Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	10	18	28
TfD	0	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	8	8
RfD	0	0	4	25	29
AfD	0	0	0	23	23

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 155 sockpuppet investigations
• 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 22 requests for RD1 redaction
• 41 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 16 requested closures
• 155 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 27 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (27 out of 7746 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Accusations of United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-27 02:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish List of equipment of the Pakistan Army 2024-05-26 20:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:IPA Ymblanter Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-05-26 14:11 indefinite move Move warring Ivanvector Meritt North 2024-05-26 14:00 2024-06-02 14:00 edit,move persistent removal of AFD template while AFD discussion is open Bearcat User talk:46.35.177.94 2024-05-26 13:51 2026-03-29 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:87.209.46.135 2024-05-25 18:46 2024-06-24 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Kourage Beatz 2024-05-25 17:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names Liz Kaimla 2024-05-25 16:04 2024-06-25 16:04 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi Stew Peters 2024-05-25 07:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:COVIDCT, WP:ARBPS, WP:AP2, WP:PIA, WP:ARBEE, et cetera, etc. El C Burnout Revenge 2024-05-25 04:52 2024-05-28 04:52 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Evil Morty 2024-05-25 02:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine 2024-05-24 22:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP Daniel Case Combat Vehicle 90 2024-05-24 22:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Dada AsTra 2024-05-24 21:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Ralston College 2024-05-24 21:42 2025-05-24 21:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing RegentsPark FC Barcelona 2024-05-24 21:23 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:Favonian/Archive 58 2024-05-24 18:14 indefinite edit,move Favonian User talk:Favonian/Archive 57 2024-05-24 18:13 indefinite edit,move Favonian President of Ukraine 2024-05-24 12:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Lectonar User:Aviram7~alt 2024-05-24 12:18 indefinite create user request UtherSRG User talk:Aviram7~alt 2024-05-24 12:18 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel 2024-05-23 22:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Safia Khairi 2024-05-23 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case Conservatism in Israel 2024-05-23 20:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Xxx 2024-05-23 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata
• Draft: Operational Chow ring history
• Copy-paste move to undo a move in good faith, causing more problems
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination)
• History of Draft:Microfunction

Again we have editor TakuyaMurata, who seems to believe that they are the only one qualified to edit a nest of Draft sub-stubs that have remained in the Draft Namespace for years with trivial edits designed to allow them to keep their empire of contepts (many of them post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts) that either need to see consistent improvement or have any of the Alternatives to deletion forcably enacted. Consider the history of Draft:Microfunction. A user nominates it for G13 on September 15th at 22:10 UTC, and Graeme Bartlett restores it from a WP:REFUND request, I notice it be restored. I look at the previous content and see that it was proposed by Taku to be merged to Algebraic analysis on March 10th 2019 (6 months before the September 15th G13). I presumed that since the page had sat for 6 months and there was no objection in Algebraic analysis that all the content that was presumably worth saving was already spliced over. I redirected citing the MFD and the Merge proposal. I specifically noted that the previous content is in the page history to allow others to grab content if it was missed. This is significantly important. Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect. We go back and forth a few times arguing in edit comments and I decide to let it go. In a little under 25 hours after I first attempted to redirect, Taku merge/redirects it to the same target. This, in my mind screams "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". The content and formatting previously in the page was still available, yet Taku demands that no page started by them can be changed unless it has their blessing. I specifically chose these ways of redirecting without a move so that the original page history remains so that they could extract content that might be useful.

So, because less strict sanctions have failed to work I therefore propose: TakuyaMurata is topic banned from undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace. Further TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace.

I am attempting to get at the heart of the issue: Taku's stubs that sit around for years that get trivial improvements made to them to avoid the CSD:G13 sweep. Interested users who appear to still be active: Topic ban participants (Cryptic—Unscintillating—Alsee—power~enwiki—Premeditated_Chaos—Beyond_My_Ken—RileyBugz—Johnuniq—Ivanvector—Cullen328) Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) MFD participants (Robert McClenon—SmokeyJoe—Hut 8.5—UnitedStatesian—Mark viking) Submitted: Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I have reverted the disruptive edit to the draft page Draft:Microfunction that overrode the outcome of the MfD (which was merger). After revert, I had finished the merger and redirected the page to mainspace. I ask other editors: which is more disruptive? A constant attempt to override the community consensus and disrupt the ordinary content development? Or having math draft pages in the draft space? I personally view this topic ban request itself as a disruption and has been put forth in the dishonest manner (whence, my proposal for interaction ban below). Again what is the real disruption? as opposed to the perceived but unreal one. -- Taku (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

On closing the thread, it is a probably good idea to close the thread after #AfC and G13s is closed; since depending on the outcome of the latter, the problem behind this thread might become moot. —- Taku (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ideally I'd like to count the 1 successful refund backwards, but I understand that may be problematic. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'll let TakuyaMurata weigh in before I !vote, but I do feel like the proposal does a good job of addressing the issue while being minimally invasive. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have followed this User:TakuyaMurata & perpetual storage / refunds in draftspace for some years. Although I don't fully understand why Hasteur can't just ignore it all, I do agree that TakuyaMurata is using draftspace outside the ever intended scope of draftspace, and that he is perpetually perverse and obstinate about it his idiosyncratic use of draftspace.

I would prefer the following:

User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The gist of the issue is on how the draft is supposed to use. As can be seen from discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), there is enough supporting voices that having draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages (many of them are not mine) in the draft space is not an issue as long as the drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace, which they are. (I hope I'm ok to express my view on the draft space in this thread.) -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Taku, get the pages you believe to have positive potential out of draftspace, and put them under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/....
Your views on draftspace are an underlying cause of this whole dispute. Put these views in a useressay, and in the meantime stop drafting in draftspace. Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see below. -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Banning Taku from using draftspace is completely consistent with his topic ban from even talking about draftspace. In fact, I think it is an necessary co-condition that was overlooked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. If he'd been banned from draftspace, it would have been clearly delineated. It was not:

"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)..."

No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

{{No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace}}. Exactly. A foolish oversight that has led directly to this perverse problem. There is no reason for him to use draftspace, and he is doing it in accordance with his mainstream-defying views of draftspace, which he is forbidden from explaining. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TLDR: Taku was disrupting rule/policy/guideline/suggestion pages so a topic ban was proposed to restrict them from disrupting As the one who penned the topic ban I'd like to provide some context. The reason why we only went for discussing suitability of pages in Draft namespace is because at the time Taku was making proposals making counter proposals, and edit warring on rule/policy/guideline pages to argue effectively that GSD:G13 is "optional", that WP:REFUND can be requested indefinitely, that the requirement for improvement is only a "suggestion", and that their entire future topic dump is not only allowed, but encouraged by the charter of Draft space. Making counter and retalitory proposals to attempt to get his critics sanctioned or banned (see proposed Interaction Ban below) only demonstrates that TakuyaMurata still does not get the message. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Please be civil. Calling such actions "foolish" or "perverse" is unnecessary and should be avoided. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m not criticising any person, just the end result. An unintended consequence, it was unexpected that Taku would put his head down and insist on carrying in practice on with his idiosyncratic opinion on how DraftSpace should function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support the proposal by User:SmokeyJoe. It makes more sense to ban Taku from all use of draft space than to ban him from talking about it while he can still use it. The current situation makes no sense, but it is clear that Taku is using draftspace as a dustbin. It is also true that Hasteur, and another previous editor, have been going to absurd lengths to keep draft space clean, but there can be abuses both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Query @TakuyaMurata: Why not move these to user space? Where is the harm there? Buffs (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Because those drafts are not mine and it makes sense to put them at the place for drafts development. The harm would be putting them in the user page would give a wrong impression that they need to be treated differently than other math drafts in the draft space. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: How would they be treated "differently"? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: For example, some might hesitate to make minor or major edits, assuming they are my drafts and instead of drafts belonging to the community. —- Taku (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  They indeed may hesitate to do so, but that is contrary to policy:

  WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."

  Additionally, you can mitigate that by posting a note right at the top stating that constructive edits are welcome and appreciated. Likewise, there's no reason such information cannot be incorporated into existing articles. Such information doesn't need to be 100% perfect. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Query @Hasteur: What is the harm in allowing a draft to linger? Why the rush to delete at 6 months? Why is it 100% ok in userspace, but not in draftspace? Buffs (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: I have no problem with letting it linger for one or two 6 month periods, however some of these drafts have been sitting (even after repeated reminders) for over 3 years. I have no problem with it living in Taku's workspace for an eventually I'll work on this, but for it to sit in the Draft namespace for years without any substantive (i.e. make some actual effort at improving) improvement suggests that either it's some sort of neologism/WP:MADEUP/Original Research/similar that would (if it is a thing) be best served by using regular editing and inserting it into a parent level article and improving the content enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. 6 months is the pescribed timer under CSD:G13 which has (over time) been expanded to include both AFC drafts and non-AFC drafts. The purpose of Draft space is to have a collaberative area where multiple editors can edit and improve content to get it to namespace. I believe I have expertiese as I was instrumental in the original drafting of the namespace including defining CSD:G13 and it's various modifications. In Taku's userspace it's not eligible for CSD:G13 plain and simple. In Draftspace the pages show up on the "not edited by a non-bot in the last 6 months" so people who like working backlogs (like myself) see them and try to action them. In some cases we action it by Nominating for CSD:G13, in others we Nominate for MFD, in still others we redirect the page and the talk page to as closely related mainspace page we can find so that energy and effort can be focused into developing a Encyclopedia and not spent chasing these drafts around every 6 months because Taku objects to any of the Alternatives to Deletion yet doesn't make any effort to actually improve the drafts unless it's in front of a deletion process. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TakuyaMurata: A year seems like a reasonable time to wait. Why haven't you improved them until an AFD? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: It’s not like I always we wait for an MfD (please see the stats at #Votes below). MfD or not, the drafts tend to get finished and moved to mainspace. I don’t have a particular order for working with drafts, but an MfD is a feedback process (in the form the editors use today): it can raise some issues and I don’t mind working on them when they are raised. If an editor raises a concern at the talkpage (or less optimally make a disruptive edit), I can also respond to that (e.g., Draft:Microfunction); that’s how Wikipedia tends to work. One editor makes an edit and the others respond. —- Taku (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, @TakuyaMurata: see above. I see no reason you cannot incorporate these into existing articles, make them a standalone article, or userfy them. Keeping them in perpetual "draft" state is a pointless endeavor and detracts from other editors. If you're refusing to incorporate into existing articles, make these articles, or userfying them, then I see little choice but to ban you from such creations as you are misusing a process and becoming disruptive via that refusal. 6 months is more than ample time for even someone who is busy. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Again, could you look at the states I mentioned below? "perpetual", I agree that can be problematic. But that's just not true; the drafts started by me do get finished and get moved to mainspace as part of existing articles or standalone articles (or deleted in MfDs); I don't think there is an exception. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't notice your response. I have responded to you below. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  No, let's keep it here. You have at least 4 articles in draft space for over 3 years that I've seen presented as evidence here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know if there are more or not...I don't care. There's no reason to hang onto these in draft space this long. Hasteur is coming across as brash and draconian, but he also has a point. Your claims of "I don't have articles perpetually in Draft state" doesn't hold water. You do. By doing so, it unnecessarily adds to a list of articles that need help. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole thread is pretty involved, and I don't really want to support or oppose any particular remedy, but for what it's worth, I wanted to point out this comment and edit summary made by Hasteur to me in an AfD discussion which is apparently related to this stuff. Whatever other issues are going on between these two, it feels like it's spilling over elsewhere (to me in this case, who wandered in fairly innocently). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  You are invited to read WP:BADGER and see how your commentary throughout the entirety of that AFD could be perceived as an attempt to water down and argue to a "No Consensus" position. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Present as further evidence: Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory G13ed, restored, G13ed, restored, G13ed again, G13ed again (this time by @Credo2020 Unumisit: and sustained by @Fastily:). Clear demonstration of the same back and forth game of putting things in G13 space only to not do anything about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I'm amazed that this problem is still hanging on by its fingernails. I agree with Hasteur that an end needs to be put to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I took an extended sabbatical/temper tantrum from Wikipedia and the other persistent statuser has been indef-blocked for what appears to be reasons beyond the scope of this locus of dispute. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's very good to have you back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it is clear that someone is upset, MFDs have also resulted in a keep vote. An MFD that results in merge or redirect also should then not be overridden by a G13 nomination or deletion. Probably drafts that have survived MFD with some result other than delete should be tagged so that subsequent editors know how to proceed. I think that much of what is there should be in Taku's user space if he wants to hang onto it longer than years before promoting to article. Undeleting is fairly simple, and Taku is one of two users that I will undelete for on request even if nothing was done to improve since the previous undelete. Other serial undelete requesters I will question to see how interested they are on improving the draft. But as you can see I agree with TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember the last time this came up. My take on this hasn't changed since then. I think TakuyaMarata is being absurdly stubborn about this. But, he's also been a highly productive content creator. What he's doing may be silly He's being an ass, but it's relatively harmless and the effort that's been put into this vendetta far exceeds the benefit of chasing down a few ancient drafts. I am reminded of the North-going Zax and a South-going Zax. Move on to more important things. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I will support almost any measure to check Taku's insistence on using draft space as an archive for what are essentially topic titles. The previous topic ban, which had to do with discussions of policy, has not worked because it just causes Taku to engage in preterition about draft space. Something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as formulated (also see below). First “undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace.” seems moot since I never undo constructive edits (only the disruptive ones). “TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft” doesn’t quite work since I also routinely request refunds of drafts created other than me. My understanding is that there is no community consensus that having draft pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is disruptive. What is disruptive is precisely a thread like this. Drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace. If some particular old draft is having an issue, there is an MfD for that. I don’t understand the issues here. I agree with RoySmith; I am getting tired too. Can we just move on? See also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning. Is this really how we want to Wikipedia to work? -- Taku (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support this unfortunate solution to TM's WP:Failing to get the point; if he would simply move all his (and he makes it very clear he is the "owner") content to his userspace, we wouldn't be here. But no. The draftspace is for drafting, and abuse of the six-month G13 window is detrimental to the efforts of many editors to build the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see how this benefits the encyclopedia. These drafts are usually viable mainspace articles, or at least viable parts of mainspace articles. I have restored plenty of them at WP:REFUND when I wouldn't have done so for another editor, for exactly this reason. Wikipedia does accept articles on technical or inaccessible topics, denigrating them as "post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts" isn't helpful. Preventing somebody from writing them just because they take a bit long and don't do so in their own userspace isn't helpful either. I do also have to object to the statement above that "Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect." The MfD in question was closed as Keep, so Taku has a point there. Hut 8.5 06:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban as such, but I do support moving all of these useless substubs to his user space, since a) he's made it clear they're his private personal property, and b) the vast majority are unlikely to ever see the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't solve the problem with Hasteur's fanatic obsession with keeping the draft space "clean". Prefer interaction ban below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - draft space isn't meant to hold articles forever. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Could you please clarify? I don't think that's anyone's contention here. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  It is Taku’s contention, which he is topic banned from talking about, and it is the rationale behind what he does in draftspace, which he s banned from explaining. Perverse? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Without getting into rationale and such, the relevant stats is that (1) like 90% of drafts started by me are moved to mainspace within 1 week (2) almost all other drafts are finished within one month or two (3) there are a few exceptions that can take months or even years to finish (often due to referencing matters) but are eventually moved to mainspace. (4) There are absolutely no drafts that are kept indefinitely. —- Taku (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  If it takes years, there is no reason you can't move them to user space and work on them there. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ok. I have to agree that say "10 years" would be too much (I don't think there is a draft that old). On the other hand, for me, a one-year-old draft don't seem problematic. Technically I am not allowed to discuss the draft usage policy. But, for me, 2 or 3 years seem to be acceptable amount of time to be allowed before the drafts need to be userifyed or require some other form of intervention. If some editors really believe I intend to keep drafts "perpetually", I can agree with some terms making it explicit that's not the case (since the drafts are not kept perpetually anyway, I don't lose anything.) -- Taku (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, please don't bait Taku. The question at hand was directed to another editor. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Bait?? I’ve been trying to help Taku out of this shallow hole for years. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing the evidence to support such action at this time. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - prefer #Yet Another Proposal below. – Levivich 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is nothing wrong with editing a draft to prevent its deletion, nor is there anything wrong with requesting refund(s). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I keep an eye on the list of math draft pages and have worked to get them moved/merged to main space. (See tropical compactification, Macaulay representation of an integer, sphere bundle, Nakano vanishing theorem.) I've never felt that Taku has tried to "own" drafts he's started in the sense of ruling over their actual content or trying to disallow other editors from making changes. On the face of it, Draft space is a reasonable place to keep these items: the subject matter is sufficiently esoteric that few people would work on them no matter where they are stored, but it's no real trouble to make constructive contributions (fixing notation, adding references, etc.) at a rate that keeps them from all going stale. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: interaction ban with Hasteur

I completely agree with "an end needs to be put to it". This proposal is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the dispute. This thread itself is enough evidence supporting such a ban. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: A few have suggested the proposal is invalid because it is a counter-proposal. That’s not really an argument; please discuss the merits of the proposal independently. — Taku (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the argument is being made that it is a retaliatory proposal, with no supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. (If “retaliatory” is a reason for the rejection of the proposal, the first proposal/strike should also be automatically rejected; that’s why it’s not an argument and the vote is invalid. It cannot be one-sided.) -— Taku (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Suppose as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hasteur being the main person voicing objection to Taku's use of draftspace does not mean that Hasteur is the only person troubled by Taku's non-standard use of draftspace. Taku, please take your drafts to userspace. Anyone can collaborate with you there. To generally invite others to work on your mathematics drafts, use subpages of WikiProject Mathematics. Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. You use of draftspace is disrupting the fragile working of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  And "Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users" is precisely my problem. Because it is not and it is not intended to be. Draftspace is precisely the place for the collaborative development of the content. -- Taku (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There is so much history of practice that demonstrates this to be wrong. Draftspace is not functionally suitable for collaboration. WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: I believe your statement just above violates your previous topic ban. I suggest you strike it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that, in this thread which is the continuation of the previous one, I am ok to express my view on the draft space, in order to respond to SmokeyJoe in a meaningful way. But ok I struck that. -- Taku (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I wish to object to the views being expressed here by SmokeyJoe, specifically that Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). and Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. I do not think these accurately reflect either a general consensus, or current practice. I am an "established user with long term activities" I believe, but I routinely use draftspace when i start new articles. I am actively working on a draft now, started less than a week ago. I also normally advise relative newcomers, particularly at the Teahouse to start new articles in draft space, often but not always under WP:AFC. I have collaborated with other editors (usually one at a time, that is I and one other editor) in Draft space. I cite as an example Holocaust Wall Hangings now in mainspace, but in Draft when i did most of my edits to it.I stongly object to statements that such uses of draft space are "perverse" or not approved, and are evidence of disruption. As to the proposed topic ban, it seems drastic to me, but i have not reviewed the actions on which it is based, and i express no opinion for or against it at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

These "views" are not so much my "views" but my observations of what happens there, both as a wikipedia editor, and from real world experience with others, who didn't know I am a Wikipedian, telling me of there experience with a Wikithon. It is not how I think it should be, but my observation of how it is. For real newcomers, draftspace is a place of isolation from the real community. Newcomers should get into mainspace, where they meet real editors interested in the same pages. Draftspace reviewers may be all nice people, but rarely are they genuinely interested in the draft topic, and rarely do they engage with the drafter before the drafter submits their draft.

Draft is not for established users with long term activities. I stand by that, with a small exception only that a few admins make use of draftspace (I am aware of you and User:BD2412 doing this). These few admins are very non-representative of long term editors through being admins, and not being intimidated by the routine deletions, or by the considerable apparent power imbalance between drafter and reviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that draftspace is underutilized as a place to start articles on needed subjects. I think every red link in a list of notable people or topics, or in our lists of requested entries, should automatically get a draft to be built upon. I would allow drafts on topics like those (such as my thousands of drafts of missing state supreme court justices) to be tagged with a bypass to the six-month deletion protocol. bd2412 T 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BD2412, I am not familiar with your thousands of drafts. Why is it not a good idea to create each as a stub? I notice that you get your drafts up to a high standard, much higher than minimally required, before moving to mainspace. Is this excessive meta:immediatism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I mean these thousands of drafts. Well, now under 2,000. The typical one of these currently looks like this, which is below stub standards, but these are all obviously inherently notable subjects for which sources can be found, and I get one fixed up and moved to mainspace every few days or so (or someone else does), so they should all be done before 2030. I'm working on the no-deadline model here. bd2412 T 03:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Impressively organised list! I strongly support the "no deadline" model. I think it is an option to mainspace the lot, even with "YEAR to YEAR" text, although I understand that others differ, and less organised people than you would make a horrednous mess. It would be nice if trusted people could apply a {{G13-exempt}} tag, so that non-admins could use draftspace on longer tie periods. I have suggested that people, like Taku, could use WP:WikiProject subject pages or userspace, but the "Draft:" is desirable other the others. Like I said to DES, my statements are my observations on how draftspace works for newcomers (i.e. badly), and they do not reflect my preference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Again WP:Failing to get the point, TM ignores all the other editors that have a problem with his edits in the draftspace and his misuse of WP:REFUND. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  If I am misusing WP:REFUND and the draftspace, that depends on what is the proper use of the draft space. Many other editors seem to be more bothered by the dispute itself not the drafts. This proposal will end that dispute. -- Taku (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- silly tit-for-tat retaliatory proposal. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose just talk calmly to each other, and interaction can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Except the user seems incapable of working with other editors in civil manners; here is one evidence User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning (maybe it was a bait for me to make mistakes?) —- Taku (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban (Hasteur banned from interaction with TakuyaMurata) - by their own words Hasteur came back from an extended wikibreak just to push this issue, and wasted no time recruiting all their old allies to go after TakuyaMurata again. Hounding is defined as "the singling out of one or more editors, ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Many editors commenting here are not familiar with the history of this dispute but I am, and it's been going on for years. Every time it comes up we see that Hasteur (or rarely one or two other users) has a bee in their bonnet because someone has got in the way of their principal activity of purging things from draft space. The problem of draft space being used contrary to Hasteur's personal criteria is a problem for Hasteur. The problem for the community is the massive waste of time and energy we go through each time six months passes from the previous dispute when Hasteur brings it up again. Forcing Hasteur to stay away from TakuyaMurata will solve that problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as malformed. As phrased, such an IBAN is not clear as to whom is banned and who isn't or if it's both. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn’t think that matters; it is all the case that User:Hasteur first makes a disruptive edit (e.g., vandalism on draft pages or overriding the community consensus) and I revert the edit. One way ban on him or two ways don’t make a difference. — Taku (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Such a funny thing, calling a Bold action Vandalism. Clearly someone hasn't read WP:NOTVAND in a while. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Both of you stop your snide remarks toward each other, the disparaging remarks, and stick to facts. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Retaliatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  This is quite odd; it is ok for User:Hasteur to raise a concern but I, on the other hand, am not allowed to raise a concern? I have been thinking that an interaction ban is needed for some time and this thread just gave me a push for proposing it. Perhaps this emery vote shows you actually don’t have a counterargument for this proposal. — Taku (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I invite the proposer to read WP:PUNISH and self strike this proposal. On one hand we have a demonstrated pattern of disruption including attempting to get their critics Interaction banned from TakuyaMurata, and on the other hand we have repeated suggestions/warnings/consensus debates all saying the same thing. I further refer to TakuyaMurata's continued WP:NOTTHEM arguments that everyone except themselves is responsible for their current position. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Solomon-like alternate proposal

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

---

Both User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata are topic banned from draft space (broadly construed). Anything currently in draft space for which TakuyaMurata is the primary author is moved to their user space. Two-way interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, second choice to what I guess is proposal 4 (see my comment under the original "alternate proposal"). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - When cutting Gordian knots, a two-edged sword is often useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Abstain: This is not something I can support, obviously. (People forget but I routinely work on math drafts started by editors other than me). But I am not going to oppose it either (otherwise I will probably be ass). — Taku (talk)
• Oppose Going with the a pox on both your houses or the "cut the baby in half solution" is a non-starter for me. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as absurd. Hasteur is needed to help with draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Goes way beyond anything needed to solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see good edits from both people...they just need to know when to back off rather than continue discussing. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the solution below better, which addresses the issues without resulting in the encyclopedia losing both editors' constructive contributions to draftspace. – Levivich 02:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - User:SmokeyJoe has persuaded me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Yet Another Proposal

Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion or of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old and are not currently under dispute as of 1 October 2019 and may not contest edits to such drafts after community consensus for deletion or merging/into an article, broadly construed. Exceptions: TakuyaMurata may continue such discussions as that already exist and may request pages to be restored in his own user space, but cannot create new drafts to circumvent this process. TakuyaMurata is also permitted to contest such edits in relevant fora: AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom, but is cautioned to not use such an option outside of exceptional circumstances.

Limited IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all direct communications with TakuyaMurata except as required by policy (such as notifications or technical requirements), broadly construed. Exceptions: Hasteur may bring Draft pages primarily edited by TakuyaMurata to relevant XfD pages, but must be solely for procedural reasons; remarks about TakuyaMurata are not permitted. Hasteur may also bring disputes with TakuyaMurata to relevant AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom pages, but must not engage with TakuyaMurata in such a discussion outside of ArbCom. Hasteur is reminded be brief in such a discussion, to WP:AGF, and to be WP:Civil.

Rationale: TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Support here should be construed as support for the whole package. It was never intended as separate proposals. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I perceive this to be a "dilute any consensus to effectively nothing" proposal (when a RFC is initially proposed with 3 options and progressively gets counter-proposed up to 13 different options) to make closing this even more difficult. Second I note that the TBAN (as currently written) could be interperted as prohibiting TakuyaMurata from making any improvements to articles already in draft space. Should Taku wish to make an improvement they will have to move it to WP Mathematics space or to their userspace. I perceive this to be less than desirable. My goal is to get the drafts off the CSD:G13 rail and actually moving towards being workable mainspace content. Third, The locus of dispute moves is intermixed between a content (the drafts and their stale-ness) and conduct (labeling Bold actions as Vandalism, yelling at opponents through edit summaries, accusations of lying, etc) that makes it such that conduct and previously observed patterns of behavior are germane to the topic of "willful/WP:IDHT/WP:NOTBURO resistance to community improvement". Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  It should not be interpreted in that manner. The ban is on articles HE'S created in draft space that are over a year. If he's contributing to drafts of others, I see no problem with it; that's behavior we WANT on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Only to help me understand I wish to pose 2 hypothetical cases to understand the scope of the iBan.
  I discover (through some method) that Draft:Example Math Stub has been created by TakuyaMurata in the past, has been unedited in at least 200 days giving the impression that it is abandonded/stale, and has a practical mainspace larger topic. To affirmatively test the community consensus I nominate for XfD and request a redirect-merger so that content is preserved and I introduce into my nominating statement the history of the page. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban?
  Second: Effectively same as the first, except instead of nominating for XfD I redirect the article to what appears to be an appropriate mainspace partent topic as a WP:BOLD action, leaving the actual merger as an exercise for a knowledgable editor to perform at their leisure through the page history of the Draft still being available. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban? Is TakuyaMurata prohibited from reverting the redirect?
  Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  Valid questions. No, none of these fall afoul of such a ban as you aren't addressing TakuyaMurata. Based on the limited information you provided, TakuyaMurata is allowed to contest such a redirect. We aren't looking to just delete everything. I'm seeing a lot of drafts that are resulting in good additions to articles. Edit warring will result in standard bans. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  After seeing clarification, Support Topic Ban, Oppose Interaction Ban As referenced below, providing the perverse incentive to silence one of your critics is never appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (but prefer 2 year period to 1 year): This seems the most sensible proposal yet (kudos to proposer Buffs). As I said, if some editors really believe I have been and still been planning to use the draft space (or user space) for the purpose of keeping my personal study notes, this agreement would address that concern very well. My only gripe is that “1 year” seems too short (just because sometimes I don’t have time to edit Wikipedia as much as I like, depending on my real lift situations). — Taku (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose without the interaction ban: I cannot understand User:Hasteur couldn’t agree with the requirement to be civil. I hate to say but it proves once again that the whole thread is ALL about their personal grudge against me. The community needs to send a strong message that Wikipedia is not their playground. —- Taku (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Taku is invited to read AGF is not a suicide pact and reconsider this incivil aspersion. It's not a personal grudge, it never has been. It's always been about your use of the Draft namespace and how it is significantly divergent with the community consensus. Following the edits of a editor who has repeatedly demonstrated a deficiency in their understanding of standard operating procedure is not just acceptable but endorsed. This is something I would have expected an editor who has been editing wikipedia for over 17 years 12 July 2002 to have learned long ago. Hasteur (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support and kudos to Buffs for the well-rationalized proposal. As for the length of Taku's restriction, 1 year is plenty; if you haven't addressed a draft in a full year and some other editor wants to do something with it, let them. If someone improves it then that's what we're all here for, and if it gets deleted you can ask for it to be restored to your user space for when you do eventually have time for it. While wanting them to stay in draft space for others to collaborate on is a noble goal, the simple reality is that in several years none actually have attracted anyone to collaborate. I would offer to help, and I think I have before, but your topics are well above my level of knowledge. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support – 3 years is too long for a draft to be in draftspace, but Hasteur also needs to step back from policing Taku. This is a simple but surgical solution. – Levivich 02:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This is a user who seriously believes that it's appropriate for mainspace to have content like "Let M be a real-analytic manifold and X its complexification. (The definition of microfunctions here)." Diff You need to be followed carefully (no interaction ban), and if you do this frequently despite cleanup, you need to be shown the door. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You're looking for this diff I think, not the idly adding a reference diff you actually linked to. But yes, this is typically how mathematical information is presented. Maybe it shouldn't have been presented this way in an encyclopedia article, but you could have tried to fix it instead of just blindly reverting, couldn't you? This seems very "damned if you do (promote your work to use in an article), damned if you don't (develop article stubs left in draft space)", doesn't it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur (Also there's a typo in the first line, "or" for "of".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur as BMK. Taku is exploiting everyone's WP:AGF while Hasteur is trying to apply the norms that apply to draft space: it is not perpetual storage for someone's notes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support for the specific TBAN. I think it is a more complicated version of my own proposal: "User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  I concur. It IS a more complicated proposal. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the limited IBAN. Apart from some heated uncivil comments, for which I blame the community for allowing this long running perverse situation of allowing someone the idiosyncratic draftspace behaviors while banning them from talking about it, there is nothing in support of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  At some point, someone has to step up and be the adult. We cannot continue to have levels of hostility like Hasteur is bringing to the table. Regardless of the "perverse situation", Hasteur is accountable for his own actions. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as far to complex to enforce. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Extremely complex and difficult to follow. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

AfC and G13s

Worldbruce correctly pointed out that the oldest AfC drafts are approaching the 6 month mark and thus vulnerable to G13s. I'm duplicating here for two things:

1) An immensely non-subtle request for some more reviewers (and active reviewers) to work on the oldest drafts to work us away from that time.

2) Notwithstanding the above, we were hoping those admins who handle G13s as part of their workflow would agree that drafts awaiting review are not subject to G13s. This is distinct from the 2nd criterion of G13 which reads "Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template" - with modern AfC the issue lies on us not being able to review quickly enough rather than a specific abandonment by the user.

Thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As an interim solution, one could just mass-edit drafts which are up to review.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't G13 apply?

We have a problem with good drafts getting lost in our broken article creation process (the only way I know to write articles is for a permissioned-up editor to write them offline and then paste them in as a fait accompli, already robust against CSD and PROD – everything else is broken). We also have a large backlog of drafts. However when I review those drafts, I typically find just a couple which are worth adopting and moving to mainspace, and several thousand which are barely more than obvious spam.

I'd like to see more people filtering through the drafts backlog and saving what's appropriate (even just editing them a bit will delay things). But for the vast majority, I'm not going to miss them in the slightest. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The whole idea behind the introduction of G13 was to remove stale drafts, which have no chance to be accepted and are not of any interest to anybody, including the creator. The means to prove this is to see whether the draft has been recently edited. This is not an ideal means, but one can argue that indeed if a draft has not been edited in a long time then nobody is interested in trying to get it moved to the article space. However, if the draft has been submitted, somebody is interested in getting it out of the draft, but usually it does not make sense to edit submitted draft, because important feedback would be coming as a result of the rejection (or even the draft will be moved). Thus, the fact that a submitted draft has not been edited for half a year does not mean it became stale, only that we do not have enough reviewers. This is why they should not be eligible for G13.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• So you're talking only of drafts where they've been waiting for review a long time? I'd be happy that they're not G13'ed, agreed. Any delay there is WP's issue, not the author's.

But most of what I see have been submitted and have been reviewed (and rejected). The delay has come in at that point, where no rework has been done, and I'm still happy to G13 these. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree on both points, and indeed this is what I (and, if I understood correctly, also Nosebagbear) was talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do we have appropriate links to the best categories by which to find these sets of drafts? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Is the problem here less about lack of reviewing, and more about lack of reviewers? It's a walled garden where only "accepted" reviewers can take part. No wonder there aren't enough of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what it was at before this thread but I did a few and saw some others doing a few and we're currently at the 5 month mark for the old submitted for review. This is obviously closer to 6 than ideal. I will state, as I have whenever G13 are brought up, that I think G13 should not be a speedy but instead a PROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I find it likely that the backlog is due to well-written, properly formatted, borderline notable drafts/articles, which would take effort (shifting through more than three refs not always clear which three, more than one page of google search result, foreign language sources). Agreeing to accept all borderline cases (perhaps adding the notability tag) that have no other problems might be the way to solve this problem long-term. The volume of new drafts/articles is only going to increase, while even admins seem to have problem with being versed in all notability/deletion guidelines. If the focus was on the most critical problems (are) vandalism, obvious hoaxes, copyright violations , and defamatory material about living persons, followed closely by pages that exploit Wikipedia for money (think spam/promotion) -WP:NPP, the users that currently are active (or want to be) might be able to handle the load. I could have already reviewed hundreds of pages if it were so, while right now, while I try to get myself well-versed in PAG (an endeavor that will take months), all I'm doing is handling only the most obvious cases, and going by the competition at that end of the pie (don't tell me pie has not, ends or corners), I'd say many, if not most, others are, as well. An overworked, understaffed security system ought to be guarding against utter shite, no more. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Why not just move them to userspace and leave redirects in place to that user space? Buffs (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What if they were written by IPs? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • What if they were? Would that make them less accessible? Even if I was under a different IP address, I could still access user pages under 122.57.88.123. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Well G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Anybody tagging to delete or deleting such pages should put their effort into reviewing them instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• If the AfC backlog is causing a conflict with G13, suspend G13 until the situation is resolved. I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps drafts are indeed cheap. But what's the spam-prune mechanism for AfC? Is there one? At present, G13 fills (slowly!) that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

G11 works just fine. My feeling is that if it's not really csdable aside from g13, it probably shouldn't be g13'd (some exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Like Praxidicae said, the spam-prune mechanism for AfC, like the rest of Wikipedia, is G11. And it's much faster than G13. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• But is G11 faster? (on average). Most (well, practically all) of these drafts aren't being reviewed at all for G11. G11 needs some active intervention by a reviewer, G13 gets there eventuall by inertia.

I've seen two G11, both of which were pretty obviously WP:N even if their current articles were problematic Draft:Gin Mare (already discussed on WP:CSD) and Draft:The Savile Row Company. I challenged Savile Row Company's CSD this morning, but another admin deleted it anyway, without discussion. So it's also a problem that CSDs aren't challengable or discussable, they're just deleted anyway (see WP:CSD, where even discussing the problem attracts threats of blocks). G11 is neither appropriate for Drafts (at least, as practiced today) nor is it practical, as no-one is doing bulk reviewing to apply it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb I very strongly support this. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. If a draft is either a) abandoned without ever being submitted for review or b) reviewed and rejected and then ignored for 6 months it should still be eligible for G13. By excluding submitted and unreviewed drafts, it is clear we aren't holding our shitty processes against people. --Jayron32 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to make two distinct points here.
  • First, it's obvious that the G13 clock should start from when the draft was last reviewed. Most review systems (code review, manuscript review, responding to a parking ticket, whatever) have some concept of who's turn it is. When the author submits something, it becomes the reviewer's turn. When the reviewer comments, it's back to being the author's turn. Depending on the process, there may be more than two parties involved, but it's always somebody's turn to do something next. In our case, we don't have assigned reviewers (or, for that matter assigned authors), but there's still clearly times when it's the author's turn, and times when it's the review team's (i.e. our) turn. It's absurd to count time when it's our turn against the author's clock.
  • Second, the definition of G13 talks about, "not been edited by a human in six months". I often find declined drafts that were last edited several months ago that I think should never make it to mainspace. Sometimes there's a useful comment I want to make, but I don't because I know doing so will reset the G13 clock. That's just stupid. I shouldn't have to play wiki game theory to decide whether the benefit of adding my comment exceeds the harm of resetting the clock. So, the clock should not be reset by a reviewer leaving a comment.
  • -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Draft:Running on Waves is a perfect example that I found today. It was last declined on 18 March. Since that time, nothing significant has happened. On 21 May, it was resubmitted with zero changes. On 30 September (i.e. earlier today), a reference was removed because the URL was redirecting to a porn site (don't say I didn't warn you if you go look). And, then I came along a few minutes ago and declined it again. Why should any of those things reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comments: A few observations as I precieve that several editors are trying to hijack this for their personal objectives:
  1. CSD:G13 says unedited (absent a bot edit) for 6 months. The goal is to keep pages improving or admit defeat on them. Originally it was just pages that were enrolled in AFC as the editors knew that they'd get a review to help them fix issues. It was subsequently expanded to all Draft namespace pages as it was discovered that there was just as much Adspam/BLPVIO/Test pages/hopeless content that was in draft space but not tagged for AFC.
  2. If pages are falling out the back of AFC for being submitted but not yet reviewed, then we need more people reviewing submissions (or commenting on issues) which magically resets the Last Edited date and saves it from being G13d. I note it appears the current backlog is 2+ months.
• If people want to disable G13, then we will start racking up more and more questionable content that will never serve the purpose of Mainspace improvement/content. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I like to think that no admin would ever do a G13 on a never-reviewed draft.

A better response would be an alert to submitted drafts approaching six months. Possibly, specify “never reviewed” drafts, separated from resubmissions. Is there an easy link to navigate to these? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: only to make sure your intention is clear, you are referring only to pages that are in the AFC pipeline that are being requested for review, not pages that aren't in the AFC pipeline i.e. just random pages without an AFC header on them. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Referring to the hypothetical case of a properly submitted AfC draft that has failed to receive any review. Has such a case occurred? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of qadis of Mbarara District is the oldest never-reviewed draft, and it's from 8 May 2019. As far as I know there's no fool-proof way of determining if a page has never been reviewed unless you do a quarry looking for only a single submission template. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac has found one (and one that I was reviewing in the meantime). I figure if I'm going to defend CSD:G13 and not claim that things are falling out the back end, I should review some of the oldest AFC submissions and deal with them. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

G13 does not *require* the admin to delete the page, but there are so many routine G13 deletions that it is probably unreasonable to expect every G13 to be given a critical look, even brief. Are G-13 eligible pages that are pending review specially flagged? I see that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty, which suggests to me that some admins are very quick to empty it. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old is large at (1,088 P). It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago, but these pages have been edited post-review. Is the tracking of pending submissions robust? How many could be quietly falling off the backend deleted per G13? I note that these pages are, broadly, difficult to review. From a review of several, I think it would be better to auto-move to mainspace than to silently speedy delete (delete by the standard G13 process). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair amount of scare-mongering, and completely untrue. The oldest extant draft awaiting review at this exact moment is from 13 May, which is still 1.5 months away from being G13-able. No, G13 pages that are also pending review are not flagged (other than being theoretically in both the "pending" and "G13-eligible" categories). At the moment none of the pending drafts will be "falling off the backend" for at least a month or two. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My questions were genuine questions. I am not up to speed with these things. Are you guaranteeing that no submitted draft will be deleted before being reviewed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I took It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago as your preface to concerns about pages being deleted. As I said, there is no "pages that are 6+ months old that are both pending and G13-able" category, likely because it's never been an issue (and still very unlikely to be one).

I am going to interpret your latest question as "deleted via G13" (as unreviewed pages are G11'd etc all the time), but no, I can only guarantee that will not happen for at least two months from now because there are no pages that fit that bill; there is no technical way of preventing it at the moment. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course sorry. I've sort of tongue tied myself there, because I am not convinced that there are not any submitted drafts that should not be allowed a quiet death, such as hopeless repeatedly submitted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I've seen plenty of admins who speedy-delete pages that obviously don't qualify except under a blatant misreading of the criterion (e.g. a page is deleted at XFD, and a completely different page on that topic is G4 deleted as a repost), and just like with the other criteria, G13 needs to reflect its intention clearly. The point is to delete content that's been forgotten by its writer or that's been rejected as inappropriate for the encyclopedia: if it's still waiting for review, and none of the other speedy criteria applies, there's no way it should be deleted without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Draft space is specifically designed to remove the urgency around controlling abuse in article space. We have time to sit and think. Guy (help!) 11:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13.
2. Maintenance edits, including declining review, are not counted when calculating staleness.

That would seem to fix the problem? Guy (help!) 11:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't quite see how those would work. They seem right, but are a bit vague in their expression. Consider the following:

Valid timeouts (and thus automatic processing to G13 is practical):

• Not submitted for review. There have been no reviews.
• Submitted for review. Reviewed, failed. No more edits until timeout. The last edit was a failed review.

Timeout was WP's fault for slow processing (so no G13 is appropriate):

• Submitted, not yet reviewed. Last edit is a review request.
• Submitted, reviewed, re-submitted, but still pending a re-review (any number of times). Last edit is a review request.

Impossible to judge automatically or trivially, thus must not be actioned automatically.

• Last edit is a "non-content, non-review edit". Neither a review, nor a review request. Automatically we can't tell what else it was, either a "content edit" or a "maintenance edit". In such cases though, we should err on caution, not G13.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think the principles Guy lays out are correct but agree with Andy that if we're codifying them in some sort of way (which is probably needing an RfC) that the language would need tweaking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Noting for the record that I originally argued that any edit (regardless of if it was a bot/non-bot) should reset the G13 clock to the the most objective measurement possible instead of leaving it to discretion to determine if the edit qualified for substantial. In fact when I ran a bot to action ArticlesForCreation and Draft space I followed the more strict interpertation to prevent accusations of bias in the evaluation of G13. I strongly suggest that JzG (and all those that want to change G13's interpertation/operation) to go WT:CSD and propose a change to the interpertation via WP:RFC and establish consensus. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any alteration of WP:CSD policy from a page other than WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13. Oppose the "good-faith" clause, bad-faith submissions are easily REJECTED/DECLINED by the ACFH tool, and resubmission without improvement is an existing reason to nominate and delete at MFD (see WP:DMFD). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• support bot-like maintenance edits, not including reviewer responses, not resetting the G13 clock, however, it is unimportant. The point of G13 is that abandoned drafts don't exist unwatched forever. Another six months doesn't hurt. Support gnomes using a key edit summary code to work with G13 bots, if someone wants to do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose declining a review not counting when calculating staleness. A declined review should include a meaningful explanation, and it should be presumed that the drive-by contributor will need time to read and respond.

Oppose use of the word "staleness". wikt:stale is ambiguous. Stale does not equal old. Some topics are timeless and not prone to go stale. Others go stale overnight. If you mean "unedited for six month", use those words. Use words that newcomers can use without the barrier of enculturation to Wikipedia jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm basically on-board with this, but agree with the objections that criteria need to be clear-cut. So, to reiterate the "whose turn is it?" theme I talked about earlier (see the picture of the chess clock, above), I suggest:
  • A draft exists in exactly one of two states (not counting rejected). It's either waiting-for-review, or work-in-progress.
  • As soon as a new draft is created, the state is work-in-progress. When it's submitted (or re-submitted), the state becomes waiting-for-review. When a draft is declined, the state changes back to work-in-progress.
  • The draft template should prominently display both the current state and the amount of time since it most recently entered that state.
  • The current state and clock should be easily parsable, so people can write tools to do useful things. Useful things might be alerting the author that they're running out of time, possibly offering them the option of moving the draft back into their user space. Or alerting the review team that they're falling behind on processing the queue. Or tagging a stale draft for G13.
  • Once you've got that basic architecture in place, you could imagine all sorts of incremental improvements. Maybe a "I want more time" button. Anybody can click it to reset the clock back to zero. If you want, think of that as faking a state transition. People do that anyway by making a pro-forma edit; this just makes it explicit. Or, a way for somebody to edit a work-in-progress draft and explicitly request that the clock NOT be reset. You might want to do this if you're removing a copyvio or BLP violation, for example. Bot edits, of course, would not reset the clock.
  • The important thing here is that the state and clock are explicit. No fuzziness about "good-faith edits" or "content edits" vs "maintenance edits". This provides a clean separation between the logic that decides what state transitions to perform, vs the logic that takes actions based on those states. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: RE "I want more time" please review {{AfC postpone G13}} which resets the clock for annother 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've been around for a while, and didn't even know that template existed. My guess is essentially none of our draft authors do either. Having a button right up there on the AfD template that said, "Click me for more time" would be more obvious. And, as I said, having specific, well-defined, states would make it easier for people to write better tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both (but for a strange reason): I will concede that drafts that are waiting for AFC to review them that are nearing the 6 month unedited mark should not be G13, but we don't need a hard and fast rule to do that. I am invisioning a new BRFA that will modify Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 that will put an {{AFC comment}} in indicating that the page was in danger of being G13ed, but had an active submission template on it, thereby kicking the G13 down the road (from the bot's perspective). I opposed the inclusion of maintenance edits into G13 because it took the criteria from being 100% objective (it either has or has not been edited in the past 6 months) to a judgement call that invites wiggle room. Should Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 be approved, I intend to uphold the more strict interpertation with the bot and let editors make the judgement calls (and the responsibility for them). Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I like some of this proposal, but only with modifications:
  • First of all, I think the result of this discussion should be formally proposed at WT:CSD and gain consensus there, before the actual G13 criterion text is modified.
  • Secondly, I think that a review whose outcome is "Decline" should reset the G13 clock, because the draft author ought to read the decline reasons and any feedback, and have time to edit to address them.
  • Thirdly I agree that the clock should be, in effect, suspended while a draft has been submitted for review and is awaiting review. It is not reasonable for an editor to be told 'wait patiently" only to have the draft deleted because there was too large a backlog of drafts. I understand that this has not happened, and cannot happen for some time even if all reviewing stops, but the policy should be made clear. I would welcome an improved version of HasteurBot, and that might help avoid any such issue occurring, but I think it is better to spell out the procedures clearly.
  • Fourthly, I like the idea of states, but I would define them slightly differently than RoySmith. I think any AfC draft should be considered to be in one of the following states:
    • a) Never submitted for review;
    • b) submitted and awaiting review;
    • c) declined, awaiting further edits and re-submission; and
    • d) rejected.

In state b (awaiting review) G13 would not apply. The AfC template should ideally explicitly display one of these states. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• • @DESiegel: With respect, to your second modification, when the AFC reviewer declines the submission the clock is automatically reset because the decline constitutes a page edit by an editor. As to your fourth point, States C and D are effectively the same. I do agree that if a page is in state B, the G13 rule should be suspended, but this can be taken care of by a bot task to go through and add a AFC comment indicating the page was eligible for G13, but has been bumped because it was still awaiting review. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Hasteur Under current policy, you are correct that a decline causes an edit which resets the g13 clock, but elsewhere in this thread and in discussions on WT:CSD it has been suggested that "maintenance" edits, specifically including decline notices, should not reset the clock, so I wanted to make clear my view that a decline should reset the clock. In short my second point is arguing for the retention of the current procedure, and against a change in that regard. In my view state c (declined) and state d (rejected) are different in several ways. I think that a reject should arguably not reset the clock, as a reject says that the draft is hopeless and there is nothing for the submitting editor to do, but I wouldn't feel strongly if it did reset the clock. In any case if the AfC templates are to explicitly display a state indicator, c and d should display differently. Have I clarified my comments helpfully? DES

^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and without an explicit statement in the CSD text, some editors may ignore a bot comment when manually tagging for G13, and some admins may also ignore such an edit when doing G13 deletions. It is better to nail down the procedure, in muy view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Interesting fact: The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions are populated by {{AFC submission/draft}} and {{AFC submission/declined}} as far as I can tell. Both of those templates don't have exclusions for the discretionary level. As such, the only way for someone to find these drafts that aren't in those tracking categories would be a back end query for all the draft pages and evaluating everything. While consensus may authorize a more loose interpertation, none of the categories actually support that Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm game for anything that lessens the scope of G13, but I oppose anything that broadens it even in the slightest. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support the exceptions but the "staleness clock" should apply from when the draft was last declined and/or significant edit, whichever is later. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • QEDK what defines a "significant" edit, and in particular, how should a bot be able to distinguish one? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @DESiegel: I don't know why a bot needs to distinguish it necessarily? Admins perform the deletions afterall, a significant edit is simply where the version that is resubmitted is not identical to one that was submitted previously (anyone gaming the caveat is pointless since speedy deletion is via discretion of the deleting admin). The AFCH helper tool can be modified to add a magic keyword for declines and the bot can deal with it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • QEDK When G13 was first implemented, pretty much all tags were placed by a bot. There have been several such bots run over the years. I believe that none is running now, but one is being proposed, as discussed just a bit above in this thread. Moreover, the category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is, as Hastur points out above, populated by AfC templates. Unless the AfC Script, templates, and proposed bots vcan detect what a "significant" edit is, neither the category nor any bot-placed CSD tags for G13 will match the modified CSD, which will make it much harder to find and tag G13s, even manually. So any rule should be one whoich can be in some way implemented by a bot or a script. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Frank marine

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

I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([5], [6] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done a little while ago. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Frank marine has never left a post on a talk page, which is a concern. They also have run into copyright trouble. Some of their edits have been revdelled, for example at 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) (look at the page history and notice the strikeouts). They did create one reasonable article, Royal Thai Army Aviation Center, though I can't rule out that some of the material could have been copied from other Wikipedia articles, for instance List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. Unless Frank marine is wearing out the patience of the copyright enforcers, I don't see any current reason for admin action. There is a tendency for people who never communicate to get blocked, though I don't think we are quite at that point. As noted above there doesn't appear to be a case for COI enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [7]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: pinging, as OrgoneBox has explained it much better. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable link? News article linking to hate site with outing/death threats

This recent news piece from Haaretz (use on Wikipedia) has some major problems which make me wonder if it is an acceptable link on Wikipedia, either as an external link (WP:EL) or as a reliable source (WP:RS). Since this concerns more than just reliability, and involves possible issues with WP:BLP/WP:OUTING and is has be used in context that is relevant to this recent ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations). One one hand, it is a news piece from a generally reliable newspaper. On another, it has the following red flags: 1) as the article admits, it is significantly based on an account by a single Wikipedia editor, User:Icewhiz, who shortly before its publication was indef banned for off-wiki harassment (his Twitter account used for said harassment was also suspended, but apparently he managed to air several of his grievances out in said newspaper piece). 2) The article directly links to an article on a hate site, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which contains WP:OUTING information for several editors as well as death threats (and in general, journalism that treats ED as a source is hardly high caliber...). 3) The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places), through both me and the other editor AFAIK have disclosed their name on English Wikipedia (I mean, look at my sig...). I am not concerned about myself much, but the other named Wikipedian, User:Halibutt, whom some of you may know from a number of Wikimanias and such (he was a spokeperson for Polish WMF chapter) has recently passed away, and the article insinuates he added an antisemitic hoax to Wikipedia (ironically, Halibutt disclosed on Wikipedia on his userpage that he was a Polish Jew...). Nonetheless, deceased individuals are still protected by BLP (see WP:BDP). So far Halibutt has been mentioned by name in at least two places, see diffs ([8], [9]). While there is an ongoing discussion on those article talks about how, if at all, to discuss the relevant hoax on Wikipedia in article content, it is worth noting this can be done through other reliable sources which picked up this story but decided to omit the parts about particular editors, nor link to ED (ex. [10]), so it is not like by banning this particular EL to Haaretz version we would deprive ourselves of a source. I do think that due to the red flags raised above, this particular Haaretz source should not be allowed (i.e. it should be added to spamlist or such, at least until they remove the direct link to ED page with death threats and such). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz left an account of what transpired prior to the Haaretz article on a user page here. As far as exposing the Warsaw death camp as a myth goes, the donkey work was done by Zygmunt Walkowski, whose work is described in a May 2019 London Review of Books article which Icewhiz read. The talkpage of the Warsaw concentration camp article shows in several sections that the factuality of there having been a gas chamber there was, contrary to the impression given in the Haaretz article, questioned several times.     ←   ZScarpia   11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Noting for the fourth time (after User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia and Talk:Warsaw concentration camp) the list of outlets that picked up the story (not including Algemeiner and JNS via syndication).[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] This piece is clearly WP:DUE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) article: "The page was written in August 2004 by the late Wikipedia editor Krzysztof Machocki, a spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia, and was completely rewritten this August. The hoax was discovered by an Israeli editor with the username Icewhiz who rewrote the article to reflect the truth."

The hoax had long been suspected to be such, but was actually proved to be a falacy by Zygmunt Walkowski, whose work, which took seven years, was described in the LRB article read by Icewhiz, allowing him to modify the Wikipedia article. We're not obliged to use everything we can source and we're not obliged to treat the contents of the Haaretz article as fact, rather than claims, when we have contrary evidence to hand.

In the last week, it has been made public that, after years of suspicion, research done at King’s College London has shown that much of the published work of Hans Eysenck was unsafe. When the details come out and Wikipedia updated accordingly, hopefully editors won't be making grandiose claims to have uncovered hoaxes. And hopefully they won't be persuading newspapers to run stories about how teams of Eysenckists have been undermining the encyclopaedia.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. There were at least two sources that contradict Trzcińska that were known to Wikipedians as early as 2003, but they were either unused or under-used. François Robere (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

See what I wrote about the article's talkpage in my first comment [11:58, 13 October 2019]. Would those two sources be ones used by K.e.coffman in the major editing he did to the article earlier this year before Icewhiz became involved?     ←   ZScarpia   10:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus is in conflict of interest: he is roasted by article. Article uses two respectable historians as sources. Piotrus is shouting conspiracy on Wiki: 1. [20]: "User:Icewhiz who co-authored this piece in which he harasses a number of editors" when Haaretz[21] lists "Omer Benjakob" single author. 2. [22]: "co-authored", "slanders", "hack piece". 3. [23]: "getting the hack who wrote this to include links": shouting that BLP journalist is a "hack". Does Wiki accept users who shout conspiracy of secret unnamed authors of newspaper articles ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At @Banana Republic: Piotrus shouts conspiracy louder: [24] "The Haaretz article contains many factual errors as well as information that can be seen as harassing some editors; it is de facto a revenge piece by an editor banned for harassment.". Piotrus shouts one author: Wiki editor but not named author. Maybe Piotrus afraid of coverage of Piotrus ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• On the general question: can we use a source from a normally good RS that links to sites that WP would never link to, the answer is yes: We cannot control what external sites link to, and even sites like NYTimes and BBC will link to material we would never include. As long as we treat the RS content as appropriate under WP policy. If the source out's a WP editor, the question to ask if it is necessary in the WP coverage of that topic to even include mention of the editor (or can you just use "a WP editor" instead). This is the same concept that applies at BLP and other core policies. Now, that said, if it is the case that an article outs a WP editor (who has not outed themselves on WP before), this should 100% not be considered an on-wiki outing, and all editors are expected to respect the editor's option not to out themselves on WP, even if the outing from the RS is quite visible. --Masem (t) 14:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Halibutt outed himself on his user page. Haaretz did not do any outing. Banana Republic (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify (so I'm not accused of distortion) User:Halibutt outed himself on his userpage on the Polish Wikipedia, not on his user page on the English Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• No The only thing to do over here is to restrict the OP, a disgraced ex-admin, from flagrantly violating WP:COI, to remove material critical of him. ∯WBG^converse 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go that far. I understand Piotrus's position - he believes he was misquoted, and is trying to defend himself from what he feels is unjustified public exposure. But fighting to suppress the story on Wikipedia isn't the way: it's a real story, it's sourced well enough, is supported by RS, and was picked up by enough outlets to justify WP:DUE. And yes, there's an obvious COI here as well, which you should at least declare. If you feel your version wasn't given enough exposure, then instead of trying to suppress this story, find somewhere to publicize yours. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, it's reasonable for Piotrus to raise this here, precisely because of what it says about him. It's important to weigh protecting editors against other conflicting interests. Guettarda (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• WP:CANVASSING isn't the way either...[25] François Robere (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I admit that I did not fully read each and every word of the Haaretz article. However, I now noticed that the editor who started this thread, User:Piotrus, is specifically mentioned at the bottom of the Haaretz article, and not in the best of light. This may explain his behavior of throwing a boatload of supposed violations of Wikipedia policies in the hope that something sticks. Of course, all his allegations of violations of Wikipedia policies are bogus. This thread should be closed as WP:BOOMERANG. Banana Republic (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: I think it's important to AGF here. If you've ever spoken to the press, you know that it's pretty common for reporters to get things wrong - quotes that end up subtly different in ways that change the meaning of what you had to say, or context ends up getting things wrong. The press is particularly bad at getting Wikipedia right - I think Stephen Harrison may be the only journalist who gets the community right most of the time, and he does it by combining a pretty decent understands of the community with a lot of work talking to people. So it doesn't take my AGF to conclude that Piotrus feels misrepresented in this piece.

On Wikipedia, if you accuse someone of something you can't back up, we call it casting aspersions (and doing so isn't acceptable. But if there's a news story accusing you of misdeeds, can we link to it? Even if it may be incorrect? The accusations of acting in bad faith against Piotrus here, the tone of the response, seems to support his fear that the story can be used to discredit him.

Secondly, there's our OUTing policy. A few months ago, someone was blocked for asking two WMF staffers whether Twitter accounts in their real names were theirs. It's no secret who the WMF staffers are on Wikipedia, but at least one of them doesn't seem to have explicitly added a link from their volunteer account to their work account. So it doesn't matter if Halibutt linked his pl account to his real name - if he didn't connect his en account, this could easily fall afoul of our OUTing policy. Now quite frankly, the way the policy was interpreted in that case makes me profoundly uncomfortable, but that application of policy was supported by various admins. This is different, and there are real encyclopeadic interests in using the article as a source. But given the outing policy, given BLP, given a variety of things, it's more than reasonable to ask where the line is. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

None of these are reasons to prohibit using it as a source in an article. – Levivich 03:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda:, I would advise not to repeat the bogus claims of Piotrus. There are no WP:BLP concerns when the person has been dead for 21 months, and you really need to drop the WP:OUTING concerns when the person outed himself. Once a person outs himself, they are out. You cannot apply the laughable argument that if they only outed themselves on the Polish Wikipedia, it does not count in the English Wikipedia. The author of the article in question can and should do his diligent research to find any information he can. Banana Republic (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've already noted in my op post, BLP does apply to recently deceased (WP:BDP). Please familiarize yourself with our policies before calling someone else argument bogus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: WP:BDP does say that it may apply up to two years, so you're wrong on that one. As for the OUTing claim - see this discussion. What Starship.paint was blocked for was not that far adjacent to this. I'm glad that after only a few months of active editing that you're committed enough to the project that you'd want to weight in here, but if you're going to make such broad proclamations about what policy says and how it is applied, you need to do a better job of studying policy. And please, stop assuming the worst about your fellow editors. WP:AGF is a core policy for a reason - it's hard to communicate effectively with someone who you can't see, where there's no vocal inflection, and where you don't know their motivations. Assuming good faith is hard, but at the very least you need to make sure that you aren't assuming bad faith on the part of another. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you're having difficulties with the application of WP:BLP to the recently deceased. WP:BDP is pretty clear.

1. Only a small portion of WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased. If a person's name is mentioned by WP:RS then even WP:BLP allows usage of the name on Wikipedia, so it is definitely allowed for the deceased.
2. After 21 months, the death is not recent and comes very close to completely falling outside WP:BDP.

Banana Republic (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It isn't correct that BLP allows the mention of a name just because it's mention by RS. Actually WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically requires that such details need to be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" before they are allowed. While the specific section only mentions full names, it applies to a person's name when they are primarily notable under a pseudonym. A common case where this arises is pornographic video actors. I do agree that 21 months is at the tail end, but as it's still with the 2 years, we should consider BLP applies, especially for someone who apparently isn't notable. In addition, as a general principle, if someone is non notable we always have to consider whether it's useful or not to mention their name especially in BLP cases (and I'm including BDP here). While completionists feel we should always include the name, it's actually fairly common we make the decision not to include the name if it doesn't add the much. That said, it's not clear to me anyone is proposing the addition of the name anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The name adds quite a bit. A good part of the reason that the hoax remained on Wikipedia for 15 years is that the editor who inserted it was a very well respected member of the Wikipedia community. Banana Republic (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: - please take the time to familiarise yourself with the WP:OUTING policy. Learn from my mistake so you won’t make it yourself. It’s not pleasant, to say the least, to learn it when you’re indefinitely blocked with no talk page access. If you don’t understand it, ask around here, the admins can advise you. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss it but you've provided no coherent explanation for why "the name adds quite a bit". The editor was a well respected member of the Wikipedia community under whatever their username was. It does not explain why their real name adds anything. If as Starship.paint implies, the name wasn't even known here, your explanation makes even less sense. Of course, even the editor being a respected member of the wikipedia community does not mean their username means much. 99.999% of readers are not going to recognise any username. So there needs to be some explanation of why "A respected editor, Banana Republic, added 'bananas taste good' to the article on bananas" adds a lot more than "A respected editor added 'bananas taste good' to the article on bananas". Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The article about the Warsaw concentration camp does not need to name the editor who inserted the hoax into Wikipedia. However, the article Reliability of Wikipedia does need to name the editor who inserted the hoax, because it was inserted by a well respected editor, and not an ordinary troll. This is to say that even well respected editors can enter wrong information into Wikipedia, and that's what the article Reliability of Wikipedia is about.

This is similar to how the article John Siegenthaler does not name the person who inserted the hoax into the article, but the article Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident does. Banana Republic (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Without reviewing the articles that are specifically about Wikipedia, I would be highly certain that if the editor(s) are not blue-linked notable, there is zero need to actually name an editor. EG, the editor that uploaded the Monkey selfie copyright dispute is not named. --Masem (t) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I just want to clarify that I am not overly concerned about being misquoted, it is mildly annoying but that's about it, and so far nobody mentioned anything concerning me in Wikipedia. I wasn't going to bring this here except as noted in the diffs, Banana Republic has decided to include User:Halibutt's name in some articles, and since our departed colleague cannot defend himself, I thought to raise it here as a BDP issue. (I will also note that nobody has so far restored that version, so it is probably fine, through again given this is an admin noticeboard, I want to mention WP:OVERSIGHT as an option to consider for those diffs). The other aspect is that the said news piece links directly to the hate site with outing information and death treats, so since there are other news stories of this in other venues that do not link to the hate site, I wonder if we can get community consensus to use those other news pieces as reference and not this, as to WP:DFTT/WP:DENY the Encyclopedia Dramatica hate site. In particular, nothing in that Haaretz piece seems relevant or due to Wikipedia - the WCC hoax story can be document sufficiently with other reliable news pieces that Francois and others have found. So the issue is, do we have a preference here for news pieces that do not link to hate sites or not, when such news pieces seem otherwise pretty comparable with regards to the otherwise encyclopedic facts we want to reference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Haaretz article is the first, and most in-depth story about the hoax, and therefore the most appropriate one to use as a reference. The other reliable news pieces that Francois and others have found are either not in English, twitter posts of non-verified accounts, or YouTube videos.

You really should drop your objection to the use of Haaretz as a reference, because you have a conflict of interest in that objection. Being mentioned in that article, in a not so good way, makes it look like your objections are all about yourself. Banana Republic (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, the Israel Broadcasting Corporation piece I pointed to, itself, attributed the Haaretz article. El_C 15:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: I'm not quite sure why this is something you've only "now noticed". You didn't have to read the source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus specifically said "The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places)". I was aware they were mentioned in that source because I read their comment telling us they were when opening this thread, before you replied, as hopefully most participants of this thread. Sure their opening comment was long, but I think if you're going to make a big deal over a COI, you should at least read their comment to see if they did the correct thing, which they did, and disclosed their possible COI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Its an RS. The fact that Icewhiz appears to be a significant source for it is a factor that can be considered in the weighting, as we would consider the weighting with any source, but it is a mainstream source, and linking is acceptable. How it should be weighted is a content question for talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  The fact that Icewhiz appears to be a significant source for it is a factor that can be considered in the weighting - How precisely? ∯WBG^converse 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Icewhiz has just been banned for rather underhand behaviour, it's probably not a great time to be asking that question. You might also like to consider whether there's any truth in the description of Icewhiz's activities in this Mint Press article. For example: "In addition to his efforts to remove information from Wikipedia articles that paint Israel’s military occupation of Palestine in a critical light, Icewhiz also attempted to alter the article on Palestinian nurse Razan al-Najjar, who was killed by an Israeli sniper during the Great Return March protests in the Gaza Strip last year, despite clearly wearing a vest marking her as a medic. Icewhiz added a video of al-Najjar that was later found to have been heavily edited and promoted by the Israel Defense Force as a means of justifying her death and subsequently re-edited the article to promote the IDF interpretation of the video after another editor included information critical of the IDF’s use of the doctored video. Icewhiz also edited the article on Razan al-Najjar to claim that she was “allegedly shot” by the IDF, despite the fact that there has been no disputing the IDF’s responsibility for her death, even from Israel’s government."     ←   ZScarpia   01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You are joking, I guess. ∯WBG^converse 15:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey can someone remind me, Mint Press is the paper of record for which country again? – Levivich 03:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Loompaland? François Robere (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• The article in Haaretz is a reliable source. (Disclaimer: I've participated in some of the disputes in the related topic area, including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland). I agree with others who point out that there's no need to mention specific contributors since they are not Wiki-notable. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The relevant paragraph in Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Other_false_information is currently very specific contributor focused. The cited sources are not, at least not about that contributor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are news stories about this that do not link to hate sites or such, using them instead of the original piece may be a better choice. Also, User:Winged Blades of Godric should adhere to our civility and no personal attacks policies. - Darwinek (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Most RSes, for a story like this, will cover in in a manner that starts "In a report by Haaretz..." to give the authoring credit. It makes no sense not to the use the original source here to avoid the telephone game of when other sources re-report it, even if the original source links to the questionable sites. --Masem (t) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with the other 2. If most sources are quoting another source, we should generally include that source as at least one of the sources if we are going to cover it. As far as I'm concerned, this applies even in most cases where that source is not an RS e.g. Daily Mail or Breitbart. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not really engaged in English Wikipedia community (about 20 edits here), so maybe I shouldn't write here, I don't know. Yet, I don't understand, either.

Firstly, as far as I know, the paper of Skrzyńska Trzcińska Sorry for the Freudian slip. wasn't decisively proven wrong back in 2004, so using it cannot be named a hoax — at most a misfortune. Are we really willing to uphold on Wikipedia some sensational claims that one of the most meritorious members of our community deliberately inserted wrong pieces of information?

Secondly, as I mentioned, I don't work here very much, but if I tried to use as a source on Polish Wikipedia any article linking to death threats or anything quoting such article as a single source, I would be blocked for quite a period of time. Is it really any different here?

That's all from me. Hoping not to be trodden. Thanks. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marcowy Człowiek: You're always welcome to comment.

• IPN had investigated Tr's theory in 2002-2003, with a short refutation coming out in 2003.[26] Other critiques were also available at the time.
• I do not think any Wikipedian should be singled out here.
• The "Dramatica" page has poor humor, not death threats. Piotrus is being... dramatic. François Robere (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• [27] is not a refutation. It states that there is no evidence to support this theory, but it does not say it is false, it states research is ongoing. In 2007 said research concluded and was published and then it stated that her theory is false. And as for death threats if saying someone should be 'gassed' is not a death threat, well... just a bad joke, eh? Please don't make any jokes about me, ok? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• See below on our standard of verification.
  We must be talking about different pages...François Robere (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thank you very much for your really helpful answer. I don't know whether you understand Polish well. As far as I see, it seems that the article linked by you does not constitute a refutation. It is more of a statement that they haven't found any proofs supporting Trzcińska's view yet and that they will continue their investigation. Visibly, extreme opinions of Trzcińska (I'd like to note that I personally find her playing with death tolls appaling) were given undue weight in the original version of our article, even though it was clearly noted that the story about gas tunnel is deeply improbable, but there is no evidence of a malevolent intention. Therefore, I'm rather content with the shape of the article, but it might be rational to reword the last paragraph into something like "... research, which was highly suspect, but not yet discredited in time of quoting, as a mainstream view for 15 years. No editor can be required to update their articles forever...".

Moreover, I'm glad that "Dramatica" isn't as bad as it was stated, but it still seems unworthy of being a source. Well, one doesn't need a strong source to confirm that something was labelled somehow... Besides, we cannot afford allowing banned editors like Icewhiz to shape our articles just by contacting some journalists. Thank you once again. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I read a statement like "the findings do not confirm the death estimate, nor the existence of gas chambers, nor the suggested size of the camp" as about as polite a rebuttal as can be (would you be more comfortable with "rebuttal" than with "refutation"?) - and this is after an 18 months investigation. Recall our standard isn't to include everything that wasn't completely and utterly refuted, but to include that which has has been accepted as reasonably plausible.

As I said, I see no reason to single out any Wikipedian. The problems that lead to that content being kept in the article for so long are systemic, and not the fault of Halibutt or anyone else in particular. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The problems are systemic, indeed. In my opinion, your point of view seems very reasonable. Thanks! Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is frankly a little bit bizarre. Haaretz is Israel's national paper of record and per se a WP:RS. Would we be having the same discussion about an article in the New York Times? These attempts to remove the link seem more motivated by embarrassment at the portrayal of certain Wikipedians than any actual policy objection. If the issue of Halibut's name is such a big deal just don't mention it in the WP article.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be prudential to advise your friend to abstain from cross-wiki canvassing ... ∯WBG^converse 14:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• A publication to avoid. While Haaretz can be regarded as an RS in general, the individual publications and their use in specific articles must be judged on a case by case basis. I do not know much about Holocaust subjects noticed in this specific publication, however almost everything about Wikipedia and editing by specific contributors in the publication is an outright distortion incompatible with investigative journalism standards. As explicitly noted in the publication, it reflects the personal opinion by a former WP contributor who was banned for off-wiki harassment. Hence, this is a publication to be generally avoided, and especially if it can be replaced by another RS. Same about other publications which are essentially "reprints/mirrors" of the publication in Haaretz. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ALL reporting on this has been based on the Haaretz article. What you're suggesting is that we should essentially not mention that a hoax was perpetuated on Wikipedia for 15 years.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source here is not Haaretz, but specific article in Haaretz (per WP:RS). To my best knowledge, it includes outright distortions or lies. Should it be trusted about anything? No, because it contradicts the letter and the spirit of WP:RS: sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I am sorry, but it explicitly contradicts to a number of facts I know about. Next phrase in WP:RS: This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians... Yes, we definitely have a problem here, because as the publication tells, most part of the publication was based explicitly on a personal opinion by a Wikipedian, and not just any Wikipedian but such who was banned for harassment. What "fact-checking and accuracy"? My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source here is not Haaretz, but specific article in Haaretz — I'm not sure I'm following that distinction. At any case, Haaretz is listed as "generally reliable" on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. El_C 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see Definition of a source] in WP:RS. This could be a wonderful newspaper, but a terrible specific publication. There are such examples. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked, but I must be a bit thick, because I still can't make heads or tails of your response. El_C 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think this article is an RS because it includes lies numerous incorrect statements, for example with regard to EEML and editing by certain contributors, although I would rather not discuss this here in detail. Author tells that he made an interview with two WP participants. Can we trust that he at least correctly described their words in the publication? No, because one of them (Piotrus) said above that his words have been distorted. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying a BLP reporter lied on national press, and we should rely on your and Piotrus's words to stave off any legal threat that naturally arises from that statement. Okay, I'm convinced! François Robere (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What "legal threat"? I think it is customary to discuss sources around here. I only explained why I think this source is not reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So you think my word is worth less than the word of an indef banned harasser who is the main source for that article? And about the said BLP reporter, I don't think anybody is saying he lied - but the article has plenty factual errors (obvious miscounts of number of parties in EEML and of active Polish editors, for example), misquoted me despite my ignored request for the interview to be authorized (the journalist said 'sorry, we are on a deadline'), and did not respond to my emails about errors/corrections (they haven't even bothered to fix the said obvious miscounts and such). How can you call it a good source when they get so many things wrong, I am unsure. (There's also the issue with the article giving credit to Icewhiz for identifying the hoax, where it was in fact K.e.coffman who did so...). And as long as we talk about BLP, saying something on talk seems to be much less of an issue that Banana's Republic slow edit warring restoring Halibutt's real name in Reliability of Wikipedia, I think he did it 5 times now or so, despite being reverted by several different editors there. Now this is something that admins should look into. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is actually a really complicated case. I generally dislike use of newsmedia as a source in Wikipedia, however I would concur that, as far as newsmedia outlets go, Haaretz is one of the better ones. And the OP's complaints of policy violation are largely irrelevant. Furthermore I'm unconvinced that there's any significant claim that using this source would equate to WP:OUTING unless the identity of specific Wikipedians was explicitly quoted on Wikipedia. I have previously been subject to negative commentary in news outlets (albeit deprecated ones) for my Wikipedia work and I do understand the OP's frustration to be singled out in this way. But that alone isn't grounds to exclude the source in an otherwise reliable outlet.

With that said, it does largely feel like a parting shot from an editor who has been banned by Arbcom and went running to the press about it. And as such, WP:DENY might come into play via WP:MEATPUPPET. However that interpretation depends on the assumption that the editors attempting to insert this source into Wikipedia articles are coordinating with Icewhiz, something which I do not propose based on the information provided here.

In the end I find my distaste for the use of newsmedia is directly at odds with my feeling that the targeted editors should probably ignore their bad press and get on with making constructive edits. I would say that use of this source is somewhat akin to handling nitroglycerine in that the risk of it boiling over into interpersonal conflict would be detrimental to the overall encyclopedia. I would council all the parties who have not yet been banned in this ongoing affair that going elsewhere on Wikipedia and doing something that didn't involve Poland for a while would probably be a very good idea. However I think on the balance, while I'd say use of this source is slightly perilous, the case has not been adequately made that it shouldn't be treated as reliable in this context. Though I would be interested to hear the opinions of other people who aren't involved in this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel it's necessary to mention that Icewhiz is now using Wikimedia commons to make statements regarding this discussion which would appear to circumvent their arbcom ban. [28] Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: And likely using open proxies to edit English Wikipedia; see below... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:, it's important to remember that WP:RS is all about the reputation of the publisher of the reference, not about the individual who wrote the article. Even if Icewhiz is the author of that article (and we don't know either way), that's irrelevant, because it's not about the author of the article. The idea of placing the reputation behind the publisher and not the author is that the publisher would not have the conflict of interest to distance itself from the author should that be appropriate.

So far, I have not seen even a shred of evidence, outside of this stupid and idiotic discussion that was started by an editor who wants to suppress the articles for potentially personal reasons, that this article has tarnished Haaretz's reputation. In fact, the opposite is true. The fact that all other references reporting on the story quote Haaretz is a very strong indication that Haaretz's reputation is as good on this particular article as on any other article.

I have also not seen anything to even remotely suggest that there was even a single mistake in that article. Sorry to be so explicit, but this entire discussion is bullshit. Banana Republic (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If Icewhiz is the author, that would not be OK. It would be a conflict of interest to report on himself. Banana Republic (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Please see Definition_of_a_source in WP:RS. This is: (a) the article itself, (b) the creator, and (c) the publisher, all of which affect reliability. (c) is good, (b) is OK (one can check other publications by same author, however (a) includes factually incorrect statements - for the reasons I explained above. My very best wishes (talk)

While you're free to hold that opinion, the rest of the journalistic world does not share your opinion given that the article is widely quoted. Banana Republic (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What "factually incorrect statements" did you find in the article? Banana Republic (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to misquoting me (ex. "[Piotrus] made the misleading claim that all the Polish editors active on Wikipedia at the time were banned as part of the case." - nope, that's not what I said) ex. " only 12 Polish editors (out of more than 100) were banned from editing". EEML case ended up with 12 bans, but not everyone banned was a Polish editor. How does the journalist conclude that there were 'more than a 100' Polish editors is beyond me, linking to [29] simply shows he does not understand the difference between active editor an an account (such categories are full of inactive editors, plus it is impossible AFAIK to even verify how many editors where in this category 10 years, as this is not tracked). Or "[EEML] scandal shook Wikipedia and earned bans for all those involved with it." Aside of the fact that most of Wikipedia hasn't heard of it back then (journalist editorializing...), not all EEML members were sanctioned. The journalist links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list but didn't even bother to count properly. If he makes three mistakes about such simple issues, two of them based on simple count of up to 12, you think he got other things right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. But your quotes are not used what so ever in the WP article. Banana Republic (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Banana Republic: My ambivalence toward the source is because I think that c) the publisher is always dubious at best when we use journalistic sources. I've been of the opinion that Wikipedia is overly-dependent on journalistic sources which don't meet the standards of academic rigor we expect of an encyclopedia for some time. If you review my initial comment though, you'll see that, despite my misgivings, I came down on the side of asserting that, within the frame of what is currently acceptable on Wikipedia this source probably fits the bill. I did state (and persist in thinking) that it's risky working with sources that could be seen as attacking specific active wikipedians in general. However warning people to proceed with caution is different than telling people not to proceed. In fact, my main actual point of digression from others who called the source reliable is to be concerned that I was contacted by Icewhiz through Wikimedia Commons and I don't believe they should be participating in this discussion in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, journalists make mistakes - but so do academicians. Everybody makes mistakes. If we know that a reference is wrong (even if it's a WP:RS) we don't quote the mistake.

Icewhiz is not blocked on the Commons, so he contacted you through the Commons. Rather than ignore him, you made the mistake (no pun intended) of publicizing his communication with you, rather than ignore him. I would not have known about Icewhiz's correspondence had it not been for your publicity of it. Banana Republic (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that journalists make mistake. I said journalistic sources don't provide a level of academic rigor appropriate to an encyclopedia. If you insist on arguing with me about this, please at least respond to what I said rather than what I did not. As to my concerns about Icewhiz contacting me at Wikimedia Commons - I see their actions as an attempt to circumvent their ban from participation in en.wiki; I am not active on wikimedia commons and their commentary was about my statement here. I "publicized" it because I hoped any arbitrators observing this thread might take action to prevent Icewhiz, a disgraced editor whose comportment is absolutely shameful, from attempting to circumvent their block any further using this method. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess I interpreted your disdain for journalists as a statement that journalists make mistake. If your disdain for journalists is because their level of religiousness does not meet your standards, then I suppose you could use the facts that journalists provide to write Wikipedia at the level of religiousness that is up to your standards. But there would be nothing wrong with using the work of the journalists as the basis for writing Wikipedia. At the end of the day, the only thing that is important is that the facts are correct.

Were you hoping that by publicizing here Icewhiz's comments to you at the Commons he will get blocked at the Commons? Seems counter-intuitive to me, but maybe you know the system better that I do. Banana Republic (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: these are not major inaccuracies. These are the sorts of minor mistakes that any article in any newspaper on any subject might make. The main point of the article is that 1) an article stated a conspiracy theory/fringe theory that there was a concentration camp that gassed 200,000 Poles 2) that this remained on Wikipedia for 15 years; 3) that there is a campaign by Polish Wikipedians to make Poland look good, with the article arguing that this includes a focus on Polish suffering and heroism; 4) many of these editors were involved in EEML. Which of these things do you think is inaccurate? 3 is perhaps a matter of interpretation (to put it charitably), but no one has cited the article for this purpose. I think we ought to be able to agree not to use the article to attack any current or former Wikipedians, but simply removing it strikes me as textbook WP:I just don't like it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Suuure. Let's talk about those. 1) that's roughly accurate 2) that too, but let's keep things in proportion: those kind of errors are dime a dozen; I myself this summer have removed similar error from several articles, like claims about war starting with the bombing of Wielun (another fringe theory, and occasionally it had even made it to the World War II article, which I think is in our Top 10 most viewed articles... maybe I should contact some journalist about this? Except I know that errors of such scope are removed from Wikipedia every few weeks if not days. "Wikipedia had an error". Breaking news... 3) that's totally bogus. There is no shred of proof for this; and keep in mind this topic area was reviewed in the recent ArbCom case, you'd think if there was a problem like this they'd have said something. Worse, neither Icewhiz nor anyone else even presented evidence about it - it's all just allegations that wouldn't even be allowed here, but he threw them at a gullible journalist who knows a little, but clearly, not enough, about Wikipedia, and bought it line, hook and sinker since it 'makes a good story'. Who doesn't want to find a conspiracy? It's a kind of news that sells well. 4) irrelevant, plus many of what editors? A big factual problem with this article is that it suggest there is some kind of conspiracy, with no shred of proof outside saying that 'there was a conspiracy 10 years ago and one or two of the people involved in it have upset Icewhiz so he is alluding that there is a (new?) conspiracy against him'. If I didn't volunteer to be interviewed I probably wouldn't be in that story at all. And in the said ArbCom which was basically two parties (requests to add more parties were denied by ArbCom), so it was Icewhiz vs User:Volunteer Marek, yes, the latter was in the EEML. So... what on Earth has a 10 year old ArbCom case do with the current situation? It's an obvious attempt to poison the well and get a bit of revenge on one's opponents by digging irrelevant and stressful/hurtful ancient history, fitting well with the campaign of harassment on Twitter where EEML connections were dug up, mixed with spurious accusations of antisemitism and such, and thrown at tweeter accounts of harassed editors, their families and their employees. So, minor errors aside, half of the story (as per the 4 points you make) is bogus allegations with no shred of evidence, effectively a rant / smear campaign of the sorts that got him indef banned in the first place, just moved from Twitter to a press article. Good journalism, eh? Now, if we can agree not to use it to discuss Wikipedians (see history of Reliablity of Wikipedia article where there was some slow edit warring, hopefully finished now given the consensus on talk), then it's probably fine. I am not saying 'we have to ban this source', but I simply thought this kind of article is something we should review. After all, we make a big fuss about BLP, but what about protecting Wikipedians? Sure, there's WP:OUTING, but harassment is more complex than this, and it's good to review various dimensions. If the consensus here is that is is ok to link to an article in a reliable source than nonetheless links to death threats/outing of Wikipedians, so be it. I am just saying this should've been discussed. Now it has. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In line with what I said above: without any impact on real editor's lives outside of WP, I am highly confident that any mainspace discussion of this situation on Haaretz can be made without mentioning a single editor name or any past ArbCom case. That there was false/unverifiable information that appeared to change the perception of what the Polish had to go through during that period, that persisted on WP for 15 years, and now has been corrected with acknowledged academics correlating that, is 100% true. There is zero need to talk re EEML or mention any names on mainspace coverage. However, assuming that the situation is discussed, it doesn't make sense to omit Haaretz piece as the original story, even if it engages in mentioning names and past WP history. I'm seeing this being all of maybe 2-3 sentences at most on WP in summary, so most of those details do not matter. --Masem (t) 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

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

---

Piotrus and My Very Best Wishes: topic banned from Poland.

Former EEML members are in conflict of interest. Both imagine their opinions alleging a conspiracy theory in newspaper reporting hold weight. Haaretz was picked up by a dozen other reliable sources. They are not here to improve Wikipedia. They are here to purge all negative info on themselves and Poland. Piotrus canvassed on pl.wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.196.82.3 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Is this uncivil? It certainly is incendiary.

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but considering there was a discussion less than a month ago about User:Incnis Mrsi, it seems worthy to me.

I was doing a series of tautological edits, when Incnis Mrsi wikihounded me on three unrelated pages discussed at this edit warring arbitration page, insinuating I had an "agenda" and that I was a "stalker"[30]. That seems uncivil to me, definitely incendiary, and definitely baiting. This seems to be further proof that the uncivil behavior per WP:AGF continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an agenda – underwater (and other) tunnels exist too. A diff where the word “stalker” was directed at Leitmotiv or it did not happen. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I need to comment to you much beyond this, but starting a conversation with a link to a stalker page on my very own talk page that is discussing my edits, would seem to be directed at me. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

“ Some stalkers surreptitiously advertise this essay by tagging individual messages with {{tps}} replying to the message on the talkpage that they stalk. {{tps}} produces: (talk page stalker) ”

What now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see, yeah I'm clearly unfamiliar with the term. You are self-celebrating the stalker term and it wasn't directed at me. Got it. Still my point stands: wikihounding, edit-warring, and using baiting language on my own talk page, and that my personal editing interests are an agenda (a loaded-term, if we are to be honest with ourselves). Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is anything wrong with calling ongoing mass mangling of articles in disregard of objections an agenda? Nobody authorized the user to do this stuff, and WP:BRD is expectedly in action. There are several kinds of tunnels. An immersed tube is no less a tunnel than an underground tunnel. Also, some tunnels have sections protruding above the ground. Readers of Wikipedia should not be forced to make guesswork, especially if it’s only one user who wishes so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've already addressed most of this in a previous comment. However, I do find it interesting that only now are you willing to discuss the technicalities of "underground tunnel" but ignored that opportunity on my talk page when I pinged you [31].

Only now? Again, the discussion for Gun-type fission weapon (where underwater vs underground ambiguity was brought to attention) was started at 19:06 UTC. Five minutes before Leitmotiv blackmailed me with an edit summary, 41 minutes before Leitmotiv ran to AN/EW, and 1h 25m before beginning of this thread. Moreover, some 23 hours earlier I suggested the user to “cease… drive-by replacements” and encouraged him to edit out whichever is truly redundant. Can anybody instruct Leitmotiv, at last, to stop wasting resources of other Wikipedians on pointless lawyering? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith sir. I'm not responsible for your actions that result in a warning for edit warring. If you come on to my talk page, I assume you intend to fix a problem with me directly, instead you ignored me. chek chek chek Leitmotiv (talk)!

Addendum: Incnis Mrsi is also editing my personal comments on the edit-warring discussion and disingenuously calling my edits slander. I believe editing another user's comments is generally not permitted, even if they are right. In this particular case it wasn't a personal attack or slander, but misidentifying his previous blocking as a ban, which somehow was interpreted as a personal attack. Rather than correct the mistake, he hid that potential information altogether. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing calumny (which may also be called slander) is hopefully a legitimate action. As there are no templates {{calumny}} or {{calumny removed}}, another one was used. Also note the sequence of Leitmotiv’s actions:

1. 19:11 UTC – tries to intimidate me with an edit summary,
2. 19:17 UTC – posts a reply in talk:Gun-type fission weapon‎‎ #Operation Nougat.
3. 19:57 UTC – catches me on 3RR without a talk-page activity during those forty minutes.

Moreover, Leitmotiv supplied an irrelevant tangent hoping to deter criticism. But attempts to intimidate me here on en.Wikipedia are not cost-effective. Let Leitmotiv learn on own mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. You can call it slander or calumny, or a conspiracy for all I care, but it was simply a case of transposing "block" with "ban". Either way, the end result is the same: you were recently reviewed for uncivil actions and editing another's comments whether you think it to be a slander against you or not, is more uncivil and disrespectful behavior. Your comments that I have an "anti-underground agenda" is incendiary, confrontational, baiting, and not assuming good faith. In fact, I had to make a new rule for my talk page because you wouldn't respond to me, which in a roundabout way, is also not being civil in the most basic of ways: communication - meaning you're not looking to solve the perceived problem, only throw mud and wikihound. Now that I think of it, please assume good faith in my blunder of mistaking a block for a ban. I mean, I certainly didn't get that you were directly outing yourself as a stalker on my talk page. I assumed you were talking about me in some manner because of the language you used. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The user who dismissed feedback and resorted to intimidation in edit summaries, all within the last 40 hours, feels now wronged by alleged “mud and wikihound”. Not worthy any further analysis and any more edit in this thread by me. The site has a thousand of admins to dispose of trash here – good luck. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Another fine example of civility. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi, both of you should be ashamed of yourselves for your unnecessarily combative behavior on full display here. This is a collaborative project. Please start acting that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that the only people who have commented in this section prior to your note was Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi; that's quite telling of their hostility. Incnis Mrsi's conduct problems are not limited to Leitmotiv or even the English Wikipedia, but I do believe here that both parties are at fault. Vermont (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It could also be that because the thread was neglected till now. Had it been nipped in the bud with a response early on... ...? I don't think my responses were the best, but marginally better. I felt forced to come here considering the edit warring from the other party and the past history. Sorry to bother you all. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Just what is it you want from the community, Leitmotif? (Since you were the one who brought it up.) Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism, or good edits? Help needed from the musically literate

user:134.219.227.30 has made a series of changes to the categories of national anthems (see Special:Contributions/134.219.227.30). As someone who doesn't know the difference between, say F major and E flat major, I can't tell if this is right or wrong. Most of the ones I checked don't actually address the key at all. The Ecuadorian anthem does, but without a source.

I'm musically illiterate, and I need help. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Firstly, you must notify the IP on their talk page. I just did that for you.

This is a tough one to judge. Musical compositions are easy to transpose between different keys, so there is no "correct" answer unless we know the key signature of the original recording (by the original composer). I am having a hard time finding much of that information. Having listened to a few recordings, some of the changes sound correct to me, but others sounded correct in the originally listed key signature (I am able to determine the key by listening). However, most of these recordings are unreliable, because I am not sure if they have been transposed from their original key (I have heard many songs played in different keys) or otherwise rearranged. It's not clear if the IP's edits were made because of this confusion or if they are simply unconstructive.

Sadly, musical literacy does not help to assess these edits – only WP:V does and I am having a hard time with that. That said, unless sources can be found, I think it better to remove these categories altogether. ComplexRational (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thanks - I don't know enough to know what I don't know. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience editing music articles, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the original score (the composer's written sheet music) should be in some specific key (the "original key"), although other versions may be in different keys. An RS should state what the original key was, and that's they key under which our article should be categorized. Listening to a recording and categorizing it based on what key we hear strikes me as original research. I went over to O Canada; it was categorized as E minor, with nothing about the key in the article (although one of the sources did have the information, stating it was G major. I added some prose cited to that source and changed the category to G major.) I agree with ComplexRational that no musical key category should be included at all, unless the key is stated in the article, properly cited. Where there are multiple versions in multiple keys, we should go with either the original or the most prevalent (I guess if there's a key conflict, that's a content dispute that can be discussed article by article). – Levivich 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the original scores are in certain original keys, and those are the versions that should be cited if possible. Rearrangements and listening are not reliable (indeed, what we say based on what hear is unreliable even if it can be proven; I apologize if I did not make this clearer above), so only the original scores or descriptions thereof should be used as sources. Those can be checked on a case-by-case basis as you've done. ComplexRational (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I can help you out - I'm a classically trained piano player. The music I see ( which is CC licensed) shows up as being A flat major. Flats are pretty easy, just use the mnemonic "Farmer Brown Eats All Day Getting Chubby" , each letter is the key for each flat, (e.g 1 flat is "Farmer" ("F Major"), two flats are ("Farmer" "Brown" - so it's Bb major) ..etc...

That would put this song ,per the sheet music, into Ab major as it has 4 flats ("Farmer" "Brown" "Eats" "All" - Ab major )

That said, this may not be the original music, and since I'm not familiar with the song, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the original key, but it's the one that can be referenced! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood something but I don't quite get why the original score takes precedence over everything else including other well cited scores or rearrangements. Especially in cases of a national anthem. For example, if the composer composed the anthem in B flat, but the government when selecting the composition to be their anthem decided to change it to C flat (whether working with the composer or just by themselves), and this is the score that they distributed to everyone and is in their regulations, and is the version nearly everyone who's heard the anthem including from the beginning heard and the fact that the original composer composed it in B flat is not even well known, I'm not sure why B flat gets precedence. Of course we should mention this detail of B flat if it can be sourced, but that seems about it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, if we're talking about any countries anthem and a key signature is brought up, it should always be whatever the reliable source shows us. In the one I looked at, we had the original handwritten version and a printed version in the same key, Ab Major.

Yes, anyone can re-arrange any song into different keys, and if there were other arrangements and they were reliable sourced, they should be recognized. Far as the category, by default it should go to the original key unless the title references a different singer or composer, and for that, again, whatever the reliable source says that key is, should be the recognized key. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's my point. It should be based on what reliable sources say for the anthem. It does not matter what the original key is, what matters is what the key for the current anthem. We should mention the original key if it can also be sourced, but there's absolutely no reason why it should take precedence as many replies here seem to imply. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Cranbrook School, Sydney Alumni CUTPASTE move

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

---

Can admin take a look at this? I'm not sure why Naddruf thought it was necessary to do a WP:CUTPASTE move when List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney most likely could've just been WP:MOVEd to the new title instead. Now, it's not clear whether a HISTMERGE is needed because of the split page history, and, futhermore, Talk:List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney is now an "orphan" talk page so to speak because of the "move". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I unfucked it, since it's on my watchlist anyway. Restored the original page, moved it to List of Cranbrook School, Sydney alumni (no capital on alumni), and redirected the Alumni version. No histmerge needed. This did not need to be an AN discussion - you could've taken this to the editor's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Premeditated Chaos. I thought it might just be a good-faith error that could require a HISTMERGE, but thanks for checking whether one was needed. I did ask the editor to clarify things on their user talk when I notified them of this discussion, but I guess I sort of put the cart before the horse in this case. My bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• SQL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team:

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who resigned his CheckUser permission in May 2019, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the committee for return of the permission.

The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Hirohito related articles

An IP (62.248.181.187) who was causing problems at Constitution of Japan, is now doing the same at List of longest reigning monarchs, by promoting that Hirohito's reign as emperor ended in 1945, rather then 1989. Not sure how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Just wondering whether MJV479 (talk · contribs) might potentially be compromised... just asking for a second opinion and additional sets of eyes. Thanks! GAB^gab 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser and the account is not compromised. Unusual behavior for sure, but it looks like just playing around with WP:TW. ST47 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes you would be correct, ST47 (talk · contribs). MJV479 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

T-Mobile range block concerns

According to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users#Why are T-Mobile IPv6 users often blocked?, the best way to avoid the T-Mobile range block is to create an account. However, account creation from the entire range is also blocked (for the next year). Considering that there are 266 million smartphone users in the U.S. and 22% of them use T-Mobile, that seems to mean we are blocking 59 million people from editing or creating accounts (unless they connect via another means). Is that correct? Is the vandalism deterrence really worth that level of collateral damage? If there have been previous discussions about this, my apologies. All I could find was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, which seems to be related. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, DeltaQuad, Oshwah, and Drmies: pinging some admins who have been involved in case they can share more info or opinions. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

They can just create it at home, which is why I’m not particularly concerned with the ACB aspect. I placed it for a year because it’d been blocked for well over a year straight by Graham87 and various other admins. The range is also regularly globally ACB’d for months on end, so even if we removed ACB, most of the time it wouldn’t have any impact on account creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TonyBallioni. This block does not completely cut off the ability for users who are behind a T-Mobile IPv6 range to edit Wikipedia. If they wish to edit, they just need to create an account while they're not behind a T-Mobile IPv6 address, and they'll have no problem with editing after they log in.

T-Mobile has a high number of subscribers, and they cover many areas that require different IP and network configurations in order to have internet or data services offered there. Ever been in a remote location that most definitely does not have internet service around (such as the middle of the woods, on a highway in the middle of nowhere, etc), but you somehow still have the ability to access the internet through your mobile carrier (so long as there's coverage offered) and in the middle of freaking nowhere? What gives? How do they do it? The answer is that they use microwave hops (basically, a high frequency point-to-point wireless connection - they're those round white dishes you often see if you look at a cell tower) to connect one tower directly to another, and transmit data and network services through it. So if T-mobile needs to provide data coverage to a tower in a remote location, they'll use another tower in a location where an internet connection is available and that has a unobstructed line of sight with the remote tower, add a microwave connection between the two, and bam! You now have a remote tower that can provide data services where no data backbones or fiber lines exist. When users access the internet (or to put it more relevantly, edit Wikipedia) from a tower in this configuration, they're connected like this: [INTERNET] <- FIBER LINE -> [TOWER A] <- MICROWAVE CONNECTION -> [TOWER B] <- DATA SERVICE -> [MOBILE DEVICE / COMPUTER].

Why discuss this example scenario in-depth? Because it's one of the many situations, challenges, service areas, and unique configurations that mobile carriers like T-Mobile have to solve in order to provide consistent data and voice coverage throughout its global network and in a way that the users don't notice any interruptions and is essentially invisible to them as they travel from tower-to-tower and roam from location to location. This is also why the information detailed here is exactly the way that it is. IP addresses change on each device and are handed off frequently, proxy servers and services are installed and often used, networks and ranges are as huge and wide as they are because they have to be. It wouldn't be financially or technically sustainable for a carrier to have DHCP servers, unique public-facing network ranges, direct internet connections, and other perpetuals at each and every cell tower and at every location individually... it just wouldn't. The unfortunate drawback for us is the fact that a high amount of abuse comes from mobile ranges, we only have a certain amount of information and a number of tools at our disposal in order to stop and prevent the abuse, and no silver bullet exists in order to keep only the abusers blocked while having no effect on those who are contributing positively to the project.

Going back to this discussion: Yes, we're aware of the drawbacks and the collateral damage and the inconvenience to innocent editors that the block creates. Yes, unfortunately, this block is necessary. Yes, users have a way to edit through these ranges - just create an account at home or at another location. No, it's absolutely not what we prefer or like to be doing as opposed to... something else. Yes, we agree that it sucks and that another better solution existed. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what range you are talking about, but I have a good idea. This is definitely not the first time or the last I'll be pinged about it even though I only modified the block. DRV is a big issue and does require the ACB. It's not uncommon at ACC where I will actually tell people to find another range or use an ISP registered email because of how shared IPs can be. ACC isn't much of an option right now over the backlog, but i'm sure many people have access to other networks like Tony said. Maybe @TonyBallioni: we need to make a section on that page with a list of discussions about it and basically say we're aware? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

So is it essentially just one vandal that is necessitating the block? If so, is there any feature that could be added to AbuseFilter that would mitigate this as effectively as range blocking? For example, I don't know if you can specify IP ranges in AbuseFilter, but would that help? Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, FYI, none of the people affected by this block are seeing the link to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users (T233996), so improving that page won't actually help anything at the moment. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not the only master on that range. There have been 88 sets of checks ran on this /32 since the start of the year. I'd start listing off names people in the anti-vandal/anti-sock world would be very familiar with, but that'd be breaking the privacy policy. There are at least 3 major sockmasters on this range I recognize plus a ton of other people who have been socking (at least 56 of those checks are not related to any SPI page). This does not include all the vandalism that comes from range from either named accounts or IPs (because CUs don't even check that). It's been just about consistently blocked since December 2016 without accounts being created. So imagine without that block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the amount of vandalism from this range (note that we have similar problems with other mobile networks, as well, around the world), I'd say that it's reasonable for us to want people to apply for accounts via ACC. It's unfortunate that vandalism causes this trouble, but I'm of the opinion that it's better this way. Waggie (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't have checkuser and so I can't speak to ACB, simply from dealing with routine vandalism, I'd say the block is reasonable. T-mobile-USA is, as far as major US ISPs go, probably the worst offender in making it impossible to distinguish users. Part of the problem is that they don't break up their customer-base into any reasonable-sized chunks. A lot of other providers, for instance, may divide their customers among dozens of subnets or more, which allows collateral to be minimized. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Also the number of users in a small range. If there are /11 and /17 ranges with a similar number of users and edits, and there is disruption from both but more likely from the /11 range, it's the /17 that is probably going to be blocked most of the time, and the /11 will probably never be blocked. Is an edit from T-Mobile more likely to be disruptive than an edit from 0.0.0.0/0? If not, should 0.0.0.0/0 be blocked? Peter James (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter James, what?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It could be that there is more disruption because there are more people. A similar range in the UK is Special:Contributions/82.132.192.0/18 - O2 (UK) - with 500 edits in 10 days before the block; if the same edits had been from a /12 range with another ISP, would you have blocked? Peter James (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have to make 16 blocks of /16 size ranges to block a single /12 range. The maximum size IPv4 range that an admin may block in a single action is a /16. You will never see a /11 or /12 blocked although a bunch of individual blocks could accomplish that. To possibly answer your question, if the percentage of problems were equal in a /16 that compares to the /18 that you have labeled above, despite an increase in people within the /16, I'd block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

When I'm implementing a rangeblock I always ask myself (not the only question) what is the smallest range to block each disruptive individual. For example, I will not block an ISP even if disruption roams over the entire network as long as individuals can be isolated. I would block five /64s to neutralize five disruptive individuals rather than block the /48 that they all share (aside, I suspect most admins who make large blocks of this precise nature are simply unaware that individuals can be isolated in that particular network). The problem with some ranges is not that there are so many people on a range or even that the percentage or number of disruptive edits is high. Those are important factors in deciding the right course of action, but to me the critical one is what minimum portion of a network must be blocked to stop just one of its users from editing. For some networks, that answer is, "the entire network". Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If the collateral damage of blocking an entire ISP across the country is considered acceptable, then can someone explain to me why we don't simply require registration for people to edit? Because that's de facto what's being done here. ♟♙ (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

EnPassant - See my response and explanation here, and let me know if you still have any questions or concerns. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

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

---

Just for information: Wikipedia has an article on The Daily Caller, which is sharply critical of that publication. A Charles Glasser, representing the Daily Caller, requested dispute resolution at DRN today. What they requested was to provide a statement to an unbiased Wikipedia editor to clarify a few matters, and then, after approval, to lock down the article to prevent vandalism (which would of course also lock down normal editing). I declined the DRN because this is not how Wikipedia works. I then saw that, about a year ago, The Daily Caller requested arbitration concerning a similar content dispute, and the request was also declined. I don't think that any further action is in order, but I thought that I should advise administrators here of this request that doesn't reflect how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment: we're not quite in legal threat territory, but assuming the DRN requester is being honest about who they say they are, they're an attorney (one who even has his own WP page) and they've been retained by The Daily Coller. Caution's in order. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller article is not sharply critical of it. It looks like an article should for a "news outlet" that repeatedly publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and does nothing of journalistic integrity and value. See similar types of "news" sites which happen to have Wiki articles that look similar: Gateway Pundit and Centre for Research on Globalization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - An article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view can be sharply critical if the reliable sources are sharply critical. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If the person is who he says he is: Charles Glasser. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Would now be a bad time to point out that that article was created by a user suspected of UPE? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

UPE? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked the magic word. WP:UPE: undisclosed paid editing. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah yeah, it did seem weird that a media company lawyer happened to have a Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear People: I apologize for not being conversant in the confusing means of getting content sorted out. And yes, while I am a lawyer (I defend reporters and publsihers, not sue them) this is not any kind of threat. It's a sincere call for help. And yes, when some rando created a page about me I remember something over my head about whether someone paid someone. Never happened, and sadly, this is the kind of ad hominem stuff I desperately hope to avoid. And with all due respect, Mr. Snooganssnoogans seems to have a personal stake in the matter. If "lock down" is the wrong phrase, I apologize. It just seems like someone here has it out for The Daily Caller for their own biases, there are errors and people of good will can sort this out. Suggestions as to process, please? 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com

Another note that explains things. Snooganssnoogans said "Ah yeah, it did seem weird that a media company lawyer happened to have a Wikipedia page."(talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC). That's just flat-out untrue. Many of my colleagues have WP pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_A._Smolla; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goodale and many others. Could we please drop the paranoia and have a good faith conversation, and please, Mr User:Robert McClenon would you kindly advise me -- in layman's terms -- about the best approach procedurally? Thanks, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk)

All right, discussion it is. Your report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard mentioned "efforts at correcting factual errors" which turned into an "edit war," but you haven't provided links to diffs supporting these claims, which means that most of us haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to. You also said that the issue was discussed on the talk page, but again, no links, no diffs, and your IP range hasn't edited any talk pages. Additionally, you've accused Snooganssnoogans of having a personal stake without any supporting evidence, which is pretty close to a personal attack. Your request at DRN implied that you wanted to get the page in a certain state and then "lock it down" to prevent vandalism; it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to let anyone, even the subject of a page, own a page, and again, the reference to vandalism implies that you see the edits by Snooganssnoogans and Markdask as vandalism. The correct procedure from here would be to have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page in which you comment on inaccuracies and provide reliable sources to support your statements.

One last point: the fact that The Daily Caller has retained you for this matter is an action which is pretty much guaranteed to raise a lot of hackles here, since it suggests that they are considering legal action in order to make the page look the way they want. Even if that isn't the intent, there's a potential chilling effect merely from the involvement of a lawyer. creffett (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a couple recommendations. First you should register an account. Second you should read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide (which you'll be one step through because its first step is to register an account). This will help direct you towards how you can make specific edit requests at Talk:The Daily Caller and have it looked at by an editor. At this point, owing to the posting here I have no doubt that the talk page has more attention than before so any such requests will be given a fair, policy compliant, shot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the above, the article does seem to focus heavily on the publication's controversies. I wouldn't say that it meets WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. -- œ^™ 03:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the above is necessarily constructive in resolving the dispute. I think we should start here with determining what precisely about The Daily Caller is in dispute. I think outlining what people may feel is wrong with the article is the best place to start. Waggie (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that Charles Glasser should read WP:COI, register an account and declare his connection with the Daily Caller on his user page and when posting to discussions about the Daily Caller. Also, he should become familiar with Wikipedia content policies. I sense that there is a problem with the tone of the article with is more negative than for far worse publications. This page is not the place to discuss content issues, but I will watch the page and contribute there. TFD (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion here is ready to be closed. I opened two new discussion sections at TalK:The Daily Caller, and several editors who contributed above further contributed there and otherwise helped direct the editor, and I think it is sorted out well enough now. The editor did register an account and is participating there and at their new User talk page constructively. There is some continuing discussion about the content going on and more is to follow, and that is fine and good. --Doncram (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Scope of resysop RfC and community desysop question

Coming here because I don't know where else to post, but I do think this needs review (not in a bad way) on the current resysop RfC, a new proposal has been made to have a community desysop process. My concern here is pretty simple: it's at the very bottom of a long page; the proposal was about inactivity resysops, and you're very likely to only attract a very limited audience. It's entirely possible to get 20 or so people in support of it and gain "consensus", but if it were advertised on it's own, you'd likely get a hundred people or more participating, with a much more divided split.

I guess my question is for a wider audience: should this be included in this RfC, or is it an important enough and controversial enough topic that it should be closed and have someone propose it on it's own if they want to. My view is the latter, but I thought it important enough that getting a wider view was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's unsurprising the conversation went there. That said, I think it's out of scope there and serves more as a "straw poll" than something which can get binding consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to just let them vote. Once they get it out of their system, close that section with either "consensus is that we should discuss this further in a new RFC" or "consensus is against further discussion at this time". The proposal is too vague to institute any changes by itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't really call it consensus one way or another because of the lack of advertising, but I think a close of "there's interest in discussing this further" would be fine. I'm more of the mind of barkeep that I want to get a read on the thoughts of people as to whether it can be a binding consensus before we're a month into the process... TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and it should probably be framed as such. I don't see that it should be binding, as it's very much out of the original RfC scope, I really can see a much different (and probably much larger) audience that would be drawn to an RfC regarding a community desysop policy. Waggie (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Reposting what I said to Xeno when they raised a similar concern: "Even if non-binding and flawed, I think it could give us some insight into how much disagreement here is actually because people are using this as a proxy fight for some other policy that is desired. It's hard to resolve community tension if we can't pin down what the conflict even is (which is, I think, part of the point Peter Southwood and others have been making in various places)." I encourage further discussion in order to figure out what the problems are and how they can be resolved. (ec) Wug·a·po·des​ 04:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting us know, TonyBallioni. Community desysop is clearly out of scope for that RfC and needs its own wider discussion. While it is obviously well intended, even as a "straw poll" I see little value, as it will have attracted the attention of only those who have had the perserverance to get to "Statement 16" in a long and wordy resysop discussion (well, and those who have seen this here now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see it as at all unhelpful if only as a means of judging a "pre-consesnsus", not unlike the discussion as a whole enjoyed. The first hurdle any perennial proposal must overcome is simply being a perennial proposal.  I'm not entirely sure this is the epitome of a neutral and brief notification, but I don't know that anyone on #16 considers it a concrete policy proposal to be immediately enacted (somehow), rather than a general statement of principle. "None of these options address the underlying issue" seems to be a perfectly valid response on any RfC, and many of the criticisms here are probably equally valid with regard to other proposals there, where we may wish to consider such an unwieldy and sprawling discussion as perhaps more of an "RfC primary !vote" in preparation for a more singular discussion. GMG^talk 11:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I opened a discussion section floating the idea of revisiting a desysop procedure because it looks to me that it would better address all of the concerns raised through the pile of proposals on that page. Most of the problems the proposals seek to address are problems that can apply to admins regardless of whether they had a period of inactivity. It just so happens that the time of resysopping may present a very rare instance where we can remove (in the form of declining to reinstate) those privileges. A desysopping procedure that takes the same concerns into account would address the same issues, hence it's not at all unrelated/shoehorned/whatever, but just a better way to work on the problem (IMO, I guess). When it got a bunch of support, Wugapodes added it as a proposal. Regardless of whether it's a discussion or a proposal, I can't imagine anyone would think that that it attracting support in that forum would mean we would have consensus to move ahead and implement a desysopping procedure. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, though. Until this AN thread opened, it seemed to have among the most support of any of the proposals, which should signal that it's a discussion worth having in the context of the issues on that page. Of course we would need a dedicated, better-organized process for a discussion that would actually implement as much. TL;DR - it's something that addresses the same underlying problems the existing RfC is trying to solve to see if that makes more sense to pursue than the other proposals, which would largely become moot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the resysop discussion is mainly about criteria for restoring administrative privileges that have been temporarily removed, without requiring a new request for administrative privileges to be passed, while discussions in the past on community desysop procedures have focused on procedures to permanently remove administrative privileges, requiring a new request to be passed in order to re-attain them. So while related, I think the two are distinct. People being what they are, it's easier to move forward on a smaller number of discussion threads at a time, so I think it would be beneficial for both discussions to put the community desysop discussion in a parking lot until after the resysop discussion is over. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to me that it would be a progress to many noted concerns that a Community desysop RFC would be opened, better to let the current RFC end and consider the changes from that. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Given the concerns of scope, I have spun out the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure and closed discussion of the statement. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on additional page mover permissions

Howdy,

There is a current request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (discussion link) regarding whether page movers should be permitted to move pages which are full-protected. As this would require a change to the protection policy, I'm cross-posting here. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pagemove needed

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

---

Can I get an admin to delete Tip of My Tongue so I can move Tip of My Tongue (disambiguation)? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• TenPoundHammer,  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Revdel request (Resolved)

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

---

Can someone revdel this revision. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Insert lecture about publicly advertising serious BLP violations on this high visibility page: CAT:REVDEL pls. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for commment on a binding desysop procedure

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. GMG^talk 01:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorad_Choudhry

Please pay attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorad_Choudhry

It seems that has been made for advert

See some occasional contributors such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CTeasdale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reuben.Harris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.230.232.12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.86.145.255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.179.217 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Uh, CTeasdale hasn't edited that page since 2012, Rueben.Harris shows to have not edited that page since around that time too. I move for this to be closed as a stale report. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Journal of Structured Finance

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

---

Please pay attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Structured_Finance

Please note that the journal is not accredited (see https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=The+Journal+of+Structured+Finance) therefore cannot be what it claims to be "quarterly academic journal". If someone believes that the journal is encyclopedic (and the the page in Wikipedia is not an advert) than the above quoted sentence should be amended: "quarterly practitioner journal".

PS

The external link in the page is broken
This is the right link https://jsf.pm-research.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.179.217 (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If something's incorrect in an article, fix it! You don't even need to register to do that. If you think it's an advert, then nominate it for deletion (though keep in mind that it was previously nominated for deletion and kept, you can find the link to the previous discussion on the talk page). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of this for the OP. ♟♙ (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from Ritchie333

 There is a clear consensus below to unblock Ritchie333. There is a leaning towards it being a bad block but there is not consensus that this was the case so discussion on that point may continue for now. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Greetings. Ritchie333 has been blocked for one week, for a supposed IBAN violation. The alleged violation was this series of edits. Praxidicae had tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation and a promotional piece in need of a total rewrite. Ritchie resolved these issues, spending hours of his time rewriting the article. However, even though he had removed the tags accordingly, it was treated as a “revert” of Praxidicae by the blocking administrator (who was one of the Arbs who imposed the behind-the-scenes sanction). Besides the supposed “revert”, there was no other interaction. Because the IBAN was imposed by Arbcom, this is technically an AE block that cannot be reviewed normally. As such, I am copying his appeal here per his request. Note that he has already additionally responded at length on his talk page as well, denying any and all ill intent whatsoever. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice who had tagged O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester for G11 and G12 until I had finished the first urgent rewrite to avoid close paraphrasing and excessive puffery and hit "save", by which point it was probably too late. For what it's worth I thought the tags were justified and deletion would have been within the bounds of administrator discretion; I just fancied improving the article so I could nominate it for Did you know? - as a musician, I'm interested in articles about live venues and my interest in Manchester history and architecture has been piqued by the meetup earlier this year. Anyway, I would like to be unblocked to do that, to continue my working in improving Marshlink line towards FAC, and to attend to any GA and DYK reviews I have put up that require my input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, I would be strongly inclined to support unblock, to the extent that if this wasn’t an AE block I would be inclined to outright overturn it as a bad block myself. Editing the same article in good faith without interacting directly is very explicitly allowed under IBAN policy, and removing a tag that is no longer applicable because you fixed the issue is pretty obviously not a “revert”, as the blocking admin claimed. The only remaining justification for the block is a completely unfounded assumption of bad faith, in spite of Ritchie’s completely realistic assertions that the “interaction”, if you can call it that, was unintentional, and that he was merely trying to improve the content space in good faith, as he has always done. Additionally, the previous block was used as an aggravating factor, in spite of the fact that it was virtually universally condemned as a bad block. And, to be clear, I’m not a “friend” or “fan” of Ritchie, but this really seems like a block in search of a violation. The shadowban by Arbcom was controversial to begin with, and severe blocks in response to such an exceedingly dubious “violation” is unconscionable, to me at least. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock but more importantly we need to initiate investigation into the completely inadequate and involved behaviour of the blocking Arb who has repeatedly ignored good faith arguments and refused to consider an unblock request. A new precedent on interpretation of what IBAN violations has been set here, it needs serious consideration. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• I've asked PMC a few days ago if he would object to an unblock on the grounds that Ritchie333 claimed the violation (such as it is) was accidental. Their response was that he did not believe Ritchie333 was telling the truth. As mentioned on PMC's talk page in my followup, I find this sort of failure to assume good faith to be troubling. Needless to say, I also endorse an unblock. But should this appeal not be on AE since the block was an enforcement of an arbitration decision (as explicitly stated in the block log)?El_C 22:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • AE blocks can be appealed at AE, AN, or ARCA. It says that officially somewhere, but you'll either have to take my word for it, or someone will have to find where exactly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. I stand corrected. I've also notified PMC about this appeal. El_C 23:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications - interestingly, an appeal filed at AE must gain consensus from uninvolved *admins*, while paradoxically the appeal filed here at the admins board must gain consensus from uninvolved *editors*. I have no idea why the difference.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Grudging oppose - Ritchie is about the only admin on here that I have confidence in, but this is plain for any unclouded eye to see. A revert is the undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. The edit for which Ritchie was blocked including the removal of a CSD tag added by Praxidicae, and restored the page to an empty state and removed most of its other material. This is by definition a revert, and whatever else he did during or after that is irrelevant. Something that not one person has bothered to mention on Ritchie's talk page, is that Praxidicae's username was on the tag – the most recent editor is always listed on the tag: This page was last edited by [USERNAME] at [TIME]. He didn't need to look at the history, just the tag and he would (or should) have known to leave it alone. An unblock now would be tantamount to the community invalidating the IBAN – I don't think the IBAN should have been placed, but it's there – and encouraging further infractions. This is a bad move. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, this is incorrect. The page was not empty when Ritchie found it, it had a load of copyvio text on it, and deletion tag which cited the copyvio as the reason for deletion. Ritchie removed all the copyrighted and promotional text, revdelled it, and then removed the tag because it was obsolete. By no stretch of the imagination was that a "revert" and it didn't undo or negate the effects, rather it was the natural next step for a G11/G12 tag where the issues had been dealt with. Now it could be argued that this was still a breach of the IBAN, but that's borderline, and IMHO the harshness of the punishment - leaping straight to a one-week block, and refusing to believe that Ritchie did this in good faith - did not fit the crime.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru – and restored the page to an empty state <- this means he turned it into a blank page, not that he found a blank page. Although, I've double checked, he removed most of the content, not all of it. Corrected. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Swarm. Amaury • 23:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Agree with all of the above. I am not "a fan" of Ritchie. But why should I not be counted as "a friend". If that nulls my !vote, so be it. Yes, what Mr rnddude has carefully explained is quite valid. But this block, even if originally imposed in good faith, weighing all of the circumstances and responses, seems wholly disproportionate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• My understanding from PMC's comments is that the block is based on an emailed complaint to ArbCom, and is based ONLY on this revert, and that there was no other blockworthy behavior since the last block. @Premeditated Chaos:, is that correct? If that's the case, I strongly support an unblock. If that's not the case, then the other behavior since the last block that contributed to this decision should be described here. If it can't be described here for some kind of privacy reasons, then an Arb should at least state that it exists, AND the ArbCom-sponsored "how to handle ArbCom actions based on private evidence" RFC we were promised should happen sooner rather than later. Because blocks like this actively damage our ability to prevent harassment, because it gives off the impression that all harrassment-related blocks are questionable. This very block has led me to have much less confidence that the interaction ban was actually valid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Martinevans123. That being said, arbitrators should be less concerned about Ritchie's edits, and Ritchie should be more diligent and erring on the side of caution regarding the interaction ban. Ibans often suck, in my view, but they're easy to get yourself blocked for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ques: Is it true as the talk page comments suggest that the interaction-ban came about because of tagging articles and interaction regarding tagging articles? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker: I don't think this was mentioned publicly at the time the IBAN was imposed, but Premeditated Chaos said this week at User talk:Ritchie333 that: "One of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them". So I assume, since this comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that this matter was one of the reasons discussed in the secret ArbCom conflab that led to the IBAN. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• My thoughts are exactly as Floquenbeam's above. If this is the only infraction since the last block, then unblock now - three days (and counting) is more than enough of a block for a second isolated, and borderline, offence. If there are other offences since the last block, then please could ArbCom clarify as per Floq's request.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Why does this IBAN exist for either editor anyway? I see no evidence that it should—both editors are highly valuable in the CSD, anti-sock, and anti-spam processes. (For the record, my decline of the unblock appeal was purely technical, and I have no issue with Ritchie being unblocked.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Swarm - IMHO improving an article and removing the CSD tag does not and should not count as a revert. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock Mistakes were made. Let's avoid making any more. The block is not currently serving any purpose other than to generate reams of discussion, meaning that not only Ritchie's contributions, but those every other commentator on his talkpage could have been making instead, are not being made. It's an unnecessary time-sink, and doesn't benefit Wikipedia at all. Yunshui ^雲_水 23:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block but also support unblock. I was going to stay out of this but since it's here: this was a clear and unambiguous violation of an interaction ban by an editor who had previously and recently been blocked for violating the same restriction. It's clear from contribs and the deletion logs that Ritchie had been working through speedy deletion queues earlier in the day, then went away to do a peer review of Marshlink line for several hours, then we're to believe that four hours later he just happened to return to speedy deletion and just happened to land on one tagged by the editor they're ibanned with, in the exact environment which led to the iban being imposed. Even if we assume that this is just coincidence, it doesn't matter: the onus is on the sanctioned editor to avoid the behaviour that led to the sanction, and Ritchie did not. Some other editor said in response to some other ban violation that in cases of these restrictions, you don't tiptoe around them, you stay as far away as you possibly can, so that if someone suggests that you violated it, any sane editor will think they're an idiot (I'm heavily paraphrasing). Ritchie, if that means you don't do speedy deletions, or you stay away from the G11 and G12 tags that Praxidicae is so fond of, well so be it. If not, then yes, the onus is on you to check the history of every page you find in those queues to ensure that you're not violating your restriction. Did Ritchie improve the article? Absolutely. But we have to stop giving passes for harassment-related sanctions because editors are "good people" or whatever. With all that in mind I support lifting the block because obviously the point has been made by now, and I see no non-punitive reason for it to continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per my original request. If I'm understanding correctly that PMC was who initiated an off-wiki review [32], supported (perhaps suggested) a "private" review [33], draft the motion [34], was the one to receive a private (arbcom) email claiming that Ritchie violated said ban[35] - then I'm also concerned about WP:INVOLVED (and a few other things), if "Involved" is even applicable to arbs as it is to admins. I will add to my support that if this editing of O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester is a sample of the "evidence" that was reviewed, and supports the ban, I must question the fact that the ban exists in the first place. — Ched (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the policy. Even if we look at the "spirit" of the interaction ban - while on the surface we can say that we should IAR, and that this was an innocent rewrite of an article that happened to be tagged by Praxidicae, when you look at the context (Ritchie being critical of Praxidicae's "behavior" which largely involved their tagging articles for speedy deletion instead of trying to save them) this is exactly why there was an interaction ban. I will also say (having been on vacation at the time the interaction ban was given, so I didn't comment then) that Ritchie does not interact very well with editors when he does not agree with how they edit, having been a target of that myself. Had this been a public arbitration case, I would have likely submitted evidence. Which is a pity, because he does good article work, but I have always believed that you have to be able to work together with other people in order to participate on this site - even with people with whom you have a legitimate disagreement or don't see eye to eye on certain matters. --Rschen7754 00:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • But in this case, Ritchie's actions were not "critical" of Prax's tag at all; there was no disagreement, his actions showed that Ritchie 100% agreed with Prax's tag and addressed the concerns. Seems like that should count for something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Floquenbeam: Are you sure? Praxidicae wanted the page deleted; Ritchie removed the tag, indicating that he wanted the article to be kept. --Rschen7754 00:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Striking as I don't think that conveys what I want to get across. The disagreement is in how they view tagging: Praxidicae wanted to throw out the article; Ritchie wanted to try and salvage it. That is generally what the disagreement in their philosophies is over. Unfortunately, Ritchie can often not "agree to disagree" and let other people operate how they see fit within the bounds of policy. This incident just furthered that dispute. --Rschen7754 01:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
      • You cited, specifically, that "does not interact very well with editors when he does not agree" is an, or the, underlying issue. In this instance, he saw an article tagged for deletion, and spent 2 hours rewriting it. He's not blocked because he "didn't interact well" with the nominator. He's blocked because he validly removed the deletion tags, which was purported to be a "revert". Obviously that's not what a revert is. The supposed underlying issue of "not interacting well" is obviously not the issue, because there was no other interaction other than the purely valid procedural one he's blocked for. And, there's no reason to assume bad faith, because there's no pattern of not respecting the IBAN. So, I can only interpret this as an unfair and unreasonable assumption of bad faith. In spite of the fact that this is an Arbitrator blocking a user for an Arbitration Enforcement block, the blocker did not seek Arbcom's input to make it an Arbcom block, nor did they seek admins' input to make it a legitimate AE block, in spite of the fact that the IBAN was controversial and the rationale was dubious at best. None of this is normal. It's universally considered to be poor form to be the one to action a sanction you secured, even at AE. And yet some Arb is unilaterally enforcing a dubious violation of a dubious sanction that they oversaw implemented, particularly for a long-serving administrator in good standing. And yet, they saw no problem whatsoever with a heavy-handed, unilateral, highly-dubious block. This is so wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
        • because there's no pattern of not respecting the IBAN that is highly debateable. And yes, it is a very innocent edit, if you don't look at the context. --Rschen7754 01:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock We probably shouldn't be using Ibans as bludgeons to punish editors for accidental, inconsequential, technical violations made during normal constructive editing. Ritchie improved an article and removed a maintenance tags. PUNISH HIM! ~Awilley (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock This is a rather unbelievable way to apply an IBAN. Regardless of the behavioral problems between these two editors, I think it's a stretch to even consider this an "interaction" - Ritchie rewrote an article, incidentally removing a CSD tag that no longer applies. Apparently removing the CSD tag is the thing that got him into trouble, since it was counted as a "revert" - so should he have left the CSD tag in place even though it no longer applied? Or should he have deleted the article per the CSD tag and then re-created it? Am I correct that neither one of those would have triggered this one week block? ST47 (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

ST47 I certainly can't speak for Arbcom, either as a group or as individuals. Still, having followed this fairly closely, I wouldn't be surprised if deleting the article would trigger a block as well. The reasoning perhaps being "if the article is deleted, then the CSD tag is deleted, hence a breech of IBAN" Just guessing though — Ched (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

*brain explodes* ST47 (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll take "sorry" as, 'I won't do it again', so unblock time served. The block is good, it says 'Ritchie be more careful'. It cant be doubted that such close-shaves need to be avoided in the future and should have been generally avoided. And it just can't be true that experienced editors cannot figure out a way to replace an article marked for cvio (or get a new article in the deleted place) without editing the same page (that's what uninvovled admins are for, to move things around while mopping up). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Snow support unblock. Clear case of WP:IAR. Are we not allowed to make clear improvements to articlespace without accidentally violating interaction bans? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• support unblock as this was not just a "revert" but a fixing of the problem. IAR certainly applies here as Ritchie333 was improving Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Is 3 hours an appropriate amount of time for a discussion to run before overturning a block? SQL^{Query me!} 02:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Completely regardless of whether one endorses the block or the unblock (or both), it does seems a bit too swift (I think it was closer to 4 hours) to call it a “clear and substantial of uninvolved editors” after 230 minutes. Moving too quickly and unblocking despite the apparent endorsement of the block by other sitting arbitrators (though I assume that is not considered a formal “committee review”) is particularly dangerous in this case specifically (as the complaint may escalate “beyond community puview” leading to a FramBan redux; and while I hope it doesn’t, it would presumably now be implemented as a global and permanent ban), and generally speaking, a substantial portion of the community would have been sleeping or otherwise offline during such a brief window. –xeno^talk 06:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: An IBAN is an IBAN. I will stretch a bit, AGF, and presume that Ritchie is telling the truth. In which case, they should have self-reverted and let another admin handle the processing of the CSD tags. The locus of the ArbCom case with the two IBANned parties surrounding Ritchie's handling of CSD tags and is what resulted in the IBAN, so I see that it is clearly a violation of the IBAN. Again, AGFing, if they had self-reverted once they had realized the problem, I would be more understanding. However, if we let every editor that violates an IBAN say "Ooops, sorry, didn't realize it!", then it would undermine the IBAN system. I feel that Ritchie should accept the week block and simply be more cautious next time, and everyone moves on, as they did make a mistake and people make mistakes. We should all accept responsibility for our mistakes and learn from them. I am also very concerned that Thryduulf decided to unblock without allowing hardly any time for a community discussion on the matter. A "snow unblock" after just a few hours is highly inappropriate in the case of any block of a controversial nature, especially one that is AE. Waggie (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So they should have been allowed to self revert the removal of the tags, even though it would have been procedural. Fine. I agree. But he wasn’t. He was blocked for a week instead. Even though he said it was an honest mistake, which suggests that he would have self-reverted if given the chance. But the blocking admin still refused to unblock. That’s why we’re here. It’s not that Ritchie wasn’t open to apologizing. He did apologize, and acknowledge that it was a mistake. It’s just the blocking admin’s refusal to assume good faith as to why we’re here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Swarm, I'm not saying they should have been allowed to self revert after being called out for it. I'm saying they should have self-reverted as soon as they realized their mistake, but they continued. I agree that the blocking admin isn't buying Ritchie's apology, but I am choosing not to characterize that choice either way. The bottom line is that the IBAN was violated and the circumstances surrounding that violation are a little too close to the reasons for the IBAN that I'm not willing to give them a pass on it (whether AGFing or not). I do understand that the ultimate result was an improvement to an article that even Ritchie says could have gone either way (delete/keep), but it wasn't required that Ritchie himself perform that task, per WP:NODEADLINE. Waggie (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Thryduulf's unblock. Everyone evaluating this situation should keep in mind that Ritchie improved the encylopedia with the work he did on that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen328, I don't think that the core issue is with improving the encyclopedia. At the end of the day that's why we are all here, right? The issue is with reviewing a CSD placed by an editor to which one is ibanned from. IMO, if Ritchie had waited for another admin to handle the CSD, then improved the article (or, perhaps improved the article without touching the tag, and left a note on the talkpage!), I don't think we would be here. SQL^{Query me!} 03:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• SQL, I believe that every discussion about the fairness of a sanction on an editor should take into consideration whether the editing behavior improved the encylopedia or not. It is commonplace that overtly disruptive editors who set out to damage the encylopedia for fun get escalating warnings or much shorter blocks than one week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that there's a lot of blocks made that you would consider overturning then, such as breaches of topic bans and abuse of multiple accounts. --Rschen7754 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block Despite the IBAN being put into place, Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums. I think this clearly demonstrates why these two individuals need to stay away from each other given the original complaint about Ritchie following Praxidicae around Wikipedia and removing CSD tags. When comparing other active editors at CSD, it was apparent that Ritchie has been specifically targeting Praxidicae's contributions. We (as a community) routinely issue topic bans and strictly enforce them regardless of the merits of the person's edit to the topic area. We do so beyond the benefits of the contribution because overall IBANs and topic bans are not about the quality of the edits. They are about conduct. In our open letter to the WMF, we resolved to address conduct related matters on Wikipedia. I intend to adhere to that commitment. I cautiously accept Ritchie's commitment to avoid this situation in future. Mkdw ^talk 05:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock with caveats. I see no reason not to accept Ritchie333's explanation that it was an accident, though an ideal response would probably have been to self-revert once they realized they'd violated their IBAN. Certainly I can see Mkdw's point (and the point of several other people above) that the whole purpose of the IBAN was clearly to prevent Ritchie333 from doing exactly what they did here - a CSD is not simply a request for improvement, it's a suggestion that the article should be deleted; and even with improvement tags, I think it's fair to say that the judgment that "this has been sufficiently improved to answer the original objection" is an interaction of the sort that was specifically intended to be prevented, since such decisions are very often contested by the person who placed the tag - would anyone accept an editor "fixing" a POV problem that was POV-tagged by someone they have an IBAN with stemming from disagreements along the axis of that exact POV dispute, then removing the tag? It's a clear interaction even if they can say they're just doing what the other person wanted. In fact, with a two-way IBAN the situation becomes even more absurd - can the user who placed the tag object that their concern was not properly addressed, reinstating the tag? How could they do so without violating the IBAN? With that in mind, the argument that an IBAN shouldn't keep people from salvaging CSDed articles amounts to saying that the IBAN shouldn't have been placed (I don't know enough about the background to comment on that.) But. IBANs, like all such bans and administrative measures, are preventative and not punitive. The problem, as I understand it, was that Ritchie333 was following them around reverting all their CSDs, or something roughly along those lines. There is no indication that Ritchie333 has returned to that behavior or is likely to return to that behavior, so under the circumstances I think it's fine to write this off as a mistake with a warning to be more cautious in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn block - Seven days were a horrible call, for arguably the first violation and the optics of an arbitrator esp. PMC, who was too highly invested in the episode from the start, executing it were more horrible. The hostility that followed from her end, could have been easily spared with, as well. And then, am not convinced about the IBan breach, either. ∯WBG^converse 07:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Moot now as the block is overturned but since I said it on ACN, I'll repeat it here. Seen though the optics of additional information, I absolutely understand why PMC blocked Ritchie. There was consensus among the committee that he had overstepped the line with regards to following Praxidicae's edits - especially around CSD. It was also clear that both parties wanted to stop interacting with each other. As such, the committee implemented an IBAN, the same IBAN that had not quite gained community consensus at AN previously. Since then, Ritchie has referred to Praxidicae multiple times, leading to the first block - those are IBAN violations, plain and simple. Since his return, he has stopped referring to Praxidicae, but he has been making comments about her on an off wiki forum, ones that cross a line based on information Arbcom has received (and Ritchie is aware of). So when Ritchie directly reverted Praxidicae, I understand why PMC has blocked.
  Personally, I believe this should have been passed to AE - I don't like Arbs enforcing their own decisions, but what's done is done. Worm^TT(talk) 08:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block, endorse unblock per my reasons on R333's talk page. I, like RE above, also question the provenance of the Iban. ——SerialNumber54129 08:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I thought that Ritchie had "quit" the project some months back? I guess not. Seems a very quick turnaround to unblock here, despite the clear breach of the IBAN. I wonder if non-admins would have got the same outcome? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: the clear consensus of the discussion is that it wasn't a "clear" breach of the iban that justified an immediate week-long block. There is not even consensus whether it was technically a revert or not. Whether a non-admin would have been treated the same way is unknowable but likely given that almost nobody in any of the discussions has mentioned Ritchie333 being an admin as part of their rationale (for supporting or opposing either the block or the unblock) and it played absolutely no part in my decision. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock, talked about that on several pages including Ritchie's and my own, can supply links if so desired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Praxidicae tagged a problematic article, Ritchie fixed the article in line with the tags. That's cooperation. The block was an example of the blind authoritarian enforcement mentality that's making Arbitration Enforcement so nasty these days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

One way interaction ban to keep Alex Shih from hounding Arbcom, functionaries and admins...or what?

• For those that might not be familiar, Alex Shih is a disgruntled, former Arbcom member who resigned under a cloud and relinquished his oversight and checkuser positions for misuse. Originally, Arbcom had allowed him to save face but Alex misrepresented the truth while running for the office of steward at meta. This prompted Arbcom to elaborate that his departure was "under controversial circumstances". Alex withdrew from the steward election and an Arbcom case was opened and suspended based on Alex's apparent retirement. The case would be considering desysopping Alex and this was done as a temporary injunction. Unless Alex requests the case be reopened, his desysopping will be permanent and he could run for RfA again.

• The only problem is he didn't really retire despite hanging the "retired" sign out. He hangs on to complain against and hound the Arbitration committee members and other functionaries while he does not edit article space or assist other editors. He is being vengeful. I posted at the Arbcom noticeboard today with some of the evidence and stated my intention to block as NOTHERE. Based on Floquenbeam's advice, I am bringing the matter here for a discussion about the best remedy. TonyBallioni had suggested "a ban from editing anything other than mainspace and associated talk pages" and perhaps that is the best answer. We don't allow NOTHERE editors to harass other editors so is a one way interaction ban to keep Alex Shih from hounding Arbcom, functionaries and admins in order? I invite you to review his contribs since the suspended case and recommend solutions.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Alex notified.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'd support any sanction, including Berean Hunter's original suggestion of a NOTHERE block or it's equivalent, but also a TBAN from anything outside of mainspace . Alex's modus operandi since he was elected to ArbCom was demanding perfect accountability to the iota for all other administrators, a type of accountability that no person could have because they are human, while also believing himself above accountability. I'm sure anyone who wanted to could find more, but here are some of the low lights of his last two years on the project:

1. Threatening Coffee (diff), while knowing private details about him. While this wasn't a great situation to begin with, Alex made it unquestionably worse. He then give a four word reply when questioned on it. He doesn't respond past that, even when questioned by multiple users.
2. This ridiculous AN thread about There'sNoTime, that he started to promote "feedback" after TNT had called Alex out at WP:CUOS2018 for comments about me. The precursor was this thread on TNT's talk where Alex was invited to reflect on legitimate criticism of him. Alex didn't like it so he took it to AN.
3. This blatant violation of the CheckUser policy, where he misused access to the CheckUser tool to run a check on an opposer in an RfA he was one of the nominators on. This is pretty much the definition of using the tool to Exert political or social control, which is one of the few things clearly spelled out as forbidden, even if other grounds exist, in both the local and global CU policies.
4. This pot stirring edit in the middle of the Fram case, when the arbs were understandably trying to sort out what was likely the most difficult Arb case in Wikipedia history.
5. Lying at the steward election about why they left ArbCom.
6. This statement that was a pure deflection from the issues that they lied to the community and attempted to become a steward after being removed from ArbCom for cause (or resigning when it was clear what was going to happen).

These were the easy diffs to find, and represent enough of a trend that I don't think any more are needed before I can analyze them without him accusing me of violating policy.

During his time on the committee, I was appalled by the way Alex acted because they were all similar to this: he would constantly criticize others; expecting them to be impeccable, but would never respond to any criticism himself, or would provide non-answers and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of being policy violators, as we see today at WT:ACN. This is not just a "new Alex" that appeared after ArbCom revealed why he shouldn't be elected a steward. This is the Alex we had since we elected him to ArbCom, and I fully believe the community should deal with this as a long-term issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• While retired editors are certainly welcome to return and participate in the community and it's governance, I do find this situation disturbing. I've been following the discussions at WT:ACN and various other talk pages and it's clear from Alex's contributions that they have quite a bit of frustration with Wikipedia's governance. I feel it is OK to offer constructive criticism, but there seems to be nearly continuous negative commentary such as: accusations of attempts to avoid community scrutiny, and directly accusing a sitting arb of not understanding how AE works, accusations of violating ARBPOL, accusations of misleading, and "the sheer arrogance expressed in the terrible nomination statement (that are acknowledged by some in the supporting columns as well) is appalling, especially since the candidate appears to have no interest in any introspection.". While I respect his opinions and concerns, I do not find the manner in which they are presented to be constructive or collaborative. Alex Shih would you please reconsider this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Waggie (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE block or any sanction if an indef does not have consensus. The behavior is toxic and very unhelpful. Other websites are available for sniping. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse an indef block/ban pending either a full Arbcom case, or a formal and final desysopping. Alex was allowed to resign from Arbcom without penalty in spite of his having abused his position. Rather than cut his losses to save face even in spite of such egregious special treatment, he had the audacity to lie to the global community, and run for stewardship, an even higher position. When the scandal broke, he supposedly "retired", but continued lurking in the shadows, trash talking myself and others off-wiki. I've been concerned with his return without facing the music, to say the least, and I'm shocked that Arbcom intends on just letting it slide. It was obvious that the case was suspended procedurally because he would not participate (not rejected), and that it should be taken up again if and when he returned. The bizarre free pass that he didn't "re-request adminship" is insane, and if what little is left of this Arbcom is checked out to the degree that they're just letting previous responsibility's slip through the cracks, then we need to step in until we have a new Arbcom that will do their job. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Swarm, to be fair, the intent of the motion when it passed was to allow Alex a chance to return and quietly edit articles or something of the like if he didn't want a full case. A few arbs commented as such at the time. They wanted him to get the option of a case or not since they were already desysoping him. The problem is that he didn't return to be productive. He returned basically to attack people he dislikes. That's something the community can deal with without ArbCom, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It appears the intent was obviously a formal case, in lieu of which a desysop would be the default if he did not return within a year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems unprecedented to just allow a user to elect to never acknowledge a pending case in exchange for an aborted retirement. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
      • See motion. Worm and Silk Tork supported the wording to allow a return without a case if wanted. Like I said above, I think it's a long term trend and deserves sanctions on its own, but yeah, he definitely didn't go with the "quiet return" route. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
        • My understanding of the motion certainly wasn't that it was conditional on Alex retiring. It was a recognition that a) the case was going to be primarily about Alex's admin bit, and that's moot of he voluntarily resigned it and b) we couldn't have a fair case if Alex didn't participate. It was extremely unlikely he'd be banned at that time. The motion was worded to allow him a quiet return, as SilkTork and WTT explicitly said in their support. At the time, I thought that if Alex went away for a bit and calmed down, then returned to explain himself in the case, there was a good chance that he could keep the bit and go back to being a productive admin. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have happened. As always, we can open/reopen a case on Alex being NOTHERE if the community is unable to find a solution – that's our job. But it would be much simpler if this could be settled here at AN, given Alex's complicated history with ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything here that suggests ongoing serious disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • People with a chip on their shoulder who use Wikipedia to snipe at their opponents is exactly what WP:NOTHERE is for. It's not satisfactory to say who cares because people should just suck it up—the diffs provided by TonyBallioni point out what has been evident for a while, namely that Alex Shih is NOTHERE and should be removed to reduce the toxic influence. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I am making this comment in my capacity as an individual arbitrator. The motion was intended to address the fact that Alex was still in a trusted position, an administrator, and would either need to be desysopped for cause, or undergo a full case. Should Alex return to editing (as an editor without the administrative tool set), I personally felt any action or sanction against him could be made by the community as he would effectively be considered a regular non-admin editor -- and therefore should any block or site ban be implemented, it would be a community one (as opposed an ArbCom one). If the community wants to refer this to ArbCom, I would probably accept it given the history of the situation. Mkdw ^talk 05:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  I echo Mkdw's comments. Arbcom took action by confronting Alex with the issues while he was on the committee, he resigned from all arbcom and CUOS. We felt that was sufficient at the time. When he applied for steward, we went made a statement regarding the history and the community pushed for a desysop. The committee opened the case and Alex retired.

  The committee's next action was to desysop by motion, in lieu of a case. Alex could return within a year and face the music and may not have lost his sysop right. I find it unlikely that further sanctions would have been applied to him beyond desysopping at the time. And so, if Alex wanted to return to editing as a normal non-sysop, then he can do. If the community is unhappy with his behaviour then he does not have any special protection - normal AN procedures apply. If someone feels that it needs to be handled by Arbcom, then a new case request should be opened. There, depending on what happens, the committee could open a full case, which would have a wider scope than the suspended case and could close the suspended one as part of opening a new one. Worm^TT(talk) 08:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Question - was there any coordination in the creation of this post? It took Tony 23 minutes to find all those diffs and compose a long ish first response. I don’t support any sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ernie, it apparent from the discussion at WT:ACN that this thread was going to happen. Waggie (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn’t seen that thread. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think Alex Shih's behavior has been so egregiously poor that he warrants indefinitely blocking: I believe in rope, as I've said before, and this is an applicable opportunity. In this particular case, the ArbCom's intention that he could "quietly return to editing articles" hasn't happened; but a t-ban from WP: space could channel Alex's energies productively. If he can't stick to the topic ban, then, as they say, the law— such as it is— must take its course. ——SerialNumber54129 09:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's a great shame to see someone so respected such as Alex going from a net positive to a net negative like that, I wished they came back, stuck 2 fingers up to Arbcom if they so wished, and returned to productive editing,

Anyway I don't believe their behaviour warrants indeffing not at all, I'd support an IBAN tho in the hope it might get them back to doing what they're great at. –Davey2010^Talk 09:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)