Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292

Appeal my topic ban

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.

---

About 15 months ago, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. Two months ago I successfully appealed against my 1RR restriction and since then I continued my trouble-free record of editing. So today please, I would like to appeal the second of my three restrictions - my topic ban.

I was indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages - with the exception that I may add measurements to articles I created so long as they were in compliance with the WP:MOS.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, complied 100% with this restriction over the last 15 months - so am now asking for this topic ban to be lifted too please. I understand the principles of the MOS and I do not plan to re-open any of the old arguments or controversies, but would very much appreciate not having to navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban. The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. I very much want to return to playing a full part in this enterprise and am committed to doing my best to help to improve Wikipedia. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Following Dennis Brown's wise words in the discussion below, I would like to change my appeal from asking for a complete lifting of the topic ban, to asking to have the topic ban replaced with a 1RR restriction on the same metrication and units of measure scope. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that Dennis Brown stated, on 13 June 2017, "I would be less inclined to lift the others today, but I think this is the best one to start with and we can revisit another in 6 months". 6 months from 13 June 2017 is 13 December 2017. I say this entirely without prejudice. I have no opinion at this time whether your topic ban should be lifted and do not know whether Dennis Brown still holds this opinion. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• While I am inclined toward support based on the previous AN/I discussion, I think there is still a sentiment that the topic ban should not be lifted just yet. If this appeal was rejected, and the original poster can manage to continue to contribute in a positive manner, the next appeal (possibly in December as noted above) would probably have much higher chance of success. Alex Shih^Talk 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral. I wish you would have waited longer, but it is certainly within your right to request a lifting of the sanction. I will add this, I think that if you instead asked for a modification of the sanction along the lines of "The topic ban of metrification (etc) is here modified to allow editing under a 1RR restriction" you would have better luck. Then wait a year for the 1RR lift request. 1RR is not a huge deal to live with. We are a bit gun shy, to be honest. In your defense, you've complied with all expectations as far as I can see, but I think you understand why the community is hesitant. I will just say that lifting it but inserting a 1RR restriction would have my Support. Otherwise, I would stay neutral in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Dennis Brown for your constructive suggestion and wise words. I will happily go with your idea of a 1RR restriction in place of the topic ban on the metrication and units of measure scope - I wish I had the wisdom to have thought of that for myself! Hopefully it will also help to reassure others that my only intention is to be constructive and add value to Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you also accept a continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages? This would still mean that you would not have to "navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban." 92.19.24.150 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept whatever the consensus here believes is necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 08:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Then to be clear, I support the new 1RR. I think this will allow DeFacto to demonstrate they can restrain themselves, and by giving them a little rope, we give them the opportunity to keep climbing out of this hole, or hang himself. Hopefully, the climb will continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Given how much trouble was caused by de Facto on metrification, I don't think it would be productive to allow them to return to editing anything to do with units. Number 57 09:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: may I ask, what it would take to convince you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It would involve a time machine and you not causing all those problems in the past. My experience is that editors who were as troublesome as you were are not able to change; given that you can edit everything on Wikipedia except this, I don't see any benefit from lifting the topic ban. Number 57 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• For all I remember what happened before, our rules hold that everyone can come back if we understand that they are unlikely to be disruptive. On the basis of a 1RR, and an understanding that a repeat of the behaviour we saw before the ban will most certainly result in a reimposition of sanctions (and I'm pretty sure that's already understood), I will support lifting this ban at this time. Kahastok talk 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• strong support . The user fully complies with the restrictions imposed (as far as I can know - no idea regarding the"always logged-in" part, for obvious reasons). I do not see any other signs of disruptive editing either. So, changing the topic ban to 1RR will be no harm for the community. Quite the contrary, since the user will likely contribute constructively. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• support either lifting the topic ban or replacing it with 1RR on the same scope. As much as I respect Dennis' wisdom, I don't see the point in saying, essentially, that there is no reason not to lift the ban but we're going to make you wait four months more anyway. Contra the adamant oppose above, indefinite does not mean infinite and I think we should always be willing to reconsider after time has passed. de Facto will know they are going to be subject to extra scrutiny, We could perhaps add an extra condition that the TBAN can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin if problems re-emerge in the next year. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've worked the SPI cases and know the history pretty well. If DeFacto goes off the wagon, he already knows it will likely be an indef block. My suggestion of 1RR was one to help him, as restraint was a demonstrated problem in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support either the original requests or the 1RR version. The initial dispute was over trivia (a metrication-related example in one article), the editor lost his cool and apparently didn't have much respect for or intent to continue participating in the project as serious work at that time, and was just in an "F it all" mode after he initial administrative action. This attitude has clearly changed in the intervening years. Everyone makes mistakes and learns from them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Tend to oppose – the years of socking and circular, timewasting MOSNUM discussions cannot simply be forgiven and forgotten. But, as others say above, he can contribute constructively subject to stringent restrictions. If the restriction is to be eased (about which I am personally unconvinced – I do not see the benefit in allowing him to edit on a fairly marginal topic about which he has only been disruptive in the past), it must be made absolutely clear that he will be banned for life from editing Wikipedia if there is any hint of a return to his past malicious behaviour. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: can I ask, what would persuade you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My question was more about the motivation for wanting it removed, as seen from Wikipedia's perspective. I understand that you personally find it frustrating, but since editing WP is not a right but a privilege, the question that needs to be answered is not whether it is personally inconvenient for you to be banned from making edits related to measurements and the MOS. The question is whether it is in the encyclopedia's interest to lift the ban – what material difference does it make, if you are allowed to make edits concerning a fairly minor subject (and we can accept that your contributions unrelated to this subject have not caused problems), when there is extremely strong past evidence of disruptive behaviour in this area, out of all proportion to its importance? What would you be able to do, in concrete terms, that you are currently prevented from doing? For the record, I am strongly opposed to lifting the MOS-related restrictions. Any extra liberty to edit in article-space needs to be granted subject to strict conditions, as described above.

If you can persuade me that there is some tangible benefit to easing the ban – meaning a real improvement in your ability to contribute constructively – then fair enough. Obviously, it comes with the proviso that any subsequent hint of disruptive behaviour will be nipped in the bud with an immediate reinstatement of sanctions (and you'd do well to understand the sentiment behind Number 57's comment above – some forms of trust, once gone, are basically never going to come back). You can be assured that people will be checking your contributions to ensure that past "mistakes" do not have the chance to be repeated. As Dennis Brown says above, any extra "rope" you are granted here can serve one function as well as the other, and you don't need me to tell you that everyone will take a very dim view of any future abuse of trust. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point Archon. My belief is that having this topic ban lifted will enable me to continue with the sort of article creation, improvement and expansion that I used to do before the troubles arose surrounding the said topic. If you look back over my contribution history, you will see that amongst the 400+ articles I have created and my 13,000ish live edits to about 2,500 different pages, my subject coverage is broad - including engineering, architecture, roads, motor vehicles, motoring, road safety, geography, politics, history, as well as the said topic and much more - most of which inevitably have content related to the said topic.

In a nutshell, I believe that without the topic ban I'll be more efficient and more effective at adding value to a broader range of Wikipedia articles, just as I was before my troubles. -- de Facto (talk). 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but only with the 1RR, and the "continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages" suggested above. That restriction seems like a sensible step which would not hinder article editing/creation at all, and could be somewhat reassuring for those who remember the old disruption and still fear a return to it. Without those additional conditions, count me as opposed at this time. -- Begoon 07:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown, but with very short leash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: where do I stand now?

A couple of days after my topic ban was apparently reduced to a 1RR and the editing restrictions log updated, another editor has reverted that close and reset the log.

As the editor didn't quote any policy, I was unable to confirm for myself whether these later edits were correct. Inbetween times I started editing again in the topic in question. Was this, what is effectively a reapplication of the ban, correct and justified? -- de Facto (talk). 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Remain calm. There is no rush. The thread will be closed by an administrator (this is the administrators' noticeboard) shortly. 31 hours is not "a couple of days". Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So I'm re-topic-banned for now? @Softlavender: what makes you think that it must be an admin - is that interpretation documented in a policy somewhere? BTW, you are right about the number of hours, but as it was done on Friday (UTC) and undone on Sunday (UTC), I was right about the "couple of days" too). :) -- de Facto (talk). 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging NE Ent as the original closer: I wonder if you have a view on this. -- de Facto (talk). 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I see you've moved this section up amongst the older stuff, won't that mean it receives less attention? Do you have on view on Softlavender's action? -- de Facto (talk). 12:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear.

First, I assume it's obvious this should not be treated as a topic ban violation because De Facto had reason to assume that a different restriction was in force.

Second, Softlavender really should have made it clear what he was doing and what the implications were on De Facto's talk page, not just reverted and expected De Facto to keep up. There was no reason to assume that De Facto would have even noticed that the close had been reverted and that there might be some question as to what restrictions were in force.

On the question at hand, I am not aware of any rules restricting closes on WP:AN to admins - WP:CLOSE explicitly says that any uninvolved editor can close a discussion - but it may be that I've missed something. Regardless, it seems to me that if the close is disputed with have a process at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that was not followed, and if it is not disputed the fact that it was not done by an admin is not, in and of itself, a reason to revert it.

That being said, De Facto, for now I assume it is obvious that in the meantime you are best off acting as though the close never happened. Kahastok talk 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a mess. DeFacto, in response to your question, WP:CBAN specifies an uninvolved admin must close discussions related to bans. Your original sanctions are currently still in effect. Any violations between the improper close and now are not an issue; you had every reason to be confused about what the active sanction was. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?
— Games People Play (The Alan Parsons Project song)

In Wikipedia-as-it-should-be, the non-admin closing of a two week old discussion with a clear consensus and no activity for the past three days would be allowed to stand. At least BU Rob13 took the time to post a link that sort of supports their argument, although a more careful reading makes it clear imposing a ban requires an admin close; it doesn't actually say reducing a ban does. I certainly would have no argument with someone reverting the close if they genuinely felt the outcome is in doubt. In any event, hopefully an actual admin will become weary enough of this discussion and realize the most expeditious way to resolve the situation is close the above discussion. DeFacto: best just to wait until the discussion gets formally closed; if it goes to archive without a close fire me an email and I'll annoy some admin into closing it. NE Ent 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK, it seems clear that there's a consensus to close as per NE Ent's original close, so as an uninvolved admin I will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2017 (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.

On a related subject: A "ban reduction" is essentially voiding the old ban and implementing a new one, so any "ban reduction" needs to be closed by an admin, per policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My account was wrongly blocked

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.

---

Hello. My account was wrongly blocked in a sockpuppet investigation. I asked for help on this board about a week ago but my request for help was deleted. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet; I am entirely nonfictional. Please can someone get my account unblocked. Beth Holmes 1. Transposed from talk by Winged Blades ^Godric at 08:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Beth Holmes 1 is the account that is blocked. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That account has talkpage access, so they need to post an unblock request using the {{Unblock}} template. It's a checkuser block so we cannot simply lift it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a message on User Talk:Beth Holmes 1 advising her to make a request using the {{unblock}} template. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And similar advice on the talk page of the IP. Nothing more to be done I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (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.

What is the blocking policy here?

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.

---

Hello, in general, what would lead to block of talk pages on English wikipedia?

I am curious since I was - on Swedish wikipedia – subject to a 2 week ban on the mere suspicion of using a second account. Besides from being incorrect, it was done without any attempt to actually establish whether the account was indeed mine or not. Furthermore, the ban – as is regularly occurring on Swedish wikipedia – was done banning even "talk" on one's own page. Consequently I was not able to protest the blocking. The ban also extended to sending e-mail to admins, and unlike here there is no general page for unblocking requests is you are banned.

Does this policy seem similar to the one here, or Swedish wikipedia admins use much more severe rules? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Does Check user exist there in Swedish Wikipedia? You can use your talk page. They think you are https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Hmcblockad. And you are not blocked indefinitely. Administrators here will not help you. --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the policy on Swedish Wikipedia, nor if they follow it, but here you're likely to retain talk page access unless you (or any related accounts) are known to be a time sink. The policy is at WP:OPTIONS: It says it normally requires "continued abuse of the talk page". But in any case, the English policy is not so relevant and as Spider-Man says, there's nothing we can do from here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely don't think you can (or ought to) do anything about the policies of Swedish wikipedia. I was honestly simply interested in knowing if this was a general for all of wikipedia (how to block), or if this was different. I know some other policies differs, so I was merely curious. Thank you for answering my question Marvellous and zzuuzz, it's much appreciated. (As an aside, the account Hmcblockad was one I created after being blocked in an attempt to access the e-mail function to send an e-mail to an admin and argue my case. Unfortunately, it was blocked due to "unsuitable name" merely 3 minutes after creation, too quickly for me to even use it to send an e-mail 😳) -- Hmc1282171021 (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If your description of things at sv:wp is accurate and routine, things are a good deal more severe there than here. Among other things, an acknowledged sockpuppet will not be blocked here as long as neither account engages in disruption. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT; the big problems with sockpuppetry are when you evade sanctions (of course no problem if your main account doesn't do anything wrong) or when you pretend to be a different person (not a problem with an openly acknowledged account). Not knowing how they customarily work, I can't say whether or not the situation you describe is routine. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought this was routine, seeing multiple such blocks in a rather short period of time. However, searching through the block log, it appears that even for sv:wp such blocks are reserved for accounts that either use an obviously offensive name or starts vandalising as first edit. Consequently the blocks (mine and the others I saw) were rather out of the ordinary. -- Hmc1282171021 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2017 (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.

Deleted article may have been recreated

I just moved Antonio Ibáñez de Alba, a newly created article, to its current title to fix the capitalization. While checking "What links here" to see if the article needed to be tagged as an orphan, I noticed there was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba that closed as delete. Would an admin be so kind to check the current article to see if it's a recreation of the deleted article? Thank you! –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FlyingAce, the text of the new version is almost identical (minus some placement) to the original. The refs in the "Other researches" section seem to be new, so if they push it over the GNG/BIO issues at the AFD I'd say it's worth keeping. On text alone, though, I'd G4 it. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it, Primefac. The article has been moved to draftspace in the meantime, so I guess that sorts it for now. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ECP of Kappa Alpha Order

I note that Kappa Alpha Order has been extended-confirmed protected by Plastikspork. This page hadn't been semied for a while. I think the action was intended to prevent a recurrence of the edits by an auto-confirmed editor on 15th of August. A warning would appear to be more appropriate, and, if problems persisted, a block.

Perhaps I have missed something, so I thought I thought I would bring it up here.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Plastikspork before coming here? His talk page should be your first port of call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged him in the post above. His user page says he is semi retired. Despite this, I probably would have gone to the protecting admin's talk page first for other forms of protection. But I thought the point of logging each instance of ECP at AN was so that it can be discussed at AN. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No one has offered an opinion here or at User talk:Plastikspork#Kappa Alpha Order so I have changed the protection to semi. Yaris678 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yaris asked my advice on this since I closed the RfC that led to the implementation of ECP and I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. Many people in the RfC expressed reservations or supported ECP with the caveat that it be used sparingly and in this case semi and possibly other measures look like they would adequately control the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request for Pkbwcgs

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.

---

Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) is requesting unblock. He was indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Pkbwcgs on December 20, 2016.

I am copying his statement here: I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia because I fully understand that I have continued to make bad pages even though I have constantly been warned not to and I understand that I have been very disruptive and rude on the IRC channel and I promise I won't do this ever again. I am also no longer being disruptive on any other Wikis and I have also became an autopatroller on Wikimedia Commons and English Wiktionary. If I am unblocked, I will continue my work in editing the train articles and I am extremely sorry for my previous edits. I understand that if I break any of Wikipedia's policies, it will lead to a re-block again. After my 8 month block and reading Wikipedia's policies, I think I have learnt my lesson.

For disclosure: as an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia as well, I encouraged him to request unblock here. He was blocked there on January 17, 2017 under our "one strike" warning for users who are indefinitely blocked on another Wikimedia project. He requested unblock on Simple in August, but I told him to seek unblock here first. I have no view on the unblocking at the moment. only (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Standard offer seems appropriate here (not to mention WP:ROPE), though the editor should be aware that if unblocked, their edits are going to be under significant scrutiny for a while. I believe Pkbwcgs deserves a chance to prove that they have "learnt [their] lesson" -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I am not sure if the editor fully understands the problem, but perhaps I am reading too much into the text. I would suggest conditional unblock as long as Pkbwcgs receives mentorship, either someone from the train project or an established editor similar in age. Alex Shih^Talk 11:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a great believer in trying to help people who wish to become constructive contributors, and I see very little risk here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2017 (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.

Drmies, as a semi-involved user, I have already noted that there have been three edits made by that user that already have raised my eyebrows, for example this one to which the user (I assume mistakenly; taking their report on their talk page with a pinch of salt) tagged ANI for speedy deletion, one point the user was criticised on before the initial block, ref. WP:CIR. I note this was picked up by the (assumed) unblocking admin. The second being this one where he placed some additional content without sourcing. I reverted the edit, as what they added was incorrect, a ref further down the article stating that no trains were displaced in the procurement of new stock. I also have noted a third edit here, which is the user deleting someone else's comments off a user page. No matter how incomprehensible a user's comments may be, my personal opinion is if they are on the user's talk page, I leave them there, regardless of context. If I was the one who was interacting with the user, I would have added another note re verification and sourcing. I, overall would've opposed the unblock if I had known they had requested unblock, partially because of my previous dealings with the user. I also note that the suggestion from fellow user Jackmcbarn of taking a year off has not been followed, it has only been 8 months. Nightfury 12:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nightfury, those edits are troubling, and I left a note about two of them. But looking at their other contributions, I don't see any more that indicate we made a mistake here, so for now we'll let this ride. Mind you, I only determined a (quick) consensus here--feel free to ping the other admins who supported this. :) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Filter managers?

If you know how to do filters, first of all THANK YOU and second, maybe you can look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz to see if there's something you can do. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is the proper venue to request edit filters. --Jayron32 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic Minorities by Country

I AfD'd Dutch Yazidis recently and there have been several similar pages at AfD. After seeing yet another one of these (Liechtensteinian Surinamese) show up on NPP, I think it's time it got wider attention.

What is the standard of notability for these articles? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming they are of the list variety, WP:LISTPEOPLE. So if for example Dutch Yazidis had contained a number of notable (read: have their own WP article) Dutch Yazidis, then its a valid list article. (It didn't, so its not) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the article is clearly a spoof of Dutch Surinamese. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Largoplazo (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait. I'm sorry--only yesterday I got criticized for not acting soon enough on a racist comment, but y'all are letting this go by without a vandal report or a quick call to an administrator? The Liechtensteinian thing is pure trolling (there are Dutch Surinamese because of a history of slavery and colonialism--this obviously never happened for Liechtenstein), but surely someone noticed this racist edit and this also totally racist edit. I'm a bit disappointed in the editors who reverted without sounding an alarm. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Karlfonza

• Karlfonza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User contributions at Commons

Getting buried and totally ignored at AN/I (maybe more applicable here anyway): I recommend stronger measures for Karlfonza (Commons page has more info/ad content). They continually keep uploading unencyclopedic (often highly artistic) images and adding them to broad-topic articles such as "Word", "Library", "Ant", and "Vase", all in cases where obviously useful images exist, and this editor just wants to tack on their own images. I've been trying to revert most of the edits, though there's a lot. A very small percentage of their photos or actual edits are beneficial, making the work tedious and yet making me hesitant to suggest a sitewide ban, but they clearly don't understand the rules and won't bother to learn them. Any advice? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Sorry about having received no response in the earlier post. I will take a look at this. Alex Shih^Talk 01:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: It's easier to receive quicker responses by presenting diffs. Some quick observation of recent contributions:

• Word: Image was hardly relevant to the text, and the caption is almost nonsensical, adding minimal value. ([1])
• Plant: Again, both the image and the caption is fairly irrelevant to the text, probably would serve better in succulent plant. ([2])
• There seems to be a pattern of WP:OR in captions, and adding images when a number of other similar images already exists in the article. ([3])

The user is certainly contributing in good faith, but the long term problems with the editing pattern of this user is probably best reflected here: Talk:Primary color/Archive 1#Primaries in art. I see a case of severe WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and to some extent WP:OR, but I would wait for more opinions before moving further. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Diffs would be impossible. I'd say 90% of their 792 edits are problematic. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And I agree with your assessment, though "good faith" is kinda questionable. It's possible they want to brag about all of their photos that exist on Wikipedia, or something else similar, and the fact that they upload and add such artsy or useless photos to these articles shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. They're not improving the encyclopedia, and I don't see how they think they could be. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: What do you think about the above? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I think that's speculation, although a reasonable one. I will issue a warning to prevent such edits from happening again if no one else comments. Alex Shih^Talk 03:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts

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.

---

The issue that the closer:User:RoySmith was to decide:

1. whether a policy argument had been raised for keeping,
2. whether Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago,
3. whether information was unrelated to any actual topic,
4. whether the material had never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace
5. what the time component was "for this to go.."
6. whether the closer of the MFD discussion (User:PMC)interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
7. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
8. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
9. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
10. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
11. Whether deletion supporting concerns had had any merit

In closing today in DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30, they applied WP:LOCALCON but also WP:STALE and WP:WALLOFTEXT in ignoring my concerns and the claims of WP:FAKEARTICLE. I believe that WP:STALE should have been taken more into account as neither WP:STALE nor WP:FAKEARTICLE were not ever intended to apply to issues such as this as my drafts were in already in user space draft disrupting editor nominated my draft as stale only 1.5 hours after my last edit! My comments were a bit disorganized but entirely valid and issues over facts or false assertions would have been easily rectified by viewing provided diffs, new evidence, and new WP policy of AUG2017.

My location is in a hurricane zone in the event I am unable to respond in a timely fashion. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note this discussion on AN/I, which seems to have prompted this. ansh666 00:47, 7 September 2017 (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.

Unblock request for Allen2

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.

---

Allen2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log)

Allen2 was originally blocked on 3 November 2014 for competency issues (WP:CIR). After several failed talk page and UTRS appeals they have asked to take advantage of the WP:Standard offer terms now that 6 months have elapsed since their last block modification on 17 February 2017. In their unblock request posted at UTRS they said:

"I fundamentally wish to be unblocked on Wikipedia with a very clear reason. I read and agree with the Standard Offer that I refrained from Wikipedia for 6 months since my talk page has been revoked and exhausted again along with my email access (but I did not email users by that time while I'm still blocked before my email access is blocked), and I will promise not to continue my behavior like the last time before I'm blocked in the first place for competency issues. I know, understand, and will be confident and competent about what Wikipedia is now and I will comply with all the rules and policies of Wikipedia when I edit again. Furthermore, you could considerably give me another chance, a second chance on Wikipedia if you believe so, because when I'm successfully unblocked then I will be welcome to make useful contributions and help fix this problem on the encyclopedia. Thank you and sincerely, ~Allen (Allen2)"

I am presently taking no position on this request. I have restored Allen2's talk page for the sole purpose of allowing them to respond to questions on this application. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I remember this guy...it's already been 3 years, wow. This unblock request is not substantially different from the half dozen or so currently on their talk page dating back to 2015, all of which have been declined for the same reasons, most recently early this year. I'm no admin, but I don't think that any of the concerns with this user have really been dealt with. ansh666 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could someone please post any previous discussion which resulted in the OP being blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is still alot of CIR issues here and whilst I'm all for second chances I think come a few weeks or months time they'd shoot themselves in the foot and will end up reblocked again, Unrelated but I also have an issue with the quotation marks around every thing they post - It does read as they're being sarcastic and unfortunately if they do the quotation thing on talkpages they're probably going to piss off quite alot of people, Anyway as per the CIR issues the block should remain with TPA being revoked. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Partially struck as not really relevant here. –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Per Ansh666, can we see where the concerns leading to the block have genuinely been addressed? I don't really see that in the above statement. -- Begoon 00:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think all of the necessary reading materials are still on the user talk page. Initial discussion (1). First block, discussion (2) (many unblock requests and shopping later) Most recent discussion (3). It might be worthwhile to look at the revision history too. I am leaning toward oppose unless if the user submits some kind of long-term editing plan. Alex Shih^Talk 01:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. This editor has not changed in any substantial way that I can see (or, rather, that I can "see"). He says above that he will comply will all the rules and policies, but makes no mention of what it is he actually wants to do. He was more forthcoming in the third diff posted by Alex above, where he said "The good reason I want to be unblocked is: I "want" to modify my own pages (and contribute occasionally with a substantial edit to the encyclopedic article or page I want to edit)" There's no reason to unblock them so they can fiddle with their user pages and now and then make an article edit. We're here to build an encyclopedia, I have no idea what this person is here for. Keep them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I may change my mind (doubtful though) if they provide an actual editing plan they would follow if the user was unblocked. One of the most important questions someone needs to answer when they go for a SO is: what can you contribute to the encyclopedia? If you want to just fiddle around with a userpage, perhaps you can make a blog or a Facebook account. Wikipedia is for building content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was the most recent declining admin and the same thing applies - I just don't think the competence is there. Any good content he might occasionally contribute will be far outweighed by the time we spend cleaning up after him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Registering my opposition properly after looking through the history for some signs that there might be some "net positive" contributions which this block prevents, and failing to find any. -- Begoon 10:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. The thing about using quotation marks in that strange way was discussed back in February on Allen2's talk page. It seems clear to me that he was not being sarcastic and was doing it as an unusual method of emphasis. He stopped doing it at the point of that discussion and appears not to be doing it in the latest appeal presented above by Just Chilling - so I really don't think that should be considered an important issue now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Allen2 just does not have the proficiency in English to be a net positive here. Even their statements from earlier this year, after 3 years of being blocked, shows little improvement and smacks of less than adequate reading comprehension in English to the point that they're just not hearing what people are saying (not quite WP:IDHT, but close). Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose--In absence of any mentoring and/or long-term-editing-plans, I remain unconvinced to allow the user to avail the standard offer.I had strolled through his t/p some months ago and despite the time-gap, I had no difficulties in remembering the one hell of a journey.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:43, 7 September 2017 (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 death of Dr. Zadeh? (redux)

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.

---

Resolved

 – Professor Zadeh has died, confirmed by UC Berkeley

Harkening back to this, there's another report that Lotfi A. Zadeh has died, but, like the last time (which turned out not to be true), there's as yet no confirmation from a reliable source, just a user comment in a discussion group [4] and a report from Azerbaijan supposedly based on information from the same person [5], who is said to be a "friend of the family". (The Azerbaijan news outlet is one of the ones which reported him as being dead last time, so it can hardly be called "reliable" in any way that we'd accept.)

It could be true, Dr. Zadeh is, after all, 96, but these two sources (one source, really) are not sufficiently reliable to put a man's death in a Wikipedia article.

I've posted a suggestion on Primefac's talk page -- he's the admin who protected the article during the last incident -- but I don't think he's due online for a while. Could we have full protection of Lotfi A. Zadeh -- without the supposed date of death -- while we wait for confirmation from an impeccably acceptable source that the man is actually deceased?

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The latest person to post it cited Zadeh's Facebook page, but to me it looks as if that could have been posted by anyone - perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not strong on Facebook. In any case, it cites the Azerbaijan story linked above, and there are still no other sources reporting it (i.e. no hits on Google or Google News, and my Googe Alert hasn't alerted me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Hopefully that will (again) allow the issue to be cleared up. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (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.

Something to keep in mind

In a recent spurt of well-meaning CSD nominations there were a huge group of G8 "bad redirects" that were actually a result of xqbot not hitting a double redirect before the first redir was deleted, as well as some obvious vandalism. I had to undelete a group of the pages that shouldn't have been deleted.

I suppose my point is just as a nice note that while the S in CSD does stand for "speedy", we should still be doing our due diligence (checking history, talk pages, etc) before pulling that trigger. Thanks to GB fan for also noticing that and helping clean up. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious offsite blog

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 found a blogger on Medium (an alternative to Wordpress and Blogspot) who claims to be a feminist who wants the notability policy to be abolished. I think this is the work of a troll group. KMF (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that this is a troll because, well, it's pretty obvious. Using "it's racist" or "it's sexist" as an excuse and trying to get rid of a major Wikipedia content policy are both pretty suspicious. First they're trying to abolish notability; next thing you know, they'll be trying to abolish NPOV or NOR. KMF (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2017 (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.

Full prot for E/W and discussion needing closure (and PS about Marek)

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.

---

Full protection is currently active at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for an edit war over the use of "illegal alien" vs. "undocumented migrant" or variations thereof. Since there has been no resolution of this dispute by parties including Home Lander, Volunteer Marek and Snooganssnoogans, and the relevant substantial discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 has not been closed, I have extended full protection by another three days.

While there have been previous discussions on this issue, the current edit war started at the end of July (!).

There is clearly a desire by some editors to continue editing this article directly. I propose the following:

• If no admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion before the full protection runs out, any further revert should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort
• If an admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion and a consensus found, any further revert against that new consensus should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort

The third possibility (discussion closed but no consensus) has no clear resolution in my mind. Policy would probably suggest further full protection if the edit war continues - an unsatisfactory outcome.

PS: Just saw since starting to draft this last night that talk page discussion has flared up again. IMO, Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership (both evidenced at just this one diff, but there's plenty more).

The IP addresses involved in the dispute with Marek that he alleges to be the same person, map to Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, fwiw.

So in conclusion, I think Marek’s behaviour needs further advice. I suspect he will not listen to me as a short while ago I endorsed Atsme’s suggestion that he reign it in. Perhaps nothing but another block will help. Certainly, I think that closing that discussion would improve the situation w.r.t. perhaps establishing a consensus that could then be enforced on a more specific basis. I'd like to see this not needing permanent admin attention.

Samsara 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership - oh, nonsense. I literally have made something like 6 edits to the article, most if not all of them have been reverts of disruptive IP. Then I participated in talk, which I guess what makes Samsara think this is "ownership" of an article. Wtf do they want me to do? Not discuss on talk? Not edit the article? This is some strange notion of "ownership".

More generally, what Samsara doesn't tell you is that this is several long standing editors reverting a WP:SPA IP editor, who's using several addresses (yes, from "Ohio and Michigan"... on the two sides of a narrow border. Also all the edits made by the various IPs are *exactly* the same) (the IP's editor's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and obscure drama board pages also strongly suggests this is a sock most likely of a banned user).

In July, as a result of this another admin semi-protected the page. This was the appropriate response here. However, this time around Samsara decided to fully protect the page, and has attacked the long time editors on the talk page, thus enabling the disruptive IP [6]). For example, when another user User:Chris Howard pointed out to Samsara that full protection wasn't necessary and that this was a case of just one IP causing trouble, Samsara responded by making personal attacks against them [7] [8].

A similar situation arose earlier on a different article [9], where again, Samsara fully protected an article where the problem was just disruptive IP editing. And likewise, when they were politely asked why they chose full not semi, they responded with the same type of obnoxious "my way or the highway" assholery as with their personal attacks on Chris Howard (and myself, but nevermind) on the DACA article.

Also, I have no idea why Samsara is restoring vandalism by an IP in that edit. What gives? Do they just not bother looking at the actual edits before storming in with the revert and/or protect button?

I don't know what's going on here. At the very least this is "conduct unbecoming". An admin simply should not act in such a - unprovoked - disrespectful manner towards editors who've been here a long time. When someone asks you why you took an admin action replying with some version of "screw you, I'm an admin, I do what I want!!!" is not helpful and understandably pisses off people who don't like being treated like dirt. There is a strange pattern to Samsara's actions where this full protection always happens to protect the POV edits of some disruptive IP, edits which probably would otherwise have no chance of surviving in the article for too long. But who knows, more likely they're just very sloppy with their tools.

I'm not asking for a desysop or a block of anything of the sort, but someone does need to tell Samsara to step back, stop waving their admin pistol in people's faces (this "another block" bullshit should stop too) and show a modicum of respect for regular editors. Volunteer Marek  13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh and also, the whole "you dare to challenge my decision??? Here, I'll extend full protection out of spite for a few more days!!!!" is just childish and immature on Samsara's part. Again, I'm not the only - or even the first one - to have raised questions about whether full protection was necessary. That was another user. Here Samsara appears to be just purposefully acting like a jerk. Volunteer Marek  14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to see a PA in that, It may not be the nicest comment, but that does not make it a PA. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The page should probably be tagged for WP:ARBAPDS. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Samsara's request, for the reason the protection level is suboptimal for the article. As far as I can see, the protection level is too high (it is full, whereas semi would have sufficed for preventing all edit wars of July and August) and too short (mere two weeks, whereas the edit warring flares up whenever the protection is removed). An edit war between IP's and new editors on one side and confirmed IP's on the other side could normally be resolved by mere semi-protection, allowing a reasonable discussion on the relevant talk page. I therefore strongly suggest reduction to semi-protection, but indefinite until the apparently contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented") is solved. Concerning the contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented"), this article is the entirely wrong place for the argumentation; there is a clear statement about this in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration&oldid=798290297#Terminology). Therefore, that issue should be solved separately (whether that involves a request for third party opinion, an arbitration, or any other means, and whatever the outcome of that may be) but in such a way that the DACA article is not blocked from being edited for the mere reason of a dispute on the "illegal"/"undocumented" terminology, which is not even the center point of attention of this article. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking edits to the article is ridiculous. The arguments over terminology occur on every page related to immigration. The only difference with this page is that there seems to be a particularly large number of IP accounts who repeatedly do the same terminology edits. Seems to me that the problem with this particular would be fixed by simply increasing the protection level. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: please clarify: increasing from what to what? It is currently full-protected. As I see it, the problem with these terminology edits would be fixed by setting the protection level to, specifically, semi - and keeping it there for as long as necessary. Is that also what you mean? --Chris Howard (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's clear now. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Samsura should review the WP:Close policy:
  • The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 was closed -- the consensus was clearly against the proposal and it was closed by an archive bot. A formal close is not necessary: Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious.
  • An editorial discussion such as this decidedly does not require an admin close Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.
• I'm not endorsing VM's approach to this, I'm just not addressing it because such a discussion would be unlikely to be productive.

So let's thank Samsura for a) taking the time to be active on WP:RPP, and b) raising the issue here instead of continuing the escalation on the talk page, reduce the protection to semi, and hope Samsura and VM can figure out how to coexist with less drama.

• Oh, the root problem is there actually isn't any current WP:NPOV term for human beings in the US not in strict compliance with current immigration law as passed by the US Congress, who may or may not be subject to enforcement action based on the current administration policy. So let's not blame fellow Wikipedians for a mess that US politicians have made. NE Ent 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Really? What's wrong with "undocumented alien" or "undocumented immigrant"? What's POV about those? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There might be some contexts where "illegal alien" is the appropriate term (like referring to a specific law which uses that term). But the whole point - and this IS the point, which the IP, Samsara and GoldenRing just refuse to hear - is that for sure on this particular article "illegal alien" is NOT appropriate. The people in question, under DACA are NOT here "illegally". They entered "illegally" (more precisely they were brought in illegally by their parents). But they have - or did as of yesterday - permission to be in the country. Even work in the country. They are (were) in no sense "illegal". This is why the IPs edits were in fact disruptive. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply, no one in the DACA program are "undocumented." They are by definition "documented" quite extensively as they register as illegal aliens seeking to defer deportation, attend school and work in the U.S. There is really no debate about their legal status. This is a different status and description from other immigrants that have not been adjudicated or registered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify a bit of information about DACA and the legalities of immigration/residency by non-citizens. The innocent children who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents were temporarily "protected" under an executive order which was based purely in morality, not law. Immigration legislation is not one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch which is why it is being repealed. If we are going to be "technically speaking", then let's be consistent. Editors are supposed to provide RS factual information in a dispassionate tone. With the latter in mind, when/if a person or child is in the US illegally, meaning they were neither born in the US nor became a naturalized citizen, and have never been issued a permit for legal entry, be it residency or a work permit, they are here illegally and undocumented. Simple facts...dispassionate tone...NPOV...no censorship. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll just note here, without judgement, that an earlier version of the article used both terms, with one in parentheses. Samsara 19:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Update

I have followed an edit request to replace a single instance of "illegal student" with simply "student". I do not expect anybody making a serious case for "illegal student" being a helpful phrase or one used in relevant sources, i.e. the change should be uncontroversial. Samsara 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Broadening locus

Just received a complaint about removal of sourced info by Marek at DREAM Act, an article which should equally fall under WP:ARBAPDS. I've indicated this fact on the talk page. Samsara 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing information with sources is not prohibited by policy. Especially when a 'criticism' section of an article about an act that seeks to legitimise immigrant children is sourced almost entirely to an advocacy group who wants to reduce immigration. Please go read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE because at this point I am having serious doubts about your competency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your judgment frankly. You have full protected an article which was being edited by registered users trying to prevent edit-warring by at best, 1 or 2 IP's from a small geographical area. You have made personal attacks against Marek and not substantiated them with anything resembling evidence - asking for an administrator who isn't enabling IP POV-warriors is perfectly reasonable when your actions are... enabling IP POV-warriors. You slapped ARBAPDS on an article which was not undergoing an edit war after Marek made a good removal of badly sourced info - in what clearly looks like a retaliatory slap for Marek daring to disagree with you. ARBAPDS has some of the most draconian editing restrictions, which you have now made a target for every IP POV-pusher who wants to edit war on it. The combination of 'consensus required' and '1rr' means functionally that random drive-by IP's can prevent improvements of the sort Marek made. Lastly you have brought attention to your inept handling of this by bringing it to one of the most watched boards. I don't know what your problem with Marek is, but you have come across here with showing no clue as to why you have managed to irritate numerous editors at the original article, and responded by attempting to shift the blame to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Competency about you being an administrator obviously. Possibly an editor too. If you honestly think that a single edit which removes sketchy content is worthy of fully-protecting-an-article/blocking-someone/running-to-the-admin-drama-board, then yeah, that raises questions about competency. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is you making personal attacks, generally being rude and misusing (and possibly abusing) your admin tools. As pointed by several editors now - myself, Snooganssnoogans, Chris Howard, NE Ent, and Only in death. I think it's time for you to drop this and walk away. (The "single edit" refers to the one that the disruptive IP went to your page to admin-shop and complained about, and which you then happily obliged by bringing it up here. Let me ask again - why are you enabling disruptive IPs by always protecting their versions of the articles? Why are you restoring IP vandalism? That's just strange for an admin) Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused about the complaints here. AFAICT, there has been no protection of the article, or any other administrative actions relating to the DREAM Act article other than placing it under DS. Samsara is surely correct that the article falls largely under ARBAPDS. So regardless of the merits of the edits, I don't see any reason to make a big deal over the reasonable placing of DS on the article. This will affect everyone who edits, both those adding the info and removing it, as it should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be placed under discretionary sanctions. That's not the issue here though. Volunteer Marek  14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You "received a complaint" from an anonymous IP POV warrior whose entire edit history consists of anti-immigrant POV-pushing. Interesting that they race to your talk page to report the serious offense of removing self-published anti-immigrant polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly agree that Volunteer Marek's behaviour on article talk pages is a serious issue. They take their battlefield behaviour everywhere they go. Note here on another article's talk page, where they describe everyone who disagrees with them in an RfC as not giving a shit Wikipedia policies and being NOTHERE: [10]. At another point on the same page they accuse me of making blatant falsehoods by misrepresenting a cited discussion, then misrepresents that conversation, and accuses me of being ‘friends’ with one of the participants of that discussion from 4 years ago: [11]. The whole talk page is littered with their accusations of dishonesty, such as here, where they tell James J. Lambden to stop being a 'lying pickle': [12]. Their behaviour, including a complete refusal to compromise or come to a consensus, in the AP2 area has unquestionably made collaboration in this area extremely difficult. This battlefield attitude is so entrenched, I'd suggest an AP2 TBAN of some reasonable length (6 months?) as a minimum preventative measure.

So the opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors with a grudge have finally showed up. Cjhard, you're not even active on that article. You're here only to attack others and try to leverage what is a spurious complaint by someone who might get boomerang'd into "advantage for my side" by suggesting baseless sanctions. You might wanna watch for WP:BOOMERANG yourself. Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the behaviour I'm referring to. Please don't accuse me of being a WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior without any evidence of me exhibiting battleground behaviours. Please don't tell me to watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG without any evidence of my wrongdoing. Cjhard (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A few brief comments about this:

• APDS applies to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, whether a notice has been applied to the talk page or not. As such, any uninvolved administrator can impose any sanction authorised under standard DS (so long as awareness requirements have been met). Articles in this topic space can't be individual "placed under DS." They are automatically under DS.
• That being the case, unless someone wants to present evidence that Samsara is involved per the terms of WP:INVOLVED (ie involved beyond taking administrative actions) then they are perfectly within their rights to protect pages. If someone wants to dispute the protection, after discussion with the admin involved, AE should be the first port of call and then ARCA is thataway.
• An hour spent reading the history of this gives me some concerns about VM's editing. This series of edits removed entirely the section discussing criticism of the DREAM Act, on the grounds that it was unsourced sourced to SPS. This looks like POV-pushing; it seriously unbalances the article and it defies belief that RS could not be found discussing this. Mixed up in that series of edits is this which I just can't understand; the edit summary is "Can't say that in Wikipedia voice" but the edit actually removed a statement attributed to the Centre for Immigration Studies, sourced to a statement by the Centre for Immigration Studies. It looks like any excuse to remove content he doesn't like.
• The argument over protection at Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals essentially amounts to, "Semi-protect because almost all the people we disagree with would be barred from editing." If the non-autoconfirmed/IP editors were warring against consensus then fine; when the dispute is about a term that was discussed at NPOV/N without consensus, it just looks like gaming the rules to win an editorial dispute.
• VM's criticism of Samsara doesn't really stand up to much; if this is the best you can do to allege a PA, it's time to take some time out. VM describes this as "enabling the disruptive IP" - the only way I can construe it that way is if you necessarily regard use of the term "illegal alien"/"illegal immigrant" as disruptive.
• ADMINACCT is a thing, but it's not an excuse to sling as much mud at admins as you can to see what sticks. Descriptions above of Samsara "enabling IP vandalism" can again only be understood as such if any use of the term "illegal alien" is considered vandalism - and, again, in light of the NPOV/N discussion linked above, it can't be.
• Above, VM eventually just descends to personal attacks.
• In light of the above, I'm imposing a three-month topic ban for VM from all edits and articles related to immigration in the United States, under AP2 DS. Violations should be reported to WP:AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm halfway through reading this--if this counts as a "personal attack" we might as well all pack it in. Same here--seriously? Tom Robbins said years ago that a story that starts with a beet ends with the devil. A thread that starts with an editor who only does shit like this, an edit whose repetitions confirm that they are not here to improve our beautiful project, is likely to end with unjust censure if not nipped in the bud. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No way are those personal attacks linked to two lines above. Imho, etc. — fortunavelut luna 09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the 'criticism' section from DREAM act was with the edit summary 'actually this whole thing is SPS - find a secondary sources which covers this stuff' not 'unsourced' as you have claimed. Given you actually posted the edit summary, I assume you just didn't look at it, rather than being unable to read. Given that the criticism section was almost entirely sourced to an advocacy website whose purpose is to spread FUD about immigration, CIS here is *not* an independent reliable source by absolutely any standard, its an entirely reasonable content removal. Lastly the sanctions placed on the DREAM act were not merely a 'notification' that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, they include the 1rr and consensus required sanctions that is massive overkill for an article that was not undergoing any sort of edit-war and seems entirely designed to enable IP POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Corrected. It doesn't materially change the point. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that Marek removed dubiously sourced anti-immigration advocacy from an article related to immigration? Correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#From_AN---> No, not from ANI, on ANI. It is not a personal attack to question someone's competence after numerous examples were given by User:Only in death at 08:29 this AM, thus evidencing the claims before VM actually made them. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am not actually saying that the remarks are in themselves accurate, merely that they do not qualify as personal atttacks. I will say that Samsara has always been nothing but straight up with me. It's bloody painful sitting on this fence  :) — fortunavelut luna 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sanction placed by GoldenRing. There seems to be very little and seriously debatable evidence to base this sanction on. Criticism of an admin and their actions is hardly a reason to place AP2 sanctions (and as said above, forcefully stated criticism hardly rises to the personal attack level that warrants sanctions). The removal of the section is certainly defendable, and the one "problematic" edit in that series seems to me that we can hardly claim "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" when the 1986 amnesty article doesn't even indicate such massive fraud. Without a clear pattern of unambigiously problematic edits in the AP2 area, a topic ban is not warranted. Fram (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Could you please cite the exact line under which you believe you have authority to remove the sanction? I do not see any text in the policy section you cited when posting on VM's talk page, so I am wondering what you believe grants you that authority. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." (emphasis mine), second line of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Fram (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, that highlighted wording is obviously about "placing a revert restriction", not about "reverting a restriction". Removing a restriction requires an active consesnsus of uninvolved admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf.'s interpretation here, though one might reasonably in good faith misinterpret that the section about placing restrictions might have some content about removing them, given the not-great wording of that line. (Reference OID's link below.) Fram, you might consider reviewing WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify and withdrawing your attempt at removing the restriction. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the words of the relevant policies say, but if a discussion/consensus is required then I support Fram's removal of what I see as an unjustified sanction (for the reasons Fram gives). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Technically as it was placed as an Arbitration enforcement sanction, it should not be removed without agreement of a)the originating admin, b)consensus at a relevant noticeboard, c)arbcom. See here. Of course I think the sanction is completely bogus to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately it's a colon not a comma. — fortunavelut luna 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks Only. I guess it's down to consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely support Fram's actions. WP:IAR applies.GR alone knows what led him to the topic, place a completely bogus sanction and stand out as the most incompetent editor in the entire thread.And, of course, the skins need to be thickened a bit.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies to all, I have reverted my action, as I indeed misread the policy. I have informed Volunteer Marek of my mistake, and of the fact that this means that the sanction is still valid.

@GoldenRing:: seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple editors now, would you be willing to lift the sanction yourself and start a discussion to see if there is consensus for this (or another) sanction? Fram (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the admins commenting, GoldenRing's analysis convinces me as having a fairly complete understanding of the situation. His having spent an hour looking into the case strikes me as likely true. Samsara 14:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Then it is rather strange that his "fairly complet understanding" has led to a fairly wrong result. I have not commented on how long he has spent studying the situation, nor do I see its relevance (it clearly wasn't a 30-second look into it, beyond that a commpetition of who looked at this the longest seems not very fruitful). Anyway, I'll rephrase; "seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple uninvolved editors now...". Better? Fram (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: - I'm sorry but questioning an administrator's competence - and I am NOT the only person to have done this (User:Chris Howard raised a similar point and User:Only in death was the first one to do so) is NOT a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than Samsara basely accusing me of article "ownership" simply because I reverted an IP. It is no more of a personal attack, less even, then an admin (Samsara) being rude and obnoxious to another editor (not me, another one) simply because they questioned their judgement [13] regarding full protection. Yes, Samsara is within their rights to impose full protection on a page. They are NOT within their rights to demand that someone be blocked simply because they question that decision. Volunteer Marek  13:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The desire for ownership imo is evident in your characterising your opposition as a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses, which is the diff I provided (repeated here for convenience). And I have no problem with you criticising me. I do have a problem with you attacking newcomers in a scathing manner that can in no way be justified by having a different opinion, and have told you so before. So you do know what my objection is, you just apparently do not like it and will not take a helpful suggestion on board. Samsara 14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not "ownership" not even close. When you have a WP:SPA IP editor who only repeatedly makes the same revert over and over and over and over again, and provokes pointless edit wars, that's exactly what they are (I assume you're not actually objecting to me characterising IP addresses as "IP addresses", since that would be, you know, silly on your part). This happens all the time. Editors using IP addresses or newly created accounts start edit wars on controversial articles. They revert as much as they want, because if they get blocked, it's no skin off their back. Just get another account. But established, long time users can't do that. So basically named and respected users are sort of screwed when dealing with these kinds of "IP addresses". The only thing we can do pretty much is ask for semi-protection (of course this whole stupid problem wouldn't even exist if we had flagged revisions/pending changes but that's a rant for another time and place). Which we did. But you decided to fully protect the IPs edits, and then came running here when that action was challenged by several editors. Thus, yes, you were enabling these IP editors. Volunteer Marek  14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK, where are we with this? In the meantime I have blocked the IP whose ridiculous POV-pushing edits, complete with edit warring and making bad-faith reports, started all this. I agree that the sanction was hasty, that the criticism by Marek at the admin's address were not personal insults, that this is overblown and should be corrected. I appreciate Fram's intervention: we need to get this right. Seriously, you don't need to have heard half the shit I've been told by established editors in order to see that a. Marek's comments were serious charges but not personal attacks; b. this started with a BS report acted on improperly and too quickly; c. we need to do much, much better in staving off disruption from many, many sides--including POV warring IPs, sock accounts, and others. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  What he said. This is one of the worst cases of over-reaction I've seen for a while (this board is supposed to be for defusing conflict, not escalating it, people), and possibly the worst admin misjudgment I've seen recently - admins should be employing mops, sympathetic ears and soothing words - not boots and clubs. I see a strongly-emerging consensus among uninvolved parties that the sanction was wrong, and it needs to be reversed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support overturning VM's sanction. NE Ent
• @Drmies: I've just read through a longish stretch of that IP's contributions and I'm wondering for which of them you have blocked? Their TP contributions look civil and well-reasoned. Their reversion of vandalism is rarish but well-founded. They exceeded 3RR once but it was over a month ago and well stale for action now. They have edit-warred without breaking 3RR several times, always over the "undocumented" vs "illegal" question. But if that is the grounds for the sanction, then it begs the question: why is not a similar sanction on those with whom he edit-warred appropriate? As far as I can tell, VM is doing so claiming consensus against "illegal" when it's been repeatedly pointed out to him that no such consensus exists, while the IP is correctly describing consensus (or lack of it). The only other difference is that the IP is an IP; last I checked, that wasn't a blockable offence. GoldenRing (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• GoldenRing, this IP has been at this since November of last year; besides this article improvement and this one, that's all they have been doing here. There is no single opponent of theirs in that edit history with that history of reverting, so that's easy. Such a focus is an obsession, and if you look at their talk page posts (5 until recently, against dozens of article reverts), it's obvious that they're not arguing anything about Wikipedia policies or reliable sources. Here is another example of forumposting on a talk page, with that lame argument that popped up in their edit summaries: it's "like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt." No, the shoplifter stole something--but either way, they should be talking about sources. Then there's the "PC trolls" warning in the edit summaries, and finally that nice piece of red meat they threw out here, which got VM topic-banned, which I hope you will reconsider. No, this is the kind of troll that should have been blocked long before we got here. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks. The substance of this dispute is that some editors object to the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant." VM labels everyone who uses it a vandaldisruptive (eg in this discussion among many other places), despite the fact that a recent discussion at NPOV/N on whether the term is usable on wikipedia reached no consensus; there was a majority in favour of its use, with support split fairly evenly between those who thought it should be the default term for those unlawfully in a country and those who think it is appropriate sometimes. So when you read "disruptive IP vandal" in this (and related) discussions, you need to bear in mind that it is code for "non-autoconfirmed or IP editor who dared to use 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant', apparently in line with consensus, and who objected to VM reverting them."

Mix this in with the attempts to game protection levels to win a dispute and outright falsehoods in edit summaries (both evidenced in my statement above) I think this topic would benefit from VM's absence for three months. If VM wants to appeal this, he can do so at AE, AN or ARCA.

I'm a bit surprised by the focus in comments above on VM's statements about Samsara's adminship; in the same diff, he also questioned his competence as an editor. In the second PA diff, he called another editor an "opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior with a grudge" with nothing whatsoever to support it, because that editor dared to comment on this thread. VM complaining about weak claims of PAs rings pretty hollow when he himself accused Samsara of a PA because he asked someone, "Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?" If that's his standard of personal attack, it's a line he himself has stepped a long way over. GoldenRing (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor in question has now been blocked for repeated disruptive editing — precisely what VolunteerMarek said it was doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I consider it likely that the IP reciprocally had the same opinion of VM, given that they edit-warred directly with each other at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Samsara 13:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What 'outright falsehood in edit summaries'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are growing problems with POV-pushing IP editors on a number of politically-related articles, as more and more people discover that in the name of assuming good faith, we put up with far more disruption from anonymous IPs than we ever would from registered users, which is precisely backward. It is not "gaming protection levels" to argue that more and more of these articles should be under long-term semi-protection or pending changes. It is common sense that will only become more common. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! This is getting ridiculous.

" VM labels everyone who uses it a vandal" - completely and utterly false. Show some diffs or strike the accusation GoldenRing. Here, here is the talk page. Do a ctrl-F search for "vandal". It occurs ONCE. And that is not by me. It is a statement - "We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals" - by User:Muboshgu. So that's YET ANOTHER user who thinks that full protection of that article is ridiculous and that Samsara dropped the ball big time. Regardless, I am not calling ANYONE "vandal". Here is the article history with my edit summaries. Do a ctril-F search for "vandal". You'll find some. BY OTHER EDITORS - not me - REVERTING IPs and red-linked accounts. So stop making shit up GoldenRing. Or maybe you want to go and block User:El C, User:Serols, User:Dan Koehl, User:Muboshgu or even the good ol' ClueBot, since they actually DID call IPs "vandals". I didn't. Stop making shit up to excuse your own mess. Take some personal responsibility, admit you screwed this up and rescind the sanctions as numerous users and admins have advised you.

Oh, and guess what? The only person who used the term "IP vandal" in this discussion is... YOU.

But let me keep going.

Your characterization of the discussion at NPOV/N is also false, as I've pointed out repeatedly on talk to the IP. That discussion was regarding whether the term "illegal alien" should be BANNED from Wikipedia. And yeah, it shouldn't. But that "not banned" is not the same as "should always be used". That in fact is what the dispute is about - which terms is appropriate for THAT ONE article. It's a legitimate content dispute. Whatever "code" you're seeing is in your own head. But I shouldn't be sanctioned for the stuff that goes on your head.

Re: last paragraph. YOU. JUST. SAID that "The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks". And in fact there were no personal attacks. Yes, I questioned Samsara's competency. So did NUMEROUS other users. Because they acted incompetently. Seriously, does anyone think that fully protecting that article ESPECIALLY NOW was a good idea? All over some edit warring by an IP against multiple users? What the hell? Where are you getting this stuff from?

"Outright falsehoods in edit summaries" - put up or shut up. Show me the diffs. As an admin you should know better than to make WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence. Which edit summary had an "outright falsehood" in it? Remember, "outright" means that it's not a matter of interpretation, it's not a mistake, it's me supposedly and purposefully lying. So... show me the diffs buddy or strike the attack.

And "gaming protection levels"??? Buddy, at least four other users SAID THE SAME DAMN THING as I did. Are we all "gaming protection levels"? Are you going to ban them from the topic? What the hell are you doing?

 Volunteer Marek  21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise. I've struck 'vandal' since the term you used was indeed 'disruptive'. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference.

The falsehood in an edit summary was evidenced above but I'll give it again; in this edit you claimed you were removing content because "can't say that in wikipedia voice" when in fact you were removing a statement clearly in the voice of another organisation.

AFAICT, your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

" your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute." - Arrghghg! FOUR other users said the exact same damn thing! Since then additional users have chimed in to point out that fully protecting the article was dumb! Stop making excuses for your own mistake.

And this: [14]? AS ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OTHERS yes it sure as hell says "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" in Wikipedia voice. Even if not, that is not an edit you sanction somebody for ffs. And that is categorically NOT a "falsehood". You can disagree whether or not that text should be in there, that's fine. But stop fucking calling me a liar. I don't give a crap if you're an admin or not, you just don't do that. And the more you do it, the worse and worse you make yourself look.

Stop making excuses for your own mistake. Volunteer Marek  21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Are we looking at the same diff? The diff I'm looking at removes part of a sentence that runs, "The nativist-leaning Center for Immigration Studies has raised concerns that..., that..., that it would result in massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty, that... and that..." How is that not a statement in the voice of the Center for Immigration Studies? If it's an honest mistake, fine, say so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And for fuck's sake, I don't even have that much of the problem with the term "illegal alien". I certainly don't regard anyone who uses it as a "vandal". GoldenRing pulled that out their ass. I just happen to think that AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE it's not appropriate (which is perfectly valid position given discussion at NPOV/N). I'd appreciate it if people stopped telling me what I do or do not believe. Volunteer Marek  21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TL; DR, but I was pinged. I am not fully aware of the editing history of DACA. I just looked into the history right before the article was protected and saw IP edits being reverted, and may have assumed too much about the cause of the full protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's only a question whether it's appropriate at that one particular article, then why were you edit-warring over it on multiple articles? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption, then what makes you think you have a right to an opinion on it while the IP does not? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption but rather a question of editorial judgement of what's appropriate for the article, why is protection in response to edit-warring "enabling IP disruption" and not an entirely appropriate response? GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing your story. Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake. Provide diffs for your accusations. I don't know about you but personally, I really don't appreciate being called a liar and being accused of things I didn't do. Diffs. Diffs. Diffs. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And just because I'm feeling defensive (being falsely called a liar tends to do that), if you want to bring up the DREAM Act article as an example where I removed "illegal" (one revert, not "edit warring") then I just got to point out that... the two articles are freakin' closely related! Jeezus pandas. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing - how many admins and users have now told you that your sanction was inappropriate? Perhaps you should pay attention and not let the admin-ego get in the way. Volunteer Marek  21:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Re the sanction placed on VM - I have to join others who find it unjustified. I do think VM should tone it down a little sometimes on talk pages (although given the rampant disruption on many pages dealing with controversial topics, I understand his frustration). But the rapid hammer on him was not good, not good at all. I think it's especially weird that criticism of an admin (deemed as unjustified) was explicitly cited as justification for a topic ban (!). If that was sanctionable, there would be dozens and dozens of editors who would be sanctioned. Frankly, the best thing to do now would be for GR to withdraw the sanction, and for VM to agree to dial it back a little bit in terms of heated disputes. Then everyone can move on with grace. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted with Neutrality but was pretty much about to say a similar thing; I think the bright line for topic bans in such areas needs to be (and generally is) set higher than the behaviour observed here. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Neutrality. Well said. And then I hope this topic could be closed and the admin(s) could address the issue of whether to now lower the protection level to semi (or extended confirmed) which has been raised on WP:RFRPL. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in to agree with Neutrality, Black Kite and Chris Howard. This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate topic ban. GoldenRing, if you're going to insist it's taken to AE to get lifted, so be it, but with this amount of opposition here, including so many admins, you are making yourself look bad by not simply undoing it right now and saving the red tape. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen: Recently Hidden Tempo was given an indefinite block under Discretionary Sanctions for a 3RR violation. You endorsed that block but offered to convert it into an indefinite AP2 topic ban. It is difficult to see how an indefinite and broad topic ban is appropriate in one case but a narrow and finite topic ban is out of bounds in the other. Both editors were accused of tendentious editing and battleground behavior and disruption in both cases is confined to politics. Is the 3RR violation the difference? Neutrality (also objecting here) found the indefinite block "within discretion." This seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, you are mistaken about the discretionary sanctions; MastCell's block of Hidden Tempo wasn't per ds, and if I should convert it to an indefinite topic ban from American politics, that wouldn't be per discretionary sanctions either. In the normal course of events, there are only two ways a topic ban can be placed: either by a single admin per discretionary sanctions, or per community discussion on AN or ANI. However, there's a third, rarer way, inasmuch as an admin can negotiate anything they want in return for an unblock — a topic ban or any other sanction they believe would work. The only condition is that the blocked user agrees to the changed sanction. I don't suppose the discretionary sanctions thing was the main aspect of your question, but I still felt I needed to clarify it. For the rest, MastCell blocked Hidden Tempo "for repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior", and the immediate occasion for the block was this ANI discussion. I understand you're making a comparison (a misleading one IMO), but I don't think this thread is the best place for going into detail about Hidden Tempo's block. (There's already a lot of discussion on HT's talkpage.) I'll just answer your question the way you put it: no, the 3RR violation isn't the difference. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

Samsara's edit

(and I would still like an explanation for this edit. Especially given the big hullaboo that Samsara is making about me reverting an IP. If it was a mistake, then that's fine, but then one should think about stones and glass houses.)  Volunteer Marek  14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I can diffuse that for you. Look at the time stamp of the next edit and ask yourself how likely it is that I could have made the correction myself before the other party got to it. If you want to make the case that the banners were helpful, I'm interested to hear how many will agree with you. Samsara 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

They would have been helpful if you had just changed "article" to "section". But whatever. So if I understand it correctly you restored misspellings into the article because you wanted to make other changes and didn't look at it closely. Fair enough. Volunteer Marek  14:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Review (by uninvolved editors) of the topic ban of Volunteer Marek

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.

---

Yesterday, User:GoldenRing issued a 3-months topic ban for Volunteer Marek under the AP2 discretionary sanctions. Such a topic ban may not be overturned by another admin on his own, and GoldenRing doesn't seem willing to overturn his topic ban and bring it here to get a broader consensus for it. This only leaves us, according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions with two options, getting "the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN" or going to ArbCom. So, in light of the above discussion where multiple uninvolved editors agreed that the sanction wasn't warranted, I'll try the first. The proposal is to remove the sanction against Volunteer Marek. Fram (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't see this section, which had just been started when I posted. As I said, I think the topic ban is inappropriate. Fram, perhaps you can just summarize the opposition above? I'm pretty sure it amounts to a consensus of uninvolved editors, and it seems a little awkward that everybody will have to repeat what they've said. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Yeah, well, I was somewhat wrong when I first overturned the sanction, so I try to do it by the book this time. I know that quite a few editors (who as far as I am ware are uninvolved) have expressed misgivings about the sanction, but I would rather have them repeat it here to avoid including involved editors or people who don't really want it overturned anyway. Fram (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• I suppose I should put it as by the book as possible, then: Support overturning the sanction. But I also appeal to GoldenRing to just do it and not insist on the red tape. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

I support it too, although whether I can now claim to be uninvolved is- questionable? Since the discussion veered wildly between here and my talk while the above was taking place. But pace GR, I think this was heavy handed; I also don't think he needs to be kebabed for what is- whilst wrong- no worse a heavy-handed use of admin-tools than other admins have shown. And some of them, ironically, are in this thread. I echo the request above for a non-process closure, per NOTBURO, as it would demonstrate the utmost collegiality. I also note that VM patrols some of the most toxic and politically virulent pages on our project, and that he should be thanked for it rather than punished. Uuurggh. — fortunavelut luna 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note In light of the criticism above, I am reconsidering this (having also slept on it), but would like another hour to read through a bit more history, please. GoldenRing (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think this section even existed when I commented above, but, at the risk of redundancy, since it's requested, I'll reiterate here: This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 10:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• I think there already is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors above, but to formalise it, I think the sanction placed on Volunteer Marek was misjudged and I support removing it. (I also appeal to GoldenRing to simply remove the sanction and save the timewaste of having to forcibly overturn it by consensus.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• (ec with B!sZ) Having spent nearer three hours than one reading diffs, I'm still personally inclined to leave this sanction in place. I got as far as the third week of August through VM's contribs, skipping over some obviously non-AP2-related stuff. My overall impression is that VM has a noticeable political POV but that most of the time he does a decent enough job of not pushing it in disruptive ways. Something about immigration and its intersection with race relations (and in this particular instance the "illegal" vs "undocumented" alien/immigrant debate) gets him hot under the collar and the subject would be better off without his input for a bit. He also has very little time for new and IP editors; fair enough, the proportion of disruption that comes from them is, well, disproportionate; that doesn't mean you get your way solely because the other guy is new or an IP. If anyone desperately wants diffs for the above, ask and I'll do it, but it'll take a while and I'm waaaaay out of time for this today.
• That said, I can read the writing on the wall above and won't waste people's time further by insisting on a formal close to overturn the sanction. VM, please show a little patience with new and unregistered editors and cool it on the illegal/undocumented thing for a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There are better ways to back down than that. Some of those ways even include a proper apology. -- Begoon 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Marek's feistiness is frequently mischaracterized. It has been years (OK, a very long time, certainly) since I have seen them be uncivil or unreasonable. Their comments and criticism are versed in policy, and the topic ban should be rescinded--not out of charity, but because it is the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Sarmeh

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.

---

There appears to be sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Sarmeh, and admin attention may be appropriate briefly. A good closer can discount the unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Disregard that. The closer ignored the unregistered editors and deleted the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2017 (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.

Hillbillyholiday Editing Restriction Violation (again)

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.

---

• Manny Pacquiao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is already a discussion regarding this editor, but as this was a different article I made a new report. Feel free to add this to the current report if that's better.

This editor is subject to a 1RR/72 hours on anything related to BLP. [15]

They have already been reported [16] however, it was a little stale.

However, this editor seems to have broken the 1RR/72 hours again. (hardly surprising, as they said they would break it - [17] )

Here are the two reverts within 1 hour 13 mins.

[18] [19] (this was a cheeky revert - (-7,388)‎ but marked as a minor edit?)

There is a discussion regarding this content on both the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard, this editor has not attempted to join either discussion, despite having that course of action recommended when the 1RR/72 sanction was imposed on them.

This most certainly isn't a case of removing vandalism, it's a mere content dispute - content that is correctly, reliably and verifiably sourced.

Sorry, but I can't think of a more blatant example of being here just for drama, than someone who got an editing restriction two weeks ago, stated that they would break that restriction and then broke it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Does Hillbillyholiday think that BLPVIO means leaving absolutely nothing negative whatsoever? — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed the section already, it's at the BLPN, but Cowboy is editwarring to keep the material. As I explained on Cowboy's talkpage, this part in particular is highly problematic:

Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter."

The given source, kdramastars.com, is not good enough. In fact the entire section is cobbled together from primary sources of varying quality. One is a copyright-violating youtube clip. It needs to stay out until a consensus has been reached on whether to include it, and if so, how it should be worded. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard." [20]

Sorry, but not liking ONE SOURCE, out of many that include The Times, The Guardian, NBC etc is not a good enough reason to break your editing sanction.

Let me quote this one section from the sanction "except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources" which this most certainly was not.

you should have gone to either the article talk page, or the BLP noticeboard and discussed this. But hey, at least you're honest, you said "I will revert back if I think it's necessary. This restriction is ludicrous and actually quite offensive considering I have done as much as anyone here to improve BLPs. I'm afraid it's IAR all the way, baby." and now you're doing exactly that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As this is the editor's second violation of the editing restrictions (first violation resulted in a warning rather than a block), I've blocked for one week and warned them that future violations will result in more severe sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 8 September 2017 (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.

Hillbillyholiday Editing Restriction Violation

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.

---

• Hillbillyholiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is placed under the following editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard.
• Noticed placed 14:05, August 29, 2017‎
• First revert 04:40, August 30, 2017
• Second revert 07:48, August 30, 2017 violating restriction
• User did take the issue to the BLPN

Please enforce as a final warning. It's a little late for a block and might be too extreme, especially since they took it to the BLPN, but I did want to get it on record in case this happens again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if this hillbilly claimed the BLP, Black Kite might have something to say, considering this edit. Black Kite, I'm a bit disappointed with that removal--don't you think the world would be a better place if we all kissed a bit more? Esp. if we kissed billionaires? 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

"Claiming" BLP has nothing to do with this. The user violated his restriction on reverting BLP articles. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be, but that edit was mainly to stop the BLP focusing on the subject's criminal past; the removal of the tabloid gossip stuff was a by-product. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at the BLPN thread I agree a 4IM-style warning should be placed on HBH's talk page leaving no room for doubt that claiming BLP without citing a specific complaint does not give them the right to violate their editing restriction. If they are going to try and push for getting an exception to their editing restriction they need to be on 100% solid policy ground and need to be able to cite the exact policy, section, and commentaries to make their case. It be better for them to appeal the case to something like the Talk page or BLPN before breaking the editing restriction as now we're considering the editing restriction (the conduct) over the content (potentially BLP violation). Hasteur (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A block now for an edit that was a week ago and hasn't been repeated is simply pointless, but they really need to not do it again. If they have a serious BLP concern that isn't vandalism, after 1 revert it must go to BLPN or be pointed out to another editor. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hasteur: As the person who drafted his editing restriction, it was meant to prevent him from edit warring by citing the BLP exception. That was the entire purpose of the restriction. He is not permitted to use it or to get around his edit restriction in any manner except obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Khilus Kryik: as the person who drafted the editing restriction and the one pushing for sanctions now, I have a question: Why didn't you jump up and down on the violation quicker? Demanding anything more than the 4IM is Punitive over Preventative. Hasteur (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I never demanded anything more than a warning. I actually explicitly said I didn't want one. So I don't understand what you are getting at. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User has made their intentions known to ignore the editing restriction. Will an administrator please handle this? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Complaining about the restriction isn't a violation of it. In this case, we've got one incident a week old, and I think the editor is well aware what the consequences of ignoring the restriction would be. If they actually do, we can address it at that point, but it should be brought up more quickly than a week after the fact. Just for clarity, though, since I closed the discussion, it absolutely was the consensus there that HBH cannot claim the BLP exemption, as poor judgment in use of it was what precipitated the issue in the first place. The only exception would be for blatant vandalism, meaning something that any reasonable editor would agree was vandalism. Otherwise, Hillbillyholiday, bring it to BLPN, it's heavily watched and genuine problems will be jumped on very quickly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: By "handle this" I meant for someone to place a warning on his talk page as a reminder but also as an official act so administrators would be compelled to action in the future if it happens again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a note at their TP. Hopefully it does some good. GoldenRing (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

New Violation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Hillbillyholiday_Editing_Restriction_Violation_.28again.29 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (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.

Schorlomite redirection issue

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.

---

When on the Garnet page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet) and going down to "Garnet structural group" you will see near the bottom of the second table a blue link for Schorlomite. However when this link is clicked you are forcefully redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet#Less_common_species with no way of staying on the Schorlomite page. This would generally not be an issue if the Schorlomite page was empty or had no valuable information, however for the split second that the page shows up before redirecting to the Garnet page you can clearly see it is full of information that due to the forced redirect is impossible to see or obtain. I apologize if there is a better talk page or way to discuss this issue, I'm still learning the ropes of wikipedia and this seemed to be the most suitable way to get in contact with someone who might be able to remedy the issue.

VivianN Z (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no history or info at Schorlomite just the redirect code. You are seeing the target page pull up before it takes you to the target section. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I see too. The Schorlomite redirect just directs to a different part of the same Garnet article, and that's all it's ever done - there's never been a specific Schorlomite article in that page's history. What I see is a brief glimpse of the Garnet article from the top, before it scrolls down to the redirect target section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, OP, when you are redirected to a page you can go to the redirect page by clicking the link at the top of the article you are redirected to which says "(redirected from $page)". In this case, the redirect page for schorlomite is at [21]; you can verify the lack of content and edit history yourself. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (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.

Rangeblock needed

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.

---

See WP:AIV. There's an IP-hopping harasser using an IPv6 address in the 2605:A000:F8E0:9F00 range who needs a rangeblock. I'm not skilled enough to handle it, if someone who is can pop over there and investigate, it'd be much appreciated. --Jayron32 11:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

/64 blocked 1 month -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jayron32 12:26, 8 September 2017 (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.

ACE2017 request for comment

Normally we start this September 1, but this year we're a bit behind schedule. The RfC that will determine the rules and procedures of the 2017 Arbitration Committee election is now live: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017 (WP:ACERFC). Feel free to add new discussion topics as level 2 headers. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

G13 eligible Sandboxes

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.

---

There are 140+ sandboxes that were AfC rejected. Can someone use a tool to bulk delete or blank these pages? I already processed all the non-sandboxes there. [22] Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2017 (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.

Out of process deletion - Medha Khole

This article was recently tagged {{db-person}} by 91.207.57.43 (talk · contribs). I declined the speedy because a search for sources show it is possible to write an article on this subject; however I have deleted the article anyway per WP:BLPDELETE as the two sources given do not verify any claims in the article. I would rather somebody rewrote the article from scratch. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• A short-term news scandal over the past 24 hours, should subside soon. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• She's not notable for anything else, so an obvious BLP1E anyway, and even the 1E doesn't appear as if it'll be that notable or lasting. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• It has been recreated - the content created was a copy paste copyright violation from the Hindu. Medha Khole . Perhaps a good idea to block Medha Khole from being created. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Current practice is to do that after the second re-creation, i.e. third creation. Samsara 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Jay Kristopher

There are some issue regarding a recent created article Jay Kristopher as I have tagged it for deletion the author has written a note on the article stating if you need anymore sources ill give you more sources this is my sons wikipedia page that i created and these things are all true he's everywhere else but here he likes wikipedia and September 12th is his birthday don't delete his page he always likes to see himself on wikipedia refreshing the page his birthday is in 1 day wikipedia administrators don't break my sons heart. Admins take note of this as per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:ONEDAY. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

So unhappy to post this

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 so unhappy to be raising this today. I so hoped this was solved at the end of June and I've been paying no attention to Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today. I went looking and was shocked at what I found.

Evidence

• An IBAN was imposed on June 30/July 1 [23] which I have very carefully followed.
• I supported the IBAN to get some relief from constant WP:HOUNDING
• Godsy strongly opposed the IBAN [24]
• an IBAN exception was carved out for commenting on XfDs started by the other person.
• The closing admin is away prepping for a hurricane (Prayers for User:xaosflux and anyone else in the path)
• There are about 31 open WP:MfDs right now
• over the last 8 days I initiated 13 of the 31 open MFDs and
• Today Godsy voted against my nom on 12 of the 13 plus 1 other MfD that I'm very involved in [25]
• Each vote was only several words and the 13 votes were rapid fire between 12:07 and 12:11 [Special:Contributions/Godsy]
• until today, Godsy has not participated in MfD since June 27 and did not participate in any other MfD today. He evidently specifically targeted MfDs I'm automatically watching, and to 100% oppose my efforts to delete.

I also was very surprised to find that Godsy's only contributions since the June 30 IBAN have been mostly focused me and my edits. Special:Contributions/Godsy

• a) develop his sandbox3 with my alleged sins
• b) complete filing a ArbComm case against me he started when it was clear the IBAN would pass (rejected)
• c) pop into the Taku AN thread on Aug 16 to comment on a topic highly connected to my editing
• d) requesting permission to comment on a proposal I put forward in the same thread [26] and then opposing my proposal [27],
• e) Vote to Overturn at DRV the close of a Taku page, again, something I'm pretty involved in. [28]
• f) fiddle with and mostly clear User Talk:Godsy and User:Godsy which hides the ANi, block, IBAN posts.
• g) replace all content on User:Godsy with a countdown clock that ends the moment he can appeal the IBAN on July 1, 2018 [29] which suggests planning a year in advance to step up his campaign against me.
• h) make a comment on Jimbo's talk on 1:47 July 16 [30], just under 6 hours after I was specifically invited on my talk page to comment there [31] Good chance he followed the link from my talk because I've seen nothing to suggest he is very interested in ACTRIAL and he was not notified of that discussion.
• i) edited zero articles, initiated zero XfDs, and done zero to move the project forward.

I'm definately not welcome on his talk [32]

Also I never noticed before that on June 28 Special:Contributions/Godsy he engaged in extensive canvassing to alert editors (a majority of whom just voted against a 1 way IBAN on Godsy) about the proposed two way IBAN, likely hoping for a repeat result.

Questions

1. Do these sections of WP:NOTHERE apply?

General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions. and/or

Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive ...escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia... A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.

2. Is this editing pattern continued WP:HARASSMENT even if it is barely within the bounds of the IBAN?

3. This makes me feel like I've got an enemy watching my every move who is dancing along the edge of the IBAN. Am I being too sensitive here?

4. What, if anything should be done about this behaviour pattern? Thank-you and again, so sorry to be bring this back to the community. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

On (3). You are being about 15% too sensitive. About 115% of what would be healthy. It's weird, but mostly harmless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the stuff seem harmless. I mean it's well established that editors can remove nearly everything from their talkpages per WP:USERTALK so there's zero point getting worked up if they do so. Godsy is clearly aware of the iban. Likewise, even if the case is rejected, I'd be very reluctant to say someone preparing a case for arbcom is wrong. (The problem is when people seem to be taking forever to prepare the case so it stays in wikipedia all this time.) But I do have concerns (if it's true) about someone making a countdown clock for being allowed to appeal. Although even in that example, I'm not sure if there's much point worrying about it. All they're doing is ensuring that their appeal will fail. More concerning still would be, if it's true, that they suddenly appeared in MFDs and only in MFDs with LegacyPac's involvement. Yes there was an exemption but it wasn't intended (at least on my part) to allow Godsy to continue to pursue LegacyPac. Still I'm not sure there's enough for any action, so I would just let it be. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about him cleaning up his userpage. I'm just pointing out that is the only other thing he's done that is not related to pursuing me. Just click edit on User:Godsy to confirm the countdown clock is set to July 1, 2018 exactly one year from the date of the iban imposition. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Godsy shows an editor who needs a long wikibreak. Godsy has exploited the technical wording of the IBAN statement to further their campaign against Legacypac. The statement did not cover the obvious, namely that it was expected that each editor would find something useful to do other than hound each other. Therefore, voting at an MfD started by the other was seen as a reasonable activity for someone following WP:HERE. However, Godsy prefers to fan the flames. In this edit Godsy placed an image of people "most miserably tormented" with a countdown timer showing how much time Godsy needs to wait before the IBAN can be appealed. It is rare to see a contributor unable to hide their hostility after so much disruption. Options are an extreme final warning or preferably a one-week block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

New section post-close-reversal

@Primefac: thank-you and I'll happily agree. For absolute clarity this means no more commenting on XfDs started by the other party correct? That would be "reply to each other in discussions"? That is how I read the section just above WP:BANEX.Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Legacypac, Godsy seems to determined to wikilawyer this one to death. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In light fact that Godsy apparently has nothing better to do than sidle up to and drool all over the exceptions carved out during the previous discussion, as well as wikilawyer this thing to death, I am proposing the the IBAN expanded; the only exceptions will be those stated in WP:BANEX and resets the one-year counter for appeals. Legacypac has already agreed above to accept these terms. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Just noting that I believe you have the authority as an admin, if you believe that Godsy's editing is WP:DISRUPTIVE, to unilaterally impose any sanction you think is appropriate. It would not, of course, then be a community sanction which can be overturned only by the community, but a normal sanction, which can be overturned by any admin -- although discussion with the admin who imposed the sanction is the recommended usual procedure before overturning. Given those limitations, you don't necessarily need to have the community's approval to impose your suggested change to the current sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping to ignore all of this, the nonsense that it is, but it appears I will not be able to do so.

• An accurate characterization of my editing:

• An interaction ban was imposed on July 1 which I have followed.
• I have never harassed anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
• I opposed the interaction ban for reasons I clearly express there.
• Xaosflux is still editing, but at a reduced rate.
• Many miscellany for deletion discussions are open right now.
• Some individuals initiate more than others, and some consistently present poor rationales for deletion.
• I participated in ones that interested me, as I am allowed to do, most of which were in the old business section (the ones most in need of more participation).
• I had several miscellany for deletion discussions open at one time on September 7, and saved them all at around the same time, which is perfectly acceptable.
• I've largely been on a break since the interaction ban was implemented, and still am.

• I've edited very little since the interaction ban, only things that I believe need my attention the most when I happen to pop in:

• a) See User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017#A community interaction ban has been imposed on you and User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017#RFAR in regard to the arbitration case filing.
• b) see a).
• c) I'm allowed to comment at the administrators' noticeboard.
• d) I'm allowed to ask for clarification of the interaction ban and edit accordingly, see User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017# A community interaction ban has been imposed on you.
• e) I'm allowed to participate at deletion review.
• f) I archived my talk page to User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017.
• g) There is nothing inappropriate with my userpage, it meets all applicable policies and guidelines.
• h) User talk:Jimbo Wales is one of the most, if not the most, watched talk page on Wikipedia.
• i) I'm allowed to spend my time editing as I see fit.
• ) I have not engaged in canvassing in the past, rather, I have sent out appropriate notifications.

• Questions:

1. No.
2. I have never harassed anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
3. This whole thing is nonsense.
4. Nothing, it is entirely appropriate.

@Nil Einne: See above.

@Johnuniq: I put a picture of Saint Blandina on my userpage. She is the patron saint of the falsely accused and tortured. I think that fits my current situation well, though "tortured" is too strong of a word.

@Primefac: Process is important and you must remain neutral when closing discussions.

I knew things like this would pop up, which is why I limited my editing and continue to, only addressing the most important matters. User talk:Xaosflux#Objection - ADMINACCT is another example. The individual I am banned from interacting with wants the interaction ban to be much, much larger than what one entails. We disagree about drafts and whether or not things should be deleted out of process or for no good reason. They seem to want me banned from all such discussions regarding those issues. They are involved in seeking sanctions against others they simply disagree with, e.g. TakuyaMurata in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata and have done the same to others in the past. I believe they think causing drama like this will result in expanded sanctions allowing them to effectively silence someone they deem to be an opponent. Free, open, and civil discussion from those with all reasonable viewpoints is a pillar that holds Wikipedia up, and I hope the community does not allow it to be crushed. I would suggest the community either 1) close this by adding a sanction to the original poster of this thread which states matters concerning this interaction ban may not be brought to the administrators' noticeboard or subpages of it by said party, accept to appeal the ban at the appropriate time if desired. Said party may only bring matters concerning the interaction ban to the closing administrator (i.e. Xaosflux) or the arbitration committee (this will largely avoid further disruption and drama, the intent of the interaction ban) or 2) send this matter to the arbitration committee. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Listen, I will be the first one to say that I have had run ins with both Legacypac and Primefac and am not huge fans of theirs at the moment. Nevertheless, the behavior displayed by Godsy is petty and borderline WP:NOTHERE. Responding to legitimate problems with "take it to Arbcom" is exceedingly worrisome. Complaining about the community's ability to enforce restrictions by saying it goes against Wikipedia policy is further pettiness and the community should not waste further time on someone who is trying to game the spirit of the sanction, aka "the nonsense that it is". — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nihlus Kryik: I believe the community has shown an inability to handle this matter, hence my suggestion to kick it to the arbitration committee. Even if the interaction ban is converted to a traditional one, it will not prevent me from doing things the individual I'm banned from interacting with deems inappropriate and they'll cause a fuss if I engage in them. E.g. to quote WP:IBAN, "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." The individual I'm banned from interacting with doesn't want me to edit pages they do, evidenced by their complaints that my name shows up on their watchlist (i.e. "Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today") and other more explicit statements in the past. It would be good for the arbitration committee to decide whether or not unambiguously improving pages another has edited constitutes harassment, as that is where this matter stems from, and the community has been unable to deal with the matter (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?). The situation is too complicated, and I feel like I may be rambling, so this will be all I have to say (tonight at least, if not for much longer). Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems fairly straightforward to me. WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:
      • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
      • reply to each other in discussions;
      • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
      • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
      • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
    • Nothing about that is confusing. Now, editing only pages that they edit could be considered WP:HOUNDING and would be a violation of the spirit of the ban, like you've done up until this point. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support anything up to and including an indefinite block of Godsy. The extraordinary nonsense posted above means no crystal ball is needed to know the future of this sorry episode. @Godsy: We each have a private list of people we think should not be here. On the one hand, it is nice that you are so transparent, but on the other, it is not good for you or the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but the "they" I use above is a singular they, to refer the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use). It isn't meant to refer to anyone else or a "list of people". Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks for confirming that your list consists of a single editor. But why in the world would you want to post that clarification? The point of the IBAN was that the community does not give a damn who started it or who is at fault—we want it to stop. I recommend taking a wikibreak of at least three months. At the end of that time, if you feel any compulsion to check what Legacypac has been up to in your absence, take another three months. Repeat until cured. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Godsy already took his concerns to ArbComm who unanimously refused to hear the case [33] but hey he knows where to file again. I'll probably waste less than 9 words on the next filing. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not familiar with all the details but I do share the impression that User:Legacypac has a behavior problem: that they tends to seek blocks/sanctions against anyone who disagrees with them. The proposed ban only permits such a problematic behavior to be tolerated; very detrimental to the health of the community. It's ok to disagree; it's not ok to try to silence the other side by any means. (At least this is how I understand the situation.) -- Taku (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that the editor above, TakuyaMurata is involved in an extended dispute with Legacypac, which can be found above on this page, at #Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata, and may therefore not be unbiased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Godsy protests far too much, but I'm not entirely sure what he's being accused of here. WP:MfD is a small place; and an exemption to the IBAN was specifically created to try to allow both to participate in the area. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Good faith is nice, but please have a look at Special:Contributions/Godsy before commenting. I count half a dozen edits that Godsy has made since early June that are unrelated to pursuing Legacypac. Per not bureaucracy, the IBAN was worded in a way that means Godsy did not violate the letter of the IBAN but the intention was clearly violated. The current proposal would stop the pursuit. For anyone checking the contribs, please be aware that the mutual support between Godsy and TakuyaMurata is because both oppose Legacypac. It is painfully absurd. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Suppose - Godsy this obsession with Legacypac derailed your RfA, resulted in a brief block, and an IBan you are wikilawyering around. Consider this proposal a benefit to you; cut your loses and perhaps take a wikibreak before more serious sanctions will be put to the drawing board.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I was initially minorly supportive of Godsy (I mean when I first read this about this a couple or so months ago on ANI), but it's become increasingly clear I was wrong. I don't know, and frankly don't care why Godsy doesn't understand we want them to leave LegacyPac alone, and their actions are harming the encyclopaedia. And note, I've said before and I'll say it again, there do seem to be at least some minor issues with LegacyPac's edits, so this has nothing to do with any personal favouritism towards LegacyPac. In fact frankly I find it disgusting that Godsy who claims to recognise problems with LegacyPac's edits is making it difficult to actually work towards resolving those concerns by continually making us go through this nonsense. But whatever the reasons, Godsy is clearly unable to understand they are now the key problem, so we need to force them to. While the countdown clock by itself may not be enough for action it actually demonstrates the point very well. As I said in my first response, if it stays up it's a guarantee that any appeal by Godsy will fail. (If it's removed depending on other stuff there's a chance but the clock would definitely not help.) the fact they put it there can only suggest they don't understand this basic and obvious point. Frankly I've lost my patience enough that I would also support a completely community ban, or an admin deciding to just indef. And so would also support such if there are any further attempts to wikilawyer around it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neither oppose nor neutral in the spirit of [34], which seems a bit too lawyer-like for me. Κσυπ Cyp   07:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support along with a warning that if Godsy doesn't find something to do other than be a Legacypac-focused SPA, an indefinite block is the next step. His hair userpage should also be deleted as POLEMIC. On a side note, administrators do not have authority to unilaterally modify community bans, though why Godsy feel arbitration policy is relevant is beyond me. GoldenRing (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe than an admin can impose a stricter sanction on top of a community-placed sanction. If that admin-imposed sanction is removed, the community-imposed sanction still remains, until lifted by the community. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpret the relationship between sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• That is correct. An admin could place an editing restriction that was stricter or made the community sanction irrelevant, but if that restriction is lifted, the community sanction remains. The most common example would be community placed editing restrictions where the editor is subsequently blocked indefinitely. Even if the block is lifted, the original sanction remains. Arbcom is a different matter and has been handled in different ways by different arbcoms. Some have replaced community sanctions in entirety, others have incorporated them into Arbcom sanctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• That is true of blocks, which can be imposed unilaterally on discretion, but administrators do not have the authority to impose bans unilaterally, so they also don't have the authority to modify bans (eg the scope or duration) unilaterally. According to the banning policy, bans can be imposed by community consensus or the arbitration committee. The only complexity is where discretionary sanctions apply, in which case administrators have a delegated authority from the arbitration committee to unilaterally impose bans. That doesn't apply here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Over-analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment I would be inclined to leave this be, that is not to amend the sanctions in place, if not for one small thing. Godsy has not participated in a single MfD where Legacypac was not already involved in some way since July 1st 2017. The list of MfD's that Godsy has participated in; Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy nom, Legacy participant. My findings; 1. There are currently 29 Draft space articles nominated at MfD, 16 of these are "Old business", 14 are Legacypac's nomination, 2 are other people's nomination with 1 of those have Legacypac's participation, and 12 of these have Godsy's participation. 2. The MfD's where Godsy has not commented are; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Samacharpati.com opened by Legacypac and closed as delete on Sept 9., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alfonzo Rachel Onel5969's nomination that is still open but will likely be deleted (Legacy is a participant), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Elizabeth Mears closed as delete on Sept 9., Legacy nom, no Godsy involvement, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cato Sapiens Legacy nomination, has only one other !vote, and lastly Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quantum enveloping algebra (2) Legacy nomination, has weird technical issues, no Godsy involvement. 3. For those of you keeping score at home, you will notice an aberration in the maths here. There are 16 Old business drafts, 12 of these are Legacypac noms or participations that also have Godsy's participation. How then are there five drafts that Godsy has not participated on? The aberration comes from; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League which is a userpage, not a draft. There are technically only 11 draft participations from Godsy. 4. Only 1 of the 16 "Old business" draftspace MfD's does not have some kind of Legacypac involvement. 5. Godsy has !voted exclusively on Legacypac noms or participations. My interpretation of the findings; a. If there are 16 drafts, 14 of these are Legacy noms, and 1 more has Legacy's participation, then that leaves 1/16 (or 6.25% of) drafts where Godsy could completely avoid Legacypac. Thus, an overlap must be expected. b. Godsy has participated in 11/16 (or 68.75% of) "Old business" draft MfDs so it is reasonable to expect that there will be near 100% overlap between Godsy and Legacypac (90.91% to be mathematically exact). c. The five drafts that Godsy has not participated on are either i) closed or going to close in Legacy's favour or ii) have not been touched by Legacy anyway. Which leads me to d. It seems to me that the only draft MfD's Godsy hasn't touched are coincidentally those which deletion is favoured. This suggests that Godsy !votes on MfD's that are going to close against Legacypac. This is a striking feature that Legacy has noted before at AN/I, that Godsy always participates against Legacypac. This means 1 of 2 things, either Legacypac is a very poor nominator, or, Godsy just wants to contradict Legacy. Either or. And I say either or because of e. of the 14 Legacypac nominations, excluding Godsy's !votes, 4 (28.6%) are favouring the nom, 5 are likely to be kept (35.7%), and 5 (35.7%) are really being contested and could go either way. This isn't a particularly favourable nom rate, and at least 2 of those that are leaning nom, when accounting for Godsy's !vote, slip into contested territory reducing the stats to 2-5-7 (14.3%-35.7%-50%). I will note, however, that MfD has a much lower bar for keeping drafts around than AfD does for articles. So, I would expect deletion nominations to be rejected much more often. This all leads me to my final finding and TL;DR comment; f. This is really down to how much AGF you give either party. One could easily infer that Godsy's participation solely on MfD's that Legacy has nominated is due to WIKIHOUNDING. One could, however, counter-infer that the overlap is reasonable if for no other reason than that Legacy is responsible for the lions share (90%) of current "Old business" draftspace MfD nominations. I, personally, don't know which it is. I find it suspect that Godsy has all sorts of references to the IBAN on their pages, and that they just happen across ACTRIAL on Jimbo's talk page hours after a note was posted to Legacy's page, but, I don't know what to do with the MfD stuff as a) a full IBAN isn't going to inherently prevent Godsy participating on MfD, b) it's not going to prevent him commenting on MfDs that Legacy has nominated or c) doing practically anything else that he has. None of these actually violate any of the clauses of the IBAN. Godsy has not edited Legacy's user or user talk page, he hasn't replied to Legacypac in any discussion, he has made some low level references to his IBAN with Legacypac, he hasn't used the revert function, and it does not appear that he has used the "thanks" extension to send thanks to Legacypac. So what exactly does a full IBAN change that the already existing IBAN doesn't have (aside from resetting the counter)? I'm not seeing any change here that does anything. It's important to note, that Xaoslux exception, isn't actually an exception; Additionally, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote. Umm... there is nothing written on WP:IBAN that prevents this anyway. You'd technically be carving in an additional sanction, not carving out an exception. So unless there's an added sanction, this proposal, at least to me, seems to be moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Can you TLDR that TLDR? I got a few points out of it, so I wanted to mention that I would consider voting on something that the other has nominated to be a violation of the IBAN as it essentially is a reply to them. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC) TL:DR, TL:DR; The current IBAN is a full IBAN because the exception carved out isn't an exception. You need a new sanction altogether, not just an updated IBAN. An updated IBAN doesn't ban Godsy from MfD nor does it ban them from Legacypac nominations. I think I get what you are saying, if Legacy makes an MfD nom and Godsy places a comment on the MfD nom that could be considered a reply, but, you could make that argument for any comment that Godsy places anywhere where Legacypac has already been. E.g. in a comment thread started by Legacypac. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Future wikilawyering from Godsy is most unlikely to wash. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC) An over-analysis is not needed. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes looking at Special:Contributions/Godsy that everything Godsy has done since the IBAN (and before!) has concerned a pursuit of Legacypac. Yes, there have been a very small number of exceptions, but the 99% motivation is to pursue Legacypac. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Johnuniq, I agree. Too much thought. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Shortening my over-analysis to a few simple sentences. I am not absolutely sure that an IBAN would cover noms from Legacypac. If it is covered, then no harm no foul. If it isn't covered, then you know, extend the terms to carve in a sanction. The thing that does it for me is that it's impossible to explain away the fact that even the small amount of editing that Godsy is doing is almost exclusively forcing some interaction with Legacypac. 12 MfD votes, 11 of which are Legacypac noms themselves. Jimbo's talk to the same section that Legacypac had been invited to hours earlier. The IBAN references on both the talk and user page of Godsy. It's clear that this pattern isn't going to change without a solid, bolded, instruction to stay away. I'm sorry Godsy, you satisfied my concerns last time by pointing to the fact that many of your interactions with Legacypac are unavoidable due to MfD. This time, however, all I see in your contribs is Legacypac. I looked at your contribs as a whole, 23k edits in 3 years. That's a lot more than I'm going to have at the same mark. Prior to the IBAN your contribs covered MfD, AfD, RfD, Article space, Draft space, etc. Some of it overlapped with Legacy, but, there was something other than just Legacy there. Now, it's almost all tied to Legacy. Either a full IBAN is going to push you somewhere else, or, you'll just leave the encyclopaedia. Hopefully, it pushes you into other things. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ouch! I was counting Godsy's comment at Jimbo's talk as one of the handful not concerning Legacypac. How naive I am! Kudpung invited Legacypac to comment in the section at Jimbo's talk at 02:57, 16 July 2017. Before Legacypac responded, Godsy opposed what would have been Legacypac's position at 08:47, 16 July 2017. QED. @Godsy: Sorry, but you have to let it go, permanently. Life is not fair, and Wikipedia cannot provide satisfaction to all parties. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Mr rnddude: I read your full analysis. Since receiving the interaction ban, I generally only check into Wikipedia once a week and for only a few minutes; some weeks I don't even make any edits. I only edit in places that I feel are most important (e.g. doing my part to prevent a user who seemingly didn't break any policies or guidelines from receiving an editing restriction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata because others don't like their seemingly reasonable actions). I have some free time in the morning two days a week, so I thought I might ease back into participating at miscellany for deletion. Would it matter if I had made a couple thousand edits over the past few months with the edits in question sprinkled in? It should not; they are either appropriate or not. The reason the individual on the other side of this interaction ban is so eager to accept it and all new conditions, is because it really doesn't effect their editing practices. They can continue seeking the deletion of things, a lot of which clearly should not be deleted. If it were "miscellany for keeping" or "criteria for speedy keeping", and nominations were made to keep things, it would affect them and not me. I'd be happy to accept, instead of the interaction ban, e.g. a 2 year ban from nominating drafts (i.e. userspace or draftspace henceforth) at miscellany for deletion, nominating drafts for speedy deletion, redirecting drafts to the mainspace, and moving pages from the draftspace to the userspace, if the individual I'm banned from interacting with is also given this restriction because it would affect their editing practices and not me. That would prevent any further disruption, and eliminate the cause of interactions the community has deemed disruptive and that have caused all this drama. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This apparent obsession of Godsy's with Legacypac has to stop, and as he won't willingly stop it, it has to be forcibly stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, and as for "the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use)" - how pathetically childish is that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: I originally had something else written instead of that which was not civil, and perhaps even bordered on a personal attack, and I apologize if my avoiding engaging in incivility came off as childish to you. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  And you think that makes you sound better?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Johnuniq Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Suppport I had actually been wondering the other day if Godsy was active again (in a good way), then I went to their user talk and became alerted to this mess. Please let's stop this disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know if Godsy has some sort of "thing" for LP or what but regardless this whole thing is beyond pathetic and childish and FWIW I would support banning Godsy from this place altogether - An IBAN isn't hard to follow but anywho if BANEX is violated then indef blocking should be next on the menu. –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Godsy needs to take a wikibreak; I said that I felt at the last AN discussion that he would find a way to wikilawyer out of the iban and it appears he has. Bordering on WP:NOTHERE territory, frankly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's time for this fiasco to stop and if Godsy won't stop it, it has to be stopped for him. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support regretfully. Legacypac's handling of the situation back when this first became an issue, coupled with the original unwarranted block of Godsy, both contributed to the problem and I can understand why Godsy has had a hard time letting it go. Legacypac is a problematic and overly sensitive editor, but Godsy does not seem to understand where the line is and he keeps stepping across it. Lepricavark (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Lepricavark it appears your assessment refers to how I handled this situation in June 2017, however the harassment I've been receiving dates back at least a year before that. Your post illustrates the unreasonable amount of damage this war against me has done to my editing reputation, which leads to my Additional Proposal below Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. My viewpoint is that Godsy saw various problems in some of your editing and sought to rectify those problems. He probably should have done more to treat you as a good faith editor (and the same applies to your treatment of him), but I do believe his objective was to address issues with your editing, not merely to hound and harass you. Your June complaint led to a premature block that unfortunately escalated the problem, as Godsy now felt that you were trying to silence him. Your proposal below further reinforces that perception. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The block was not premature (you are echoing Godsy's exact and consistent phrasing by the way) but long overdue. His harassment sunk his RfA long before that block was imposed. His hounding already drove me off wikipedia for months before his failed RfA, so who is trying to silence who exactly? Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes. I have felt strongly ever since the block was handed down that it was completely premature (and if you have some point to make about my phrasing, then come right out and say it instead of dropping hints), and I disagree with your insistence on labeling his pre-iBan edits as hounding and harassment. I'm less than thrilled that we have likely lost Godsy as a valuable contributor, but he's done nothing to help his cause in the past few months and frankly he has brought this on himself. I get that you two don't like each other and I'm not surprised that you have consistently refused to assume good faith on his part, but I don't share your perspective. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If anyone engaged in the kind of war he has engaged in but against you, you would he screaming about it. Why are you defending his WP:STALKing exactly? Godsy has not been "lost" and definately his behavior is not a result of anything I've done or any block. He quit being a productive contributor some months ago completely of his own accord. I don't know him, so I can't dislike him. In fact I wish him the very best, doing anything anywhere not involving harassing me. His long term pattern of behaviour is beyond acceptable and there is no reason the entire community needs to put up with it anymore. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I hope at some point the community reviews the "although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other" part of WP:IBAN, and has a discussion at WT:Banning policy. Though the policy states that, at least the community participating in this discussion does not seem to agree with it. I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent; no editor deserves an editing restriction unless they can be shown to have broken a guideline or policy (i.e. actually done something wrong). Two-way interaction bans should only be used if there is dual-fault. That aside, if a deletionist and inclusionist (not quite accurate, but works as a generalization) are banned from interacting with one another, if the inclusionist isn't the one creating the pages which caused the disagreement themself, the deletionist walks away unhindered and perhaps even empowered. I also find complaints that I commented on thing(s) that the individual I'm banned from interacting with was notified about ridiculous. To avoid that, I would have to check their talk page before commenting anywhere. I also find the notion that if I had made many other edits, and these were just sprinkled in, they would be okay. Contributions are either appropriate or not, they should stand on their own merit. The sentiment expressed by some here regarding the "spirit" of the interaction ban would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at miscellany for deletion (where the individual I'm banned from interacting with probably makes 30% of the nominations and participates in others), and discussions about drafts (an area in which the individual I'm banned from interacting with likes to propose new ways to delete them) among other crazy extra-broad non-enumerated restrictions. I regularly participated in those areas before the interaction ban. I concur with Power~enwiki and would like to thank Mr rnddude for their in-depth look at the matter. I think I will take a wikibreak until the Christmas holiday, if not longer. Many things to consider. Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Inregards to would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at miscellany for deletion and discussions about drafts - Well you'll have to find other places to edit then, Not to rub it in but you had plenty of oppertunity to stop this but you carried it on so it's only your fault it's lead to this, –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we need to review the policy. AFAICT, very few people here seem to think people are, or should be, forbidden from ever commenting on XfDs someone they're ibanned with is also involved in. Such co-participation may happen on occasion and provided both parties act resonably, there's no reason to forbid it. The specific issue here for me, and I think most others, is we don't think you should be concentrating on participating in XfDs with someone you've been ibanned from especially when that iban largely came about because you just wouldn't leave LegacyPac alone. Yes LegacyPac opens a lot of MfDs but it's very difficult to argue it was just an accident you came to those they were heavily involved in (mostly opened), and I'm not even sure you're claiming that. In other words, we don't mind and have no reason to forbid incidental indirect interactions and the policy and guidelines reflect that. But we do mind, and do forbid intentionally continuing to pursue another editor using whatever means you think are technically allowed when you've be told, repeatedly, to stop it. And the evidence shows that even putting aside the MFDs, nearly all you've done since the iban came into effect has somehow involved your dispute with LegacyPac. The fact you don't seem to understand all this, is of course good evidence we're right to restrict you. Per WP:NOTBURO it's unlikely we need to clarify policy or guidelines to tell people that when they've been told to leave another editor alone, they need to do so, not find whatever ways are technically allowed and continue their campaign simply because we also say we not going to punish incidental indirect interactions. As Davey2010 also said, if you've earned community sanction which prevent you editing in your preferred area, you'll have to find somewhere else to edit. P.S. I'm AGFing that you really don't appreciate all this rather than just trying to be difficult, but it's getting harder. P.P.S. I'm saying all this in the hope it will finally get through to you since I have a nasty feeling if it doesn't, the next time I read your name it's going to be a case of "OMFG, not again" when it comes to a full community ban of you from en.wikipedia, although I suspect this won't happen since an indef block which I hopefully won't have to hear about is more likely. As also indicated before, even without a block or ban, unless you understand all this, it will be a case of OMFG when you appeal your i-ban and I suspect just reading you appeal will be enough to tell me it's doomed to fail as I see with appeals way too often. It sounds like you were a good contributor once, my ultimate hope is you can somehow get back to being that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The community's time is being wasted with this stuff; we could currently be writing featured articles. In fact, why don't you try and write one yourself, Godsy? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per basically everyone above. Davey2010's comment just above this post is especially on-point. There would be no IBAN, and no discussion to expand on the IBAN, if Godsy hadn't nickel and dimed this issue to the absolute limit of credulity over the past few months (including arguing that he had an intrinsic right to indent Legacypac's comments after being explicitly told to stop, because indentation is that important). He has had every opportunity to put down the stick and he chooses instead to find new ways to poke the bear with it and then acts surprised when the bear snarls at him. Go do something else here, Godsy. Anything. Pick a pet backlog and clear it out. Take RileyBugz' suggestion and write a FA. Go work with AfC or NPP and help new editors get their drafts published and kept, if you're so dead set on the staggering importance of keeping stuff in draftspace. Anything. Just drop the damn stick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Blatant harassment despite having an interaction ban. People have been indeffed for less. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Godsy seems to delight in pushing the envelope ever further- too much so for my liking. — fortunavelut luna 10:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Wow, how wrong was I here?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Clear instance of NOTHERE; many other users have been blocked for much, much less. -FASTILY 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Simply per all this silly quarrelling also stopping by indef'ing Legacypac, and per estimating Godsy to bring more encyclopedic value to WP than Legacypac does. In my view it would be better for WP to silence Legacypac, rather than Godsy. I value highly all the opinions about troubles that would stop, if only Godsy were silenced, it's just that I think they would stop equally well by silencing Legacypac, but leave more net value for WP. Please, also consider the other wars in which Legacypac was and is involved, and his self-assessment wrt the community, stated alongside his additional proposals. Purgy (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional Proposal

1. Godsy and his two alternative accounts be INDEF'd for WP:HARASSMENT
2. convert the two way IBAN into a one way Standard IBAN in favor of Legacypac

Proposer's Rational: All the stuff above.

Extended content

Proposer's additional detailed rational for anyone that really needs it: Since multiple new sanctions against me have been proposed by Godsy in this thread, it seems ok for me to propose a solution. Godsy continues to claim he has never harassed me and insists the community never found he has harassed me a clear statement is required. Since he is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has turned a thread about his harrassment into a forum to make additional outrageous inflammatory statements, he needs to be stopped. Since he has twice lied here about how he ended up at Jimbo's talk page, and told other fanciful stories here about his MfD participation, why should we believe he plans to take a wikibreak? There is no agreement from him to find something productive to do, only complaints he'll be unable to continue his crusade. As for the IBAN mod, Godsy says above I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent so we should take away his reason to be "abhorred" by making it a one way. This way my account can be cleared of this mess, and in case he ever gets editing privileges back he'll still have to find an editing interest unrelated to harrassing me. Believe me - I've got zero interest in interacting with him and will meticulously be staying away voluntarily, but I would hate to be tripped up in some technicality or accidental interaction.

Respectfully Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to oppose a one-way iban on the usual philosophical and practical grounds. I wouldn't oppose an indefinite block, so long as the text included that any uninvolved admin could unblock on presentation of a reasonable plan of editing that avoids the problems described here. I think Godsy has been a productive editor in the past and should be given a decent opportunity to return to it. GoldenRing (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• One way i-bans are almost always a disaster. I would oppose that. Let the above remedy work. Take the high road. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• I am not opposed to one-way IBans per se - I see many fewer problems with them than some other editors do, but I think this particular situation really does call for a two-way IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Ok, with three respected editors opposing changing the IBAN its pretty clear I need to WITHDRAW the modification to the IBAN part of the proposal. After the ANi beating I took in June plus the comments above defending WP:STALKING as OK, its pretty clear the community feels my contributions are so worthless that there is no value in protecting me unless I'm equally restricted as well - confirming to Godsy the unfairness of the "no fault" IBAN and confirming that he has done nothing wrong and is the bigger victim. I get wikipedia is not fair, but I've tried very hard to avoid Godsy for over a year and a half already. My reward is I'm even worse off than the aggressor because I got a Move restriction in June based on the outright lies Godsy told at ANi and lost NPP rights for a few days. Thanks for the feedback though, at least I know where I stand. I do appreciate those that voted to expand the IBAN as it's easy for me to continue my long self imposed avoidance program. Now, can someone SNOW close the IBAN modification above to shut down Godsy's latest forum for attacking me? Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• For the record: just another evidence that User:Legacypac is only interested in silencing anyone opposing them. It's too bad Wikipedia lacks an effective tool to deal with problematic users like them. -- Taku (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Go work on your all important drafts and stop trolling Taku. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: While you are clearly emotionally involved, I honestly think you would be well advised to walk away from this and leave it to the rest of the community to deal with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no need for escalating personal tit-for-tat, and Legacypac needs to do some stick-dropping too - I think the 2-way IBAN needs to remain. The main IBAN extension proposed above should be sufficient, and other things should only be considered if that doesn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2017 (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.

Possibly compromised account

Reported at WP:AIV, the account of User:Zawl has been blocked indef by me as a possibly compromised account. This has been questioned at User talk:Zawl. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: there was quite a bit of activity. The AIV cited "bad redirects" but those I checked out didn't seem bad, although a few didn't seem necessary (but I'm not an expert on the subjects presented). Why do you believe the account is compromised? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I linked the report above. Do you suggest I unblock with an apology? — Maile (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not yet! . Why do you think the account is compromised? The AIV report didn't list any diffs, the redirects don't seem out of charachter, and I don't see any attempt to communicate with Zawl (but please note I'm slow and still looking). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It was that whole slew of redirects over the past few days that made me think this is possibly compromised. But I'm open to be proven wrong. If this user was blocked in error, I'm sure they would like to be unblocked as soon as possible. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: which edits do you think are vandalism? Since I'm seeing so many recent edits (which is not out of character from this editor who has recently re-named their account), they are between obviously "constructive" edits, and Zawl may be unaware of them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Aspro also posted at WP:VP regarding one of the redirects that went to a deleted article. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Maile66, Zawl did not make a redirect to a deleted article. Zawl created Bhad Bhabie at 10:49, 11 September 2017. Zawl then changed the target of the redirect Danielle Bregoli at 10:50, 11 September 2017 to point to Bhad Bhabie. Then Magnolia677 stated at the village pump they weren't sure what to do about the change to the redirect at 11:20, 11 September 2017. Aspro then complained village pump about the edit at 17:18, 11 September 2017 and again at 17:22, 11 September 2017 and for a third time at 17:33, 11 September 2017 without ever stating what is wrong with that or any other edit Zawl had made. I think Floquenbeam is spot on about Aspro and their reports. ~ GB fan 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything that indicates the account has been compromised. The edits seem to be in character. The redirects do not look "bad" as originally reported. If there are all these "bad" redirects why has no one nominated them for deletion? Zawl should be unblocked. ~ GB fan 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::What is a little disconcerting is that it does not appear anyone attempted to talk with Zawl. I have found him to be the epitome of WP:BOLD, but also willing to discuss things. Regarding the VP, Zawl recreated an article, with many more sources than the version that was deleted, and he believes it to pass the notability threshold. Maybe it does or doesn't, but I'm not sure the edit history was checked. I'm definitely leaning towards immediate unblock absent further evidence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I unblocked the account. If it later turns out to be compromised, there will be evidence of such. But in the meantime, I believe I acted too hastily. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ummm, for everyone's future use: please do not take any admin action based on accusations by User:Aspro. Longtime lurkers at the Village Pump and Reference Desks will tell you ... how can I put this without getting blocked? ... his judgement is questionable quite a bit of the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. Not my best action, but it was a lesson for me. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ User:Floquenbeam.Where did I make accusations against this editor ? I said 'Possibly compromised account' and expressed straight from the start that he was an experienced editor. Which means I had his best interest at heart incase his account had been compromised. Pity you didn't way-in earlier and sort this out yourself instead of coming back 'after' the conclusion with what amounts to: Avec le recul, je pense que nous nous y serions pris autrement.. I know how to reply to you without getting blocked – by leaving it to other editors who have come to know me over the years - to make their own judgments. Aspro (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

original reply: My time machine is in the shop; I expect to be able to sort out things that happen before I see them sometime next week, when I get it back. And it's "weigh in".

more on-point reply: My comment wasn't meant to solve this problem after the fact; it was meant to lessen the likelihood of future problems, by trying to get admins who see this to realize that you can almost always be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Aspro, you are aware that we're capable of reading, right? ‑ Iridescent 07:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for helping to sort this out. Glad to be unblocked. I created the Bhad Bhabie page as I noticed her song, which charted on the Billboard Hot 100 at 77th, in the news and realized there wasn't an article about her, thus decided to create one as there was significant coverage from reliable sources like Maxim and The Sun. I figured that since Bhad Bhabie is the official stage name of Danielle Bregoli, it would be a more appropriate title, as most musicians use their stage names instead of real name (e.g. Snoop Dogg, Eminem). I'm just surprised and disappointed that Magnolia677 and Aspro chose not to discuss with me before reporting/making accusations, and that action was taken against me without evidence and thorough examination, causing an extra unnecessary entry to my block log. — Zawl 10:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata

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.

---

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again
• "Vandalism" reverts
• Where I dis-invite Takuya from my user talk
• "warning" me for "vandalism"
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_15#Draft: Tensor product of representations
• Draft:Toric degeneration
• Draft:Specialization (algebraic geometry)

I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the WP:ATD option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a WP:SPINOUT article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of WP:OWN or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for WP:HARASS.

Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Wikipedia" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:

1. That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
2. That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
3. That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
4. That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
5. That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
6. That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.

Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per WP:NOBAN. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into draftspace userspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the Stale Non-AFC Drafts report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding CSD:G13 to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a WP:SPINOUT Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hasteur: Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. Stale Non-AFC Drafts is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them.
  There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Michael Hardy I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For me, Draft:Faithfully flat descent doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the heart of the matter; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously seriously proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- Taku (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. [35] This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). [36]. I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. Draft:Graded Hopf algebra and Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like [37] are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely ([38]). Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

See also this proposition where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN that I can imagine. @Power~enwiki, BU Rob13, Legacypac, Stifle, Michael Hardy, Jcc, Godsy, Mackensen, BD2412, and Thincat:: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves wikipedia instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact RHaworth when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~

Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace

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.

---

Let's propose something concrete that can at least control the issue going forward. I propose that TakuyaMurata is restricted from creating new pages in the draft namespace when five or more pages remain in the draft namespace which were created by TakuyaMurata, excluding any redirects. This seems perfectly sensible; no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time. Complete something before you start something new. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support some kind of warning regarding ownership behavior on draft articles is also necessary, IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, however this doesn't fix the problem of his existing pages. I'm not 100% certain, but I think they haven't created any new pages so this is effectively a wash as it doesn't do anything about the already festering piles in Draft space. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: He made one as recently as late July. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment re: "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" - I have something along the lines of 1,740 open drafts at this time. They are generally attached to specific projects, and I consider this entirely reasonable. However, in the case of this specific editor, having created intransigent drafts, I would support the proposed limitation. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  Seems to be an attempt to discourage a valuable contributor over a non-problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The assumption that you can have more than five works-in-progress at any time is absurd. And the idea that there should be some specific time limit to how long something can be a work-in-progress directly contradicts WP:DEADLINE. This whole idea of forced cleanup of drafts seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, User:TakuyaMurata has been an extremely prolific and valuable editor, writing a large number of articles in a highly technical field over many years. I'll admit that his use of draft space is somewhat unorthodox, and he does seem to digging his heels in about userspace vs. draftspace. But, on balance, we need more people like him. Let us not lose sight of our main purpose here, and that's to produce good content in mainspace. Hewing to somebody's ideals of how draftspace should be organized, pales in comparison. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Wikipedia is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Wikipedia. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- Taku (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • With absolutely no respect, Taku has known about this for over a year and a half (March of 2016, June of this year) reminders at WikiProject Mathematics talk page. Taku's pleas of "I have no time to fix these" could have been entertained if this were in the first year, but this is yet another hallmark of playing for time until the furor dies down. Even the statement "Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030?" shows the "Play for time" mentality of "someday getting around to it". If progress is being made, then pressure can come off. If no progress is being made and delay tactics are the order of the day, then the writing is on the wall. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested restriction. Any restriction on the use of draft space should apply to everyone, not just Taku. The examples given above of alleged disruption are remarkably unpersuasive to me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad is the first substantive case put forward. If anything, the disruption is being caused by editors improperly taking ownership of draft space by trying to enforce restrictions that are not supported by policies or guidelines. Thincat (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The draftspace is an appropriate place to draft content and there is not and should not be a limit on the amount of drafts an editor can create there unless they are creating a truly unreasonable amount of poor quality drafts (i.e. hundreds). I completely disagree that "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" and oppose any sanction on individual because of largely unnecessary cleanup. Either everyone should be limited to five drafts, or no one should bar especially egregious behavior (which I do not believe has been demonstrated here), and I'm certain such a proposal for all wouldn't pass. I concur with Unscintillating. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced that anything should be in draft space as we managed fine before it existed. But, in so far as draft space has a point, it's that it's a scratchpad that we should be relaxed about because it's not mainspace. Introducing petty, ad hoc rules is therefore not appropriate and would be contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment not a bad idea, but maybe restricts him from useful editing, which I commend him for. Leads me to an alternative proposal below. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per Andrew D. above and Roy below. We are trying to solve a problem that I'm not sure exists. It feels very controlling. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob, displaying ownership of draft articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposal doesn't address the one concern that actually seems to be a potential problem, that of ownership. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing from eariler comment and alternate proposal that failed to get traction. The ongoing disruption is too much. It's a game to him, in his own words [39]. A game that is more fun than content creation. Place the restriction. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (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.

Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban

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.

---

Taku be restricted to voting once and making one followup comment on any MfD concerning a Draft he started. He is topic banned from starting a WP:DRV or requesting a WP:REFUND to restore any deleted or redirected Draft he started. He is also prohibited from starting any more RFC or similar process or discussion on how Draft space is managed.

• Support as proposer. These very narrow restrictions will cut out the drama but let Taku continue productively editing. The old sub stub drafts will eventually either get improved or deleted in due course. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 15#Draft:Tensor product of representations, which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? Thincat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the only DRV "cherry" listed up there. For the four MFDs listed (1) one Taku comment agreeing delete (this was an incredibly poor example of "disruption"); (2) multiple Taku comments which were not persuasive; (3) two Taku comments (and two from you) resulting in keep (!); (4) multiple Taku comments followed by redirect rather than delete and now subject of the DRV. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_on_the_proper_use_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_the_clarification_on_the_purpose_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace, and numerous MFDs and DRVs Taku's repeated comments ammount to filibustering and nitpicking in what I precieve as an attempt to dillute any consensus to effectively nothing that can be overturned with the whim of a cat. If the community has to respong 50 times on a MFD we're going to be spending 100 times as many bytes arguing about the content than was ever spent building the content. Taku appears to have the intellectual exercise of debating content rather than fixing things that have been brought to their attention as lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have not seen any behavior I deem inappropriate (i.e. contrary to policies or guidelines) by TakuyaMuratad, and I cannot support any sanction against them until I do. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: If I'm allowed to point out (which this proposal will prohibit), it is ironic that my behavior is considered disruptive while an attempt for the rogue so-called clean-up of the draftspace isn't. There is no consensus that my draftpages (perhaps all) need to be gone. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Faithfully_flat_descent.E2.80.8E for example for the position of the wikiproject math: they don't see my draft pages to be causing a problem. Thus I'm not working against the "consensus". I pretty much prefer to just edit things I know the best, rather than engaging in this type of the battle. I know this type of the battle is wearing to many content-focused editors and many of them stop contributing. Obviously that's the tactics employed here. That is the true disruption that is very damaging to Wikipedia the whole. -- Taku (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Counter-proposal: I can agree to deal with some of sub-stubs (expand or delete them); it helps if you can present me a list of "problematic" draftpages started by me. They usually take me 5 min say to create and I had no idea it would cause this much controversy. While I don't see a need for us to spend some min to delete/redirect them (leaving them is less time-consuming), hopefully this is a good compromise. -- Taku (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- Taku (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
        • You imposing the restriction like that, disregarding WP:DEADLINE, is called a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose attempts to restrict access to WP:DRV. Access to DRV by any editor has important governance and symbolic aspects. Taku does not have a history of disruption at DRV. DRV closers and clerks are well capable and practiced in speedy closes when required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your rose-colored glasses should not hide the fact that DRV has no process for speedy closes.  The DRV started by Taku is a great example of a failure of the hit-or-miss application of DRV speedy-closes.  Nor is there a process for corrective feedback when a speedy close is improperly applied.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Due probably to its much more tightly constrained scope, DRV management is much simpler than ANI's. DRV should not be managed from here. Bad speedy closes can be taken up at the closer's talk page. My experience is quite positive (eg). There is also WT:DRV, which is very well watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Picking up on part of your comment, if we had "DRV clerks" that could be a path forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Arguing about the right solution to the problem is silly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose Just doesn't seem needed. Yes he's verbose. But it's a two-way street. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support he has created all these stub drafts, and if only he'd spend as much time working on them as he did arguing for them to be kept then we'd all be much better for it. Clearly there is enough disruption to prove a point going on here to warrant some kind of action. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose disagreement with an editor's position is not a good justification for banning them from policy discussions. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the reason I support action against this editor isn't related to his objections to deletion of drafts, it's his objection to attempts to move the content into mainspace. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (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.

Result of DRV

Note that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was under review in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of redirect was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• A proper DRV process follows WP:Deletion review/Purpose.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- Taku (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• See also: Draftspace cleanup regarding the behavior of Legacypac. -- Taku (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draftspace cleanup

Consensus not established for restriction. Move along Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Legacypac Redirecting Draft:Macaulay representation of an integer while ignoring the discussion in the talkpage (I was given a week to expand it into a mainspace stub.) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cyclic cover Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Toric degeneration etc. The logic "this [redirect] is very appropriate until someone wants to actually write this title" [40] is quite bizarre (not to mention a blatant disregard of the policies); how is the redirect preferable for editors to develop the draft? cf. #Willfull_and_persistent_disruption_of_Draft_space_by_TakuyaMurata Can we do something about this crusade to cleanup the draftspace? Not every single old abandoned (in fact the above are not even abandoned) need to be deleted. The only problematic ones are. To cut out the drama, I would like to ask: For one month, User:Legacypac is disallowed from nominating draft pages solely because they are old/abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Not likely. Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13. I'm just working on the oldest ones in Draft space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report (sort by Last Edit) You know how to reverse a redirect when you want to expand a title. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Then why aren't you using G13? -- Taku (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Taku well knows G13 currently (but not for much longer) applies only to pages submitted to AfC. Taku reverses any efforts to submit his Drafts to AfC. (Diffs available). Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC) So you admit you don't like the rule so you're just gonna break it? -- Taku (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Huh? There is no rule against seeking deletion of old contentless Drafts. I'd expect a math person to have better logic skills. This is exactly why there is a thread higher up about Taku's behaviour. We are talking Drafts with essentially NO Content and no improvements since 2015. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC) There is a rule against the disruption; your behavior has been quite disruptive. A thread like the above actually proves this. (Note it largely concludes against your position that I need to be sanctioned in some form.) I'm asking to end the drama for time being; that'a reasonable and much more productive. -- Taku (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: G13 applies only to AfC submissions. There is an open discussion on the talk page about expanding it, but "Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13" is a blatant falsehood. It seems implausible to me that you don't already know that. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Addressing the OP, would an IBAN be appropriate here? VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Warning to VQuakr: Calling my post a "blatent falsehood" is a personal attack and if you do not retract it I will seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Wow. Again doesn't this prove my point: trying to push his own view, disregarding the policies as well as the community. -- Taku (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Please tone down your rhetoric; this is not a battleground. Continuing to attack Legacypac at every turn is not going to advance your case. -FASTILY 05:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I think most of what LegacyPac is doing is excellent. But he;s overwhelming the process. Even if he can work at that rate without making errors, admins are expected to be careful, and there are simply too many to deal with proper;y. What will get this morass cleaned up is not over-rapid, but consistent effort. If I were doing it, I know I neeed to shift tasks frequently to avoid errors, and I wouldn;t do more than 20 or 30 at a time. Assuming LP is twice as good as I am at it, 50 a day by any one editor might be a reasonable amount. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Sure, except: a) I've been mostly working the shortest most useless ones that require little time to check b) over the last month or so I've already gone through most of the 5500 pages and screened out many of the more promising ones and made a mental note which to delete. c) I speed read 5 times faster than a typical university student reads, at close to 100% comprehension which really helps my processing speed. d) The admins are keeping up and the CSD cats are not clogged up when I check them. e) my accept percentages are very very high. f) I take breaks to deal with ANi, talk pages, some article building etc cause the spam/junk gets old after a while. g) There have only been a handful of tags declined like 5 Taku stubs, a few DGG liked, maybe a few more. Thanks for voicing your thought though. There is a huge pile of junk to process and I' looking forward to seeing the bottom of the pile and the new count on the bot report tomorrow. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC) perhaps part of the reason noone else has pulled any items out of your list is because atthe spend you are going it is a great deal of work to keep up. That's basically the problem--not that yo're doing them wrong, but that you're flooding the process. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC) One-month suspension Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose ridiculous attempt to silence your opponents. Legacypac's behaviour is not disruptive, his cleaning out of draftspace is in fact extremely useful. If only Taku spent as much time working on his perpetual-stub drafts as he did arguing for them to be kept whilst attempting to get sanctions on those who try to stop him then we wouldn't have this issue. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose You don't sanction or IBAN users who are calling attention to your problems. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose as retaliatory, and I suggest a big, fat, sloppy trout to TakuyaMurata as well -- and a short block if he makes another proposal against Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Legacypac

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.

---

Part of the problem above is the rapid-fire MfD nominations from Legacypac, even while the AN discussion above is still open. Legacy hasn't significantly slowed down his process bludgeoning at MfD since the discussion last month at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Problem of too many hopeless pages sent to MfD, in which SmokeyJoe proposed that Legacy be limited to 5 MfD nominations per day. I propose that this restriction be enacted as a topic ban in the hopes that Legacy will improve the quality of his nominations (which are as a rule quite terrible). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Before proposing such a thing, clean up your own personal attack. Until someone gets around to closing the G13 expansion, cleanup will continue. Anyway, G13 will be useless on Taku's abandoned Drafts. He'll immediately request a WP:REFUND (a safe prediction since he goes to DRV when the pages are deleted at MfD). Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think Taku should move all his drafts into his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I was wondering myself why they didn't do that if there was controversy about them being in Draftspace. Taku? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(I'm he by the way). Because that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. It's not like my draft pages never get promoted to the mainspace; they do by me or others. Policy-wise, there is nothing with them. Some minority editors don't like the drafts are not the reason to remove them from the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with the editors disregarding the policies like WP:DEADLINE. I don't mind a well-intentioned attempt to develop the content. I have a problem with an attempt for undeveloping (e.g., deletion) the content. -- Taku (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointless because once the G13 expansion occurs (which it will), this won't be an issue. This is an issue of policy lagging behind community standards, not of behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • No G13 is about streamlining the deletion process; it's about the process not about the use of the draftspace, which is now discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#What_draftspace_is_not. -- Taku (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BU Rob 13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Premature. -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (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.

Another disruption

See User talk:TakuyaMurata. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- Taku (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata:--Please read WP:CSD#G13 which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a I don't hear it behaviour.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- Taku (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- Taku (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- Taku (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- Taku (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Time Out!

I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As Mackensen said, It's not a healthy dynamic. This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if WP:ARB or WP:M is the better process, but likely one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try alternative form of dispute resolution". Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Wikipedia exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Wikipedia and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- Taku (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need you. Wikipedia will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Wikipedia (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Wikipedia-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not NEED you. Wikipedia doesn't need me, and for great effect, Wikipedia doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

Keeping in mind that A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Drafts/ and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• +1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of Hasteur.Otherwise reject!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Cute and creative. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Accept with provisos: 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when WP:Abandoned Drafts was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Wikipedia instead of being perpetual used bits, and Wikipedia as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Question - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is WP:NOTWEBHOST policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, K-pop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that some interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST contradicts some interpretation of WP:NODEADLINE. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Wikipedia. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But now I see there a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.

Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand this). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying WP:Drafts which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not own a production factory called draftspace.  Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (policy) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Wikipedia users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's you, Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's you who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", someone is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be you. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually talk to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than total capitulation. -- Taku (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• support as written (not with addendums). Arg, this whole thing is silly. Both sides are, IMO, out of line. There is no need for these articles to sit in draft space for months and months. But there is also no reason for anyone to care if they do (yes, I've heard the reasons on both sides and yes I still think both are wrongheaded). This solves the problems both claim exist (draft space being to "messy" and giving the drafts a home outside of user space where others are likely to find and help). So let's run with it. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This seems like a good solution to the problem. Without this, we will surely have drafts that will never be improved sitting in the draftspace. Hopefully, we can bring these drafts to the attention of those who know stuff about the subjects. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - uh, this isn't a solution, this is just moving the problem from one place to a different place. If drafts would be fine as a project sub-page, they would be fine in the draft namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy of all content in a single page

I downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by TakuyaMurata, and appended it to User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at permalink. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now headings are level-one. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- Taku (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To heck with Taku this is absurd. [41] see below:

Propose 1 week block

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.

---

Only a block is going to stop the never ending disruption of draft cleanup that he continues to spread to pages far and wide. [42]. Nothing will satisfy Taku ever. In a week the push will be over and he can come back and hopefully make useful controbutions. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As above, I have expressed my agreement with the proposed compromise and so I have to be blocked then??? -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now Edit warring to delete a redirect and wholesale modifying my talk page posts. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You complained about the broken links so I tried to fix them; it's hardly the modification. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regretfully Oppose Part of the issue here is that I'm not a abstract Geometry/Mathematics expert so I can't judge alone what is notable and what is not. To block a user and then immediately proceed to delete pages so that they cannot object will only set up the case for compassionate Refunds on the grounds that Taku wasn't able to contribute to the proceedings. If Taku has the opportunity to contribute, but does not that's a silent acceptance of the proposal. If they can't respond that smacks of a star chamber. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Taku should not be so disruptive, but the issue was sure to be ignited when drafts were nominated for deletion. However, 1 they do not have to be nominated, 2 they do not have to be deleted, and 3 they can be restored at WP:REFUND request. However I will also note that putting it in userspace is a much better option. Don't expect others to stumble across the draft and improve it. Instead Taku should ask at a Wikiproject to see if there are others willing to assist, and then it does not matter if it is userspace or draft space. I would also oppose a separate Mathematics draft space, as that would still accumulate stagnant drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (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.

Removal of Personal attack

TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by Beyond My Ken above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Wikipedia. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace on the Mathematics wikiproject page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and "No Personal Attacks" policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. [43] Legacypac (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I also name TimothyRias as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. TR 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. User:TimothyRias needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?TR 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to the need of a final warning. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as obvious, and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. Purgy (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for administrator involvement

This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made this request here -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.

  You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I plan on was thinking of doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:

  1. Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
  2. Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
  3. After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
     1. A thread at WT:MATH about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
     2. A calm discussion... somewhere (WT:DRAFT? WP:VPPOLICY?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
     3. A calm discussion somewhere else.
  4. As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.

  In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and compromise, and try this again in a more productive place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months. The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive. Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "

"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., Draft:residual intersection. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- Taku (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (above) Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is

Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics instead of the draft namespace.

• It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
• Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.

-- Taku (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not [you]", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

With no respect (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Wikipedia's purpose WP:5P1. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I also object to the example of Draft:Residual intersection being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017‎ (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017‎ (UTC) which again makes this page far too young to consider G13. Yet another line from Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption: Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Wikipedia is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- Taku (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet annother case of willfull "I didn't hear that" by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? Hobit (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Without some form of guarantee that we won't be back here in 6~12 months re-litigating this debate and that Taku will be further emboldened at the fact that this discussion was closed as anything but a sanction to them, I think the harm to Wikipedia is still a clear and present danger. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All the Taku nonsense about G13 is a smoke screen. He has requested and received refunds on each deleted page and another 5 or so were untagged for him. The refund request includes the words something like "because I intend to work on this". In 6 months we shall see if Taku is true to his word or not. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- Taku (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:REFUND. I found something interesting though. The normal G13 REFUND wording says "I, usename, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it."

However [44] and [45] Taku did not use that for most of his REFUND requests, which may include knowingly deleting the wording. Does this indicate he requested the REFUNDS without intending to work on them? Were these refunds WP:POINT behavior? Taku - please answer yes or no - do you intend to work on all these drafts? Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and WP:POINTy. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

When/where did I say I don't intend to work on them? I'm questioning whether it is a good idea to ask such a question. Also, the instruction page is dated (e.g., only talks about AfC) and is not applicable to non-AfC drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps TakuyaMurata is either confused to the point of competence questioning or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but the procedure for requesting a refund of a page deleted by G13 clearly states If your draft article has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it because you intend to continue working on it: (emphasis mine). The majority and spirit of the line has been in since February 9th of 2014. Taku has read the page as that is the only way they could have known the template to use. This behavior only reinforces my hypothesis that we'll be back in 6 months to nominate these again because Taku has not spent one byte improving the pages they requested REFUND on. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move them all to Taku's userspace. At this point, it really doesn't matter what Taku wants in my opinion, because what he wants violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Moving the things to his userpsace will at least get rid of the draftspace problem. It would be nice if an admin could close this endless discussion and make the obvious and easiest call, so that we could all go back to focusing on, you know, actually building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What part of NOTWEBHOST does this violate? The point of draft space to to have drafts. These are drafts aren't they? Hobit (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Besides if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, moving the pages to the user-space doesn't solve the issue since the policy applies to the userspaces. For the record, I would much prefer to work on the encyclopedic content; I'm merely responding to the other side's disruption; i.e., an attempt to remove legitimate perfectly-harmless drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree; as far as I understand, they are legitimate (see Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve, this is not just my only personalm view). (Also, if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, the pages need to be deleted, not moved.) I do agree this dispute is about the proper use of the draftspace. So I have repeated suggested that we run an RfC to find out the community's view the proper use of the draftspace. From MfD, DVR and other talk pages, my understanding is that my use of the draftspace is legitimate. -- Taku (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in steadfastly refusing to agree to a suggested compromise. Purgy (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.)

But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the mathematical content of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space without being worked on for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the content of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's not happened to them in that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a pertinent country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of pretty please and incompetence, even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac "Untold drama instead of either building good content.", which I perceived, in this here context, to be targeting missing or defect "math content". Sadly, because of this repeated misinterpretations I cannot revise my estimation of you being "perfectly biased", favouring the "janitors of draft" and turning down "Taku, the vandal of draft". Maybe, this all is caused by me being inept to understand English in a native way. So sorry. Purgy (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is you. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No one needs an advanced math degree to assess a page with no meaningful content - including ones with not a word of content. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration?

It looks like arbitration is the next step. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

With regret I feel obliged to report that this, rightfully sighed at, remark is canvassed by notorious user Hasteur, who did not hesitate to bias a presumed arbiter with headlining the problems as solely caused by Taku-cruft, without even mentioning his denial of any compromise short of his fullblown targets, and of course not admitting own stubbornness. Purgy (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited User talk:Stifle since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of any arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: WP:No personal attacks applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that response, though had I decided to presue advanced forms of DR, I would have named Purgy as a useful idiot addition to the case. For the time being I feel that the case is pretty well put now that 2 administrators have strongly reminded TakuyaMurata that "started a deletion review purely as process for process' sake" is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Takuya's drafts are either below the threshold or are being debated. I have very little doubt that in 6 months we will be back here, having this same debate, with exactly the same cast of disputants, with some of the same enablers of the action. At that point I suspect there will be a 1 week AN thread before I or someone else will transition this to ArbCom so that the underlying conduct dispute can be resolved short of the Appeal to Jimmy. I do not expect this to come to ANI beause it does not need immediate (<48 hrs) resolution as it is not an existential threat to Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tangentially related pages

There is a discussion on the purpose of the draftspace at User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace. Since the issue is really about the policies about the use of the draftspace (as opposed to editors' behaviors), the page might be relevant. In particular, I haven given my take on the draftspace (as well as on AfC).

See also Draft:Geometric Mixed-Motives for an example of a math draft started by someone other than me. In time, a draft like that will be deleted. I'm objecting to practice like that. Objections to destructions like that should not be disruptions. -- Taku (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On the Geometric Mixed-Motives you are as woefully wrong as possible. If you took the time (instead of looking for cherry-picked examples to hang your banner on) you'd see that the anonymous user had the AFC "draftmode" banner in the content from the very first instant. Approximately 1 minute later, the same anonymous user requested an AFC review meaning they are giving it to the community to judge it's worthyness. It was reviewed by what appears to be an editor in good standing and was declined. The anonymous user knew exactly what they were getting into when they submitted the content. Unless you're making a very poor quality argument about others your example is so wrong that you appear to be setting yourself up as the patron saint of hopeless math draft pages. As was said untold times before, the way to keep this draft off the deletion pile is for the page to be improved and brought up to an acceptable quality. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

that User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace is useful - to keep themselves occupied. It will get MfD'd sooner or later. There is nothing more to do with Taku until 6 month rolls around and his drafts get CSD'd again for inactivity. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2017 (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.

Copyright/attribution violations resulting from actions in this thread

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.

---

Sorry, there's an outstanding issue here that must be addressed. Johnuniq's solution to copy all of the content from TakuyaMurata's various drafts into one large list created a complicated copyright problem - there's a requirement for all contributions to be credited, and although notes have been made to satisfy the requirement, part of that requirement is that the original contributions remain visible. So the solution has exacerbated the problem: as long as the list exists composed of the content of Taku's drafts, we cannot delete the drafts. The usual solution is to move the original contributions to a subpage somewhere, but some form of this was proposed above but didn't reach consensus to implement, and would still prevent the drafts from being deleted wherever they end up, and that seems to be a major point of contention in the first place. The only remaining solution is to delete the list, which I am about to do.

I want to ask that everyone who participated in this thread please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and please immediately stop using cut-and-paste to copy pages or parts of pages. If you need help with a page move please see Wikipedia:Requested moves or ask here. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• OMG, won't this go away? OK, copying like this is just a bad idea. It solves nothing and makes the drafts much less useful (okay, from barely useful to almost not useful in any way). That said, assuming he is the _only_ contributor to those drafts, copyright law is met as long as that page says that. It's when you can't figure out who did what that there is a problem. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, I edited the existing User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts to append copies of drafts. The edit summary complied with WP:CWW and the first line of my text was "Copy of wikitext from draft pages created by TakuyaMurata." Each section started with text such as "Copied from Draft:2-category". Takuya moved the page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage. My intention was not to create a permanent record but to allow people to easily see what was being discussed, namely mostly very premature sub-stubs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was all fine, except that the move from Taku's space to Johnuniq's space was a cut-and-paste, but I already fixed that. The only problem is that attribution in this way requires that the original diff is visible, and with the ongoing dispute it seems unlikely that condition will continue to be met. If there's consensus that the solution is to merge all of the drafts(/notes/whatever) into one list in this manner then there's probably a compliant way that we can do it, I'm not sure off the top of my head but I'll ping BU Rob13 and Anthony Appleyard who I expect are more familiar with this. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be agreement here that this merge solved the problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Histmerge. Find an admin who has a high tolerance for pain and a couple of hours to spare ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector, TakuyaMurata, and Johnuniq: Something like this atttribution problem happens whenever two pages are text-merged. Put a history note in the "one large list"'s talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: in this case, copying the text to the large list is being used as justification to delete the pages containing the original text (drafts, mostly). It's my understanding (via WP:RUD) that if an attribution note is made on the large list, then the origin pages must not be deleted. Am I wrong about that? Alternatively, if it's agreed that a solution is to collect all of these drafts into one large list, is history-merging all of them into one page acceptable? I'd be willing to do it, if there's consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: If any of "all of these drafts" are WP:Parallel histories, that would prevent history-merging. What are the names of all those drafts and of the assembled list? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a list at the top of the deleted revision at [46]. I'm not sure that list is complete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not complete; see my next message. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any reason to spend more time on this. I saw a discussion on the drafts where it was obvious that most people had not reviewed them due to the difficulty of considering 149 pages. Someone suggested that the author might like to keep one page with all the drafts (which are often just one or two lines). The author seemed unlikely to request anything as they are happy with the untouched drafts so I compiled the 60-KB list and added it to the author's existing userspace page. That was on the theory that they might not request it, but they might accept it as desirable if done. The author rejected the list by moving it to my userspace and that's all we need to know. Deletion is a good outcome. I put a list of the 149 titles in my sandbox (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection backlogged again + some comments

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:Requests for page protection was heavily backlogged in the morning (30+ items, some of them being there for 24h). I cleared most of it, but now I will not have time to do it anymore, and any help will be appreciated.

While I am at it, may I please suggest that all of you (not only administrators) occasionally take an effort to send public thanks for (uncontroversial) administrative actions. That used to happen a lot when I started to work at RFPP a couple of years ago, and it hardly happens anymore. Very few of us (possibly none of us) enjoy routine administrative work, but we are doing it because we feel responsibility for the project and find the janitorial work important. It is thankless, takes time, and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles). There is not much what can be done about it, but public thanks are cheap and kind of give us that little motivation which we may be missing by doing this day by day without any feedback. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be de-backlogged now. Plus I completely endorse the comment above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear admins, on behalf of the community, please accept this vacuum cleaner. It's more efficient than a mop, and really helps you clean those hard-to-reach corners, like RFPP. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Can I tag on to the end of that the musing that some of us have become rather tired of attending to situations that require full protection (per policy, no less), because it is, by its very nature, ALWAYS controversial, and we seem to get hardly any support from the rest of the admin corps for doing such policy-based actions? Thanks, Samsara 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: thanking Admins for page protection and other noticeable routine tasks is a really good idea. I will be doing this from now on. Thanks very much for the suggestion - because these efforts are really appreciated. And thanks Ymblanter and Ritchie333 for clearing out page protection today. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that if it was a non-admin making a similar statement about backlogs, they'd be shot-down by other admins saying they're complaining too much, or start an RfA themselves. Usually this comes from the psedo-admins, who only edit once a week, and don't really do anything else. If it's "and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles)" then resign, so you don't feel the guilt of not helping and you can get involved in writing articles. And for the record, I thank every editor, admin or not, who does something to help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to respond but then decided that we have too much drama anyway, so I just let it go.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. Complaining about not being thanked for a thankless task that YOU wanted to do in the first place. Well I never. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. You have zero chances to ever become an admin, so whether you want it or not is highly irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear editors, admin or not, on behalf of the community, please accept this broom. It can't clean up everything, but it's especially good at sweeping the dirt into a big pile for people with vacuums. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (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.

WP:REFUND could do with some attention

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.

---

There are about a dozen unanswered undeletion requests at WP:REFUND, with the oldest dating back to 8 September. Looking at the archives, prior to this week they were generally answered within a day. - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 12 September 2017 (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.

Exemption from WP:BURDEN at WP:DAYS

I'd like some additional eyes on a discussion at Wikiproject:Days of the year regarding preserving the arbitrary exemption to WP:Burden that the project has granted themselves. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1:--Why was this posted at AN? Wouldn't it be better to launch a RFC? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good question. There are already at least two admins involved in the discussion. Deb (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lack of coffee. Good point, @Godric on Leave:. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on a heated AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of gaming platforms could use just a bit of watching for a few days. While nothing drastic outside of external canvassing so far has occurred, the article in question and this AFD discussion has been a focus of a large reddit forum, got to the site's front page, and could bring a bit of hostility here. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking policy and IPv6 ranges

I am usually an idiot about this, treating IPv6 addresses as though they are IP addresses and only blocking the one. Once in a blue moon I remember. We don't seem to say anything about this in our blocking policy. We'd also need to spell out how to identify the appropriate range, etc. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Should we include advice to block an IPv6 range, not a single address? and then realised people don't seem to read that page. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses also needs updating. Credit to Bish for this by the way who reminded me about it recently. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if a technical change would be feasible (and a good idea), to automatically offer the /64 range as an option when blocking an IPv6 address? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A technical change (as suggested by Boing) or at the very least some wording changes would be greatly appreciated. I think it's fair to say the number of IPv6s editing has increased year on year (75% of all percentages are made up on the spot), so this is probably more of an exposure thing -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is more complicated than people make it out to be. Generally, blocking the /64 is the right thing to do, but not always. A /64 could represent a large number of customers in certain unusual situations. I don't see any reason to deviate from our usual practice. If you see them using more than one IP address, block the range from the start. Otherwise, just do one IP. If you see them come back, then it justifies a range block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: What I'm suggesting is that we have a section in the blocking policy with advice on how to deal with IPv6 editors. I agree that there are times when blocking the range would be a bad idea, but wouldn't that show up if you check the contributions from the range? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As you almost suggested above, this would probably be an idea on the WP:IPB page, but I don't think it's good for a policy page. And I can give a handy example for not using /64 blocks (and indefinite blocks): Special:Contributions/2600:387:*. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

zzuuzz for you information the above IP6 search is not a /64 subnet; it is a /32 subnet. as such is could represent as many as 4,294,967,296 different /64 connections. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please pick any subnet within it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you could pick Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:802:* , a /64 subnet, and it looks like a single user. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Any subnet except that lone example. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Phabricator tasks of interest: RFC: IPv6 contributions and talk pages, Should block IPv6 addresses at /64 instead of /128, and Have one aggregated talk page for ipv6 /64. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think we're seeing more and more IPv6 addresses editing the 'pedia and, yes, it would be helpful to incorporate some advice in the blocking guidance. mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 has some useful information. Typically, an IPv6 /64 subnet is allocated to a household or a location and we would block a /64 subnet as we would a single IPv4 address but only after checking the range, satisfying ourself that it is stable and that a single user is using that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Any admin worried about blocking /64 subnets should not be overtly worried: it's roughly equivalent to blocking a single static IPv4 address. If you look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375 at The Internet Engineering Task Force it quite clearly explains the reasons why:

Using a subnet prefix length other than a /64 will break many features of IPv6, including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971], privacy extensions [RFC4941], parts of Mobile IPv6 [RFC4866], Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) with Embedded-RP [RFC3956], and Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (SHIM6) [SHIM6], among others. A number of other features currently in development, or being proposed, also rely on /64 subnet prefixes.

Nevertheless, many IPv6 implementations do not prevent the administrator from configuring a subnet prefix length shorter or longer than 64 bits. Using subnet prefixes shorter than /64 would rarely be useful; see Appendix B.1 for discussion.

However, some network administrators have used prefixes longer than /64 for links connecting routers, usually just two routers on a point-to-point link. On links where all the addresses are assigned by manual configuration, and all nodes on the link are routers (not end hosts) that are known by the network, administrators do not need any of the IPv6 features that rely on /64 subnet prefixes, this can work. Using subnet prefixes longer than /64 is not recommended for general use, and using them for links containing end hosts would be an especially bad idea, as it is difficult to predict what IPv6 features the hosts will use in the future.

So any ISPs worth their salt are going to allocate /64 subnets for connections, as allocating any larger subnet could cause all sorts of end-user problems. Of course this doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be blocking a single user, but neither did blocking a single static IPv4 address necessarily imply this either. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by this definition of "worth their salt", many ISP's, especially in Asia and Africa, are not. I've seen IP-hopping throughout much greater ranges (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar). One of our incentives for enabling IPv6 was to allow more granular targeting of a single user not possible with IPv4 - we shouldn't impose IPv4's limitation here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but can you explain how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar demonstrates this? I can't understand how it does, there are no IPv6 socks at all listed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I should've been more clear. Look at the investigation on June 13 where a CheckUser says a rangeblock won't be feasible. I linked the contributions page of an IPv6 sock during that investigation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that indicates a greater than /64 subnet, there could be other explanations such as a mix of Ipv4 and IpV6 addresses, or uncertainty about Ipv6 rangeblocks. I'm not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but you can on my talk page if yo so wish. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many ISPs that fail to live up to your expectations of how things should work. Although many ISPs allocate a /64 for each customer, others allocate customer IP addresses from a very wide pool, typically a /40 or /42, though I've seen them range anywhere from a /60 to a /36. These are a pain to deal with. User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat is one particularly frustrating example. There are many others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Looking at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, these less than /64 (i.e. wider) ranges seem to be for wireless broadband. Now wireless broadband suppliers can use many /64 connections for the supply: the end result is that the range is far greater (or/<64). The reason for this is because in these circumstances radio towers (or combination of radio towers) will have access to many /64 connections; just like a wireless radio tower IPv4 would use a large variety of dynamic IPv4 addresses. Basically this is analogous to using several dynamic IPv4 connections, it implies nothing about connection subnets.

I see no particular evidence that ranges with a greater than /64 subnet are active; but even these can be explained by router alllocations giving a bigger than /64 (or narrower range) which is well within protocols; routers have no compulsion to use entire /64 ranges when allocating /128 addresses, only the connection itself must be at least /64. All this gives the impression of non-/64 connections which is simply not true.

Another way of looking at this: let's say I had a router with a /64 connection which allocated the same IPv6 address each time to my laptop. Now as far as my editing goes it would look like I was using a /128 subnet (i.e. a single IPv6 connection). While this would be true, nevertheless my connection to the ISP would be /64. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The theoretical role of /64's is subordinate to their roles in practice, which is that since they don't necessarily represent single users and we want to utilize the finer granularity of IPv6 to reduce collateral damage, we can't treat /64's the same way we have been treating single IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's true in theory but in practice Wikipedia has to be defended from brain-numbing nonsense that will eventually wear down the most dedicated editors. My suggestion would be to block IPv6 /64 when that is shown to be needed after blocking one or two individual IPs. Anyone adversely affected would have to make their case. Or, any concerned registered editor could point to a case where blocking a /64 resulted in a loss of encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If I may try to summarise the above - would most people agree that if after directly blocking a single disruptive IPv6, another IPv6 from the /64 continues being disruptive, a /64 rangeblock would be the next step (as opposed to how we deal with IPv4s)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Imo the best practice would be:

1. Check for collateral as a /64 block could definitely cause this (e.g. a corporation). Use the Gadget-contribsrange.js gadget to do so, and other whois services.
2. Check it's not a public mobile wireless connection: blocking these is like blocking dynamic IPv4 addresses, a bit pointless with the capability of causing collateral.

If you do these two steps then it should be OK to use /64 rangeblocks; appeals can be made on talkpages if users suffer significant collateral, just like Ipv4 blocks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI native support for range contributions (phab:T163562) is going out on this week's MediaWiki train. It is already on mediawiki.org (example). If all goes well, later this week you'll be able to query for IP ranges at Special:Contribs here on the English Wikipedia without the need for a gadget or wildcards. It will take a while for the data to backfill, so don't count on it working at Thursday's normal deploy time. I'll make a proper announcement once it finishes :) See also phab:T145912 which is like a power user range contributions tool. It's a long ways away but feel free to follow that task for progress updates — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfies

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 presume this means that the images that have (both in normal editing and utterly gratuitously) been used here as free images are now copyrighted? I would tag them all as copyvios at Commons except that the article is a little unclear about what the copyright status actually now is. It looks like the copyright has reverted to Slater but it's not obvious. Can anyone shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We're discussing this at Monkey selfie copyright dispute. It currently seems that the images are still PD within the US, since the court has affirmatively ruled animals can't claim copyright. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my confusion - since the copyright has to belong to someone, presumably it reverts to Slater (especially as the article talks about any money made from the pictures, which again suggests copyright). Also, to be PD in the USA, the image has to be PD in the country of origin, which the article suggests it now isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The copyright does not have to belong to someone. Did the court rule about the human photographer's copyright claims? If no that does not tell us anything. That news article is not precise enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's my point. It refers to money being made from the sale of the images with 25% going to PETA, which suggests that Slater now has the copyright (otherwise anyone could do it). As you say, we'd need to see the actual judgement. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can sell something that is PD. Slater (or rather his company) does so (via gettyimages for instance). And to get rid of PETA he will now donate 25% of his sales of that image. So basically PETA has successfully extorted him. None of that influences the state of that image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Commons:File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg#No longer Public Domain? Probably has to be settled on Commons in the end. Maybe the most conservative thing to do would be to open a DR. No point in wasting extended discussion here, when it would just all have to be rehashed at the DR anyway. TJW^talk 19:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's this (Chapter 300, page 22, section 313.12) Copyright Office publication that says "A photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

David Slater is not a monkey. That section has no relevance to whether he holds the copyright or not. These should be deleted from Commons, and should have been years ago. Wikipedia, Commons, WMF and Wikimania in particular, should be ashamed of their actions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

David Slater is not a monkey. No one said he was. Whatever your opinion of relevance, what's relevant for that sentence is "a photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Listen folks, this has apparently already been sent to DR and shut down only today. If you have a problem with it, take it up at Commons:AN or Commons:VPC, or start a new DR if you think you have something new to add. Those are the correct venues. TJW^talk 21:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of us are about to go ape shit crazy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a more expansive description of the ruling, the judge found that a monkey has no "standing" to sue, so dismissed the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothy makes a valid point, which is that image usage on this project is subject to approval by whoever is in charge at Wikimedia Commons. If Wikimedia Commons decides that a particular image is OK, then that image will automatically be permissible here on English Wikipedia, regardless of any mere local consensus that it is not. That being the case, why complain? MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That does not sound right. Just because it is hosted there does not mean we have to use it, we can decide not to, as we do with most Commons images, most of which we do not use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's been vetted, then yes. But don't anyone go assuming that that screen shot of Batman is cool because it's on Commons. There are things on commons that have never been seen by beast nor man. TJW^talk 22:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that I assume if something is on Commons then I can use it in my article on English Wikipedia without worrying about anything at all -- NFCC, but also any other worries. That may be naive of me, but in reality many editors on many different language Wikipedias are probably doing the same. If Commons is wrong, then it needs to be fixed, if necessary by some wider body than whatever clique is in action at Commons at the time. MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We do not have any control over Commons here, but we do have control over what we do, and to revisit and revise what we do with any content. So, saying 'it's on commons so you relied', does not matter, nor is saying Commons decided, they decided to host it there, and we can decide not to use it. If those starting these discussions seriously want to revisit this, it should not be here at AN, but it should be someone who is motivated to really gather the RS, the history, and lay-out a cogent argument that's not ad hominem and conclusion. It should also probably be a WP:centralized discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why three parallel discussions?

Why are we discussing this here, at Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute, and at File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg? Could someone please step in and shut down two of those discussion, directing the reader to the remaining one? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I... No. Shut them all down. None of them matter. Please direct people to the correct venues. TJW^talk 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So what is the "correct venue"? The files are protected on Commons so a deletion request can't even be filed. A DR was filed today on a derivative image Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2014 crossword final.png and was summarily closed after such obvious falsehoods as "We have court decision, that the photo is in public domain," (no, we have neither a court decision (it was an out of court settlement, so not binding on anyone outside that settlement), nor a court decision that it is PD) and " Not this again. Already discussed to death.", which is just another of the claims that both WP/Commons are incapable of error and that the external situation can't change.

As happens far too often, the Wikimedia response to external challenge is to circle the wagons and defend the establishment cabal. We should not do this, we should act correctly, even when that means admitting that Wikimedia has got it wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:VPC or Commons:AN. No conversation here will affect anything that happens there. You may as well be trying to reach consensus on an article on es.wiki or a page on Wikiquote. TJW^talk 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've opened Commons:COM:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies. I expect it to be closed imminently. I expect every likelihood of being blocked for even raising this. I don't care - WP has to admit that it has behaved very badly over this and that its actions have ruined an innocent photographer. I can leave WP more easily than I can move house. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No. We do not go there to decide what we do on English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:en:WP isn't hosting these, Commons is. If :en:WP wants to make a fair-use case for them, then that's probably justifiable, but then they'd be smaller images, and they wouldn't be offered under a claim of being freely licensed, such that they're widely re-used elsewhere, from a belief in WP's imprimatur. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Because these images are not copyrightable in the USA, no fair-use justification is needed; even if they're copyrighted in the source country (an allegation that's consistently been rejected), they could be hosted here under the same terms as File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg, which is PD-US but copyrighted in the source country. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"these images are not copyrightable in the USA"

Why not? Why can they not be Slater's copyright, as he claims? There is no ruling on that, either specific from a case related to this situation, or from a general principle.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if they're not copyrighted in the US, if they are copyrighted in their country of origin. Commons requires them to be PD in both in order for Commons to host them, see Commons:COM:L. That might be enough to permit them to continue on en:WP (and at full size, unlike for fair-use), but they'd still need to go from Commons, and they wouldn't be advertised as worldwide PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy, please start defending my claim to a copyright on those pictures. After all, you are defending Slater's copyright claim despite the fact that Slater did not take the pictures, and I also did not take the pictures, so to be consistent, you should defend my claim as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As a word of advice to Andy, I think the only place to even get traction on this is through the WMF since they "sanctioned" commons to keep them as PD after refusing to delete them and later stating that there cannot be copyright on the photos. And I doubt the WMF will change their mind given that the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014 to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sanctioned Commons to"? I've not seen a WMF statement on this, other than a verbal one that was mis-reported by the BBC [47] (the BBC text doesn't match the WMF audio).

" the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014" Nor have I seen this. The "no animal copyright" rules I've seen have pre-dated this, and were based on elephant paintings (there is a motion to dismiss the PETA case on the basis of this, and also on the principle that the mcaque has no standing in the court - but this was not a new ruling on copyright, based on the macaque case). Yet again though, I simply do not believe, "to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright" (I have made the same statement over and over today). There is a clear statement that "animals can't hold a US copyright", but that is too narrow to imply that these images are PD - it does not exclude the claim that Slater holds the copyright. I am unaware of any ruling on that, and without such a ruling, the situation still remains in significant doubt. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

[48] , Section 313.2. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oh Christ almighty. Commons is not the precipitous edge of the universe. Most people there speak English to a manageable level. We happen to use Commons for 90+ percent of our images. If anyone has an actual copyright problem then fix it at the source. If anyone isn't fluent in Commons then go get it, because a good measure of what you do here is dependent on it. Commons:COM:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies is where to take this conversation, and if you think this is a real copyright issue and this is going to expose WMF to litigation, then burying your head in the sand and saying "en.wiki will just ignore it" isn't really an option. TJW^talk 00:24, 13 September 2017 (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.

Anti-harassment tools team's Administrator confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in mid September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Semi-Annual_Admin_Survey_Privacy_Statement

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a survey form.

If you have questions or want to share your opinions about the survey, you can contact the Anti-harassment tool team at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey or privately by email

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): do you mean September of this year ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and fixed. Thanks :-) SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My user name and password from en.wiki does not work at WMF? Tiderolls 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Foundation wiki is read only except for people that need access to add "official" content. So, you can't log in there. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Backlog

If a sysop has a moment to spare, could you swing by AIV and UAA and clean up the pending accounts, numerous waiting for blocks. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

C'mon @Ymblanter: - one for you, mate. And don't forget to thank him for his troubles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like stalking, no? (For the record, I worked a bit at AIV in the morning).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What, checking a noticeboard once a day and asking you to pull your weight? Wrong again. How many thanks did you get? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be snotty, Lugnuts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

IP's edits at Sorted magazine article

At Sorted magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. See here and here. In the version before the IP's edits, the text states that Russell Church launched the magazine and that "the title was geared to the lads' mag market." In the IP's version, it states that Steve Legg launched the magazine and that it "has been voted the world’s most wholesome men’s magazine with 100,000 readers in 21 countries." I warned the IP twice. I then reported the matter at WP:AIV, but, when no administrator picked up the case, I decided to bring it here instead. If I request page protection at this time, I'd likely be declined because there is not enough disruption and it's just one IP. Furthermore, editors might confuse this as a content dispute since the IP claims to be "removing incorrect data." I don't particularly care about the article; I came across it via WP:STiki. I do care about inaccurate information being added to it. I'm not sure if two different magazines are being confused or what. For reference, this is the source the IP keeps using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see they're actually both correct. The original magazine was published by Church and was indeed aimed at the "lad's" market. However it appears it was taken over by Legg's publishing company later on and repositioned as a Christian men's magazine. So the "wholesome" cite is correct as well (although it's a primary source). Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Black Kite. The issue I see is that the IP keeps removing material about the original launch and other important material. The IP's edits are not only repeatedly removing this important information, but are replacing it with unsourced, boastful information. I have seen that Viewmont Viking has been reverting the IP, and that Viewmont Viking has reverted again. Perhaps Viewmont Viking is willing to weigh in here. From what I can see, the back and forth reverting will continue if the article is not semi-protected. The IP will simply get a new IP, and might later edit as an account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, unless the IP editor comes with sourced NPOV information we should keep the article as is and semi-protect it. --VViking_TalkEdits 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, if it continues, we can obviously list the matter at WP:Requests for page protection. I think it would get declined for protection right now. But if the IP strikes again, a case can be made, with this thread cited as part of the argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Note: Primefac apparently hid copyright violations made by the IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the violations were the promotional content added by the IP. I am conversing with them off-wiki and didn't realize this thread existed. If it comes to it, I will point them in this direction and hopefully can get them to explain their actions (somewhere). Primefac (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. I did point the IP to this thread on their talk page. As for this, it didn't seem like the main issue to me. It seemed to me that the IP didn't want any mention of the magazine's previous history included, especially the "lads' mag market" aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My conversation off-wiki was mostly centred around the removed content, but yes, the "history" of the magazine is also of concern. Given that former wasn't necessary and the latter is still up for debate, I only changed the former. I'll probably post some more on the talk page of the article if I get more details regarding how "they want it fixed". Primefac (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As an update, I've completely rewritten the article and am now (somewhat) under the impression that this isn't a notable magazine. However, I think the "AN" portion of the discussion is likely to be over, so I am going to suggest closing this. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I can't state that I agree with the complete removal of the magazine's history. A relaunch should not mean that the magazine's previous history should not be covered. And per WP:COI, we don't edit articles the way that a company wants it edited anyway. But I'll address this on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist

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've asked admin Materialscientist a question about a block he made, and did not get a response. I asked a few more times and still haven't received even an acknowledgement that he is aware of my request. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this thread. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Didn't see the previous notification. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You should probably be rather more specific about what block you're inquiring about, and directly link it. As best I can tell, you're asking about this block from March, which was for "Persistent addition of unsourced content," which is, indeed, quite worthy of a block. Competence is required, and if a user ignores repeated requests to provide sourcing for their additions, a block is merited. I see a number of talk page posts to that user providing advice, caution and warnings, and no evidence that the user had any interest in responding to those posts and addressing their behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A) I put the notification template on his talk page. B) Whether or not the block and length was valid, there is an issue with the lack of notification by MS which is why I asked for clarification and C) the lack of response to my queries does not conform to WP:ADMIN. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're even trying to get at. The notice was placed on the page of the user he blocked, 24.178.2.82 (talk). 24.178.29.47 (talk) was blocked by Berean Hunter. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Pretty basic admin stuff. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Maybe something else is afoot. Regardless, this discussion should be happening where this discussion was started. And even if everything is aboveboard with the block and notices (which is why I started the discussion in the first place) why is MS failing to respond to my questions? I'm afraid none of you can answer that with any degree of certainty.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You're not reading the responses you received here, thatMan? MS didn't make the block. Are you trout fishing? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Appears not? Have you even looked at the talk page that is littered with previous blocks and warnings? Questions about the template {{anonblock}} Should be taken up there and not with the admin who is using it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading them just fine. There are at least two ip addresses involved here. [49] is where this discussion should be taking place. At issue here is MS not responding whatsoever to my questions. Please stay on topicThat man from Nantucket (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you trolling? I find it hard to take this seriously. That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Already shown why. It has nothing to do with the administrator, and he did add the anonblock template. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. All you have to do is check the IP's edits and they will show you why it was blocked. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Yes. Directly on the talk page. Maybe something else is afoot. No, you literally have no argument and are confusing IPs.

If you have a question about the block for 24.178.29.47 (talk), then you need to speak with Berean Hunter, as they are the only person to block it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll kindly ask you to stay out of this if you won't even bother to take the discussion about the various blocks to the correct location. At present issue is MS not responding as his duties per WP:ADMINACCT. Nothing anyone here can say except MS can answer this. Perhaps he didn't see it, I've no idea. I asked a reasonable question about a block which is related to multiple ip addresses. He should take the time to at least respond. I'm willing to assume AGF, you should do the same. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Take the discussion to the correct location? Really? I'll look to see who opened the discussion here shall I. Oh, wait. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with AGF. And no, I won't stay out of it. Multiple users now have explained the rationale for the block as it is obvious. Your insistence that he "answer for his actions" is disruptive considering no one else is wondering why the block was made. WP:ADMINACCT only goes so far. Your complete insistence that everything be explained to you multiple times is disruptive. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And you, an admitted drama watcher is creating drama where there should be none. Wikipedia. I ain't asking you or anyone else to explain a damned thing. Because none of you even have the sequence of events down correctly, which is precisely why I don't want to "relitigate" the blocks with the denizens of the peanut gallery. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To the complaint that MS has not responded per WP:ADMINACCT, they haven't edited in 7 hours. It's very possible they aren't even AWARE this issue was brought up yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I've asked multiple times on his talk page over the past few days because I was told his pings are off, and I should post my query there. It's not like I rushed here to file a grievance. I'd still just be happy if he engaged, which is ironic because that is what these ips involved were blocked for.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist may have seen you pointed to a block by Berean Hunter, and figured BH accurately answered your questions for both questions. We are all volunteers, so while MS is required to explain his actions to those he blocked (which he did), he probably feels your questions were answered appropriately. I would recommend this thread be closed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) modified 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a waste of time and has adequately been explained on all fronts. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: If you wandering, I made report on this IP early this month, and you can see why That man from Nantucket making a big deal about about the blocks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring too. Is it elsewhere? One could speculate about "perhaps" until the cows come home. Admins have an obligation to respond to reasonable inquiries. If they can't, they should resign their adminship. Peanuts, please don't. No one is seriously considering unblocking that ip. Your articles are safe for now.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your articles are safe for now. What is that supposed to mean? And if you're going to make suggestions about MS resigning over this isolated case, what do you propose should be done about the massive workload he bears? Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Mr Peanut has some ownership issues over some rap (music) relates articles. From what I gather it's mostly MOS related things that he doesn't want touched. Since both the ips are now blocked, it can't edit those articles. I think Peanut is concerned about the ip being unblocked, and I wanted to assuage him that wasn't going to happen. Regarding Materialscientist: No one at Wikipedia is irreplaceable. That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• On the one hand, although I hold Materialscientist in high regard, ADMINACCT seems clear that you have to explain your admin actions to anyone who asks in good faith, not just the person you blocked. On the other hand, because I hold MS in high regard, <wild ass assumption of what's going on> I can empathize with the frustration of someone demanding an explanation for a block that (a) expired months ago, (b) seems to be widely agreed to have been reasonable, (c) has essentially already been explained by others, and (d) is one of dozens (hundreds?) of blocks that MS has made this year, which uniformly help the encyclopedia, and I can imagine all bleed into one another after a while. </wild ass assumption of what's going on>

I think the best solution would be for TMFN to understand that ultimately everyone seems to agree that MS's block (and the subsequent BH blocks) was legit, and not force someone who might be frustrated to answer, even though he is entitled to one. That seems unlikely. The next best solution would be for MS, when he logs back on, to provide a short 2-3 sentence explanation, and if everyone except TMFN thinks it's an adequate response, then this can be closed. But empathy or not, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest closing the thread before MS responds, if TMFN insists. ADMINACCT is a pretty big deal to non-admins, and closing this unresolved just widens the divide between admin and mere mortal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it should be noted that TMFN's lack of clarity in this thread has made it difficult to determine exactly what questions he is asking and what answers he is seeking. There's something about multiple IPs and blocks without the admin's name in the template, but he's been vague and difficult to fully understand. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, the problem here is the ne'er do wells who took all of 5 minutes to decide, when they couldn't have understood the progression. That's ok, because it's what I expect of noticeboards. I didn't want to come here to argue about the block itself, but simply because I want a response from MS. I looked at his logs and MS makes a lot of blocks. If I had to bet, most of them are probably good. People shouldn't get their panties in a twist because I'm insisting he explain an administrative action he made. If someone points out a dubious block, MS might learn something and be a better admin for it. However, I've never seen an admin just not respond whatsoever to a question before, which is why I came here. I've left open the possibility that MS didn't see my question, or saw it and he meant to get to it later, etc. If that's the case, then no problem. I'm hoping that's the case. If he felt that another person explained it adequately, he should say so. But if he feels like he is not obligated to give a response he should be desysoped. Any admin that fails to follow policy should not be allowed to enforce it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  Are you upset because you've not received adequate information about the block, or are you upset because you haven't gotten the exact satisfaction you need by getting someone to follow your orders? If it is the former, please indicate what information you seek. If the latter, I suggest you drop the matter, because you're probably not going to get such satisfaction. Near as I can tell, the block has been fully explained above, MS is under no obligation to elaborate if all he is going to do is repeat what others have already said. Hearing him repeat what others have said already serves no purpose. I too, would have liked him to explain better in his own words, but the block itself has been adequately justified. I don't see that there is anything to be gained by demanding desysopping because he doesn't follow your orders. --Jayron32 23:47, 13 September 2017 (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.

Backlog at UAA

Hello, just wanted to let the admins know that there is a backlog at WP:UAA, going back to 13:00 UTC. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 01:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Independence Cup

Hi Admins! I don't know why there is a little fight between me and a user is going on for the edits on this page. I tried to message the user too, but the response I got wasn't helpful. Can anyone please help what to do to resolve the fight? Thanks! M. Billoo 07:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: This board is mainly for conduct issues, and that seems like a content dispute. Please see WP:DISPUTE for more information. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange Korean links being added by anonymous editors

Over the past few hours, I've been noticing the occasional IP like 210.105.148.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 61.75.205.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Each one adds links in the format

http://[domain].kr/cloud/[domain]_[word]_[number]/[number]

and then vanishes for a little while. All of these links lead to pages with the text "홈페이지 수정작업 중입니다.", apparently meaning "The homepage is being edited" or something of the sort in Korean. I'm not sure if the intention is to improve these sites' search engine rankings, replace the content with (e.g.) malware at a later date, or something else. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely up to no good. Add 210.105.150.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 61.75.205.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as 211.216.79.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and there's probably some range blocks to be had. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There may not be enough of them just yet to formulate one properly, not without being heavy-handed anyway. 210.105.0.0/16 and 61.75.205.0/24 seem deserving of attention for now. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've seen plenty. From what I've seen these are the relevant ranges so far; everything from these ranges for the last month has been this spam, and there's been no other edits for a long time:

61.75.205.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

210.105.144.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

211.216.79.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added \.kr/(?:cloud|software|board)/.+/\d+ to the spam blacklist. This should catch all the variants I saw, but I'm somewhat concerned about collateral damage. MER-C 10:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use automated tools (regarding a community sanction imposed in July 2017)

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 the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to me two months ago ([50]) to use automated tools from my main account. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: What tools are you referring to ? You usually do not have to ask permission here. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I am under two(?) sanctions that prohibit me from using automated tools from my main account. The first was imposed to me two months ago and I am able to contest this since September 7 which I am doing here. The remedies second is from an ArbCom case. At this time it seems that both sanctions are in place while they seem to ovelap each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious now, my query is moot. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: To be honest, using tools that are provided from the Wikipedia enviroment like Hot-Cat also makes total sense. These tools do not allow any automated editing. But after all this drama I am lost in which place to post my request. Even the initial sanction was mentioning "the community". This ould be the Village pump for instance? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Less than two weeks ago, after a long ArbCom case, one of their remedies was; "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account." I'm perplexed why you would ask for WP:AN to overturn an ArbCom remedy. Too soon, wrong venue, and 0% chance of success. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam The restriction imposed by the community had a period of 1 month and has expired. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The community sanction may have been for one month, but the ArbCom sanction is indefinite. "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account" is not hard to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam

A) Which is the correct venue?

B) Does th ArbCom santion mean that the previously community sanction is not valid anymore? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(A) Right now, there is no correct venue; ArbCom is not going to relax their remedies when they've been in place for less than 2 weeks. Eventually, the correct place will be WP:ARCA. But man, I really hope you don't do that any sooner than 6-12 months from now. It will make things worse for you to do it earlier, not better, I am extraordinarily confident. (B) The ArbCom sanction specifically superseded portions of the community sanction (it says which ones in the remedies). Are there any unexpired community restrictions that have not been specifically superseded? If so, I suppose those could be appealed here, but I kind of doubt they exist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee No to all automated tools? You could for example propose that some tools may be used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No I think the ArbCom remedy/sanction is pretty clear. And I gotta say, asking here sure strikes me as a bad idea for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth I am referring to the community sanction imposed more than 2 months ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. Frankly, this is starting to look like you're intentionally trolling ... surely, you're able to understand that the ArbCom remedy is in force, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. If you assure me that this is not valid anymore. I am OK with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. The ArbCom sanction says "Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia" and "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account". In effect, the community sanction has been confirmed by ArbCom and made stronger. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton In fact you say that the one sanction replaced the other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense or intellectual honesty could figure that out. "You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. -User:Ealdgyth". The wording of your request ("I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to [sic] me...") tells me that your were attempting an end-run around your sanction and hoping nobody noticed. --Calton | Talk 23:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton I was told to address to the community two months after the block. That's what I did. As you see there are two sanctions. You say the one is not valid anymore. Nice to hear that. Let's see what the others say. I think it's obvious that the ArbCom one should be the only activeat the moment but you never know! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth For me it's important because I had a disagreement with Headbomb whether the community saction will be valid after the ArbCom. It's good to know tthat for this matter I can't address to the AN anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to help you if you would just explain what your actual problem is up front, instead of being cryptic and/or sneaky, and link to the sanctions you're appealing, instead of expecting people to look for it themselves. Disrespectful waste of our time. So, after research, if I understand right, the community sanction against automated edits is still valid; before the ArbCom case closed, it could be appealed starting 7 Sept., but did not automatically expire. The subsequent ArbCom sanction against automated edits was probably intended to supersede the community sanction, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere (probably a small oversight), so technically they are both in force, and technically I suppose they would both need to be appealed before you can do automated editing again. In practice it makes no sense to appeal the community sanction now, because it would have no real effect, and because you're starting to piss off people who up to now might have felt bad for you, so I doubt any editor is going to support this. Deal with this if/when when you appeal the ArbCom sanction, which again, I cannot emphasize enough, you should do in no less than 6 months, and 12 months would be smarter. At that time, ask them for clarification on whether a separate appeal of the community ban is needed or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Thanks. Exactly. This is the problem. There seem to be both valid at this point. I would like to see this one go away to have only one to deal in the future. Which makes totally sense since the ArbCom one is newer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For future historians studying this (possibly for a dissertation "The Inherent Dysfunction of Wikipedia, and Why All Rational People Eventually Screamed 'Aaaaaaaagh' And Gave Up On It"), note that Magioladitis changed his initial request. it did not originally have a link to the sanction he is talking about. That's what I'm complaining about above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

True.My initial statement made nosense for the non-experts of the case and I apologise for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of bad ideas: ...I'll probably re-run for admin in the next days. -- User:Magioladitis 22:18, 14 September 2017 --Calton | Talk 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Calton This is off-topic though! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note This is not a request about the ArbCom sanction. It's a request regarding only thee community sanction that was imposed before the ArbCom one. Both seem to be active at this time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I'm reading the ArbCom sanction, it includes the wording This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.. This means that the ArbCom sanction has now taken the place of the community sanction, rather than both being active at the same time. Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 Wow. I guess you are right. I am puzzled I did not notice that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (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.

Request to administrators to look at this account

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.

---

Dear Sir / Madam,

Greetings!

It is my request to administrators to look at the edits happening from this account and take appropriate actions. I am compelled to do so specially after seeing this edit where an organization has received a BLP tag. This person is not ready to read that the article itself says that it is an organization. I do not know much about roll-baking but I would even request to rollback all the edits done by this user if found needed by administrators. Thanks in advance. I have tried to behave in civil manner with this person but he is not ready to listen. He was blocked once as per the block log. Kindly let me know if I should change any of my behavior / editing style. Thanks a lot for your time and efforts. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, are you sure that this does not need a boomerang. And your in gen. behaviour seems to say so! Also, it may be prudential for you to know that semi-trolling and casting personal attacks of the sort you indulged in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashok Vaidya could quickly land you with a block.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To avoid that Sir / Madam, I will refrain from any communication with him. Direct or indirect. Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya is the person who has highest contributions in the filed of research in Ayurveda in my opinion. I am an expert on this topic. I do not care if that article remains or is deleted from Wikipedia. His respect is far more important to me than the article itself. Comparing him to a food item because of similarity in his name is surely an attempt to ridicule him. He surely does not deserve this. Especially after knowing the huge work done by him. Kindly let me know if any of things are wrong. Thank you. I am very happy that finally someone has started seeing at the account and the edits. I believe in judgement of administrators at Wikipedia and till date I have not found any wrong judgments by them. Thanking you, Yours sincerely -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He was prob. not ridiculing him and if even he has that does not authorise your actions. For a note, there exists a a quite popular vada-pao vendor with the same name and gathers (prob.) more hits than the subject.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure exactly what is being requested here, or why. Rolling back thousands of edits probably isn't going to happen here, especially not without giving a reason. Κσυπ Cyp   11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand if it is needed here. I am very happy that finally great people like administrators are taking a look the accounts and edits being made by the account. Thanks a lot. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is being said that "He was prob. not ridiculing him". I am happy and at peace if that is really true. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As for your original complaint reg the BLP sources tag, that's very likely just a Twinkle misclick, but I'm more concerned about that article, sourced just to a primary source and nothing else and Godric's example of your posts is even more concerning. And as you've asked above, you do have to change, if you think a subject is notable then show the sources, not post screeds like you did at the afd . —SpacemanSpiff 12:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues to show the references. I have always put more and more references when needed. In a case I have put more references than needed to start with because I know the importance of references. But here the particular person is putting speedy deletion tags on many articles and many are asking him to slow down on his talk page but it seems that he is not ready to listen. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that there can be 'Twinkle misclick' if it is happening at one place. I am not sure how many damages this person / account is doing to Wikipedia itself. You all are big people with great experience of editing and administrating. If you feel that no action needs to be taken on this account, not even a suggestion, then you must be right. I mean I do believe the judgement of Wikipedia Admins more than mine in cases like these. I am happy that I have brought it to the notice of admins and you will take appropriate action if needed. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep taking about damage etc but haven't provided any diffs, in fact the only diff that you provided shows you in bad light, and add to that what Godric dug and it's worse. So, cut this "you people" crap, you brought in a complaint and haven't substantiated it, simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I will need some time to study this account in detail. But if you want me to do that, I will do that. I am an investigator in scientific experiments and I do love investigations. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2017 (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.

Queries about looking for sockpuppets

• If two or more or several Wikipedia usernames are using the same IPA address, how often is it caused by?:-
  1. Sockpuppets.
  2. More than one person living at the same address are Wikipedia users.
  3. User:A leaves an address, then User:B moves in at that same address.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Would not choosing the criterion be a function of editing overlap, interests etc? Anyway, I have seen some users who have user-boxes mentioning of theirs' sharing IPs with other users.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia, but elsewhere a number of people share IPs because of mobile connections that run through shared IP pools. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can only generalize and speculate since I'm not a Checkuser and can't see the IP address of registered accounts, but I suspect sockpuppetry is more common than coliving in IP-in-common situations. CU can reveal more than just an IP address anyway, and two people at the same location sharing a connection but on different equipment would appear distinct. In the third case it would be somewhat unlikely that User:B would end up with the same IP as User:A, unless maybe in a landlord-provides-internet situation, and then other technical information would distinguish the two users anyway. Also, let me know where the IPA address is, it's the weekend in like 4 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 🍻

Undeletion and userfication

REFUNDed by ... I can't tell who, there doesn't seem to be a log entry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, could someone undelete and userfy Markovian parallax denigrate for me? It was deleted several years ago by Cirt, who has been inactive since 2016. The deletion discussion is here [51] with the deletion rationale being that there were no reliable sources covering the event, however I've found three (more recent than the AfD) with a simple Google search [52], [53], [54]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Handled at WP:REFUND, thanks. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HostBot malfunctioning

Sorry to do this, but I've just blocked HostBot as I noticed it placing welcome notices on the talk pages of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets, which seems highly inappropriate to me. I am about to be away from the computer for a bit, but if some admins review this and find it inappropriate then please feel free to unblock and reactivate the bot. Pinging Jtmorgan as a courtesy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

From a quick pick around on github, it would seem that this line could be passing the user's ID instead of username into a function that checks for blocks based on username. However, I'm not too sure how the db queries and invitee variable work, but it's a place to start. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Ivanvector. Can you provide an example of a particular user that HostBot invited, but shouldn't have? I'll need at least one false-positive to debug. @The Voidwalker: I'll start by reviewing that function--thanks to you too J-Mo 23:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Muchglobing seems like one such. I'll go see if there is anything else. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Suva Declaration, User talk:Blarkin16, User talk:Sourav hansda, User talk:HarodsStore, and User talk:JODWA were also blocked (and sometimes templated) prior to an invitation. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Muchglobing is the one that came up in my watchlist. The bot left an invitation roughly two hours after a Checkuser blocked the account and I created its user page with the sockpuppet template. Apologies for not leaving a link to the account in my original post, I was in a rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @The Voidwalker: I've fixed the issue with block detection. An outdated Python 2 module I imported was throwing an error that caused the API call for block status not to run. I have an earlier step in the process that detects blocks that happened a while before the invite script runs, and those blocks were being detected and addressed, but more recent blocks (anything less than a few hours, depending on the current state of replication lag on the public logging table) were not being caught and those users were being invited.

In the process of addressing these issues, I've found/introduced other (unrelated) bugs with the bot that need to be addressed. I won't be able to start the bot again until I fix those bugs. So I don't know where that leaves us now: what do I have to demonstrate before the bot can be unblocked? Unfortunately, I may not have time to fully fix HostBot for several weeks. When I'm ready to test the bot again, who should I talk to about lifting the block? J-Mo 00:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: I'll be mostly inaccessible for most of the next few days. In my opinion, if you believe you've fixed the bugs, then go ahead and unblock the bot yourself, or ask another admin and point to this comment as my endorsement-in-lieu. Thanks for taking care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding template protection

What is the current thinking regarding the use of full protection vs. template protection on extremely high risk templates? PROTECT is not very explicit, but absent actual vandalism / edit warring, it seems to always prefer template protection. Broadly speaking, I think that makes sense, since letting more trusted users edit is generally a good thing. However, is there any threshold above which one wants to remain even more cautious than template protection? I got a request to downgrade the protection level on a template with millions of uses, so I wanted to double check. Also, is it worth proactively switching templates from full-prot to template-prot even if no one has made a request? I can think of a variety of templates that have had full protection since before the template-prot option was created. Dragons flight (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would say we should always go for a template protection. Template editors are not expected to produce damage visible in many articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Ymblanter. The template editors know what they're doing. That said, unless I get or see a request for downgrade, I leave the fully protected ones well enough alone. Katie^talk 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Dragons flight, on your last point (should we mass lower protection in the absence of need/requests), we had a discussion at WT:RFPP within the last year and decided, as Katie also suggested, to leave existing protection alone for the time being (unless there's a reasonable request, obviously). HTH, Samsara 12:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As someone who regularly patrols TPE requests, I can say that we hold our TE's up to very high standards. Subsequently, I don't know of anyone who has seriously broken a TE template nor had their right removed (at least since I got the mop). Granted, most used-by-millions-of-pages templates are (more or less) in their "final" form and never need to be updated, so echoing the above sentiments I don't think we really need to downgrade any existing protection just because it happened to be employed before the TE right existed. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to leave the biggest, most-visible alone (navbox, infobox, and CS1, not all-inclusive) given their visibility and their (intended) stability (CS1 changes but also has an involved user base). There are a few others in the millions that might reasonably be downgraded (wikiproject) given their somewhat-lesser visibility. Perhaps this should be a full RFC on WP:VPPRO or WT:Protection policy given the current lack of guidance. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• I did a while ago lower protection on some fully protected templates from full to template, using a rough cutoff of one million transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additionally, for templates that have millions of impressions due to being part mediawiki transclusions, full protection is often warranted. I find User:AnomieBOT/PERTable to be a good temperature gauge for this need - it rarely has template based backlogs in it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Cascade protected

I realized belatedly that the requested template is also subject to full cascade protection via Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. So downgrading it would also mean removing if from that page. That page is interesting as there does not appear to be a clear threshold for what is or is not included other than a subjective declaration that something is very high risk. Dragons flight (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

In past discussions on TP, when trying to define such a threshold, there was a diversity of opinions. It seems that if you take a unilateral approach like Jo-Jo Eumerus without discussion you are likely to be successful and not come under scrutiny. Samsara 15:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't like this approach all that much. Perhaps it does say that the exact protection level is something only few people care about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit to fully protected page

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.

---

Can an admin please make the changes requested at Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#First part? The request has been open over 24 hours, and has consensus from editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2017 (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.

Checking some sockpuppet cats

I am checking the accuracy of the following cats:

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand

I don't see any evidence for them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive. Am I looking in the wrong place? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Sockpuppets are often blocked without an SPI if evidence is compiled off-wiki or the admin doing the blocking is the one who discovered the sock. SPIs are a place to submit evidence if it needs admin review or warrants a CheckUser, but it's not the only way to get a block for sockpuppetry. If you think any of the blocks may not be correct, talk to the blocking admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am going to start by simply asking User:Δ: [55] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What good would that do? If Betacommand denies that a particular account was a sock, are you going to believe him and remove that account from the category? Don't you think that any puppetmaster has a vested interest in being blamed for fewer sockpuppets? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Betacommand has admitted to violating various policies in the past, and is arguing that nine years is enough punishment for a violation made in 2008. So he/she may very well admit to some of the older ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he's arguing that his last violation is in 2008, he'd be unlikely to admit to anything after that. In any case, I think you'll find that for many editors, the Betacommand/Delta crisis is still quite fresh in their minds. It put the community through a lot of stuff, and went on for years, so if you're working with Betacommand, I would tell him not to get his hopes up. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Delta SPI came up empty - insufficient evidence of any connection to him. He's been blocked for more than 5 years now, which is plenty of time to lose a skilled technical contributor. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 checkuser and oversight candidates

The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2017 appointment round will run from 18 September to 29 September. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Poor conduct notice

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.

---

An administrator has 'gone rogue' They are using their status as administrator as an excuse to abuse privileges and break rules that apply to all wikipedians to push content, reverting proposed deletions. They use inappropriate language in several places in the edit summaries and also here. Additionally they have misused their administrator privileges and ordered an unwarranted intrusive investigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea Cucumber 17 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• No rules broken, though I admit I called them a dumbass. Oh, and a dick. I don't mind someone having a grudge, but they should keep their shit out of article space--now an article on a hugely important scholar of history and diplomatics has been disfigured. Anytime one of you wants to follow up on the SPI or the AIV report, that'd be great. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• (ec) Stop the presses!! And not only an admin, but an Arbitrator as well! And look, he's also a CheckUser, and he's filed a SPI report against you here in which he explains that you are a revenge account sockpuppet for User:DisgrunrledGrunt, and that the connection between the two accounts has been CU confirmed. However, being a good admin, and being WP:INVOLVED in a dispute with you, he hasn't blocked you, a task which he has left for other admins to take care of, [56] and which I request here as well.
  So, I guess we let the presses roll again, it's just another run-of-the-milled pissed-off editor socking to get back at someone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• And Oshwah has done the deed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you both. I'm sorry about the bad words, but you know, BMK, how it sucks to get pulled away from writing an article by something this insignificant. And worse of all, the German article, which I was using, isn't very good, so I had to grab a couple of references to make the point in the article that the AfD was ridiculous. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2017 (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.

Constant NPOV pushing by User_talk:Samankamal

User_talk:Samankamal has been constantly pushing a particular NPOV in contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy across multiple pages and in particular the page on the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine. This is seen quite clearly in his most recent diff [[57]] where he changed the infobox in reference to type to for-profit from well-established norm for private universities. Other users have also expressed concern about his NPOV push on this particular subject matter [58] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, User_talk:Samankamal has been involved in NPOV push on particular subject matter. Cossde (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Previous ANI Their is a previous ANI on this users conduct on Wikipedia, it appears this issue dates back to May 2017--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sockpuppet Investigation Also their is currently an on going Socketpuppet Investigation into the user, however I do note no determination has been made on the investigation as of yet. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man prohibition amendment

The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

support: Opabinia regalis, DGG, Doug Weller, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Callanecc, Kelapstick
oppose:
recuse: Newyorkbrad

For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Rambling Man prohibition amendment

User:199.101.62.55

So this discussion popped up at WP:BLPN, see section on AllieX. The IP (who identifies as Andrew Nichols/Andrew McDonald when signing posts) seems to like editing biographies using a combination of primary documents (publically accessible birth records etc) and original research. Both of which are a big no-no. See contribution history. This has been explained to them but they do not appear to be listening. Coupled with their fixation on editor's identies (see User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0 for more info) and their references to publishing 'research', as well as asides into lawsuits over Tara McDonald (possible relation?) I suggest its time to show the IP the exit, or at a minimum, severely restrict their ability to edit biographies via a topic ban. Pinging editors who are have been involved with the IP recently Oshwah (talk · contribs), Karst (talk · contribs), SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs), Tornado chaser (talk · contribs). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Notified Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-month topic ban on adding or editing any material related to living people, broadly construed. MPS1992 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

See also the recent discussion at [[59]]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I support the topic ban as proposed by MPS1992, as this IP seems determined to add OR to BLPs, I have no confidence that they will not continue to cause problems and need to be indeffed, but I think a temporary topic ban would be the best thing to do now, but making it clear thet continued OR will lead to an indef block/ban. Also does this belong on AN (here) or ANI? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI is for immediate attention, AN is for stuff that needs attention but not necessarily urgently. In this case as most of their problem edits are being reverted this is the more appropriate venue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Also support a topic ban, perhaps to be extended of three months. I cannot see the individual adhere to policy, if anything he flouts it continuously. As was shown today when with this edit, again no sources were given. Karst (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

what Karst failed to see about my edit to Almeda is that i gave sources. In my first edit where i put it under incidents, i put it there, but, I remoced it from incidents and moved it up to reception. IN my original edit I gave several links. I can't add the references because the captcha does not lode for me at all. then again that's because my wifi can be good but it also can be bad. I re-added it and put in the summary the links, this way someone who can load the captcha can put them in. - Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Request Admin close AfD

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.

---

The discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017) has a reasonably good turnout and it seems merge is and probably will be the consensus decision. I am the article's creator and I also just Ivoted for "merge". Rather than continuing to extend the discussion in time and attract attention to a discussion that may not need this attention or more editor's time, I am requesting an Admin close this AfD per the perceived consensus. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems a little unnecessary to me to close this early. I also think in general that AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I thank you for saying this. I was thinking along similar lines, and have become very frustrated having to deal with an AfD this soon after creating the article. It doesn't give me much time to come up with more material - if any shows up. It's like, by the time that happens the horse has left the barn. I wanted to say something like this at the AfD, but I didn't want to come across as whining and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my request for early close on this AfD. Please let the AfD run its course. This AfD happened way too early, in my opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the AfDs that are happening too early, it's the article creation. WP:NOTNEWS and the like. "AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature." is just wrong. Apart from clearly notable events (Hurricane Irma, erecurring major sporting events, ...), most articles on breaking news should be sent to draftspace for a while and only released into mainspace when the enduring notability seems to be clear. E.g. not every wildfire needs an article asap. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it still is premature. That the article creation was premature as well does not negate that NOTNEWS issues cannot be properly handled when the event is fairly recent. I've seen a fair amount of editors with concerns that articles on "Breaking news" events are started too quickly. And that many if not most such articles are kept when brought to AfD, mostly on the basis of recent coverage. I don't think everybody accepts this state of affairs but meeting an arguably premature article creation with an arguably premature AfD nomination is not by default the best answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (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.

bears watching

User:NWO Globalist Slayer has an incredibly obnoxious user page. I don't know that it is against any Wikipedia rules, but it is certainly against Wikipedia traditions. It could just be viewed as "these are the 3 politicians I support." But it could also be viewed as threatening to many editors, especially those in the Philippines.

For the record, I'm one of the Wikipedia editors who occasionally expresses political opinions on my user page and sometimes on others talk pages, e.g. I have a "Register and Vote" poster on my user page. But I see a huge difference between that and User:NWO Globalist Slayer's user page.

My only request for action is that admins keep an eye on this user. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

Thanks,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And their only edit is to ask that anti-Semitic nonsense about George Soros be added to his biography. Pretty clear case of someone not here to constructively contribute to an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What I wanted to add to the Soros article is not 'anti-Semitic nonsense'. I happen to be Jewish myself. I just want to add content related to what is an official White House petition that has now generated enough citizen signatures to require a presidential response. Please do not attempt to classify all Soros opponents as anti-Semitic. That's a red herring. NWO Globalist Slayer (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The user page has been tagged and deleted. The next edit from this user would probably result in the hammer. Alex Shih^Talk 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Bears watching? I better keep an eye on my pic-a-nic basket then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) In all seriousness, I saw the user at UAA, and seeing their edits was considering a block for WP:NOTHERE to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, my user page was indeed just 3 politicians I support. Duterte and Putin are often portrayed as bogymen in the Western press. However, the truth is that they are populist leaders with widespread popular support in their respective countries-- probably the 2 most popular elected leaders of major states. As you mention, you have your political opinions expressed on your user page. It should not be any different from me as a new contributor. Please restore my user page. NWO Globalist Slayer (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef, a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE, and likely a sock anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

110.77.210.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))  Proxy blocked. GAB^gab 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission error on talk page for user with fullwidth forms of Latin letters in username

While attempting to leave a message for User:Nk24ｙ, after the page curation tool threw an error (-1) when reviewing Kunihiko Nohara, I received the following error message: You do not have permission to create this talk page, for the following reason:

The page title that you have attempted to create contains fullwidth forms of Latin letters. Such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace them with the normal letters (try putting your input method in half-width mode - on a Japanese keyboard, press the 半角/全角 key) and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: I've created the (empty) page for you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And I've created the userpage. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to close discussion

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 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Proposal_concerning_JohnVR4, a proposal was made to address a long-running issue with that editor's behaviour. However, the discussion was not formally closed one way or the other and the discussion was archived. Might an administrator close the discussion formally, please? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Since there is an active proposal in the thread which was commented on by numerous editors (myself included), and since it was archived by a bot [60], I've removed it from the archive and restored it to AN/I. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the thread Buckshot, and issued the topic ban met by consensus on the user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2017 (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.

Requesting To Move Draft Article For Review

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 requesting to have this Draft moved to review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Niquette_Draft

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryah (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done by submitting it to Articles for Creation, though at a first glance I think this is going to be declined under WP:POLITICIAN. Not passing any judgement on the draft as I "submitted it" for review. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (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.

Recovering orginal of down-scaled, formerly "non-free", image

I've never come across this use-case before; please tell me if there is a better forum for my request.

File:JosephSouthall-SelfPortrait1925.jpg was down-scaled a decade ago, by a bot, as a non-free image. It's now PD (the artist died in 1944). How can the original, higher-resolution, upload be restored, before it is copied to Wikimedia Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. It was as simple as restoring the deleted revisions for that page. Now you have the older version to revert to. Have fun. --Jayron32 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted to 2007 version and copied to Commons. -- Begoon 11:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The self-portrait was made in 1925; however, the URAA automatically restored US copyright. Therefore, consider it non-free in the US. --George Ho (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ok - until when? -- Begoon 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

95 years after first publication, so that would be... 2020 (or January 2021?). --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ok - thanks for catching it. I'll get the Commons file deleted - can you do me a favour and fix up the tags on the en file, with a note not to copy till 2021 - I'd appreciate that. -- Begoon 13:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope I got it right. The licensing tags should still remain as more informative. --George Ho (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've reverted to the smaller version, since it's still fair use. -- Begoon 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm starting a discussion at WT:NFC to explore the option of having "when falls into PD" tags to help avoid situations like this. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. -- Begoon 13:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with a sockfarm

The Air India article, and others related to it, are currently the target of a large sockfarm run by Modern Fire. Would it be appropriate to place the article under extended confirmed protection? Pinging admins MilborneOne who has been keeping a weather eye on the articke, KrakatoaKatie and Widr, who have been dealing with dirty socks for their opinions. Other editors opinions equally welcome. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes, this is ripe for ec-protection. The sockmaster seems content to create and autoconfirm many sleeper accounts so semiprotection will be ineffective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - No telling how long this could go on for. Genuine edits can be made via the {{requested edit}} system. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've set the page to EC Protection. It's unfortunate that the page had to be set this way, but the sockfarm is persistent and not going away any time soon. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. As I said, that was the main article they were targeting, but others related to it may be affected. Presumably they can be dealt with in the same manner if required. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since it's already done I can say this without prejudicing the discussion. EC protection against sockpuppetry should be used extremely cautiously. Malicious users who deploy sleepers already know how to make a series of junk edits on unprotected articles to gain confirmation, and there's indication that some will go to the effort of doing the same to become extended-confirmed, sometimes using automated tools. That's a lot more disruption, and the likelihood of a malicious user behaving this way should be weighed against just dealing with it in one place. We do have an edit filter to detect this behaviour but edit filters are not perfect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended confimation requires a higher level of non-noticeable activity for them; they're less likely to be able to keep it up for long. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Imagine that you create a sleeper to vandalise an EC-protected article — either you'll make good edits with it (so the encyclopedia benefits), or you do downright problematic stuff (and you're likely to get caught before you reach 100), or you do silly stuff like adding and removing a period on a userspace page. If you do vandalise the article, someone will check your edit history in all likelihood, and as soon as they see that you've been doing silly stuff, they should know that you're a sock and know to request checkuser. Unless there's some other option that's not coming to my mind, all your options either benefit the encyclopedia directly or make it easier for us to catch you. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - I realise that EC protection needs to be used with care. That's why I came here to ask, rather than steaming in and doing it myself. Never hurts to have a second, third or even fourth opinion. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've definitely already seen users who create a subpage of their userspace and repeatedly add and remove a . from it, for example. I think we have edit filters to catch that now but we didn't always. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't know that. But even if you don't get noticed by the filter, a human who sees your vandalism should check your contributions, and vandalism plus period-adding will easily be enough rationale for {{uw-voablock}} and {{uw-sockblock}}. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While there might be good-faith reasons for attempting to rapidly gain auto-confirmed status (and actually not difficult to look like you're doing so entirely by accident), it's far less likely the case that a new account making dozens of rapid minor edits is not attempting to game extended-confirmed protection for malicious purposes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrator Confidence Survey ending on Sept 24.

Hello, The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team is conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Semi-Annual_Admin_Survey_Privacy_Statement

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a survey form. Survey submissions will be closed on September 24, 2017 at 11:59pm UTC. The results will be published on wiki within a few weeks.

If you have questions or want to share your opinions about the survey, you can contact the Anti-harassment tool team at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey or privately by email

For the Ant-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• You know what's funny, every time I see one of these notes I'm in the middle of being harassed. Last time it was someone who threatened my family, today it's some troll, someone I blocked or pissed off, who appears out of nowhere to hound me--at least he's not threatening to come to my job and kill me. No one has yet seen fit to block User:Macro The Islander, and until fellow admins help out a bit I'm going elsewhere. Toodles. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Already been done Drmies. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing and copy-paste cleanup needed for Rawlplug

We have a stable article at Rawlplug Ltd.. We now have an admitted paid editor, Jowita ch (talk · contribs), copy-pasting it to Rawlplug. Some cleanup is needed - if only because our regular "don't do page moves by copying" would be against it. There's also the issue of whether paid editing is in favour this week or not.

I would support the page move - MOS:TITLE would be against having "Ltd." in there. But we don't do things this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the cut-and-paste move, Andy. Jowita ch hasn't edited since 11:04 but they haven't disclosed their paid editing as I asked them to either. If they resume, I'll give them an 'only warning'. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

After links in a template are changed

• When a template is edited, changing links, how long does it take Wikipedia to update its what-links-to-what list accordingly? At 08:17, 21 September 2017 in Template:Peter Masterson I changed the link Blood Red to Blood Red (film), but when I click on "What links here", Wikipedia still thinks that page Template:Peter Masterson, and all pages that transclude that template, still link to page Blood Red. Is there a way that I can make the appropriate buffer be flushed, after editing a transcluded page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• See Help:Job queue. It all depends on how long the job queue's backlog is; sometimes it's really fast, and sometimes it indeed takes some days. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's something that should probably be done quickly (like finding a broken link) you can always run the transcluded articles through AWB and run null edits, which will "flush" everything. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Boss Man Bandz

We should have this as a test case for RfAs. What to do? The name is COI, possibly promotional, possibly a real-name issue (lots of choices in the WP:USERNAME smorgasbord); the user page is the wrong place for this; and this is a copy of the thrice-deleted and now SALTed Boss Man Bandz. What to do and in which order? Are we going to help this editor? Are we slamming down hard? So many choices! Someone have fun; I'm off to Publix to prepare my own smorgasbord. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clear cut case of using Wikipedia to promote themselves it looks like. I've blocked for promotional name/edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, OK, I don't know. If the article were a wee bit more neutral, or a lot more neutral, would you say the same thing? Drmies (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If their only edits were to create an article about a non notable figure on their talk page, yes. It's using Wikipedia as a webhost to promote themselves and a promotional name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• So, RickinBaltimore, you wouldn't see much to talk about at User:Iamdjflash, do you? I mean, you probably couldn't feel, with your cold admin heart, what an intoxicating brew is mixed into every track... (I was going to link his world-famous "2017 KickOff Mix (915 Night Life Exclusive)" here, from his Soundcloud, but it's really quite awful and probably a copyvio. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'm getting ready to leave work so I'll not be active tonight, but this is again self-promotion and a promotional name. It's using Wikipedia to promote themselves (and I did just delete the spammy Draft they had, which is the same as this user page). RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I do my best editing at work--I just pretend I'm working on some manuscript. Anyway, guess who won't be invited to any parties in Tijuana soon: YOU. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Damn, so much for my religious reading. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about process and RFCs

I wasn't sure where to post this question.

There's a dispute at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America (which I'm involved in) over the inclusion of a graph. It's been restored and removed by multiple editors. I started an RFC to address it.

My question is about process not content: whether the graph should stay or be removed while the RFC is in progress. I'm interested in a general answer like: remove, use existing consensus, leave the stable version in place, or even "there is no rule." If you do have comments about content, the RFC would be the place to add them.

If it's relevant: the graph was added on August 20th and removed the same day, which prompted a talk page discussion. It is currently present in the article. Its use in another article (Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials) is also contested. D.Creish (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was to keep the graph so it was restored after that initialndelete. D.Creish is one of a small group of editors who arrived trying to toss out RS (like all newspapers[61]) and remove well sourced statements (like when many of the monuments were built) in an apparent whitewashing campaign. More eyes on the page would be welcomed. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a real effort to frame my question neutrally. Your comments, "arrived trying to toss out RS", "Consensus was to keep the graph" aren't just wrong but have no bearing on the RFC or my question about RFC process. D.Creish (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking (with some exceptions when the concerns are rooted in BLP, which doesn't seem the case here), the status quo ante prior to the dispute remains in place during the RfC, and that's also the result if the RfC does not reach a consensus. So if what started the dispute was insertion of the graph, it should stay out while the RfC is underway. If, conversely, the graph had been in the article for some time, and removal is what precipitated the debate, it should stay in during that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Ps are long dead so that's not a problem. Clear and helpful, thanks. D.Creish (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the graph was added, it was in there for a few days, there was some discussion on talk, the one user who was objecting appeared reconciled to it remaining in the article, there was general consensus to keep it [62]. THEN D.Creish jumped it, started an edit war over it and when that didn't pan out for them, he started his RfC. And yes, that whole RfC has been deeply problematic, with tons of similar !votes which say roughly the same thing, as if reading from a script, but all of which completely ignore Wikipedia policy, which to me at least, suggests some off-wiki coordination. The account of D.Creish itself is suspicious - their first edit was to a highly controversial article (as have been all their subsequent edits, in a topic area covered by DS) and it invoked... WP:COATRACK [63]. No way a person new to Wikipedia knows or has heard about WP:COATRACK. Subsequent edits by the account also show way too much familiarity, not just with Wikipedia terminology and rules, but the various tricks and methods of WP:GAMEing this rules. There's a ton of topic banned and out right blocked users in this area, so draw your own conclusions.

Nota bene, D.Creish has also been removing this graph from a related article, claiming that since the RfC in progress on a different article currently has more "Oppose" !votes than "Support" votes that justifies keeping it from that other article (Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials). Of course this is also an instance of WP:GAMEing policy (did I mention that this account was too good at this too early in their editing career to be legit?)

Finally consider the arguments that D.Creish has made to justify their edit warring and removal of well sourced content:

First it was that the graph or parts of it were "unsourced". This was complete nonsense since the source states the information explicitly. So when that didn't pan out, the argument switched to...

... the claim that while SPLC was reliable for "hate groups" it was not reliable for "history". Even though this of course is related to "history of hate group". An associated false claim was that "real historians" don't agree with the graph (they do).

... so I went out and found more than a dozen sources which said the same thing, including numerous ones written or which quoted actual historians. And not just any ol' historians but ones who are experts in the subject area. So now the argument has become that we cannot use these historians as sources because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... because they are writing in newspapers or magazines rather than "academic journals and books". [64]. Seriously. Needless to say, D.Creish has failed to provide any actual "academic journals and books" - or ANY sources for that matter - which would contradict the sources written by historians which WERE presented.

At this point it's clear that 1) this isn't a user acting in good faith, it's pretty clear instance of WP:AGENDA and WP:NOTHERE, 2) the sophistication in trying to manipulate the outcome and the invention of arbitrary excuses for their POV strongly suggests extensive prior experience with Wikipedia, undisclosed by D.Creish AFACIT. Volunteer Marek  03:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Damn, that RFC needs more eyes/input. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And can an uninvolved admin please put a stop to the highly irregular copying of votes into a different section of the talk page, separate from the RFC? This is confusing, disruptive and does not appear to serve a useful purpose. When my vote was copied it was cut in half and seperated from important context, which I strongly object to. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need an admin to collapse that, and I have done so as an uninvolved peon. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss (hooray for peons!). In truth I almost did collapse myself - I'm pretty sure I would have been reverted though. Less drama if it's someone uninvolved. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fiddlestyx: My fault your comment was truncated. In the main RFC section several editors weren't observing the Survey/Threaded discussion distinction, overwhelming individual votes with comments, which made them difficult to follow. I assume that's what prompted this duplicate "vote only" section which I found useful, but if it's not allowed then that's that. D.Creish (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@D.Creish: Please read my comments there. It's not that it's not allowed, it's that it's extremely unusual, disputed, and lacking consensus. I would personally have no objection to it if there was a local consensus for it. I would oppose, as there is nothing unique or particularly unusual in that RfC that would require the only use of that technique that I've ever seen. While there is almost always some discussion happening in a Survey section, experienced editors try to keep it to a manageable level. Where it becomes excessive, and there is no bright line as to what is excessive, editors are allowed to move discussion to the Discussion section with some kind of comment referring back to the !vote that started it. Sometimes each such move creates a new subsection of the Discussion subsection, and that's not a bad approach. I've never seen such a move disputed, nor can I imagine any good reason to dispute one. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I think if I moved those discussions it'd create more problems than it solved. You asked Carptrash to ping editors who might have voted in the now closed section. If there are any, would it be a problem to just move them to the open section? D.Creish (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll defer to more experienced editors on that point. But the safer approach is to notify the editors, and user talk page is the more reliable way. Pings can be missed by the recipients, and I'm pretty sure they are occasionally dropped by the system. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I also have serious doubts about D.Creish. Their mode of operation is way too slick for such a new account. Further, we have words to describe people who push a POV that ignores easily verifiable facts like when monuments were erected and schools named for Confederate Generals. Revising history is not our job at Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

G5

I could use WP:AFD, but there are a few confusions here. @Nyttend: declined a G5,[65] saying that Materialscientist also "significantly edited" the article, I asked him[66] that it wasn't needed because Materialscientist didn't made any significant edits,[67] he made only one edit which was at least 50% assisted by automated editing script.

Nyttend responded to me on my talk page,[68] saying "The criterion's meant to get rid of content that's essentially untouched by another human", but this is contrary to WP:G5 which says "and that have no substantial edits by others".

Major problem is that this article has been created by a promotional sock, belonging to sockfarm of over 1,000 paid editing sock puppets. And this subject is not notable either (WP:BLP1E). Whether it was correct to decline G5 or not it should be clarified. Capitals00 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The wording of G5 is "no substantial edits" so that is what matters. The size of the sockfarm and the notability do not come into it. I can see people reasonably going either way in this case. Are you unhappy about discussing this at AFD but happy to discuss it here? Thincat (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: there were "no substantial edits" by anyone except the promotional sock. The issue is with G5 here like I said, it needs to be clarified if that single edit was so substantial that it could be used as justification for declining G5. Capitals00 (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to properly define "no substantial edits". Personally I think that while this example is borderline, it's a valid decline per G5. One solution would be to follow WP:BANREVERT and ask MS. And I'm wondering whether you might get more luck with an A7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: what's MS? A7 sounds right, although I won't use another speedy deletion tag, would use AFD unless we agree that it can be deleted under G5. Capitals00 (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, MS = Materialscientist, in my mind anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I had pinged him on Nyttend's talk page[69] but he made no response. Even if the article has been deleted it won't be a loss for an editor like him who has nearly 1 million edits. Capitals00 (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist, rather famously, does not receive pings. See the note at the top of User talk:Materialscientist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing. User talk:Materialscientist#AN notice, he is now notified. Capitals00 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"Materialscientist, rather famously, does not receive pings" - yes, and I am flattered by the comment :-D. This edit is a routine cleanup that takes a few seconds, please ignore such edits of mine when discussing notability or article deletion matters. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted it. It's my perspective that G7 can be applied to two-editor-edited pages in the unlikely event that both want deletion (the point of the criterion being to get rid of recent content that is unwanted by whoever added it), and applying the same principle means that I should ignore a substantial edit to an otherwise-G5-candidate upon request. Note that I would have declined an A7 request for this article had I seen one; not understanding much about Indian politics, I'm not sure what a "president of Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha" does or what the "district development council" is, and it's not appropriate to A7-delete a person possibly notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting users

Can somebody remind me of whether it is possible to ever delete users? I know we normally don't, for attribution purposes, but I'm specifically thinking of something like Ritchie333 likes pleasuring sheep (talk · contribs), whose username not only violates policy, but would be a candidate for username redaction per WP:RD2, if such a thing were technically possible. If the user has no live edits, live or deleted, can we not just nuke it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps, without too much loss of understanding to the average reader, you could have just made up a name? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A steward or global renamer could rename the offensive name to something else. Nthep (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Correct. This is typically how it's handled (other than having an oversighter suppress all logs of it). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename it to something not offensive like Ritchie333 likes singing in the shower (talk · contribs) or Ritchie333 likes playing pinochle (talk · contribs) or something like that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Technically not possible, CC BY-SA not possible. Best option would be to have a forced rename. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

OS can suppress the block logs and essentially make the username disappear (since only those directly involved would know the name). Primefac (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hiding usernames properly (as is commonly done) needs to be done by the stewards (with maybe some revdel to perform any remaining cleanup), otherwise they remain at Special:ListUsers and in the global logs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well without wishing to invoke WP:BEANS more than necessary, there are some accounts with offensive names that I have deleted user pages from in the past, that I think should have the account names expunged too - is there a steward's mailing list I can go to? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

stewards[at]wikimedia.org, or m:Special:Contact/Stewards. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

An offensive name like that meets the criteria for username suppression. Global username suppression hides the username on all wikis, leaving the edits, but automatically suppressing the name. If anyone tries to look at the contributions pages without steward or OS rights, it looks as though the user doesn't exist. Unfortunately, it doesn't also suppress revert edit summaries that list the name - these need to be manually cleaned up after. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I renamed a few offensive ones a while ago, and I was told that was the wrong thing to do and that suppression should be requested instead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have sent the stewards a list of usernames that I think should be expunged. There has been an explosion of them in the past 12 months or so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with renaming naughty names is that people can re-create them. If the name is suppressed, then it can't be accessed or recreated. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The other problem with renaming is that it creates even more log entries to deal with. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I usually block and send for suppression, recently there was an account created by this sock farm that was trying to be more disgusting to my mom than Ritchie's example above, (just glad she doesn't check Wikipedia) but that was somehow found by a steward and suppressed. I've however sent a couple of others that I found more troubling (as they related to BLP real names unlike this example which is linked to a pseudonym) and I'd sent those to OS but they were found to be ok. I'd think we should go the extra mile with BLP linked offensive/troubling names. Strange thing is, one of the user names declined this year is close to another that was suppressed (differs by a space) in 2015 (also submitted by me!). Have our BLP name requirements changed in these two years? —SpacemanSpiff 13:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for help concerning Will Horton article

It appears as if there is a major owning issue of user Aliveness Cascade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the Will Horton article. Any kind of edit made by an editor that is not them seems to be reverted as "wrong," "disruptive," etc. and it restored to their own preferred edit of the article, resulting in a complete fan point of view (even removing the tag multiples times, despite them being the "primary" editor, showing POV/ownership on their behalf), and when this is pointed out on the article's talk page (by another user), it's ignored and adverted to avoid discussing "their editing", etc. The primary bulk of their edits since January 2016 have been to the Will Horton article, and while I do not dispute the positives they've brought to the article, it's becoming clear they want the article to be the way they want it to be, and that other contributors cannot be welcomed. It's worrying that this article is being so controlled by one singular editor that it almost seems a lost cause to have any kind of discussion with them, without administration interference. Am hoping there can be something to happen there to help settle a tense situation, as it feels like good faith is not being kept on all sides., as they've exhibited a "they did this and they did that" type of standpoint against myself and Jester66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and seems to be targeting our edits to this page as an overall whole. livelikemusic talk! 13:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I regret that I am not able to contribute/defend myself much over the next few days. However, anyone can check that I have been majorly involved in discussions about the article, and that it was in fact me who opened discussions about the added templates. It is true that when I started editing the article I was new to wikipedia, and didn't understand how it worked regarding the need for references, but that is long past and I hope that we can all bury the hatchett regarding that episode. Since then I have made a huge effort to seek out sources and add them as citations, and since then the number of references for the article has over doubled. It is now one of the most well-referenced soap character articles! Regarding the current claims of ownership - happily wikipedia documents everything. Jester66 and livelikemusic have occused me of "ownership", but I think the logs tell a different story. If there have been clashes in editing, it is with these two. livelikemusic is a frequent reverter, and has been warring with others at Will Horton during this very period he has accused me of ownership - warring over the format of dates in the infobox. Jester66 acts like he owns wikipedia itself, as 90% of his edits are done without the courtesy of edit summaries (he may change his behaviour now, but you can go back and check). In fact he has modified his behaviour at Will Horton already - this is the one article he noticably *does* put edit reasons in now. When he first added templates to the article he did so without edit reasons and without opening any discussion at all, which really isn't helpful, constructive, or collaborative, and I think he realized he needed to do edit summaries when these templates were easily taken out. So he now does edit summaries at Will Horton, but still acts like "good practise is for other people" in most of his other edits. Actually the reason I haven't responded earlier to these claims of "ownership" is that I don't think they are made in good faith, and I didn't want to go there, but now I have been forced I will say that I feel that the claims of "ownership" is being used by livelikemusic to force his own preferred edits. It is his preferred image that is in the infobox now after all, in place of one I had put up earlier. He is a frequent reverter and he has reverted far more than just me. Sadly I think he uses his experience of wikipedia policies and procedures to play the system and secure his own edits, and also livelikemusic and Jester66 seem to be acting as a tag team too, with the former just days ago awarding a barnstar to the latter as their mutual actions worked to get livelikemusic's preferred image in the infobox. Ugh, I didn't want to go there, but now I am forced to defend myself by livelikemusic pushing the issue. Fact is, that I have been the major player in discussions about the article, as the article talk page clearly attests to. That is good editorial behaviour. And these claims of "ownership" from livelikemusic and Jester66 are examples of Pot, Kettle, Black, it's just that they're "ownership" behavior is spread out over different articles. I think it is regrettable the livelikemusic has forced this issue.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note I have never had in-depth discussions with Jester66 regarding anything concerning the Will Horton article, and the barnstar stemmed from their continued work throughout soap-related articles as an overall whole, not with the Will article specifically. Aliveness Cascade bringing this up is, again, them playing the "they did this, they did that" type of personality, which I previously mentioned in the original posting. My note to Jester, under the "Resilient Barnstar" was, "For all of your hard work on soap-related articles." Nothing was mentioned, specifically, over one set article. I have not attempted to own the page, and the deflection on the part of Aliveness Cascade is, again, showing the "they did this, they do that" personality that they previously tried to use when they were blocked for edit-warring previously. As for my own reverting, I must address it, as it's clear this is trying to be deflected from someone else onto myself. There is a hidden note, which states: See other soap pages to see same format, i.e. Taylor Hayes (The Bold and the Beautiful) and Katherine Chancellor; the "Years" parameter, as well as Wilson's mention below shows that there were other portrayals and breaks for the character of Will. They "Years" parameter exists for a reason, and it is redundant to repeat years, when the "Years" parameter alone describes why Chandler Massey is listed as "2010–" instead of "2010–14, 2017–."

Now, as for the image, I simply updated a current image of Massey in the role, as of 2017, which was replaced because, and I directly quote: Restoring previous infobox pic: taking out the one with Will looking grim and miserable (both unsuitably gloomy and too specific to be the primary pic), and replacing it with one that is better representive of the character as a whole, that shows their preference for their own uploaded image. There is no pre-exposed word that says the infobox image cannot look "grim" or "miserable," etc. And, in fact, I re-updated the image with a capture from a later episode. At the time, there was only at 15 seconds of clip from Massey's first re-appearance, and once more airtime occurred, the image was updated, promptly and appropriately. And, to even continue showing a sign of good faith, which I even state in the beginning of this report, I gave "Will" a happier disposition, to create a compromise of a current image, with Aliveness Cascade's preference of a happier, less-gloom looking Will Horton. More proof of Aliveness Cascade's owning of the page is with this edit; I removed the October 9, 2015, date as real-world dates do not specifically exist within a soap opera universe, as October 9 could last multiple episodes, so therefore, I changed it do he died in October 2015. Aliveness Cascade then "fixed" the "previous edit" by putting back their preferred written statement, but amended by adding "the episode of October 9, 2015." Again, I must reiterate: I do not negate the positive improvements that this user has made to the article; there has been quite an improvement in the sourcing of the article, despite some possibly being unreliable and questionable, but their apparent attempt to own the page, possibly likely due to their extensive expansion of the article, is worrisome. Especially, in consideration, that the Will Horton article is the majority article they've been editing since January 2016. My intentions are in the purest and most cordial of terms in the hopes of ending, what appears to be, a feeling of conflict at one specific page.

Clearly, Aliveness Cascade, myself and Jester66 care about the character of Will Horton, and it is a pure shame that this has to happen, and that this is to be brought to the attention of the administration of Wikipedia. However, I feel without some concrete interference, there will never been a calm within the storm. Might I also add, this user and myself can co-edit, as exhibited at the Kate Roberts talk page, however, it seems to be at the Will page that there is a significant pull of disruption, and I'm truly sorry if this editor feels as if I am not assuming good faith, when I am. livelikemusic talk! 15:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I am simply baffled why livelikemusic is upset about the editing at Will Horton. For my part I see myself as doing the normal to-and-fro of editing. With regards to the primary picture in the infobox: I first loaded a new one, and he started accusing me of "ownership" with the words "Feels like certain contributors aren't allowed to edit this page anymore — sad". Then he loaded a different image, and I made reasonable points about its inappropriateness, and restored the one I'd put up before. He then re-asserted his pic. Then yes, a few days later he has as he said taken my points into account, and uploaded a new pic which takes the points I made into account. This is the normal to-and-fro of editing. So it's all good. And the same with the aforementioned date edit. He initiated a change, but his change didn't truly satisfy his own given reason to my mind, and I amended his edit (not reverted it!) to satisfy what I thought was livelikemusic's reason. It seems I read his intention wrong, but nevertheless, this is just the normal to-and-fro of editing, and which gives step by step improvements. The very last edit I did before livelikemusic raised the administrators was not a true reversion (I used the "undo" button but I edited also in a change in response a point raised by livelikemusic). Again, it's just the normal to-and-fro of editing, bit by bit working towards a better article. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have no real opinion on what seems basically like a series of ongoing content disputes and niggles about the best way to present a page you all obviously care deeply about, but I will give you all a barnstar if this thread ends up shorter than that very long article. Looking through the talkpage it's clear that Aliveness has put their heart and soul into editing that page, but there does seem to be a little bit of defensiveness going on too, and that can cause friction. But I see niggles on both "sides". It's easy to understand how this happens when people become invested. Can't we all just try to get along, though? A great big shitfight about it here will probably achieve nothing, but runs the risk of someone getting "hurt". -- Begoon 15:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

My comments concerning "feeling sad" about certain editors not being allowed to edit was a feeling of myself being targeted, as an editor, at the article by Aliveness Cascade. I was simply following non-free content criteria, which states that if a free image is available, it should be used in replacement of a non-free image, which is what I did. I replaced the non-free within the article's body with a free image, which was revered as as it is better for the article and reader to have in-character pics, yet, the MOS states otherwise. That situation had zero to do with the main infobox image, at all. It had to do with an image within the article's body, so I do not want people getting the misinformation as to the timeline of this situation. To address Begoon, I don't want this becoming a "big shitfight," however, I feel strongly that there is a strong case of ownership, and as they pointed out, the defensiveness is clearly causing friction, and it's turning this into a personal issue, when it is not. And, as it is, I must leave this discussion until next week, as I must go into my real-life job tonight and tomorrow. So, I will be unable to openly comment and address concerns, etc. So I am hoping this, like Begoon points out, does not turn into a "big shitfight," as that's not the intentions I had in filing this. livelikemusic talk! 16:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the edit I made which appeared to trigger livelikemusic's remark, was me moving the then infobox pic (Guy Wilson as Will) into the body of the article, whilst putting a picture of Chandler Massey as Will into the infobox. It's perfectly normal for soap character articles to have in-character pics for each actor who plays the role, and I said this, and linked to such articles, in talk. livelikemusic's "Feels like certain contributors aren't allowed to edit this page anymore — sad" in his edit summary was particularly baffling and out-of-the-blue as he'd just recently added referenced text to a new section I had recently created about the revival of the character, i.e, we'd both just (independently) "worked together" to build a new section! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This goes way beyond changing the image from Guy Wilson back to Chandler Massey. Several of the links posted by Aliveness Cascade are from fan sites and also the quotes are from fans as well. There was this one time I reworded several of the sentences and he reverted it back saying that it would confuse or damage the article. Aliveness has also been adding "the Roberts" last name to the main line in the Will Horton article but also the Lucas Horton article even though it is in the infoboxThe way he's worded the sentences "graphically murdered, or "killed off by Head Writers Dena Higley and Josh Griffith", doesn't give a neutral point of view at all but tilts it toward a fan POV, a fan outraged that Will was supposedly killed off. i tried to tell him that he needs to change his links and his wording but he has ignored me. Jester66 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, thankfully wikipedia records everything, and claims can be checked. Or they could if Jester66 would give details! LOL! Oh, and I thought this appeal to administration was about "ownership", but apparently it's about every aspect of the article that Jester66 does not like! Talk about snowballing! One of the quoted citations in the article uses the phrase "graphic murder" for crying out loud.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

And the phrase "graphic murder" comes from Soap Opera Digest no less, *the* US soap opera magazine! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Jester66 would do us the courtesy of linking us the edit he claims "There was this one time I reworded several of the sentences and he reverted it back saying that it would confuse or damage the article." And perhaps he would also do us the courtesy of explaining why using reasons to back edits is a bad thing.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Guess there is no point in trying to reason with you. Jester66 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Jester66 says above "i tried to tell him that he needs to change his links and his wording but he has ignored me." That is a lie. Anyone is free to check the article's talk, and at the time of writing, the ball is very much in Jester66's court. He has not been forthcoming about the links and wording he has issues with. But more to the point, that is a plain lie, and it demonstrates that Jester66 is not acting in good faith.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article check

Could an admin please check Kári_Árnason_(footballer,_born_1944) and tell me how many of the criteria highlighted in bold at User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Guidelines#Types_of_problem apply to this article. Also, is it one of said criteria that the article did not mention anything notable about the subject, or that it did not give an source proving said notability?

I am asking since I have found a source that this particular person did participate in the qualification for the 1968 Olympics and scored his only national goal during said qualification. I notified the admin who eventually deleted the article, after it was moved to draft-space by a bot, and the user who started the discussion I linked to.--Snaevar (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The content of this article is:

Kári Árnason (born (1944 -02-25)25 February 1944) is an Icelandic former footballer. He was part of the Iceland national football team between 1961 and 1971. He played 11 matches, scoring 1 goal.

References

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This may be an article that was deleted because nobody checked and restored it to mainspace before the deadline for the SvG clean-up project, or it may have been deleted because it was restored by an editor who showed a pattern of restoring articles without checking them. A lot of o.k. (but trivial) SvG articles had to be deleted to ensure that articles with damaging errors were deleted. I do not see much wrong with this one. Notes:

• Technically "former" is original research - the subject may still be playing in some senior league.
• The first source, an Excel spreadsheet, gives: "Kári Árnason 250244-3049 1961-1971 11 1 A-lið ÍBA A", which supports all the other content of the article.
• The second source does not mention the subject at all, although it does have an entry for a different Árnason, Kári. It should be dropped.
• The first source on its own is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I am not sure that the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, but think being on the national team should be enough.

Perhaps the article could be restarted with a bit more meaningful content. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

On one hand, he could be playing in a senior league; on the other hand, he could have been the victim of a fatal road accident in 1972. We really need more information than this one database entry when writing a biography. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this content is suitable to be merged into a list of icelandic footballers, but not as a standalone article. As Aymatth2 points out, much of this is technically OR. Reyk _YO! 12:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snaevar:, if there are reliable sources which describe the facts you mention the person likely passes WP:GNG since there are most likely sources which describe smth else, but for us it is very difficult to get access to and to understand Icelandic sources. The article can likely be just recreated based on sources, if you need any help pls let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice case of what is broken with autonotability of sportspersons. Can't even verify they exist but there MUST be sources. Meanwhile we delete pages on Billion dollar multinational businesses because they might be spam. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission error when initiating a category

Never seen this before: trying to initiate Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in Scotland and got a notice about “Permission error”. Grateful if somebody could 1) explain what on earth is that? and 2) remove the glitch that is preventing initiation of the cat. Mais oui! (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Same for Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in England. Odder and odder.Mais oui! (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a glitch. It's most likely getting caught in the filters because of "kill". An administrator will be able to create it for you if appropriate. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mais oui!, I've created both cats, as they seem legitimate (though I make no guarantee of how long they'll last, if they only have one member). Primefac (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Populating is not a problem. But what on earth is “kill”? I’ve created thousands of cats, but never seen that error message before. Mais oui! (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mais oui!, it threw an error because "killed in" is part of the Titleblacklist. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Very odd. I've just tried to test this with a dummy category in the same structure for Wales, and got the same issue of it being protected. I'm the same as Mais oui! - I've created thousands of categories too. Seems an overly-sensitive filter. I know it's a very small problem, but can that be looked in to? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, ignore that - thanks Primefac! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Summoning @Od Mishehu: as the admin who added .* killed in .* to the titleblacklist. Is that a common vandal pattern? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually remember doing this; however, based on my logs from that time (June 28, 2016), I swe a number of pages which were SALTed which used this text. Given that a SALTed title is visible, I used this as a means of SALTing these pages without making their names visible. I just removed this specific entry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Request Admin assistance

I did a page move that I thought would be helpful with a simpler nomenclature per naming conventions, which is accurate. The new (and current) title is P/2006 VW139. After looking at all the links to the former page title and then looking at the infobox I have decided this may not have been a good idea. It seems to be a new page, according to the edit history, which is all I looked at prior to making the move. However, there are a large number of links to the former page title in "What links here".

I am requesting admin help by moving this back, and I will seek consensus for a name change on the talk page later. There are three possible names for this binary main-belt comet. I don't want to cause a disruption to WikiProject Astronomy by having carried out this action. I'll just say thanks in advance. Also, I hate when I do stuff like this. And, I left a note on the project talk page [70] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Moved back to the previous title for now. Looks like the large number of links in "What links here" is the result of transclusion in {{Cornets}}, which was added based on the page Main-belt comet, where the asteroid was added back in 2011. Alex Shih^Talk 18:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken bot

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.

---

Not sure how to report this user's totally broken bot, given that amongst other things it vandalises any attempt to use talk pages to notify the user responsible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comfycozybeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.12.182 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW I have notified the user with subst:AN-notice, but of course his bot just deletes the notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.12.182 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off. CCB isn't a bot, and you're both edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive post. I am not a malfunctioning bot. This all started when they unjustly removed content from an article. I reverted them and left them a polite warning. Then they starting accusing me of being a variety of things, including a vandal and a troll. Enough already. Comfycozybeds (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted CCB's inappropriate close and fully protected the wrong version of the article. IP, stop making silly accusations. CCB, please engage on the article talkpage - the removals are not, on their face, vandalism - NOTNEWS is a valid reason, despite the IP's behavior, and you are edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked for personal attacks. CCB, please remember that you aren't exempted from 3RR in this case - you are not entitled to edit-war just because the IP is being obnoxious. Please report at AN3 and wait for resolution rather than just reverting. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: CCB has been blocked for 3RR violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2017 (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.

Losar

• Losar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could I please have an administrator to solve a dispute over sources used on the Losar page? An administrator is removing a whole lot of sources including books used as sources from the Losar page. The user is saying it's poorly sourced but I don't understand how book sources, for example, are not verifiable. (49.127.144.174 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

• Hmm yes, that's not exactly what seems to be going on. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Admins, do any of you know who this IP hopping editor might be? Drmies (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm not IP hopping, I can confirm that I am the same IP user that is involved in the dispute. My IP address constantly changes, that's all. So can you tell me why all that information, even those with sources, are being removed? (118.139.92.111 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

Just a note, that is exactly the definition of IP hopping. It may or may not be intentional, but the effect is mostly the same. ansh666 09:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I am not IP hopping though, I am not intentionally changing my IP address, it is not my fault that my IP address constantly changes. What do you expect me to do? I do not need to create an account on Wikipedia because that is not a rule. No one has ever told me that my dynamic IP address it a problem, so I'm not sure why that is being pointed out here. Could we discuss the problem please? I am here because I have an issue, I thought this is what administrators are here for. I have been here on many occasions so I'm not sure why it's taking a long time to deal with the issue. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

@Drmies: Could you please tell me why you protected the page? There is currently a discussion in progress and I was asking for help. I am not sure why you protected the page without having a proper discussion. What did I do to you? (137.147.33.208 (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

Drmies protected the article because I was too slow getting to it. Go to the article talk page and determine consensus for your version of the article. Tiderolls 13:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: I don't understand why the page would be protected if there was an ongoing discussion. Shouldn't a consensus be reached before action is taken? I'm not a new IP user or anything, I am well aware of the rules here as I have been editing Wikipedia for four years now. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

Articles are protected to stop the disruption created by edit wars. Why would an article need protection after a consensus has been determined? I think you would benefit by reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Tiderolls 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tide tolls: I never said the page should be protected after consensus. What I was trying to imply was a consensus should be reached before action is taken, I was not talking about protection though. I can understand why you might think that but I was not referring to page protection. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

(edit conflict) It's protected because of the evident edit war. Get consensus on the content first, then protection will be lifted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I thought that might be the case. I tried to prevent that from happening by coming here but I guess I reverted too many times unfortunately. Okay, I will try to get consensus on the content first. Thanks for your help. (137.147.33.208 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

@IP - dynamic IPs are often pointed out so that others know to look for different addresses when looking for background, and also so that they don't spend all their time trying to contact you on a talk page when you've moved on to a new one. I don't know about your specific case. ansh666 17:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Neutrality has been reverting this poor content since February, from what I can see. Admins like me are particularly susceptible of false claims about editors removing reliable sources, when that is prima facie not an accurate representation of what's going on. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Okay, but can you tell me why this source was removed?

• Ligeti, Louis (1984). Tibetan and Buddhist Studies: Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma De Koros, Volume 2. University of California Press. p. 344. ISBN 9789630535731. From my four years on Wikipedia, book sources are highly sort after when it comes to academic topics. Also, minor details such as "Asian festival" has been removed. The inclusion of "Asian festival" colour-codes the template, other things like the zodiacs have been removed, despite sources, as well as "Bhutanese" from the template. I don't know what is wrong with that content, I am speaking about the content in the introduction, the template and the table of the zodiacs that were removed. Could you please tell me why all of that was removed despite the inclusion of sources? There were books that were used as citations, so why were they removed along with their content? (120.144.19.54 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC))

The Ligeti source was not removed - it is still cited under the "practice" section. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Oh okay, sorry I didn't see that. Can I ask you about the removal of the zodiac information, the word "Bhutanese' from the template and the removal of "Asian festival" from the template? I just want to understand why they were removed. Thanks. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

Taking these in order: (1) For the zodiac, I want to see some more solid sources - is there anything better out there? (2) I've add "Bhutanese" to the infobox. (3) The infobox right now says "Related to: Other Asian Lunar New Year festivals" - does that address your concerns? Thanks, Neutrality^talk 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks for doing that. In regards to the zodiacs I will find better sources and get back to you on that. However, some of the sources such as "Time and Date" provide calendar dates for festivals, that is why I added those one in. Are they not good sources? I'm don't think Mongols should be included because they celebrate something slightly different called Tsagaan Sar. As for my other concerns, this is what I was thinking the template should look like, minus the zodiac signs for now.

Losar
Also called	Tibetan New Year Lhochhar
Observed by	Tibetans, Bhutanese, certain other Himalayan peoples and their diasporas and Tibetan Buddhists
Type	Tibetan culture, Tibetan Buddhist
Frequency	Annual
Related to	Chinese New Year, Japanese New Year, Mongolian New Year, Korean New Year, Vietnamese New Year

So you will see that I have included other East Asian festivals because Tibetans use the Tibetan calendar which is derived from the Chinese lunisolar calendar. It would be incorrect to say "other Asian New Year festivals" because it's not directly related to the Lunar New Year festivals in South and Southeast Asia that occur about two or three months later. What I mean by "Asian festival" is that in the "type" section of the template using "Asian festival" will colour-code the template so that it is maroon. I hope that make sense. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for this explanation. I've made several of these changes, which I think will meet your approval - see here. Please let me know if that works.

I don't like the "Date and Time" website because it appears to be a commercial website with ads. I don't have any reason to doubt the website's accuracy, in particular, but neither do I have particular reason to think it's a good source. Neutrality^talk 04:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks so much for making those changes but I think "Nepalese" should be changed to "certain Nepalese groups" because not all Nepalese celebrate Losar. Other than that, thank you for making those changes. As for the zodiacs, I will get back to you on that. I don't have time right now to do anything so I'll let you know in the future about any sources that I find. Thanks again. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

• OK, can we find someone to impose some closure on this thread? This IP is using the board for content discussion, and that's not what this is for. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-SA Violation?

On http://thedailynewnation.com/news/147398/rakhine-was-an-independent-state-and-it-should-remain-independent.html, they clearly copy the article "Rakhine State" (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rakhine+State&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0) and http://www.thesangaiexpress.com/the-genocide-next-door/ did that as well, without saying that wikipedia was the source. Is this a CC BY-SA violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abequinn14 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The community can't do much about it. People rip off Wikipedia all the time. You can always drop a note to [email protected] but admin aren't in the business of enforcing our policies on external sites. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If you contributed substantively to the article, you could serve them with a DMCA takedown notice. That's about it. Wikipedia actually can do next to nothing because the Foundation isn't the copyright holder for any of the content on Wikipedia that is user-generated. The editors themselves remain copyright holders and release it under a suitable free license. Only copyright holders can pursue takedowns. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Abequinn14, I've sent emails to well over 100 webmasters/organizations, etc. about their use of Wikipedia content without compliance, though only a few takedown notices because, as above, that can only be done where you are a significant contributor to the page in question. 8 only ever tried to comply in response. Yeah, a bit disheartening. If you want me to send you a model email for you to tailor and send yourself, drop me a message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) On the other hand, I once made a simple polite request to guy who was copy pasting Wikipedia articles in his regular postings about the history of Rock and roll. He complied immediately by providing attribution on all his posts going forward. So perhaps this is A YMMV situation. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Wikipedia, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.

You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.

For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Second Italo-Ethiopian War request review of the level of protection because of recent disruptive edits and ?sock? disruptions. Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I placed this article under 3 months semi-protection on Sept. 22, per a protection request at WP:RFPP. The article had been under repeated attacks by sockpuppets, particularly by changing information such as number of deaths to other numbers which are not supported by sources. After the imposition of semi-protection, there was one additional sockpuppet attack from a user who was autoconfirmed; that user is now checkuser blocked. If there are any more attacks by autoconfirmed users, we should consider upgrading to extended confirmed protection. For now I propose waiting to see what happens, since the immediate problem has been dealt with. If anyone thinks we should move to extended confirmed protection now, feel free to go ahead and do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird sock farm that's more than the usual nuisance

Virajmishra (talk · contribs), first is operating a rather weird sock farm, just bringing it up here so that those who block/consider unblocks are aware of the issues. I'm also pinging some of the admins involved in the blocking/declining unblocks as they may be the next targets of his absurd behavior: Only — Ponyo — Yunshui — Yamla — RickinBaltimore — Elcobbola — JamesBWatson:

The master account and early socks are globally locked, but that hasn't prevented him from doing the following:

• Creating an account with a username attacking my mum (now suppressed, so I can't link it)
• Tagging my userpage on Commons as a sock of his
• Placing sock block templates on my and other talk pages at Commons
• Trying to log in to my account
• Requesting password resets on my account
• Spewing some bovine excrement on my talk page and elsewhere.

He mostly uses a Jio internet connection and the IPs are ultra dynamic, not just regular dynamic, so blocking individual IPs may not help beyond a few minutes.

I expect he'll get bored soon, but I'm bringing it here as the login attempts and password reset requests are a real nuisance. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Highly regretable.Apparently got too pissed off after multiple failed attempts at own (??) film promotion due to one reason or other esp. at Commons!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not much we can do in cases like this except revert and block, and wait until the person gets bored, which usually happens eventually, though sometimes it takes a long time. The least response people like this get the sooner they are likely to get bored, so I would certainly not post a block notice to the user's talk page, and it is also questionable whether tagging user pages is on balance a good idea or not. Anyway, thanks for the warning, SpacemanSpiff. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We can also protect, however. I've given your userpage full protection indefinitely. Please let me know when you'd like it to be downgraded, and I'll remove it or downgrade it. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Two small points about that message, Nyttend. Neither of them very important, but I thought worth mentioning.

1. Since your message immediately followed mine, it looked like an answer to me, so I read " I've given your userpage full protection" as meaning you had protected my user page, as I expect anyone reading it would. I thought "What? I thought my user page was already indefinitely fully protected. Has the protection somehow gone? I'd better check." However, it turned out by "your user page" you meant SpacemanSpiff's. Perhaps not the best way to pipe your wikilink?
2. If you look here you will see that SpacemanSpiff doesn't need to let you know if he wants protection removed or downgraded. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

JBW, I think Nyttend meant protecting my Commons user page (which I can't do, and he has done), where it will be helpful (thanks) as this chap's now a cross-wiki nuisance, asking for password resets and all. As long as he sticks to just posting idiotic messages on my talk page it's ok and easily handled. —SpacemanSpiff 11:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you, JamesBWatson, on the "you". I just figured that it was fine, since anyone could mouse over the link. And SpacemanSpiff is correct; I was talking about this action. I took it only after checking SpacemanSpiff's user rights and observing that he was a rollbacker, patroller, file mover, and image reviewer, but not an admin. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw a message from one of their IPs on my talk page this morning. I'm not really sure I'd want my talk page protected at this time either, I can just revert when needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected

Hi sir I want to edit Riyanka Chanda,s page please allow me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidaq Pratap - ofc (talk • contribs) 05:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. You can either wait until your account is autoconfirmed or request an edit at Talk:Riyanka Chanda. -- Begoon 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice, though, on your user page, you say you created List of Indian animated feature films, so if Sidaq pratap is your account why can't you use that account to make the edit at Riyanka Chanda? -- Begoon 08:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon: Someone created an account using my name @Sidaq Pratap - ofc:. It's not my account and all the info posted by this user is copy paste from by User page :Sidaq pratap/^talk 25 September 3:16 PM (UTC)

A CU might be useful here to help us decide if User:Sidaq Pratap - ofc should be blocked as an impersonation vs blocked as a sock. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock; blocked and tagged. I'll drop a note for the Stewards as well as the master is globally locked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sidaq pratap: - Thanks. I suspected it was not your account, which is why I 'pinged' you here. Ponyo, thanks, as always. -- Begoon 22:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist messages

Please note, watchlist messages are being updated to another page - if you normally watch the watchlist messages, then you may want to watch MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages :D — xaosflux ^Talk 23:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Need an admin close

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 see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump_and_handshakes_(2nd_nomination)#Donald_Trump_and_handshakes - the discussion has deteriorated and disruption is brewing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's customary to request closes under the closure requests heading at the top of this page (shortcut WP:ANRFC). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thx Ivanvector. Hope I won't ever need to use it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump bump. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 21 September 2017 (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.

RFC close implementation at Family Guy

I closed a RFC at Talk:Family Guy as consensus against the existing wording, with no consensus on an alternative. I selected the most supported alternative phrasing, and put it in my close as an editorial decision. I also edited the article to implement that close. I notified the initiator of the RFC, User:Curly Turkey that I had closed the discussion. After discussing the close on his talk page here, Curly Turkey reverted to the wording he initially proposed in the RFC. Because I'm a somewhat active RFC closer, if I'm making an error in my process, I need to know to avoid repeating it. Therefore, I'd like to open my close, and especially it's implementation, to the community for review. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Initial reaction without minutely examining each post in the RfC: In my opinion, it's probably not a great idea, after closing an RfC, to then edit the article itself, making a judgment call on what the consensus of the RfC was other than yes/no on the specific RfC question. If there is a judgment call, or a "probably" or "seems to be" alternate action recommended, it's probably best to leave the actual edit to the article editors themselves, if you were the closer that observed that. If they then get into disagreement about the precise alternate wording, those involved can start a new discussion, or if need be an RfC, about that. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Almost echo SoftLavender.I did not review the close on it's merits but it looks to be a situation where there is strong consensus to change status quo but no consensus about what shall the changed version be.I typically close these RFCs by installing the most logical/supported variant as the new status quo and ask the participants to continue from there to discuss on the alternatives.If no phrase has even garnered anything remotely semblant with concensus, I typically instruct to just edit the portion out which becomes the new status quo and continue another round of discussion.Also, as a sidenote, I believe RFC closers should seldom ever exercise their editorial rights while closing a disc.Our job as closers is to evaluate consensus and execute them (if necessary).Nothing more, nothing less! Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 12:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

CU/Rangeblock request

I just blocked Jack3044, which I haven't yet added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Modern Fire. I think there's at least one rangeblock possible, maybe more, and that would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Added this sock to the list. Thanks for the help with this guy, agree a rangeblock(s) would be helpful. Home Lander (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Leaving project owing to some "unfortunate" comments by another contributor.

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=802457793

I will of course be cleaning up some recent efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The relevant comments are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#Excuse_me_.3F and in the edit summary mentioned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So what exactly is the point of this thread? To incriminate an admin and blame your leaving Wikipedia on him? People don't normally make an announcement, and certainly not one incriminating and blaming another user, on AN when they decide to no longer contribute to the project. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think ShakespeareFan00 was rather upset/annoyed by the comments made, which do come across with a fair amount of blunt force - announcing this here in this manner though isn't a great idea, and I would ask ShakespeareFan00 to help de-escalate this by taking a moment away from Wikipedia to collect their thoughts. I don't think there is anything which needs admin action here, and I think we can all agree that not jumping on this thread is in everyone's best interests -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, there's a significant prequel to this, and it's found on Giano's talk page--I ran into that by accident yesterday and was wondering how it would end. Well, now we know. What's funny is that we keep seeing the user apologize for their approach, yet they keep approaching. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2017 (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.

Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata

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.

---

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs)
• AN thread regarding user
• Previous instance of Indef block over deletion of a 39 byte draft: Damaging Wikipedia is a capital crime. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- Taku[71]
  • When the Indef was lifted: Actually some problematic users like RH don't deserve respect; they need to be expelled from Wikipedia so actual editors can get to the work of building the encyclopedia. I will retire for time being but hopefully, I can will come back when the project becomes more hospitable to content creators. -- Taku[72] (Edited by Alsee)
• Previous instance of block for disruptive editing
• Previous cautioning by editors regarding disregarding DRV
• Warning regarding disruptively making points
• Recent Edit Warring Noticeboard report
  • Block as the result of the Edit Warring Noticeboard thread
• Returning back to the page for which they were just blocked on
• Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Brainstorming on an RfC - In which Taku continues to argue that CSD:G13 does not apply to Draft space after recieveing multiple editors reconfirmations that "Yes it does" including several reminders that the question is still too early to be re-called.
  • Attempt to forum shop to canvas a precieved supportive consensus.

For these reasons I am at my wits end, therefore I propose the following:

TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace broadly construed. He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace broadly construed. He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability broadly construed. These sanctions shall be appealable in one year from enactment and a failure to successfully appeal the sanctions shall reset the one year clock.

The goal is two fold: To prevent further disruption by this user who has demonstrated over two years that they have a significantly divergent purpose than the general community (see previous blocks/warnings/cautions/requests), and to allow this user some productive contributions. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't argue G13 doesn't apply to the draftspace. But apparently an attempt to have a discussion the use of the draftspace turns out to be too controversial so I can agree for the other users more knowledgeable in policies matters to weight in. (A kind of a self-topic-ban?) -- Taku (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at this point self-topic bans are not going to cut it for me as you've demonstrated in multiple instances since the previous AN thread closed you cannot be allowed to discuss anything with Draft namespace. Even on your own talk page you agree to walk away and then immediately jump aback into the same arguments that have been rejected repeatedly. Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, I agree that I will not start a new thread on the draftspace usage, including an RfC. But I do strongly believe some kind of RfC on clarification, not on G13 but on the usage is more productive than having discussions on editors' behaviors. I was merely trying to start a conversion (not on G13 but the usage) but it is clear by now that that was a bad idea. But I would like if someone else can weight in. -- Taku (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support enough is more than enough, [73] and he continues in this thread to play dumb and "debate" the purpose of Draft space/G13/various angles. I told him I may just hat his disruption [74] but he continues. Just look down his "contributions" if you can call them that. I believe Taku is a very bright person who can contribute in many useful ways here but this has become a game for him. He admitted that somewhere recently the game was more fun then writing math topics. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  I do agree that I'm more on a content-guy than a policy-guy and I'm getting a bit tired of these disputes. So I strongly prefer if the community can establish some explicit rules on the draftspace usage. (Again G13 is just a procedure and doesn't address this matter.) -- Taku (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)If your last sentence is true, and your characterization of it accurate, then we should be considering a full ban, not just a topic ban. —Cryptic 23:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  I found the diff [75] and the rest of that post User:Cryptic - is my characterization fair?. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  No. At least, not in the sense in which I read it. —Cryptic 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose  I see I've already posted five times on this page between 20 and 27 August.  I think that things would calm down very quickly if we limit Legacypac and Hasteur to three edits per day in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And I wish that you'd be sanctioned for the unfounded personal attacks against us, but I'm just going to have to be disapointed. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This last post as well as this thread itself should be flagged as evidence of an attempt to silence anyone opposing some personal views on how the draftspace must be used. -- Taku (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Damaging Wikipedia is a [[capital crime]]. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 03:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[76] illustrates the level of passion Taku has been bringing to the draft issue. They have been asserting disruptive levels of OWNership regarding three-year-abandonded drafts containing no more than a sentence fragment. They have been persistently and disruptively seeking to combat, evade, or bizarrely-reinterpret consensus regarding drafts. The most recent discussion at WT:Drafts#Brainstorming_on_an_RfC descended into nonsense. I do not believe the "Alternative suggestion" below will be sufficient to reign in the problem here. Alsee (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Christ. I hadn't planned to go one way or another on the original suggestion, but after that diff Alsee provided where Takuya said someone had committed a capital crime (e.g. they deserve death), I support anything up to and including an indefinite block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support with Boomerang the edit-warring on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 is extremely troubling. As a Straw Man proposal, I think a block that would end this dispute would be to ban Legacypac and Hasteur from the WP:MfD page until the G13 debate is resolved, and to ban Taku from the draft space indefinitely, with an exception for moving "his drafts" to his own user space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is too complicated a suggestion. Just block Taku from draft space and be done with it. Despite the walls of text, nobody seems to be objecting to that outcome. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I was trying to stay out of it because I'm so tired of this fucking Taku draft thing but seriously? Wikipedia is a game and "I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite fun than writing terse math articles)."? Deleting single-line drafts is "damaging Wikipedia" which "is a capital crime"? We are being trolled, and trolled well, if the amount of bytes and brain power devoted to this one single person over the past few months is any indication. Like Rob, I support anything that will cause this disruption to cease, up to and including an indef. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as unfortunately necessary, and like BU Rob 13 and PMC, I'll get behind anything which will put a permanent stop to this craziness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with note - With the capital crime thing, I will support anything up to and including an indef. If Taku stops this madness and apologize sincerely, then I will not support more than a 2 week block. Hopefully this will stop the drain on the community's time that this has become. We could have spent this time reviewing AfCs or writing FAs. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support TakuyaMurata has become an SPA dedicated to wikilawyering WP:NOTWEBHOST to conclude that sub-stub drafts can be kept indefinitely—that is, anyone can store forever a few lines at Wikipedia provided it plausibly can be called a draft. Valid points can be made on both sides, but the WP:IDHT one-way discussions have to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Let the waste of time end. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of the merits of his argument, this has now reached ridiculous levels of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT from Taku, to the point at which the above posters are correct, Taku has essentially become an SPA, disrupting Wikipedia with needless, timewasting discussions and editwarring to keep their sometimes barely one sentence stub drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support for consistently wasting everyone's time and ridiculous gaslighting in this thread. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hold on - no opinion from me yet, but note that the "capital crime" comment occurred in January 2016, nearly two years ago, and the targeted user and two reviewing admins agreed that the comment could not reasonably be perceived as a death threat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With respect, the capital crime was not presented as current evidence, but rather as part of a pattern of hyperbolic reactions and WP:IDHT that the user has consistently shown. I am attempting to set the stage to demonstrate how TakuyaMurata's conduct has not improved even after multiple brushes with sanctioning. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's what I assumed, I'm just pointing out the timeline since a few comments here seem to think it was a very recent comment and/or more than 0% serious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support with sanctions as well for Legacypac and Hasteur. With respect, the discussions around the various draft policy/guideline pages have been polluted for some time by the (justifiable) assumptions of bad faith amongst all three of these editors, and I think it's warranted to extend the proposed sanction to the other two editors as well, as power~enwiki proposed. I'm against the wording that would prevent Taku from participating broadly in individual MfD pages, that's far too broad and unjustified, but I support all of the other wording regarding draft-related project discussions. (To be clear, the sanction prevents commenting on a draft guideline, but not commenting on an MfD where such a guideline is being discussed by others). I suggest that sanction apply to LP and H until the conclusion of the present G13 discussion (it's basically concluded, though) and to Taku indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Struck the parallel sanction suggestion, that other discussion is effectively over and just waiting for someone to close it (I can't for pointy ideological reasons). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Taku. This whole thing is a monumental waste of time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen. No sanctions for Hasteur or Legacypac are merited as far as I can see. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inadequate examples of disruption presented that have occurred since the recent AN closure. That thread closure specifically mentioned "clemency": if any of the involved parties further obstructs the MFD process or otherwise becomes disruptive (be it in an MFD or through their conduct towards another editor), then this discussion can be revisited, but only the actions since the close of this case should be considered. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Clemency requires the editor to not continue being disruptive. Launching IDHT motivated RFC, attempting to canvass a supportive faux-consensus, edit warring over policies/guidelines/instructional pages, getting blocked for said edit warring, returning to the page they were blocked for edit warring on to reinstate a contested edit, gaslighting discussions to attempt to turn it to a place where they could "win". These actions are incompatible with the Clemency. Even when editors return from indefinite blocks or ArbCom sanctions their previous history is frequently introduced as supplementary evidence to the editor's behavior over an extended period. I would also note that TakuyaMurata's previous interactions with sanctions were not considered by many (if any) of the editors in the "clemency" closed thread. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hasteur is absolutely correct. Even if we assume the previous thread's closure both required future sanction discussions to focus on disruption taking place after the closure and was actually binding, we're not talking about making a determination of culpability, but the extent of remedy necessary to protect the community. It is nonsensical to blind ourselves to how disruptive Taku has previously been when crafting a remedy for his continued disruption. And even then, the thread closure statement isn't binding. Even if there were a consensus that Taku shouldn't be sanctioned for prior conduct in future threads, the consensus in this thread itself could (and clearly will) supersede any such consensus. So let's not play like we're a court of law. We're just trying to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Taku has been a repeated source of disruption in this space, whether it be via POINT or IDHT. Enough is enough. -FASTILY 22:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per other users, continued disruptive behavior. Stikkyy t/c 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Request closure the path forward is very clear amd further posting are just making this worse. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seconded Please close this already. The discussion below is not helping anybody. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It may well be that a topic ban is appropriate. But frankly it's been the same editors, over and over, who keep harping on this user. If he's such a big problem, let someone new bring it to the fore. It feels like my kids arguing in the back seat "he keeps poking me". "That's because she keeps making faces". The right answer isn't to punish just one of those kids. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's assume for the sake of argument that we are doing punishment here rather than preventing harm to the community. The answer to your question is not to punish nobody: it'd be to punish everybody. If you believe there are other culpable individuals you are welcome to bring topic ban discussions regarding them. Of course, we're not doing punishment here, but preventing further harm to the community in the least harmful manner possible. That Taku has been disruptive doesn't even seem significantly contested, even by Taku himself. I don't see what the problem is here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think punishing one and then later discussing punishing the other is a good way forward. I feel like Taku has been poked to get him to be disruptive. Personality-wise he's an easy target. He won't back down and blows up over minor slights. So yes, I do think the topic ban may be appropriate. In fact I said so. But I find a one-way finding of fault to be a really bad idea. Hobit (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With respect, please go review WP:PUNISH and see how fundamentally wrong your thesis is. I know personally I tried the kid-gloves approack in May of last year only to have TakuyaMurata nitpick the argument into "No Consensus" (see previous Taku Megathread evidence regarding WikiProject Mathematics talk page). Now that the community at large has authorized new tools to help clean up Draft namespace (for which TakuyaMurata participated in the RFC) Taku has conseistently attempted to stealth water down the consensus by directly changing pages, opened RFCs which directly counter the stated intent of recently closed RFCs, opened discussions attempting to wordsmith/lawyer loopholes around the stated policies/guidelines/best practices that would give Taku the ability to retain indefinitely 32 byte Draftspace pages and give them the standing to resist and reject any attempt to use or modify the content in mainspace such as redirecting/merging under a very disturbing combination of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. I do admit that I've been intemperate with Takuya, but due to the repeated plays for time ("I'm at a conference", "I need to be working on a paper", "I need to do something besides trying to fix the messes I've made except to spend hours defending my creations") and repeated false flag competence gambits ("I guess I'm not proficient at English", "I guess I don't understand the policy", "I guess I don't know what I need to do") that no user who actually has been working on wikipedia since 2004 could make without having an ulterior gambit in mind. Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hobit, you wanted "someone new bring [topic ban] to the fore". I present myself. I told Taku you're going to get topic banned[77] less than one hour before this topic-ban proposal was posted. I suspect my comment was the tipping point to open this proposal. Checking the editor interaction analyzer I found I had one un-remembered passing encounter with Taku half a year ago. I have only noticed and directly engaged Taku in the last two months. I think I qualify as "someone new". In the last two months I have either found it a waste of time, or a bizarre waste of time, to engage Taku on the topic of drafts. The additional evidence I've been seeing only cements that conclusion. Alsee (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I've seen enough other interactions with Taku that verge on hounding. Have you taken a look at the interactions between those folks and Taku? I find it hard to blame the user when people just keep being on his case for things I think are, in many cases, bogus. Who cares if he creates short stubs in draft space? Apparently it is something that requires massive discussion over a ton of locations on Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hobit - no one has even nominated to delete one of his pages for weeks and no one has been hounding him. Taku is the one spreading disruption from page to page. Please look at his activity, I want you to be satisfied with the majority opinion here and not harboring a misconception about what has been happening. Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Has it really been weeks between when this thread was started and the last one was closed? The one that stayed here for a long time? After the one before it? And all the discussions elsewhere over a few dozen drafts? I believe you mean well. But at some point you can't be surprised when someone reacts poorly to stuff like that. And IMO, it was all over nothing important (extremely short drafts in draft space are worth 100,000 words of discussion?). If everyone had just let his stub-stub drafts alone, which IMO cause no harm and are actually about maybe getting articles out, we wouldn't be here. Hobit (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Request closure again there is clear consensus for a very specific topic ban. Can an uninvolved Admin please close this up. Continued debate is just harmful to Taku. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I support primarily a site ban, because Taku apparently enjoys playing games and cares nothing that those games drain the time and energy of other users. That's a net negative right there. As second choice, I support a T-ban from draft space and discussions related to draft space, as per Hasteur's proposal, or whatever kind of T-ban gains consensus here. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC).
• One last comment? This post is just to say I'll be self-topic-banning myself regarding the policy/behavior discussions related to the draftspace, including this thread. As I said and to remind myself, I always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia by developing and editing the content. But, sadly, the governing system is broken (the unfairness of this thread is evidence-enough) and that has forced me to be engage in the disputes like this. I still believe someone must stand up against bullies; that one is just not going to be me. -- Taku (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Request closure. Consensus appears clear, and discussion appears to have faded out. Alsee (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Extended content

Comment: It is clear that my participation in discussions regarding the draftspace has ceased to be productive; the latest RfC thread (WHICH WAS NOT ABOUT G13) is the latest example. The original sanction seems to be severe but I can agree to move on as long as there will be the same/similar sanctions on Legacypac and Hasteur. By now, their modus operadi have been well established: getting their opponents banned by any means. That's very unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. Obviously it's not fair to let Legacypac and Hasteur off the hook and I will fight until/unless they receive the same or similar punishments. I will just move on to developing the content (I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as it is beneficial to Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) The time for bargining is over. Your actions are at cause here. When you refuse to follow standard operating procedures and refuse to accept that you are wrong, we have no choice but to remove you from the equation. Please recognize that what you've posted above is a bald faced incivil comment and very close to a personal attack. Wikipedia is not Fair, nor is it Justice, nor is it a Democracy. Your promise that you will fight until/unless Legacypac and I recieve same or similar punishments (again with this fundamental misunderstanding of policy after many years) only demonstrates that you should be blocked indefinitely right now as a clear and present danger as you have demonstrated no interest in participating constructively. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Hasteur: There was an edit conflict and the above is the response to my previous comment. Anyway, let's stop the fight. I don't care if you win or not. I promise to complete my drafts within the 6 months window (in addition to the proposed sanction). Can we just stop interacting with each other? I think that's the best. Or you can't stop unless/until I'm completely gone? -- Taku (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC) What do I want? I want you to stop all editing and have a thorough review of the policies (including but not limited to WP:OWN, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:CIV, WP:N, WP:MERGE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, WP:5P, WP:POINT) and have a good long think about your editing history and all the "discussions" you've participated in and what your contributions have done for them. At that point each time I'd want you to ask the question "What would an Administrator do in this case?" If you took time out, we wouldn't have the pointy DRVs where you try to overturn a MFD debate on a technicality, Edit warring over policies, instructions, commentaries, and thousands of bytes debating a 32 byte submission. We wouldn't have you hiding behind "I am not proficent with english"/"I need more time because of a deadline"/"I didn't know that policy meant X". I think you are a specialist in graduate level abstract mathematics, however at the end of the day it's looking at what benefit you bring to the community measured against the disruption your contributions bring. The reply of 01:53, 19 September 2017 has me revoking my previous statement. I stand by the previous characterization, I want you gone because even when shown kindness you lash out with personal attacks. Hasteur (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @TakuyaMurata: I'd like to see you focus more on general math topics (maybe Limit (mathematics)) than on trying to explain Grothendieck's terminologies to non-mathematicians. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Hasteur: Wait a minute. You think your action is not disruptive then? I didn't have to participate any of those discussions as long as you didn't try to impose your personal view on how the draftspace must be used. I will let you RULE the draftspace. That's what you want in the end, period. I can give you that. So let stop interacting each other. -- Taku (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Hasteur: Personal attack??? And you think you're being civil? That's exactly the sort of unfairness I keep bringing up. Anyway, again, I think we can end the dispute as long as I use the draftspace so that there is no more-than-6-month-old and too-short drafts there (in addition to proposed non-participation in the policy discussions). -- Taku (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Is this a personal attack? But it seems you're the one who is trying to make the dispute as verbose as possible so that I can get bannned in the end. It is I who keep suggesting some constructive compromises (see the previous thread as well as this thread). I perceived that's unfair and I have to be punished for saying that? Starting the RfC thread was a mistake but that was not supposed to be about G13 and you are making a supposed policy discussion to a personal matter. Many users seem to get into a trouble with you; is that really because they are problematic users or because it is you who increase the temperature in unnecessary ways? (I notice you tend to claim personal attacks way too often). As far as I know, my contributions to the mainspace are well received. I know I'm editing the mainspace sporadically right now but isn't that because I'm caught up by this disputes and again all blames go to me? Claiming this is unfair gets me banned? That's fair? I'm ready to move on since I don't want to waste everyone's time. Then again you can't even agree on that? Saying that is again a personal attack, which gets me into a trouble. The dynamics is unhealth and all blames go to me. Wow. -- Taku (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

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 find it unlikely the community will enact a topic ban as broadly construed as Hasteur has suggested. Having said that, Takuya above agreed that it would be appropriate for him not to start any new threads about draftspace usage. I suggest we formalize that as a topic ban "on starting new discussions related to draft space, broadly construed". I'd suggest applying this as an indefinite sanction, with possibility of appeal after one year (and every year thereafter). This is even supported by the editor who would be sanctioned, so I don't think this should be too controversial. Hopefully this ends the dispute. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect BU Rob13, this does not deal with the currently open discussions where Taku has called the same question again suggesting that G13 is not validly construed as community consensus recently after their topic ban has expired for which multiple editors have told him that his interpertation is invalid. This does not help his trying to forum shop over at WT:CSD to try and canvas a overruling consensus to the previous statement. I predict, that if your proposal is enacted, Taku will chime in on (or get well intentioned editors to start) threads so that they can continue to spray the FUD position that they have consistently held for over a year. Nonetheless, I would conditionally support (as second preference to primary) this as long as you agree to be on hand to slap down each time Taku attempts to WP:WIKILAWYER around the wording of the sanction. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm not suggesting this because I think it's guaranteed to work. I'm suggesting this because I heavily doubt the community will support your proposal and this is more likely to work than nothing. If he continues to wikilawyer after this sanction, that would be a strong case to ask for more. It's very unlikely the community is going to agree to three separate topic bans for on an editor when they couldn't get anywhere in the Takuya discussion before (which hasn't even been archived yet). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: the part of the problems, as it seems, stems from my lack of understanding in Wikipedia policies (my expertise in math, I suppose). Consequently, I'm not the best person to start a thread like that, as it turned out. But, as I wrote, I still believe the rules on the use of the draftspace are not so clear; i.e., which draft page can/should belong to the draftspace. I thought the answer is any draft but the others disagree. So, for the record, I would really like if the community can set clear rules on the use of the draftspace. The vagueness is a problem because, oftentimes, MfD discussions of the drafts turn to be on the use of the draftspace. Having some global rule is thus preferred than various piecemeal discussions. -- Taku (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a global rule, it's just every time we try to apply that rule, you fight tooth and nail to argue the rule doesn't apply for some nitpickey sub-argument. There never really is a hard and fast rule, because Consensus can change, however when the same types of debates resolve the same way, that kind of sets up a precedent for which it's harg to argue against. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: Why does every single edit of yours in this section mention your disagreement with G13 when the subject is your behavior? Why is this gaslighting acceptable? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  Gaslighting?? How? I do not disagree with G13 (in fact, I even supported the expansion for God's sake.) A nomination is not the same as deletion; good useful draft pages need to be preserved and, in my opinion, an admin should decline the G13 nomination of an old but useful draft or do something about it. Also, there is REFUND; so an editor can still find a way to preserve inactive drafts. -- Taku (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  You didn't answer my question. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  Because this is ultimately a policy-question not the behavior one. (I'm aware that User:Hasteur wants to make this as a behavior matter since they cannot win a policy debate.) I suppose Hasteur needs to be somehow warned of repeatedly bringing up the dispute here instead of engaging in the policy debate. -- Taku (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  I gave up trying to make policy points with you because you refuse to accept any position except yours as valid. Since you've blocked content related disputes and continue to disrupt Wikipedia, conduct related disputes are the next way to elicit compliance. I would also note that in this same period I've provided suggestions on a great many AFDs and various other wikipedia projects. I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge, but I can help Wikipedia function well. All you seem to do is look for loopholes and try to continue being a disruptive force. @Nihlus Kryik: This is TakuyaMurata's modus operandi: Look for a minor imperfection and use that as a wedge point to allow them to continue causing disruption. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with additional suggestions - if this ends this subject and gets Taku to get stuff out of the draft, then I think that it is a great idea. I do want to add that I think there should also be a ban from enacting consensus (ie closing RfCs on the subject) and changing policy pages that relate to the draftspace, except for minor changes such as grammar and spelling. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  As far as I know, I never altered the policy pages or instruction pages except reverting the contested changes and updates like removing AfC (and I'm not planning to do that in the future.) Also, there was a proposal in the previous thread that we move math-related draft pages to WikiProject math. I'm willing to accept that compromise if the community decides that inactive drafts do not belong to the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ummm Taku's "I never altered the policy pages or instruction pages except reverting the contested changes and updates like removing AfC" is an alternative fact: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] and that is just this month. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Boy, you have too much time and I'm supposed to be working on my paper :) Anyway, all I can see is my attempt to bring the pages to the status quo. I do believe in establishing some consensus before making controversial policy changes. -- Taku (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as inadequate, which I guess is a support if stronger measures do not pass. Alsee (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The original proposal is preferred, although this would be acceptable as a second choice if the first doesn't pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as inadequate although would support if the first proposal is not successful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Second choice- per my rationale above. Additionally, Taku notes his "lack of understanding in Wikipedia policies"- no excuse for an editor who has been around as long as he has, but also if you don't understand the policies, perhaps you shouldn't be editwarring to change them? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I see no reason to believe preventing Taku from starting new discussions will really help anything so long as Taku is allowed to jump into open discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note he's now posted a retirement, but he was retired all through the recent months of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: His retirement speech makes swipes at "fairness", "justice", and policies of the site. As has been said many times, all he had to do was educate himself on the policies we repeatedly showed him and not become an ostritch to them. I certainly think the community dynamic is healthy as Wikipedia existed long before TakuyaMurata and will continue to exist long after, but I could be wrong. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • With some frequency, "retirements" don't last all that long, so the fact of it shouldn't stop the community from approving sanctions, if that's what the consensus is. They would be in effect when the retirement ends, and (I believe) if they are timed, the timing would start with the first edit upon return. (Is that right?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh, there's absolutely no reason to take retirement into account when deciding whether to sanction an editor. Seeing as they're a subset of Wikipedia, these noticeboards are also not a crystal ball. That is, there's no reason to assume the problem that would otherwise have led to sanctions goes away because the editor in question does as well. The Arbitration practice of staying cases during the absence of a party doesn't really apply outside that unique forum. I'm not as on board with tolling any limitation period for the period of "retirement", though; I think that takes us too close to punitive sanctions. The purpose is to protect the community for the sanction period, and having Taku leave Wikipedia entirely would result in the same preventive effect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that's probably right, Mendaliv. A sanction which begins after a block ends is something that makes sense to me, but keying the start point of a sanction to when/if an editor ends a period of voluntary "retirement" seems a bit problematical. I think, in those circumstances, if something which can't just be "sat out" is required, it would need to be an indef restriction (as is, in fact, proposed here), although even there one could just not edit for the minimum appeal period, then appeal. But that's always going to be the case - we are never compelled to make edits, retired or not. "The purpose is to protect the community for the sanction period" pretty much nails it. I don't have an opinion on precisely what is warranted here. -- Begoon 03:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
          • "The purpose is to protect the community for the sanction period" That's a very good point. My thanks to both of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully I can respond to the comment "all I have to do is to educate myself". I think this shows cultural differences: we have different priorities. This might sound weird but I have always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia by providing content to the site as opposed to the administrative capacity. If not necessary, I don't want to participate in the policy discussions and such since I would rather develop content. Unfortunately, it was necessary to participate in such discussions. It is clear the focus of the editors here are on behaviors and policies. So my disdain/disregard for administrative nuance annoys many. This is because of the cultural differences: for me, content is the priority not preventing editing wars or enforcing some inner norms many content-type editors don't know or don't care. For the same reason, I cannot stand for the disregard of the contents (mine or otherwise). You can't understand how infuriating to content-type editors the disregard of the content. We can't understand each other since we have different priorities. -- Taku (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Your reading of the situation is not correct and I don't recall you responding to the substance of the objections that have been raised. That latter point is the problem. If it is ok for you to use Wikipedia to indefinitely store brief notes on a hundred math topics, there would be no procedure to inhibit anyone from doing the same—the community has no way to say that keeping brief mentions from mathematics text books is fine, but doing similar for Pokémon or wrestling or beauty contests is not. WP:NOTWEBHOST has to mean something. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Taku: Since some 70+% of my edits are to Mainspace, I consider myself a content creator. To me, content is absolutely the core of the entire project - we could have all the other stuff, but if there was noting in the encyclopedia, there would be no Wikipedia. When I vote at RfA, for instance, my primary concern is that the prospective admin understands the needs and concerns of content creators, either through through own history of being one, or by other means. So I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I say that You can't understand how infuriating to content-type editors the disregard of the content. We can't understand each other since we have different priorities. is a gross mischaracterization. You do not speak for all content creators. However, I'm certain that you do speak for yourself, and that your personal inability to comprehend the desire of the community not to have undeveloped material lying around for long periods of time without being worked on is based on your perception of yourself as being part of an entirely different culture then other Wikipedians. That is ironic, considering that, at least in regard to your drafts, I think that your bona fides as a "content creator" are quite slim. You may think that you are protecting content, but, in fact, what you're so vigorously protecting are sub-sub-stubs with very little content, and not all that much possibility of growing.
  In the end, the fate of those drafts has always been in your hands, since if you had spent about 1% of the energy you have put out attempting to protect them as they are, and used that to expand them, there would have been no argument at all about removing them from draft space. Instead, you choose to dig in and produce reams of text attempting to justify an essentially unjustifiable situation, instead of ameliorating it. That was your choice, and you're paying for it now. So don't blame it on some non-existent "culture gap" between content creators and everyone else, it's you that are the cause of this, and no one else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not repeat the same discussion. But I cannot help point out some misunderstanding. First of all, WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't apply to encyclopedic content; please follow the link. Second, the majority of drafts started by me move to the mainspace by myself and many have more than one sentence (e.g., Draft:residual intersection); it is simply untrue that there is little content to protect (mine or otherwise). Third, on the cultural thing, please read the previous thread again; I'm not mistaken to understand that many content-type editors are puzzled by the insistence that the drafts stated by me are "problems" and something has to be done on them. So the cultural difference is real. And how is the attempt to clean-up the draftspace not disruptive? I'm a long-time contributor and it is very hard for me to believe that I have become some unable to follow the rules than the culture of Wikipedia has changed (i.e., shift from content to policy). So no I don't think I have done anything wrong (except I could have approached RfC stuff differently) and I have to be punished for not admitting my sin, right? Jesus. Anyway, I'm too tired of having this discussion; I will finish up the drafts within the 6-month window and try to stay away from any policy/deletion discussion so hopefully the things will calm down. In fact, I should just stay away from the site altogether; the administrative staff needs to realize they have problems or they can't fix the problems (but after finishing up the drafts; just leaving the site is irresponsible.) -- Taku (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Exactly right. Taku, this is a problem entirely of your own making. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yes, but it is a collaborative encyclopedia. Collaborating and cooperating is how we get things done, and editors are expected to be able to read the atmosphere and adapt their conduct to conform with community standards. Fortunately for most of us, those standards are fairly open-ended; "different strokes for different folks" goes a long way on Wikipedia. As with everything, however, there is a limit to the community's tolerance. As BMK concisely describes, your reaction to running into the community's limits was not to readapt your behavior to conform with community norms, but to insist upon getting your way. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as they who will not see. So long as you hold your eyes tightly shut to the community's standards of behavior, you will not find much sympathy when it comes to sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I seem to be doing just fine in the mainspace and I keep getting trouble with Hasteur and Legacypac. Unless you equate they as the community, I don't think it is the community that has a problem with me, but a certain fringe segment of the community that wants to destroy me (personally). And you still don't think we should just get rid of those two instead of me, correct? -- Taku (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. I tried to give you a way out. Serves me right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't think it is the community that has a problem with me" I suggest you look at the great number of "supports" above, which may disabuse you of this conceit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've NEVER said I want to get rid of Taku. I've only advocated he stop the incessant disruption. Go write content Taku - you claim not to like or understand policy so leave it alone and write content. Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Taku: As usual, your above 07:03, 20 September 2017 comment failed to respond to the substance of the objections I raised. Telling me to read WP:NOTWEBHOST is known as wikilawyering. Responding to the substance would involve engaging with what I said about "Pokémon or wrestling or beauty contests". This fuss has been going on for quite a while. If, near the start, you had said you wanted to be left alone for another six months so you could finish at least some of the drafts, the whole drama would have been avoided. At this stage, it sounds more like a tactic than a plausible pledge. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Again with the faux gas-lighting arguments by changing the topic of debate (Draft:residual intersection]]. See the Modus Operandi quite clearly presented. A consensus forms that TakuyaMurata either does not like or cannot understand. They present a counter argument that is passingly similar and use that as a wedge to try and devalue the consensus. Again Taku makes a very poor argument for why the community at large should accept their viewpoint (WP:NOTTHEM) especially in light of the recent block appeal that was rejected. Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2017 (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.

Analysis of votes

I admit that I have a significant "involved" state with respect to this proposal, but several editors have asked for closure:

• Oppose by subject of the Ban (including an attempt to bargin for a self-topic ban)
• Oppose by an editor who proposes a counter topic ban with zero support (Unscintilating)
• Oppose by a use who fundamentally misunderstands WP:PUNISH (Hobit)
• Oppose by an editor who seems to think previous discussions bind current discussions. (VQuakr)
• 17 supports of some stripe.

Therefore there exists a consensus. I implore an independent admin to heed the requests of Legacypac, Mendaliv, Alsee to close the this request. I believe this is a open and shut case. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2017 (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.

Disruptive user

It appears Helloworld10 (talk · contribs) is not making any contributive edits. Please make this stop --ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Most recent edit was a few hours ago, and Drmies has given a final warning on user's talk page. If problematic edits persist, I'm sure that the user will certainly be blocked. Deor (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

Resolved

Hey all, any idea what I should do here? A (now blocked) IP editor created Draft:Rathindranath tagore and Draft:Rathindranath Tagore a few days apart. Both have been submitted for AFC and declined for having zero references. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect the one to the other. Two drafts on the same thing aren't necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've redirected the younger to the elder. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't put movingpictures on the Main page!

Please don't put moving pictures on the Main page. When you do, it makes it harder for me to use the "Search Wikipedia" box to find the articles I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.38.97 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest using a browser extension which stops animated images from autoplaying. Perhaps something like this (for Firefox) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, why would moving pictures make it harder to use the search box? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but this is the third time I've seen comments like this (the other two were in OTRS). Primefac (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it a mobile issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it refers to the banner at the top that loads after the rest of the page. This is the only thing I can think of, as a user could attempt to click the search box but they accidentally click the banner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The results are in for the Administrator Confidence Survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikipedia English Administrator Confidence Survey results are in. Thank you to the 117 participants who filled out the survey. :-)

A copy of the raw results can be found on the results page. Initial impressions of the raw results are welcome on talk page.

On Monday, October 2, 2017, the Anti-Harassment Tools team will share further results from the comments section of the survey and our preliminary analysis. The team wants to work with the community to identity significant findings and how that it could influence our team's work on tool development.

Later in October, we will have second discussion that will focus on the finding in the survey comments sections that are directed towards policy changes or different ways of reporting and managing cases.

Again, thank you for participating in the survey. And look forward to discussing the results on Monday. For Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Tom94022

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.

---

Tom94022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing his desire for Wikipedia to start using kibibyte, mebibyte, and gibibyte for nearly ten years[93][94][95][96] and the consensus has always been against him.

Recently, Tom94022 proposed making a change[97] to Binary prefix that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline. he was told in no uncertain terms that his proposals is the wrong place and that he needs to propose changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers He then proposed making a change[98] to Floppy disk that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline.

I propose a narrow topic ban for Tom94022 saying that he cannot edit any article or article talk page other than Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers on the topic of IEC prefixes to binary numbers. I don't want to stop him from arguing for a guideline change, just to stop him from doing so in the wrong place. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I propose that Guy Macon (talk · contribs) be slapped in the face with a wet trout for making this proposal in a tone that might lead one to think it is made in all seriousness. (Do not ignore or skimp on the "wet" aspect.) Jeh (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. There was nothing wrong with my proposal. Tom94022 posting proposals that we change WP:COMPUNITS in the wrong place is a minor bit of disruption, but is has been going on for a decade. And you are encouraging his behavior.[99] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping it really was a humorous thing. Ok then.

You wrote: "Recently, Tom94022 proposed making a change[100] to Binary prefix that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline."

Actually, no, he didn't make any such proposal; your claim is at best misleading. No changes to Binary prefix at all were proposed, let alone anything that would be in violation of anything. To the extent that changes to COMPUNITS were discussed, it is never in violation of a guideline to discuss changes to that guideline.

Possible changes to COMPUNITS were mused about on that page only because somebody else brought up the notion of allowing the general use of IEC prefixes. Tom's response - I'd hardly call it a "proposal" - was far more moderate than the post that started the thread.

Re your claim of "pushing his desire for nearly ten years", and "going on for a decade" - three of your four diffs supporting those claims are from 2008; the fourth is from 2015. This hardly shows an effort that's been ongoing "for nearly ten years"; rather it shows a gap of seven. Anyone who doesn't check your diffs could get quite a different impression, one of persistent, disruptive editing, from your wording. Again, I think that is highly misleading.

You wrote: "He then proposed [at talk:Floppy disk -jeh] making a change[101] to Floppy disk that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline."

He thinks it is not, per the "exception" which he quotes. You disagree? So respond accordingly at talk:Floppy disk. Which I see you have not done.

Ooh, "direct violation". Mentioned twice in the same graf?! Scary! I fear for Wikipedia's life! Better shoot him bring out the banhammer now!!!

Regarding "Tom was told in no uncertain terms that his proposals is [sic] the wrong place" - It rather looks to me like what you first told him "in no uncertain terms" was to shut up and go away:

"You are wasting your time. This is one of those situations where the consensus is clear and you just have to accept it. See WP:1AM" ([102])

That looks to me to be exactly an attempt that you claim your proposal here is not, to "stop him from arguing for a guideline change". (And are you familiar with WP:CCC?)

Finally, Tom94022's current proposal at talk:Floppy disk (diff) is, despite your claim here, specifically not a proposal to change the MOS guideline. It is rather a proposal to edit Floppy disk in a way that may use IEC prefixes within what Tom94022 believes the guideline allows. And he ends with

" I'd like to see if there is a consensus that this is permitted under the exception before I proceed. "

Oh yeah, dangerously disruptive tendentious edit-warring stuff there. And for that you're proposing a topic ban?

I find your eagerness and willingness to use the ban hammer (however "narrow") highly disturbing, particularly when your arguments for it are so riddled with mistakes.

Oh, and then there's your parting shot - your claim that I was "encouraging" him. Apparently you missed here, here, here, here, here, and here. Those comprise the entirety of my contributions to that thread except for the last one, which you linked and which I'll mention in a moment. I do not see how in the world you can interpret those as my encouraging discussion in favor of use of IEC prefixes, or of discussion in the wrong place.

The last one was, yeah, my "encouraging" Tom to go ahead with "moving" the discussion to talk:Floppy disk. As the discussion in question is a proposal for changes to the Floppy disk article, that is exactly where it belongs. No?

In sum - I think you have grossly over-reacted here, to the extent of repeatedly misrepresenting the actions of others in an attempt to make a case. I think your "proposal" here is far more disruptive, even dangerous, than the "behavior" you're trying to squelch. In all seriousness, I suggest that in the future you, Guy Macon, invoke some systematic means for carefully evaluating what you write before committing it to project pages. Particularly where it involves topics you feel strongly about. Jeh (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, and thank you for taking the time to express it in an entire wall of text. For the record, your ability to read minds over the Internet sucks. I have no strong feelings one way or the other concerning IEC units. I am simply following the consensus found at WP:COMPUNITS. Your opinion that proposing to "change the table in section 3.5 to use only IEC prefixes" does not violate COMPUNITS is also noted. This is the last reply I will make to you, per WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You start a section proposing a topic ban, but then don't want to answer a detailed analysis of your evidence per "ignore all drama"? I guess we better close this section as "withdrawn" then, as that is what your reply actually boils down to. Fram (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fram, I have already explained to you that I choose not to interact with you. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if you posted a list of the people who still are allowed to reply on posts you mke to the dramah boards? Perhaps only those that agree with you? Fram (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Guy, there you go again. "Your opinion [...] is noted." I expressed no such opinion. And even if I had, there is no P or G against expressing such an opinion. So by all means, "note" whatever you like; whatever proposal you make in the future from these "notes" will no doubt be as riddled with problems as this of yours was...

...so imagine my concern.

It's not a "wall of text". There are, after all, paragraph breaks. But it did take that much text to document all of your errors. Maybe next time, don't make as many.

Also, maybe next time, consider IAD before ever starting. Jeh (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Close this thread per analysis by Jeh and refusal to address these points by OP. If you are not willing to reply to a detailed analysis of your arguments, then why should we bother analyzing them any further? Looking at e.g. Talk:Terabyte (the page your third diff, from 2008, comes from), I see nothing there which would indicate either problematic behaviour by Tom94022 or evidence that "the consensus has always been against him." (which wouldn't be a reason for a topic ban anyway). The edits that caused this proposal are not problematic at all, and were in reply to a discussion by someone else (but in support of Tom94022s position). "Recently, Tom94022 proposed making a change[110] to Binary prefix that is a direct violation of our existing WP:COMPUNITS guideline. he was told in no uncertain terms that his proposals is the wrong place and that he needs to propose changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers"[103]: they did not "propose making a change to binary prefix", they were discussing changing the guideline: and they were "told in no uncertain terms" by you; not heeding your "certain terms" is not yet a reason to get a topic ban. Topic bans are for seriously disrupive editors, not for silencing someone you disagree with. Banning people who have trouble presenting the facts accurately in proposals they make to AN or ANI from making any further proposals may be a more fruitful solution to this issue. Fram (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. I don't see anything overly problematic with Tom's behavior, it seems that he simply interprets policy a bit differently than the OP here, and would like to see a change. I don't see compelling evidence that this has entered into the realm of tendentious editing. More concerning is the OP's attitude toward non-interaction with those that seem to have come here in good faith and spent a considerable amount of time bringing up what appear to be legitimate criticisms of the OP's topic ban proposal. I find the passive-aggressiveness of this comment a bit concerning. If GM is not willing to discuss, then the proposal is dead in the water. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I could add to Jeh's execellent analysis is that the openning of a discussion on the Floppy disk talk page was in response to an editor's suggestion that binary prefixes could be used on that page under the MOS exception. It was shouted down in 2008 but perhaps things have changed. Tom94022 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing this proposal per Insertcleverphrasehere's comment. Please close. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• You might be inclined to just close this yourself, Guy Macon, as withdrawn. Just write "withdrawn" as the result and sign. Side-note; I wasn't aware you were withdrawing as I was closing while you wrote the comment. Otherwise I would have written "withdrawn by OP" and closed. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2017 (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.

Competence / language issue on Japanese railways and Vu-0001

Vu-0001 (talk · contribs) persists in creating railway articles that appear to be either Google auto-translations of ja:WP content, or else simple duplicates:

• JGR Class 150
• JGR Class 160
• JGR Class 230
• JGR Class 1070
• JGR Class 1800

Despite warnings, they persist. They do not engage in any dialogue. I suspect a language issue.

Cleanup is beyond practical, deletions on nearly all are pending. We would be better with redlinks than these.

They're welcome to explain at user_talk:, but they're unconstructive and too problematic in mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Due to the claims made of being the first steam locomotive in Japan" in all of the articles, they can't all be correct. The user did not engage with me when I brought up the fact that 150 and 160 were copies of each other (I was unaware of the others at the time). With only one source each, and not finding anything else in google, I suggest taking the articles to AfD. As for the user, a warning and checking what he/she does next (with escalating actions if they ignore the warning) is probably appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted three of them with a G3-related rationale of User wrote articles about five locomotive types, including this one, and claimed that each was Japan's first locomotive type. The other two I kept, since DAJF was kind enough to give them complete rewrites. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new magic word for short descriptions

This discussion was spread across multiple pages, including some village pumps, but organically ended up at a dedicated page. However, we are now at (or beyond?) the stage where this again needs wide publicity and participation. Please see the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Strategies for improving the descriptions and especially the "Proposal from WMF" subsection (currently the bottom one), where a new magic word is proposed and specific implementations of it discussed.

This is a discussion which will potentially impact all articles and affect the first thing all users get to see in mobile view and on apps (and elsewhere), so getting enough input on this is important. I have posted it at WP:CENT and WP:VPPR and will also post notices at the bot owners noticeboard. Feel free to drop notes at other places. I have included this board because, while this isn't an admin issue per se, this is the place where many veteran editors hang out.

Please keep the actual discussion in one place (i.e. not here ;-) ). Fram (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Block editors posting Nazi symbols?

Hey admins, just wondering if we have a consensus that anons and IPs posting Nazi symbolism should be blocked on sight? (See Special:Contributions/71.174.123.252) I think this falls under severe vandalism but I'm not sure if that's the right policy to justify a block. Also, displaying this content is or may be illegal in several countries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah. If its vandalism, it doesn't need double secret probation to deal with. It's not like they can be blocked extra hard. We just deal with it as any other vandalism and move on.--Jayron32 14:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not like they can be blocked extra hard. Hmmmmm... Maybe we should ask WMF to implement an "extra hard" block. You know, not only does it block them from editing, but it automatically hacks their ISP to get their service address and hires a local Vinney-No-Neck type to go give them an open-handed slap in the kisser and say "it's time to rethink your life choices." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, in this situation an IP made one edit which added some Nazi slogans to an article. Do I need to warn them or can I just make with the blockity-block? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

...They made a single edit two hours ago, and it's a Verizon IP, so it's probably not static. What's the point? GMG^talk 14:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I haven't blocked this IP and there's no ongoing disruption so I'm not going to, I just posted that as an example. I'm asking, in general, if such vandalism requires progressive warnings or if we consider this sort of thing serious enough to just block on sight? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Vandals gonna vandal. When in doubt let Cluebot take the wheel. GMG^talk 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what Jayron means by dealing "like any other vandalism", but I recommend blocking on sight after one edit of that nature. It's what I do. It is not "meh", and ClueBot doesn't have the ability to block, so GreenMeansGo's comment is useless on several levels. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

I'm good at being useless on several levels. GMG^talk 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a pity, GreenMeansGo. I used to find your comments helpful. Did you change your username in order to go troll? Bishonen | talk 15:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

I used to find your comments helpful. Be careful. Some may consider that more of a statement about your judgement than mine. </sarcasm> But if it's a single isolated edit with no indication it will continue, no apparent knowledge of the software or comparatively advanced intentionality (cleverly hiding things in infoboxes, replacing text exactly to make a 0 byte edit, etc), and no reason to believe it wasn't a child bored in traffic on their mother's tablet, a block just seems like a waste of a click, and is at least twice as many clicks as reverting and moving on. And like I said, in this case it's seems most likely to be a mobile IP that's gonna change before you can even click it. So nearly zero chance of blocking this actual individual, and a very small but non-zero chance of blocking someone else. Not the end of the world if you do, just comparatively pointless in my opinion. GMG^talk 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you Bish. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

How is it that I'm the only person to make a truly useless comment in this thread, and yet GMG gets accused of trolling? I wanna be accused of trolling!! Wah! But seriously. Be nice, Bish. GMG is entitled to his opinion, even if he is wrong (read as: even if he disagrees with you and I don't), he still made a good point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No no. It's ok. I'll just go back to Commons where people like me. GMG^talk 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That file has the best description. "True loss" indeed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I usually block on sight for stuff like that too; the odds of a useful contribution coming in the next week from an IP address that has just posted something like that is zero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If someone is a blatant and obvious vandal beyond all doubt, I just block 'em there and then. No warnings, no templates, no Mr Nice Guy, whack 'em with a big stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks folks, that's what I thought. In fact ClueBot did revert and lv1-warn the IP for that edit, but that doesn't seem like enough. Anyway too much time has passed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd block on sight if it was in the last hour or if I had any reason to think it would happen again. Maybe only for 3 hours if it really had been an hour ago, but I've got no tolerance for this sort of thing even if I believe the editor may have meant it as a joke. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Any blatant Nazi, racist, misogynist, religious, nationalist or other bigotry gets an instant block from me (if I'm first on the scene, though as I'm getting older and slower that's not often the case). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone to be posting Nazi imagery, and any sort of blanket ban would have far too many false positives. Because it's so obvious, this is one form of vandalism that is easily spotted and quickly removed and the editor sanctioned if it's inappropriate. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. Someone posting symbolism in a contextually-appropriate way probably isn't going to draw much attention. Someone posting Nazi slogans in an article on Judaism is going to be blocked awful damn quick. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine with me (as long as it is just a normal block length for vandalism). Considering the fact that this is very offensive and potentially illegal, it seems that we should treat this a bit more harshly than regular vandalism. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously context matters (you don't want to block someone who is adding Nazi symbols to eg. the Nazi article, in case that needs to be said!), but users posting obvious vandalism can already be blocked without warning if it's clear their intent is to disrupt Wikipedia, especially if that seems to be the only purpose of their account. From WP:BEFOREBLOCK: "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." So this is covered by existing policy, provided their vandalism is clear and seems to be their main or only activity. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to rangeblock User:The abominable Wiki troll again (2a02:c7f:8e0c:6600::/64)

2a02:c7f:8e0c:6600::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Per this block log and after User:NinjaRobotPirate blocked them last for 1 month, this appears to be User:The abominable Wiki troll, yet again. Along with the usual disruption, they're now IP hopping within their IPv6 network disrupting several admin's talkpages. All of the range's contributions can be seen here. 201.170.23.88 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy-paste move

• Tap Tap Glee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Tap Tap Glee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across Tap Tap Glee while checking on some non-free images in Draft:Tap Tap Glee. The draft was declined twice in the same day by two different AfC reviewers, but its creator apparently decided to skip any further AfC feedback and directly add it diretly to the mainspace. The "article" looks to be the same version that was declined and also appears to have just been copied-and-pasted into the mainspace. If the article still does not belong it the mainspace, it probably should be moved back to the draft namespace (if possible) or deleted. If it does now deserve a stand-alone article, an admin might be needed to clean things up and do a history merge. Pinging @KGirlTrucker81: and @Whispering: the two AfC reviewers who declned the draft for their input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't changed a whit since I declined it the references are still GameFAQs, a press release and a 404 error. I'm not sure why it got copied to mainspace it's sure not showing any notability. Whispering 02:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Whispering and Marchjuly: From a content point of view, the article has a handful of reviews present in reliable video game sources at TouchArcade, Kotaku, Gamezebo, and Engadget. As a video game editor, I would be inclined to merge and redirect to Tap Tap#Tap Tap Glee. From the behavioral point of view, the editor is a new one who appears to need a bit of guidance, because he has also requested moves for the series and first game articles. --Izno (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If this can be sorted out without anybody getting blocked or bit, then that's fine with me. I assumed any errors made wre made in good faith, but copy-and-paste moves can be messing, so I'm not sure if additional cleanup is needed or whether an admin needs to do it if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I admit I didn't give it much more than a glance. A merge would do nicely, and I got to make sure to give articles more than a glance. Whispering 02:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have found no archived copies whatsoever but it's still no hope. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the ultimate result of the article (prod'd, redirected and merged, etc) the draft's history would need merged into the mainspace article. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I made a ridiculous mess of it (don't look at the logs!) but the copy-paste move is repaired. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)