the administrator: "You have reverted three times today at that article." I noted above the only three edits I made to Rupert Sheldrake. I explained to everyone here why I do not think they qualify as reverts. To my understanding, no one has disputed my analysis yet or offered an alternative explanation. Yes, we acknowledge that a revert does not need to be a revert in the sense of returning to a previous version of the article. However, even in the broader sense of what a "revert" is, I do not see my edits as qualifying as reverts.

Further, the administrator, in spite of not explaining where a revert actually occurred, threatened me with the following: "Consider this your only warning for today and for the future. If you engage in such disruption, you risk being sanctioned without notice pursuant to WP:ARB/PS." That is a threat, pure and simple. He is threatening me over my edits yesterday, basically claiming that I am acting disruptively and am running the risk of being sanctioned for that sort of behavior that I was evincing (the three edits I link to above). However, when I challenged him on my talkpage and on his talkpage to explain how it could be that these edits were so disruptive, he did not provide any analysis as to why he believed my edits were reverts or otherwise sanctionable. So, what I'm left to understand is that this administrator has declared that he feels empowered to sanction (I assume that means ban or block) on the basis of "such disruption" (how those edits were "disruption" is not explained) without further notice, but the only recourse I have to prevent sanction is to stop editing altogether, or I am supposed to simply intuit how this administrator is going to think or feel about my future actions I may take and hopefully come up with the correct model of this administrator's interpretation of policy to avoid edits that will result in him sanctioning me. I'm afraid the second scenario to me is a bit too tall an order, I am decidedly not psychic. This is, I believe, a recipe for capricious action on that administrator's part, and I think it needs to be dealt with. I would like to at least discuss how this administrator thinks and acts vis-a-vis "disruptive editing", but the administrator does not seem willing to do so.

Since I have no explanation for why my edits were disruptive, I have no way of knowing what actions I take in the future will be met with sanction. When I called him out on this, he banned me from his talkpage.

That is my issue here. If people would like to explain what, if anything, I'm missing, I'd appreciate it.

jps (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this isn't the first time that Bbb23 has been accused of such a liberal interpretation of "revert" that it encompasses collegial, collaborative editing.

But it is a difficult area to work in, and the results are especially surprising to editors who have been around for years. The definition of "3RR" has expanded so dramatically in the last five years or so that most of us old hands don't realize that merely adding a qualifying word—changing the brand-new sentence, "Cancer was deadly before the 20th century" to "Cancer was often deadly before the 20th century" is oddly considered a "revert", even though there is nothing being reverted to a previous version. According to the plain letter of 3RR (last time I looked), you pretty much can't change anything more significant than spelling in a sentence that someone else has changed within the last 24 hours, on pain of being accused of edit warring (and if you both make four changes within those 24 hours, then you're both in violation of 3RR—even if you're thanking each other for the recent improvement on the talk page in between those edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is true, then the way today's Wikipedians imagine what a revert is goes way beyond the plain wording of WP:3RR as far as I can tell, but what you're saying does seem to make sense from the standpoint that this weird scenario could possibly be explained as being the result of a clash of cultures. Doing lots of small changes to the database is a technique that lots of Wikipedia users have used and, I believe, will continue to use. There ought not to be a culture that sanctions people for doing this. "Revert" should not come to mean the same thing as "edit". That flies in the face of how wikis function in the first place!

What I additionally fail to understand is why Bbb23 did not explain why he thought my edits were reverts. That's a simple courtesy that I would hope an administrator who is threatening to sanction on the basis of their interpretation of policy would do. However, I received no explanation except for a link to the 3RR policy which can easily be interpreted to mean that I was not reverting.

I would recommend that administrators who believe someone is reverting should be willing to defend their positions. Even if I disagree with their position, at least I can see what it is. In this case, the administrator hasn't offered anything except for a shutting down of discussion.

jps (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Classification of changes

I echo jps' concerns with regard to Bbb23, as I have experienced the same myself: Bbb23 claiming that I am being disruptive and that I have done three reverts, while repeatedly refusing to explain these assertions. Bbb23 even deleted jps' request to answer my pleas for clarification.[145] This is weirdness.

In my view, none of the following types of changes should trigger any kind of administrative action:

1. Removal of unsourced content and original research in a BLP. E.g.,[146]
2. Removal of dildo jokes in a BLP E.g.,[147]
3. Orchestrated, well-explained changes aimed to fix serious problems. E.g., my restoration of an earlier stable lead[148]; the edit comment linked to the explanation and a new RfC proposal to address conflict.
4. Removal of obvious mistakes that make no sense in the article. E.g., my removal of the first paragraph in this section[149]. The paragraph is a careless cut&paste of text from an old lead which, in the context of the section, warps the timeline around, repeats information, etc. (more explanation in the earlier section on my diffs).
5. Collaborative efforts to achieve a consensus. E.g., my change from "public and scientific support" to "support".[150]

These are the edits -- if I may toot my own horn -- of a good editor, not a disruptive editor, not a 3-reverting editor, not warring editor, and not an editor that deserves to be threatened with sanctions. vzaak (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23's response

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this topic, but part of it is I was hoping it would die on its own because as DGG said way above, there was no reason to escalate the issues to this board. However, that obviously didn't happen. The second part is personal, and all I wish to say is that I was operating yesterday on almost no sleep because of a serious family illness and although I was able to edit in a desultory fashion on Wikipedia, I simply didn't have the energy to address this topic (no sympathy needed - just an explanation).

The issues here are somewhat complex (mainly because there are three complaining editors) and simple at the same time. Let me step back and look at the bigger picture. I've noticed in the last few months that many editors have been complaining that not enough administrators were "patroling" topic areas under sanctions. Although doing that is a thankless task, I decided to get involved a bit more (I think it was because of posts at my talk page, but it might have been something else) in the Sheldrake article because of problems with it that were getting to various noticeboards. Just an aside: I know nothing about Sheldrake and pretty much nothing about the topic area. I actually find that useful as it makes me even less involved, although, occasionally, when content gets intertwined with conduct, it can be a handicap.

So, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications, on November 18 I issued six notices. At that point in time, I just picked off editors who had been editing the article in the last few days with no warnings (just the notice). It included Barleybannocks, but at that point I hadn't issued them a warning about reverts. As can seen by this discussion, one of the six got angry (I guess I was lucky that only one did). As TheRedPenOfDoom correctly pointed out, " this is not a ban, it is just the formal notice that will allow expedited admin processes in the future. And the notices were pretty much to everyone editing the article/talk page as far as I can see." (I hadn't looked at the talk page, just the article, and I confirmed most of what TRPoD stated.)

Now, we move to November 19. When I looked at more recent activity to the article, I noticed that Barleybannocks had now reverted three times, that there was yet another editor, Vzaak, who had entered the picture and reverted three times, and there was jps, same thing. I issued the notice to Vzaak. There was no need to do it with Barleybannocks, and jps didn't require one for other reasons (more on that later).

Because I felt that reverting that many times on an article subject to sanctions could be considered disruptive, I warned two of the three complainants here. I believe I first warned jps, and I confess that the strength of my warning was colored by jps's history, which is incredibly complicated (take a look at his block log and his user page history). In hindsight, I should not have made the warning so strong. I should have just pointed out that there could be problems with so many reverts, and he should be careful. That said, in all fairness, I felt that once I had issued such a strong warning to jps, I had to do something similar with the other two, or I would be showing favoritism, and I don't care what anyone says about my flaws (of which I have many), I try very hard to be even-handed. So, I issued a similar warning to Barleybannocks. I never issued such a warning to Vzaak because he got so angry, he pre-empted it. If anything, my discussion with him on my talk page, at least at first, was mild.

Now to each editor. Let's take jps first. Ironically, I would now say that of the three technical reverts he made, if I were deciding a report at WP:AN3, for example, I would count only two reverts. Interestingly enough, he and I disagree on which one I shouldn't count. I would not count the second as all it did was change the syntax of a statement without any discernible change, in my view, to the substance. As for the other two, I would count them both as reverts without digging into the content issues, which I didn't want to do and don't normally do. Particularly because the material is so sensitive, and as I've seen on these pages, nuances matter to editors, and they often get hung up on details. So, for example, I think one of them was a change from "other scientists" to "scientists and skeptics". For a person who knows nothing about the content issues, that actually seemed like a significant change to me because this is all about science, fringe science, skeptics, etc. Now, if a report was filed against him at AN3, he could then explain that it wasn't much of a change at all, but it wasn't like I was blocking him, I was just warning him. One more note about jps that he's not going to like. I told him to stay off my talk page. Some think that was ill-advised or even caused him to come here. I disagree on both counts. Of course, I can't know what he would have done, but I think he wanted to stir the pot, whether it was on his talk page, my talk page, or even on others' talk pages. His I'm-so-reasonable language is a nice cover for that (while he brings up opposers at my RfA and asks me to withdraw), but it doesn't work for me, and although I can't prevent him from stirring up trouble elsewhere (assuming he doesn't violate policy), I can monitor my own talk page, and I do. I had sufficiently responded to his issues, in my view not his, to satisfy my responsibilities as an administrator.

Now to Vzaak. I simply agree with BMK. I was quite patient with Vzaak, and I explained things over and over to him, but he wouldn't listen - and still won't. I can't do anything about that. And he understood that he reverted three times; he just had "excuses" for doing so.

Finally, Barleybannocks. I took a lot of trouble with him because he was the most inexperienced editor, so I actually listed the diffs for him so he could see them. I explained policy to him. He actually grasped it, too, to his credit: "But that's going to cover almost every change anyone ever makes with the exception of wholly new material." He just didn't like the policy itself: "That can't be the actual intention of the rule!" He even wanted to change the policy to call a revert a change. All this can be seen on my talk page here.

Summary. In hindsight, I should not have issued such stern warnings, although I still think more gentle warnings would have been helpful, not required. Also, I don't think I was correct to say that jps reverted three times. Other than that, it's unfortunate that administrators who (foolishly) go into these controversial topic areas are jumped on and that to some extent the community allows it, while at the same time blaming administrators for not doing more. You can't win really.

Finally, if I don't respond to particular subsequent comments here, it's either because I choose not to or because I didn't see it. It doesn't imply agreement. Also, although I got some sleep last night, the family crisis is unfortunately not over, so my time may be limited.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

jps response to the response

First I would like to say that I am pleased with the direction that Bbb23 is taking, and I would like to extend my deepest sympathies for dealing with illness in his family. That can be extremely taxing. I take heart that he acknowledges that his wording should have been more felicitous and when explanation was asked for a snarky link to policy shouldn't have been the sole response. I accept the implied apology and am happy to move on. I understand that admin-ing at this website is a thankless task, and so I sympathize with those who have difficult times doing it. We all have our bad days, and so forth.

However, I do not think he has yet explained how he divines what exactly constitutes a "technical revert". Can someone else determine this from his response? As far as I can tell, Bbb23 is claiming that any edit made is a technical revert and that all three of my edits above are such. As far as I can tell, he is the only person so far to make this determination.

Moreover, he goes on to claim that he makes determination of whether reverts happen in the following fashion: "I would count them both as reverts without digging into the content issues, which I didn't want to do and don't normally do." This surely cannot be acceptable administrator behavior. We are talking about a "revert" that does not involve actually reverting back to a previous version. It is absolutely 100% required that one look at the content to make the determination that this is a "revert" in the sense that it technically changes the content back to a previous version. To say that one doesn't dig into "content issues" in evaluating such situations should be an enormous red flag that the administrator isn't competent enough to be acting in sensitive areas where, indeed, content does matter.

I feel that this is quite bad. Having an administrator that believes that I am making "technical reverts" in the course of normal editing but refusing to look at the content as a standard operating procedure is bad enough. The additional slip-ups in tone and admitted prejudice against me personally is even more troubling to me (personally, of course).

Bbb23 argues, "but it wasn't like I was blocking him, I was just warning him." I think this is an additional problem. Bbb23 is telling me in his warning that he could, at any moment, choose to impose sanctions on me for what he believes are abrogation of the discretionary sanctions on that article. He is telling me that he believes it is his right, or perhaps even his duty, to block me if I continue to simply edit the page because he sees all edits that I make as being reverts. This is a rather chilling message and it is concerning that he dismisses it so cavalierly. Just because he didn't block yesterday doesn't inspire confidence in me that he won't block tomorrow on the basis of this message.

Now Bbb23 says that he thinks there were only two reverts. I have to plead confusion as to how this re-determination was made and on what basis other than his gut instinct. In my estimation, what he should be trying to figure out is if these edits are disruptive, not whether they follow some context-free rule. There is no indication that he has done so. He is not active on the talkpage and seems to be concerned only with imposing administrative notices and sanctions rather than trying to help. I think that administrative action in this regard is not only not helpful, it actually is damaging to our efforts to resolve disputes at that page.

His further attempts at insinuation and using a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" claim that my "reasonable language" is grounds for suspicion is personally insulting and a further abrogation of responsibility to those against whom he is using his administrative mop and bucket.

In sum, while I think it is good that Bbb23 is being somewhat self-reflective, I don't think he has quite gotten to the point where we can call this situation resolved. The response as a whole is not particularly encouraging beyond being a paltry first step in the right direction, in my estimation.

I would ask that he recuse himself from future interactions with me on this basis. Is that okay?

jps (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

jps, thanks for your kind words at the top. I'll address two points. First, the issue of what is a revert. Others have explained here, and I've explained this on my talk page. Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert. That's a literal interpretation of the rule. That said, to take the most innocuous, I wouldn't count a misspelling correction, or the addition or removal of a commma, or anything that is effectively a copy edit. There might be also other edits I wouldn't count, but I'd have to see them on a case-by-case basis. That's why I retracted my statement that your second edit was a revert. Second, I have no intention of "recusing" myself. I'm not involved. I made administrative determinations only, and there's no legitimate basis to object to my acting administratively in the future with respect to you. Hopefully, that will never happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But see, a "literal interpretation" is not what we're supposed to be about, and a literal interpretation of WP:3RR, like literal interpretations of the many holy scriptures, is liable to lead us to some absurd conclusions such as "ZOMG all edits are reverts!". Policy is supposed to describe best practices, and hiding behind an adherence to a literal interpretation is to hide behind not using your brain when actually making decisions here. Not best practice, certainly, and the entire point of WP:IAR, for example.

I am asking you to recuse yourself on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE. Having seen the problem when incompetent administrators act, and, frankly, seeing your reticence to admit the full import of your errors in the last day, I do not think you are fit to be an administrator with tools that could be used to affect the technical and social permissions of my Wikipedia account (e.g. blocks and bans).

For better or worse, this situation has gotten personal. I am questioning whether your abilities and roles you've outlined are in line with the best practices here. A simple recusal with respect to me would go a long way towards restoring community trust. You could do it, for example, as a personal favor. If you see something you don't like that I'm doing, just ring up another admin and get them to act instead of you. It's not so bad. The non-admins do that all the time.

jps (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Before you go on any further with the basis of your argument with regards to Bbb23's competency, perhaps you should evaluate the basis of how you are responding to the situation? You are assuming bad faith in multiple degrees about this editor's competence and have directed all your energy into expressing their incompetency. He views the 3RR rule in a rather comprehensive light, in which the short-term addition of information provided in different wording counts as engaging in edit-warring. While it is not strictly the same as merely hitting the rollback button, the wording does provide a caveat that can encompass this. Rather than letting this go for the time being, however, you're patronizing Bbb23 by edifying everyone on how it's your mission to teach this administrator the rules.

Now, let's see what you've said about Bbb23 on their talk page alone- "incompetence", a "lack of objectivity" and you bring up the opposition to his adminship from last year. Gee, I wonder why Bbb23 doesn't want you to post on his talk page anymore. I understand that you and the other editors were acting in a manner that was assuming good faith with your edits, but as you stated, this has become personal and you really don't seem that innocent on that account. I'd suggest that and the others drop this issue and walk it off, as its magnitude in the whole scheme of things has been blown way out of proportion. Having interacted with Bbb23 many times on this board, I can say that he is good about walking away from issues as well, so we should now assume good faith on all accounts as a reasonable solution. Even if not everyone comes away as friends, I hope there can be an understanding that not everyone operates on the same frequency and as such, the best solution is for everyone to simply walk away. DarthBotto _talk•cont 02:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that I am likely not blameless in this dispute, and would be happy to hear alternative ways you might suggest I handle similar aggressive administrator action in the future that is followed up with rhetoric that appears either unwilling or unable to accept the issues as outlined. You could also evaluate Bbb23's actions on my talkpage if you want to see an example of an administrator who cannot respond to simple queries. I hope you also understand that I'm trying to be as forthright as possible here. Simply walking away is fine with me as that would entail the administrator no longer try to work enforcing sanctions against me. That's precisely the arrangement I am looking for. jps (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert." Aren't we talking about WP:3RR? How can one justify such a reading of the rule? The statement of the rule is explicitly qualified to an edit (or edits) which "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in par"; it doesn't unqualifiedly say "any change". And then there are also explicitly listed exemptions, edits which "are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR". Could anyone explain this? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try my best at writing for the enemy here. The 3RR rule states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Technically every Wikipedia article that is edited by more than one user is the product of "another editor's actions". Technically whenever you make a push to the database of a change, you are undoing a part of what another editor has done. That's a literal interpretation. I find it to be ridiculous, but one can make that interpretation. According to User:WhatamIdoing, above, this may be becoming a more popular interpretation of this policy amongst the newer users, to boot. jps (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That mainly makes sense, although it has some strange consequences. The one thing that I still don't understand about this interpretation is how the listed exemptions are explained. The exemptions say explicitly that such edits do not count as reverts for the purposes of 3RR.

One of the strange consequences of the interpretation is for editing separate sections. On this interpretation if two editors open edit links for separate sections of an article, and one saves after the other, then even that person would be counted as reverting, even if she never even saw the other editor's edit! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

vzaak response to the response

Bbb23's defense amounts to accusing me of acting in bad faith. Bbb23 claims that I understood that I reverted three times. This is false, which is why I asked for clarification. I repeatedly asked for clarification because Bbb23 repeatedly refused to clarify. Bbb23 says I had "excuses", but it was the farthest thing from my mind that removing a dildo joke from a BLP counts as a "revert" for the 3RR, or that explaining the fact that it was a dildo joke amounts to an "excuse". Incredibly, there is still there is no explanation from Bbb23 which edits of mine are disruptive and cause for administrative action of any kind. The removal of dildo jokes in a BLP must not ever, ever, ever count toward 3RR or trigger an administrative action. This is unacceptable. Where do we go from here? vzaak (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained this to you on my talk page. This will be the final time for those who don't want to read the discussion on my talk page. The dildo joke removal didn't count. You made two consecutive edits. The other edit counted. Your other claim is effectively asserting a BLP exemption pursuant to WP:3RRNO. I and many administrators only permit that exemption if the BLP violation is strong. The language of the policy itself advises editors to be careful when claiming such an exemption. This is your first revert (two consecutive edits). It's a major revert, and I don't see you claiming any BLP exemption. Your second revert had the dildo removal (second of the two edits) and this edit, which changed "he has garned some public and scientific support" to "he has garnered some support". In your edit summary you justified the change as WP:UNDUE. That's hardly a BLP violation, and in my view it's a small but substantive change/removal. This is your third revert, and it's a signicant change and a partial direct revert of Barleybannock's change here. Now you can argue improvement all you want, but that's what almost all content disputes are about. Each editor thinks they're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 claims that he/she "already explained this", but this is not the case. Despite pleas to do so, Bbb23 has heretofore refused to point to the specific edits and explain them, and has even deleted such pleas.[151] I have explained these edits above, but for the record and for convenience here they are again:

1. [152] An orchestrated, well-explained change aimed to fix a serious problem. After a 5-day wikibreak, I came back to see a botched RfC regarding the Sheldrake article lead. I proceeded to formulate a new RfC and analyze the extremely controversial, newly-created lead which appeared in my absence, ultimately recommending that we restore a stable version of the lead. In my edit comment I linked to both the explanation and the new RfC proposal.[153]
2. [154] A new consensus statement is achieved. An editor changed the statement that Sheldrake has "public support" to "public and scientific support". This is undue weight on Sheldrake's scientific support, which is close to none. I change it to "support" -- after all, it would be hard to prove that absolutely zero scientists endorse Sheldrake. This improves the accuracy of the article, and all parties are satisfied with the change.
3. [155] Removal of unsourced material, improper context for a direct quote, original research, and WP:PSCI violation. This was added by a new editor. I explain the problem thoroughly on the talk page[156], and I link directly to the explanation in my edit comment.

Bbb23 has not described why these edits are disruptive or warrant administrative action. Rather, Bbb23 has placed extreme weight on a context-free, robotic, technical definition of "revert", and has used this to disrupt the completely conventional editing process. I am proud of the above three edits. This is how good editing works. For these edits to be construed as disruptions or to trigger any kind of administrative action is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Bbb23 is not a competent administrator, and I ask for interaction ban between myself and Bbb23. Further, I ask that another administrator assess whether the above edits constitute misconduct, which, despite Bbb23's tenacious refusal to acknowledge it, is what the discretionary sanctions warning is for:

Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia;

Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

vzaak (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are most correct in that your edits were non-disruptive and were for the benefit of the page. I certainly will not agree with you in saying that Bbb23 is an incompetent administrator, but you are correct about the validity of your edits. DarthBotto _talk•cont 02:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now would someone please rescind the discretionary sanctions warning against me for misconduct, even though Bbb23 says it's not for misconduct, even though the discretionary sanctions page says it's for misconduct? I have worked hard in aiming to be a good editor; I don't take the warning lightly, and it's only fair to correct this mistake. vzaak (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, get a grip, get some perspective and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Such a minor tempest in a teapot over nothing. Being an Admin on this site is not just a thankless job, a non-paying job, but to monitor sanctioned pages with inflamed, argumentative editors involved is just asking to be harassed, second-guessed and micro-analyzed which is exactly my assessment of what is going on here. I wouldn't be an admin here even if it paid well and I especially wouldn't monitor sanctioned articles - not worth the grief. If certain topics get your blood pressure up, like partisan politics did for me, just stop watching and editing those pages. Let it go and move on with your lives and stop wasting everyone's time with this grinding on and on. Let it go.Veriss (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, a few editors have thanked me for this post in the few minutes since I made it and I didn't even know that was a feature or how it happens. Thank you for the thanks even though I don't know how you did it. :P Veriss (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, however this is a serious issue that extends beyond this one case. Bbb23 has disrupted the completely normal, constructive, positive editing process. Had I continued editing constructively, which would most assuredly include another of what Bbb23 calls a "technical revert", then I would have, according to Bbb23, been in violation of the 3RR. This is ludicrous. And now that I have the discretionary sanctions warning, similar such outbreaks of constructive behavior in the future may be met with heavy-handed blocks or bans. Please, this has to stop. Bbb23 must be told to cease harassing constructive editors with this idiosyncratic "technical revert" idea, which is completely against spirit of the rule and detrimental to the productivity of editors. vzaak (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• As said above, WP:DROPTHESTICK, or at least bother to read what people are writing. Also, stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks and utterly unfounded accusations. You've been responded to by several different editors explaining that Bbb23's interpretation makes sense, even if he may not have been 100% accurate. Your constant whining is the exact opposite of the "constructive editing" you are shouting about... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iloveandrea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Iloveandrea (talk · contribs)
• LudicrousTripe (talk · contribs)
• Current sockpuppet report
• Arbcom ruling

User: Iloveandrea was indef-blocked under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions in May 2012. He almost immediately began socking, creating sock accounts in June, August, and November 2012. An appeal to Arbcom was turned down in November 2012, with the suggestion that he consider the terms of the WP:Standard offer. As far as I know he did not edit again until March, when the LudicrousTripe account was created (a hiatus of about four months). The user for the most part has stayed away from areas that were problematic in the past, in particular he has avoided the Israeli-Palestine topic area. I myself did not realise that LudicrousTripe = Iloveandrea, and I was watching for him, as we had some interaction on Nazi topics. While his activities have not quite met the terms of the standard offer, he is interested in returning to normal editing, and is prepared to accept a topic ban from the Israeli-Palestine topic area if that's what the community decides. My opinion is that a history of socking should not prevent us from accepting the user back into the community, as long as the behavioural and editorial problems are resolved. I open this thread for discussion, what do you all think? Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside of returning after four months rather than the prescribed six, returning without approval from Arbcom, editing Arafat's article despite his pledge to avoid the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and edit warring over material he didn't read (by his own admission) to satisfy a personal grudge on Operation Menu; LudicrousTripe has done nothing particularly objectionable (lying to Shrike was perhaps understandable if he wanted to get a fresh start). Take that for what you will. Based on his past history, and indeed even recent comments on his talk page, it seems likely we will never be rid of him regardless of what is decided; it may actually be better to have him editing out in the open.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's sweet of you, TTAAC. If you like, you can keep a stalky eye on my contributions and alert an admin should I ever mess up. I think you'll find me not too much if a problem, since we will be editing on different topics to each other. I'm not going near the old Vietnam War article, as I already said. Same goes for Shrike regarding stalking me—that, is if he's still around, doesn't seem so active these days? Really, my interest lies elsewhere these days, to be honest. What I really want to do is get that Mau Mau article finished off and improve stuff on the British Empire. I'm sick and tired of Israel–Palestine. The whole thing is so easy to resolve, so straightforward it just bores me to tears. As for Arafat, I myself owned up to that one edit, but remember I've made nearly 5,000 edits now. I can only plead to not being perfect, but one piece of uncontroversial naughtiness (check the edit, just a quote from a news article I read about his poisoning) in 5,000 isn't far off perfect. Well, I've never been topic banned like you for genocide denial or whatever it was! ;D Seriously though, I ask that you try to see beyond the blemishes and your experience of me with ILoveAndrea, look at how many good edits I've done. As for edit-warring: sure I've done reverting, but I don't recall breaking 3RR, though without checking I can't say for certain. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Off topic, but for the record, I'm not topic banned from anything (let alone for genocide denial).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Howdy! Thanks to Diana for opening this thread and holding out at least the possibility of being able to contribute to Wikipedia.

Well, I am no one special, just a wayward violator who is now extremely eager to make amends. Most of the original ban was for my editing on Israel–Palestine.

As I hope is clear from my contributions, I am an active editor, patrol my watchlist vigorously for vandalism, and so forth. I hope my edits under this account have shown my ability to stick to the rules and take on board to criticism; my ability to stay away from topics where I am straying close to the mark (e.g. Tony Blair, not touched it since I got told off for making what I still regard as reasonable insertions of material, but I have still left it); an ability to stay away from topics that have a strong likelihood of leading me over the line (Israel–Palestine); and an ability to communicate reasonably with people who irritate me. You will notice that I have not vandalised a single article, but then that's never been the issue with me, so perhaps not worth mentioning.

You will observe my two lovely barnstars and the thanks from various people for voluminous but tedious editing to polish articles etc. A kind person who has done super work on editing Fluorine, a user called TCO, has even asked for mercy to be shown to me, since they have seen that I can do much productive work if I put my mind to it.

I would be delighted to be on the shortest of possible leashes (another immediate six-month ban if I violate on one single occasion any strictures imposed on me here as condition of my being allowed to edit, or even if I break even the lowliest of general WPs just once), prepared to be banned from whichever topics you deem necessary, prepared to do pretty much anything—oh, just so long as carry on my Wikipedia editing! Well, I can think of nothing more to add. I therefore put myself at your mercy. LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Meant to say, I'll sit out for another two months, if you like? to fulfil the six months requirement? I really, really don't want to, obviously, because I do so love my Wikipedia editing, and if you could be merciful on this front I'd be eternally grateful, but really I just want to edit without any hassle now. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I was supposed to outline that I knew what I did wrong originally. Well, my interaction with other users was simply atrocious; you can see for yourselves how much that has improved. Secondly, going mad on the Israel–Palestine topic, and you can see that problem has essentially been eliminated, since I don't edit on it. I can't remember if there was anything else, it was so long ago. But those were the two main ones to my mind: abysmal interaction with other users and madness on Israel–Palestine. I can obviously only hope I've done a good enough job at rectifying both problems for you to have mercy on me. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd advise LudicrousTripe to take this more seriously, starting right now. Any more casual accusations of someone being topic banned for genocide denial - even in jest - and snarks about old foes, will probably lead people to believe this would be a bad idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Floquenbeam here; the proposal won't garner much support based on your interaction style with TheTimesAreAChanging demonstrated above. If you speak to people this way whilst under a microscope here at AN it's not a good sign :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if I could add to my earlier comment: After reading through his talkpage, I am now a bit concerned that the LudicrousTripe account has been blocked a couple of times (once for harassment and once for violating BLP policy) and as recently as two months ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A 24-hour block on the basis of a misunderstanding? Wikicaffeine? That misunderstanding was settled amicably. I did not violate BLP; an editor was trying to delete something (this was not my addition, I was simply trying to stop it from being deleted) from Tony Blair's article on the basis that it was sourced to a tabloid. But it wasn't, since the Daily Mail is not a tabloid. I got unblocked for that, got told that what I was trying to do was not OK (the material was deleted on the basis that it was "trivial", not for violating BLP), and haven't touched the article since. LudicrousTripe (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wooo, easy! Perhaps this was not the best place to adopt an informal tone; poor judgment on my part, I have to concede. Well, sorry if my tone with TTAAC came across as me not taking this seriously, it certainly wasn't intended that way. There really are a quite limited number of ways for me to convince you that I am being serious, but one of them is my very being here and my editing under this account: my editing is OK now, my interactions have improved beyond measure (still not perfect, but I can and will improve further), and so forth. Check my previous interactions with TTAAC: I've asked him for help (once), not responded to him undoing one of my edits (once), thanked him for an edit of his on Vietnam War (once), and stayed polite on one disagreement we had (once), after which I said I would stay clear of him and the articles he edits (and I have). He doesn't post on my talk page any longer, since I asked him not to, and I won't be posting on his. In terms of evidence for you to consider, I am now maxed out in this regard.

Well, if I were you, I'd be sceptical too, but please—and I'm sure you wouldn't—just base your opinion on one bad recollection of something I read weeks ago on his talk page. Really, I can assure you I am eager to do this properly and just get back on with editing, if that turns out to be possible. Here, this is what I was referring to, and part of it was removed by TTAAC. Apologies to you, TTAAC, for this mea culpa. Not sure where I'd got the bit about topic banned from—what was the outcome of that ARBEE thing? Anyway, whatever, I'm happy to leave it that I misremembered something. It would surely be the height of folly to try and lie about anything on here anyway, since it would all be documented on his talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia! Again, I request you not eviscerate me for a faulty recollection and the thoughtless used of an informal tone in this arena, even if it was with someone I knewish sort of wellish (in Wikipedia terms) from battles on a previous account.

And I also would point to the "or whatever" I tacked on, an indicator I wasn't sure of myself and was going from memory. Perhaps I shouldn't type about other users from memory in future...

Look: at this point, my options are limited to apologising, which I've done. I've apologised for my bumbling efforts here, and I've apologised repeatedly for the behaviour that got me banned in the first instance. There's literally nothing else I can do now than walk the walk—if you give me that opportunity.

I've pretty much begged to be allowed back, I hope that also indicates how serious I am. Really, I like editing Wikipedia! If I weren't serious about this, I wouldn't be here typing out mini essays. I'd have another IP address already and be off editing some obscure corner I've not touched before.

Well, the ball's in your court, you have the power. I am happy to fulfil essentially any conditions you impose on me. Anything at all, just to be allowed to edit again. You can, of course, topic-ban me from anything you like, and you can stick me on a one-strike-and-your-out-forever restriction. That's all I'm begging for, one last, final chance, I guess.

OK, I just don't know what else to say to you, really. As I said at the start, my available options to convince you are fairly limited. Just hope for the best, I guess... I have nearly 5,000 good edits to my name under this account, please take that into consideration. One final chance, please? LudicrousTripe (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

With regard to TTAAC, I'd also like to point out that when I was in the process of being permabanned originally, he accused me calling him a racist, something I did not do. He got no sanction for that. I find his presence here rather off-putting. Why such a dogged interest. Look at his talk page: it's filled with argument and aggression. LudicrousTripe (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about me, it's about you. I wasn't going to mention your copyright violations at History of computing hardware, personal attacks on the talk page of United States, vandalism at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ect., but if you want to try and throw mud at me I can do the same. I also caution against making unwarranted accusations yet again, because I don't remember the dispute you are talking about, and I had no interaction with you (so far as I can recall) when Iloveandrea was being permabanned. Perhaps it just slipped my mind, and you can provide a link? (In which case I apologize.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I could find when I looked through Iloveandrea's edits was this comment, which he later insisted was a "misunderstanding", but in which he openly accuses Shrike, AnkhMorpork, No More Mr Nice Guy, Luke 19 Verse 27 ‎and "a couple of others" of racism. For your sake, I really hope you're not lying again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

After a thorough look, I'm certain LT was lying again, and would have provided a diff by now if he was telling the truth; he's still editing other articles. Guy keeps digging himself deeper and deeper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please delete

User talk:Said Shah, out of scope text--Musamies (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed the text, left the user a message. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

There's a fairly large backlog at WP:RFPP. Any admins with some spare time and brain cycles, please have a crack at closing some requests. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Things are caught up again as of now. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Servers down?

Is it me, or are the WMF servers having lots of trouble today? Almost every page I visit turns up an error message, and I have to reload a couple times to see the page. Anyone else having these problems? Admiral Caius (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably linked to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Wikimedia error, site very slow, looks like when Internet first developed. GiantSnowman 15:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been happening to me sporadically over the past few days. So, no, it's not you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file with uninformative filename

I'm trying to mark File:Wp_ss_20130930_0003.png as possibly unfree (as a screenshot of Microsoft software), however as the file has an uninformative name I cannot tag it as unfree - I get a permission error. pcuser42 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's because by tagging it you'd be creating the file description page: we have no file by that name. It's on Commons, so you need to file a DR there. This is done most easily by clicking the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox when you're on its Commons description page; if you don't have such a link, go to Preferences, pick the Gadgets tab, and turn on the AjaxQuickDelete gadget. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. :) pcuser42 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Salt

Do admins use this template? It has been nominated for deletion. -PC-XT+ 01:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, non-admins are using it, so that admins would readily know what's going on. Non-admins don't have the power to create-protect different variants of the same title on sight, and this template allows them to skip the step of listing them all at WP:RPP. --- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to ask how helpful the template is, or would be, to administrators in dealing with this kind of blacklist issue spotted by users. Anyway, if anyone reading this has an opinion, it would be welcome at the deletion discussion. -PC-XT+ 07:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

CAT:PROD backlog

CAT:PROD is backlogged to the 10th. Anyone wanna do some deleting? I'd like to take Boundary Road (Vancouver/Burnaby) off my watchlist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Finished the 10th, will look at more recent dates as well. Fram (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fram: Any idea why Femme Fatale (Canadian band) is not showing as an "expired prod" even though it's past the 7-day period? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather wide margi on the "expired prod" template, none of the pages prodded on the 14th are shown as "expired" in the prod template. Fram (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

PRODS not showing as 'expired' even when they are is a long-term problem. I'm gonna go ahead and look at the ones from the 14th. GiantSnowman 15:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)