Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 19 August 2019 (OneClickArchiver archived Edit review to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive312). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 8 17 5 30
    TfD 0 0 14 1 15
    MfD 0 0 3 0 3
    FfD 0 0 2 0 2
    RfD 0 1 20 3 24
    AfD 0 0 0 2 2

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (35 out of 7822 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    False or misleading statements by Donald Trump 2024-06-10 02:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Modern American politics. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem
    Carly Rae Jepsen 2024-06-10 00:56 2025-06-10 00:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Discospinster
    Al-Sitt 2024-06-09 21:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Hamis Kiggundu 2024-06-09 21:15 2025-06-09 21:15 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Aditi Rao Hydari 2024-06-09 20:37 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-09 20:33 2024-06-12 20:33 edit Persistent vandalism - modification to originally intended level. Amortias
    1994 South African general election 2024-06-09 16:13 2024-06-11 16:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Valereee
    1999 South African general election 2024-06-09 16:11 2024-06-11 16:11 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Valereee
    2004 South African general election 2024-06-09 16:10 2024-06-11 16:10 edit,move edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts Valereee
    2009 South African general election 2024-06-09 16:09 2024-06-11 16:09 edit,move edit warring by (auto)confirmed accounts Valereee
    2014 South African general election 2024-06-09 16:05 2024-06-11 16:05 edit Edit-warring over infobox Valereee
    2019 South African general election 2024-06-09 15:54 2024-06-11 15:54 edit,move Persistent edit warring from non-EC accounts; please discuss Valereee
    Nir Oz 2024-06-09 03:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    List of ongoing armed conflicts 2024-06-09 03:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Anarchyte
    Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 2024-06-09 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Russian Air Force 2024-06-09 01:56 2024-06-16 01:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; follow up Robertsky
    IDF Caterpillar D9 2024-06-09 01:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Front for the Liberation of the Golan 2024-06-08 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Lok Sabha 2024-06-08 21:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: wp:ARBIND Ymblanter
    Template:Timeline-event 2024-06-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2530 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    2024 Nuseirat rescue operation 2024-06-08 16:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Om Parvat 2024-06-08 05:48 2024-12-08 05:48 edit,move Arbitration enforcement revise to ec upon further review. Robertsky
    Skibidi Toilet 2024-06-08 04:14 2024-12-26 20:45 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Black Sea Fleet 2024-06-08 03:56 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Vikrant Adams 2024-06-08 03:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case
    Trinamool Congress 2024-06-08 00:47 indefinite edit,move continued disruption by autoconfirmed accounts; raise semi to ECP Daniel Case
    Drone warfare 2024-06-07 14:20 2025-06-07 14:20 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    International Solidarity Movement 2024-06-07 14:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-07 12:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    User:Aoidh/ 2024-06-06 22:59 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Aoidh
    Al-Sardi school attack 2024-06-06 20:53 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic Malinaccier
    Dance of Flags 2024-06-06 17:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Indian National Congress 2024-06-06 17:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Telugu Desam Party 2024-06-06 17:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Agent Galahad 2024-06-06 02:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate

    Unblock request by RussianDewey

    There is no consensus to lift the ban. Whereas the number of supporters slightly outweighs the number of opposers, it is not sufficient to call it consensus, and the support arguments are not stronger than the oppose arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RussianDewey is asking to be unblocked:

    I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked.

    I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet.

    I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

    I've already run a check and found nothing. After this request sat in the unblock queue for around three weeks, taking it to the community was suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Leaning support per clean Check, WP:ROPE, etc. It appears that he edits for the most part in good faith, and I don't see anything too terribly damning to oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I get all teary-eyed (which I nearly did) and endorse unblock, the original block was for a "a battleground mentality and inability to collaborate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#RussianDewey. Even though it's been four years, and RussianDewey has professed his undying love for Wikipedia, I'd like to see this addressed. In struggling through his talk pages, I found that it's been said that his very first edit was combative. What has changed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      endorse unblock-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jack Sebastian: The most recent sock blocked was User talk:Alexis Ivanov for harrassment and personal attacks
    • His first edit was this. I'm not sure to what extent it's normal for one to first edit on another user's talk page, but while I do see some zeal in the diff I don't see anything too combative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • John M Wolfson,Thanks. That takes care of that.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That was in March. By June 9, things had changed.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      So intimidation is how you work. I will not be intimated by a rat, try being civil next time. Hmm, that does throw a wrench into the works. I still lean support per ROPE, but I would not oppose a reblock if he does in fact "hang himself", as it were. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I stand corrected. It was the 21st Dennis Brown called it the "very first" in the ANI thread so long ago.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I have asked him (by which I meant RussianDewey, not DB} to respond on his talk page.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You're kidding!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The edit was summary "bye". QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. I have seen years ago no wiki tags added to articles and other pages. There was a software glitch years ago. It looks like RussianDewey believed that admins were badging them and that escalated the drama. Things might of been different if admins were more understanding. The edits are overwhelming done in good faith. I can't say that about a few others who have not even received a single warning from a Wikipedia administrator for adding clear-cut WP:BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Still trying to fight your unrelated personal content dispute by all means. I feel somehow disgusted by that.--TMCk (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck off-topic borderline personal attack. Take it out side or get a room. Or ANI  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - People can reform, the user has had time to think about things. Second chance deserved. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Has the user been indef blocked before and come back to demonstrate the same behavior that got them blocked? I'm a huge believer in redemption, but how many bites at the apple should RussianDewey get? I also wonder if the user has been editing here anyway, under the radar as a sock, and wants unfettered access again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Apparently NRP already [ran] a check and found nothing. Just below where he posted the request.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      See block log. The last block was 2ya for socking. (December, 2016) As you say, it's the stuff that lead to the original indef that has me awaiting apellant's response.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock request for an account with 41 mainspace edits that has been blocked for four years? Seems like an attempt at some tasty trolling given the earlier interaction history and the literary merits of the appeal. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak support per 2nd chance and the length of time that has passed. Appeal seemed sincerely contrite and reflective of a change.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I’m not generally a fan of third chances. They tend to create unblockables. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: Just curious, where does the idea of the third chance creating unblockables come from? Crazynas t 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administrators are as a group cautious, which means that usually a new block after any unblock requires double the disruption for it to stick. My standard for unblocks is similar to what BrownHairedGirl below is saying: does the potential for benefits to the encyclopedia outweigh the known risk for disruption. Once someone gets to their second justified indef, the answer will almost always be No.
      Unblocking at that point means they'll just keep being disruptive and we'll ignore them for 6 months to a year before trying a bunch of sanctions that don't work until they eventually lose interest in the project or get blocked after years of frustration. I'm not going to name any names, but it's something I've noticed over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm seeing a pile of negatives here on the conduct front.
    But what positive things does this person bring to the project of building an encyclopedia? I see a poor command of the English language, which doesn't bode well for work on articles. Even if the new claims of good intent are sincere, they come without one of the pre-requisite skills.
    Sorry, but I think this person has already wasted enough of the community's time. I don't see any point in trying again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the editor is young. Now that they are a bit older they want to come back and contribute. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock. I'd rather give them a try with a known account than throw away the key and have them sneak back with an undisclosed account. Jehochman Talk 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock somewhat strongly, per [1] (Alexis Ivanov being RussianDewey's confirmed sock). After pulling a one-month block for personal attacks, they spent the next month and a bit harassing the blocking administrator, and after being told to knock it off ([2], especially [3]), didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with prominently listing that administrator's name as a vague "future project" on their user page. That earned them a six-month block before being discovered to be a sockpuppet. They have not addressed that incident at all in their unblock request, and I see no reason to believe they've learned anything from it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: This may be a case that requires RussianDewey to work on a different project for a time without incident prior to returning to English Wikipedia. This could be another language variant of Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia), but could also be Commons or Wikisource. In particular, there would need to be evidence not merely of content creation without incident, but interaction with others without incident (i.e., work entirely within walled gardens that's gone under the radar, as is common on some low-traffic projects, would probably not suffice). As BHG notes, there are only 41 mainspace edits on this account, and all of those are in a two-month period in 2015. If we saw some more work elsewhere demonstrating a change, then perhaps those reticent to support an unblock would be more convinced. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 4 years since anything substantial other than talk page contributions? Wants another chance? Says he's learned his lesson? Let's give him a chance to prove us wrong. Should he prove us wrong, instant permaban. Edits would be easy to undo, so I don't see that being a significant problem. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral but the comments from Ivanvector give me pause. I give weight to the vote of administrators who have access to tools that I do not. I also appreciate that Swarm supports another chance with a zero tolerance expectation. I believe the editor has showed contrition. However BrownHairedGirl's assessment of the edit history is alarming. Tough decision for the closer. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • boldly moving comment to right sectionI would give him/her another chance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per the reasoning of BrownHairedGirl.Krow750 (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - last chance, I'm a believer. Also, @Mendaliv, Pudeo, and Buffs:, you refer to 41 edits / 4 years, but this editor's later sock account racked up over 3,500 edits until November 2016. [4] starship.paint (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you think that it's a bit odd to cite an editor's contributions while socking as an argument in support of their being unblocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken: - I merely want to present that: to imply that this person has only 41 edits is misleading. We should be considering this from the standpoint that this person has 3,500+ edits. Yes, this editor socked, an offense, and both accounts were blocked. I believe in another chance at redemption. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starship.paint - Imho those 3,500 edits should not count as they were made from a sock account (Would you count the edits of a sockmaster who's ran 5 accounts as a justification for allowing them to stay? ofcourse you wouldn't - same should apply here - Sock accounts should count for nothing.) –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock per the user's own reasoning: "I know I did Sockpuppet activity...I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION...and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet."[5] I am concerned about this attitude. It's a time sink to gather diffs and write up SPI reports because "passionate" sockmasters flout policy, and lack concern for the time, energy, and well-being of their fellow Wikipedians. From what I see, his reasoning about why he won't sock again is primarily that he'll probably get caught; not that he's firmly opposed to violating policy. Users who think their passion for posting on the 'pedia is more important than WP policy, and more valuable than working admins' time, are causing burnout among the small number of admins who are actually doing the work in these areas. I'm not convinced unblocking would be a net positive to the community or the project. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock - Socking is not "counter productive", socking is a danger to the project and an affront to the community, a giant middle finger. Also "socks will always be caught" is palpably untrue. There are socks posting on this very page, and getting away with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock - Only 41 edits to articlespace and the block list as long as my arm really wants me to oppose .... however all for we know the editor might have indeed changed their ways and might well becoming a good editor, The socking comment is a concern although I would put that down to the fact their not fluent in English (see below), Last chance - If they fuck it up indef with no more chances. –Davey2010Talk 13:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies from RussianDewey--

    g/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RussianDewey&type=revision&diff=905724588&oldid=905717472&diffmode=source

    I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

    ]  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Russian Dewey replied thusly (to @BrownHairedGirl:)--

    I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

      Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reality check, please. What you call your "main contribution" was actually only 41 edits to articles. In those 41 edits, I see you asserting several points of fact, but I don't see even one case of you adding a source for anything you write.
    As to your claim to be expanding/creating templates, I see only three edits in template space[6], all to the same template. They consist of you edit-warring, and misusing edit summaries to insult a long-standing productive editor.
    And despite making only small changes to text, you still seem envisage that you will need other editors to clean up after your unsourced edits.
    So I see nothing positive in any of what you did, and plenty of problem even in those article/template edits. It is clear that you were a significant net negative even before you began the battleground conduct and the socking, and even before you abused the sock to waste so much of other people's time.
    With nothing at all on the positive side of the balance sheet, and a long list of problems on the negative side, I can only say a firm "np". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies from RussianDewey to @Beyond My Ken: and @CorbieVreccan: belatedly carried over by -- Dlohcierekim
    In reply to "Beyond My Ken", I disagree, Socks will always get caught especially the amount of detailed articles I work with, I want to start in a legal manner and work my way up to gain the community to trust. I agree that socking is "is a danger to the project and an affront to the community" that's the whole point of this. RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    In response to "CorbieV", you say ""passionate" sockmasters" I think you paint me in a negative light, I'm not passionate about being a sockpuppet, I'm passionate about contributing to Wikipedia that's very different. Also I think you got my reasoning wrong, I recommend you read it again, I have two reasoning, one moral and one legality/punishment, the moral one is I want to do things the right way and the legality one is that sockpuppets at the end will always get caught and punished. I also never said my passion for Wikipedia comes before my respect for the WP Policy. I clearly stated "I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians" that includes following the Five pillars,Policies and guidelines and the Ethical Codes RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    -- Dlohcierekim 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] 
    Support He seems sincere.

    Sincerely, Humorous. (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing

    I am about to close this thread as no consensus to unblock (currently 9-7 not counting neutrals, some unblock supports are weak, arguments are roughly same weight), but will wait for a day or to in case somebody wanted to comment but was postponing, or someone read other comments and changed their mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article

    I'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, believed that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more" and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable," had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.

    The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not specific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [7], [8] and [9] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by closer,

    • It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
    • The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
    • The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
      • MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
      • MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
      • WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
      • In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
      • Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP: [The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.[10]
    • The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
      • It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure: ... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
      • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states ... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs. However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.
    This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should "make readers want to learn more". That MEK was once designated as a terrorist group by UN, UK and US and that it's a Cult (as many experts believe), is something at least three users said were interesting and vital. So, why should such a vital info be sent down the lead?
    As a user closing the discussion you had to assess the consensus by addressing all the guideline-based arguments, which I think you failed to do. --Mhhossein talk 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments

    • Revert closure and topic ban Cinderella157 - This is the second poorly executed RfC closure by User:Cinderella157 that I've come across in the last few days (the first was this one, which also prompted a closure review directly above this thread). I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it seems like a pattern to me. Either way, it's becoming clear to me that Cinderella157 doesn't understand a few key things about closing controversial consensus discussions:
    1. These discussions often take place over a long period of time, and involve a large number of editors. A lot of time and effort goes into these discussions; participants feel invested in the discussion. To close such a discussion with a very brief and unclear closing statement can be very disappointing to the dozens of participants, and it represents a lack of respect for the time and effort that was put into thoroughly discussing the topic at hand. In short, these kinds of contentious discussions deserve a thoughtful and clear closure.
    2. Even when a discussion ends in no consensus, the closing statement can still provide an important summation of the salient points of the discussion. It can point out aspects of the discussion where agreement was found, and other aspects where it was not. In many cases, this closing statement serves as a historical record of the overall results of the discussion, and future discussions will often point to this historical record as a way to review the path that consensus has taken on this topic over time. To close such a discussion with a brief and unclear closing statement obscures this historical record, making it more likely that future discussions will rehash the same points rather than moving the discussion along and getting it closer to a compromise consensus.
    I don't have the time or interest to study Cinderella157's contribution history to see if he has been closing many other discussions in the same manner. If he has, I would support a topic ban on Cinderella157, preventing him from closing any discussions. Even if these two closures are outliers, I would still encourage Cinderella157 to avoid closing discussions and find other tasks instead.
    I'm also not sure I agree with the result of the closure either. I briefly scanned the discussion and my hunch is that I'd lean towards finding consensus for the "Second" argument (opposite of Cinderella's closure) at best, or closing it as "no consensus" at worst. If anything, at least the voters supporting the "Second" result actually provide relevant guidelines and policies that support their decision. Not a single voter on the "Last" side provided any relevant guidelines or policies in support of their position; they simply expressed their personal preference for the order of the lead. Cinderella157 writes that he finds the argument for a chronologically-ordered lead to be "compelling", but provides no explanation for why he finds it more compelling than the policy-based rationales on the other side. He even admits in this very discussion above that there are no policies or guidelines that require the lead of an article to describe the subject in chronological order. If I were the closing admin, I would have likely closed this discussion much differently. I'd recommend that the closure is reverted, and an uninvolved administrator is asked to provide a real closure. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind ye, two crap closures does not make a crap closer: with no pattern established, I suggest that a topic ban would be overkill to say the least. If a pattern does emerge this can and should be revisited, but until then, no cause. ——SerialNumber54129 17:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither the close review nor the proposal subsequently made have garnered any particular interest and a considerable amount of time has past since either were put forward. Such a proposal (and other comments made with it about this particular close) should be made with more than than the acknowledged "scant" consideration given. For the record, the other close review referred to is now archived here. My closes may have been brief but there is little space given by the close templates to give a fully reasoned rationale for a close (see my response above). I have, however, been quite prepared to give a fuller rationale for a close, when asked. If anyone sees any substance in either the review or proposal, I could respond in detail (noting I will be away for about a week) but otherwise, I think it is time to put this to rest. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure

    An RfC[11] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.
    I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [12] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [13], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [14], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [15] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [16] [17] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

    Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

    Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [18]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

    I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

    Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.
    And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.
    If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author
    Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [21] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your altering of the header[22] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

    The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

    source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

    I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

    I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

    In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

    source

    As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My determination would be as follows:
    • A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
    • B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
    • C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.
    I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[23], Guardian[24], NY Mag[25], Vox[26], and Intercept[27]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[28] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[29]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

    Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

    It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[30]

    I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

    If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

    As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

    TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project

    Hello all,

    I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.

    Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.

    The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow, they're really talking about retiring editing by IP addresses. Never thought I'd see that happen. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really what it's about. You'll get a different bunch of random strings for a username instead of an IP address. Think "IP addresses without the ability to effectively block them". Talk page is over there... -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not really what it's about. Seems to me it's exactly what it's about. Using privacy as a fig leaf, we're all but being told that we'll no longer see IP addresses for people editing anonymously. Instead there'll probably be the equivalent of an automatic checkuser every single time someone edits anonymously (e.g., it'll look for a cookie as well) and then the edits will get assigned to some random string of characters. I can see no reasonable justification for this absolute waste of money. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The talk page is on meta. Please give your input there. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          Mendaliv, Retiring editing by IP addresses presumably means that unregistered editors are no longer allowed to edit. As that is not what is contemplated, I'd say it is not "exactly what it's about". Only in a hyper-technical can can we say that if non registered editors can still edit but their IP address will not be shown - then we won't have editing by IP addresses. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I went to comment, but after seeing that negative assessments were castigated as "not welcome here", I deleted my comment. The whole idea is stupid, and that you can't actually say that it is stupid on the talk page is even more stupid. I thought that my opinion of the WMF couldn't get any lower, but I was wrong -- what a group of bozos who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to edit. We need a wholesale makeover of the WMF to people who understand what it's like in the trenches. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had that problem on meta some years ago and I don't think I've been back. It is a backslapper's echo chamber - (P.A removed ). - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, that's why I don't plan on going over there to comment on this "idea". I think we might need to adjourn to VP to get an RfC declaring the community's opposition to this latest usurpation of our local governance. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the anti-vandalism (and anti-COI, etc…) tools are improved and automated enough, such that administrators are no longer needed, then this could be a good idea. Step 2 would be improving and automating the editing tools, such that editors are no longer needed. Κσυπ Cyp   05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you liked WP:FRAM, you'll love this. This has all the hallmarks of a WMF sham consultation - where the outcome has already been predetermined, dissent or being told "that's worse than useless" (which is what the proposal is) is not tolerated and the choice of a venue such that the out of touch WMF snowflakes get the feedback that they want to hear, not the feedback that they need to hear. If this garbage hits this project, the instigators should all be community banned - we regularly ban volunteer editors who do a lot less damage to the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I encourage Beyond My Ken to go back to that page. I also encourage Mendaliv and Sitush to go to that page as well, as I did. Calmly, and using persuasive arguments based on logic and reason, explain why this is a bad idea, and propose alternative solutions. That would be a great service. Calling it "stupid" there and venting here is of very little value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cullen, I would -- and I believe I am capable of mounting a cogent argument -- if I had any reason at all to believe that the proposers of the project are open not to suggestions for tweaking it, but listening to the reasons to completely abandon it. I do not think that is the case, it is much too connected to the (mistaken) ideological heart of the WMF, that it must allow anonymous editing. The whole idea flows from that preconception, and if they're not willing to abandon IP editing in the face of the evidence that it has done almost immeasurable harm to their projects, then I see no hope that they would listen to any argument to dump this god-forsaken idea. No, I'm afraid it will have to be someone less cynical then myself who makes that argument, I see the whole thing as a fait accompli, and their interest in criticism as purely superficial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, this. You can see it by reading the "impact report". The need for this is presumed from the outset and all the counterarguments are presumed to be the equivalent of "old men whining about the good old days". I'm not going to demean myself by wasting my time on people like that, and I encourage you all to do something more productive with your time than more failed attempts to "work within the system". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I truly believe that the two of you are failing for some reason to take a very simple step to make our opposition crystal clear. But I respect your personal autonomy and so instead, I encourage anyone else reading this thread to go to that page and speak out on behalf of the English Wikipedia editors who fight 24/7/365 against vandalism, trolling, defamation and disinformation. This is really important. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, it would be good to hide IP addresses given the amount of personal information they disclose, which is then kept forever in article histories which can be viewed by anybody (this often includes fairly precise information about where the editor lives, as well as information about who their employer is if they edited from work, etc). The way in which this is done needs to be optimised to support admins though. I'd suggest that people engage with the WMF's consultation process to point this out: the project is at a very early stage, and it looks like all options are on the table. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of which would be a problem if they were simply required to make an account. A supremely easy solution - and one that's not "on the table" because the WMF rejects it unilaterally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't agree more. I've said so in the discussion at Meta and will do so when I'm contacted for follow-up consultations in response to signing up for them. Requiring registered accounts seems to be the best, as well as the simplest, solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, they'd have to change their principles... so? The practical consequences are obvious, and the benefit to the encyclopedia would be immediate. Instead, they choose to bend over backwards with their heads between their legs to keep something that the real world has outgrown many years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of trying to go to all this effort to try and hide IPs .... wouldn't it not be more sensible and more quicker just to do away with IP editing altogether ? ....Yup it goes against their Founding_principles but still IMHO IP editing is long outdated and no longer serves a purpose it once used to serve. –Davey2010Talk 20:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WMF may see your lips moving, but they're not going to hear what you say. They've been deaf to the obvious for a long, long time now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can already see it on the meta talk page. Aside from trying to answer straightforward questions, the WMF staffers are only engaging with with people offering ideas on how to implement this project - they are ignoring people saying not to do it. WMF is giving us the illusion of choice. They'll accept our input on how to mask IPs and how to design new vandalism-fighting tools, but they've already decided that we are getting these features whether we want them or not. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My hope is that they are committed to either getting this right or dumping it, though I suppose the WMF's history doesn't back me up on this. From my impression, they are going to work on this up to a point - that point being a model for increasing anonymous user privacy and improving anti-abuse tools - and if at that point the solution appears non-viable then they won't do it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has the WMF backed away from a WMF originated idea following substantial negative feedback without committing development resources before? But yes, it is becoming increasingly clear that this project is infeasible. MER-C 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been a few times when the WMF has backed away from one of their ideas because it turned out to be infeasible, such as user merging. But I'm not sure if they ever have primarily due to negative feedback. That said, I also do see some value in what they are trying to do -- Tim Starling's comment identifies some limitations to the status quo that might be fix-able as part of this project. I'm curious to see what they end up proposing as a more operationalized solution. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we may need a policy on EN:Wikipedia on what to do if it gets implemented. I would suggest that editing from a masked IP address be prohibited by policy here. But that IP editors who disclose their IP address be permitted. Otherwise it will be similar to editing though open proxies. It should be blockable via an edit filter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think that the WMF would allow us to override them like that? I doubt it, and we'd have another FRAMGATE on our hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been similar situations where brinksmanship on the part of the community has forced them to back down a little (i.e., forced a compromise). Though in practice the Foundation has just slowly gotten its way. I don’t think it’s a valueless exercise insofar as the continued disrespect of the community by the Foundation just adds to the public record of their misdeeds and hopefully can be harnessed to impact their donation streams. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to logged-in only editing would be good for privacy and for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    VPN editing

    It gets worse. This is only one aspect of the latest We Make Failures "strategy" "plan":

    m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Community Health/Recommendations/Safety
    > Supporting anonymizing technologies like TOR, VPNs for the users that would require the support.
    (The next line is the proposal above.) Are the WMF seriously considering force-repealing WP:No open proxies? Who the hell is responsible for this stupidity? MER-C 14:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably along the lines of "provide support for editors in countries like China and Turkey". --Izno (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They have not argued why IP block exempt isn't sufficient. And how does whoever administrating this tell between genuine editors in Turkey and socially engineering LTAs? MER-C 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MER-C, I think machine learning tools could be used for that. Nevertheless, open proxies ban should stay in place, and checkusers should still be able to see IPs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree on that aspect. ML/AI is not a silver bullet, especially in adversarial environments (e.g. algorithmic trading, cybersecurity). Like I said earlier, We Make Failures engineering needs to demonstrate competency in ordinary anti-abuse tools before they move on to one of the hardest aspects of data science. MER-C 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if WMF has technical expertise but it's not that hard (relatively) to create a learning program that can analyse patterns. Should be far better than the old CU tool. Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was actually an interesting research paper presented by a university team at WikiMania that found that editors using Tor (before the individual proxies were blocked) averaged more positive contributions than standard IP editors. They looked at edits over about a 10 year period. They were trying to argue that there are valid reasons why these editors prized privacy and Wikipedia should consider allowing them to edit. Of course, it would make holding editors accountable for their edits a challenge but then many IP editors jump around an IP range. Liz Read! Talk! 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: General sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics

    The community authorizes sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics. I would prefer a broader participation, but this has been open long enough, and the consensus is clear. I will appreciate help documenting these sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The administrator noticeboards have seen a seemingly endless stream of discussions related to conflicts in post-revolutionary Iran, and more specifically, on conflicts between the current government and entities challenging it. Examples include the following; AN, July 2019, ANEW, June 2019, ANI, May 2019, ANI, March 2019, ANI, February 2019, ANEW, November 2018, ANI, September 2018, ANI, August 2018, ANEW, January 2018, ANEW, January 2018, and ANI, November 2017. As a point of interest, the conflicts in this topic are not new; see this discussion from September 2015, for instance. There have also been a series of caustic arguments on various talk pages; see, for instance, the archives at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. These discussions have tended to become bogged down as a result of mudslinging between involved parties: attempts by uninvolved users to intervene are few and far between.

    As a result, very few sanctions have been issued, and disruptive behavior continues unabated. The one exception is that participants at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran were persuaded by El_C to accept the terms of WP:GS; in my opinion, that is too small a set of editors, and too restricted a locus. To curtail further disruption, I believe it is now necessary for admins to be able to issue sanctions, including topic-bans, without extended noticeboard discussions. I am asking for community authorized general sanctions, rather that ARBCOM-authorized discretionary sanctions, because I think the evidence for disruption is clear enough that the community can act on this immediately, and because ARBCOM is a little busy at the moment, and so filing a full case request would be doing the community a disservice.

    I have discussed this previously with El_C, who is one of few admins to have issues sanctions or warnings in this area outside of ANEW, and El_C agrees with me about the necessity for such sanctions. @Dlohcierekim, EdJohnston, Drmies, Black Kite, Nyttend, and Oshwah:, you have also participated in some of these discussions as admins; your thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) @Drmies, Oshwah, EdJohnston, and JzG: Apologies for the bother; I've amended the proposal to post-1978 politics, following a discussion with Nyttend and El_C below; I doubt it makes a difference to you, but procedurally, I think I ought to let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support--I think it's worth a try. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I agree that this is an action that's necessary in order to assure that an acceptable and collaborative editing environment is maintained consistently throughout this topic area. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – This sanction, if approved, could work like WP:GS/SCW which I think are reasonably successful in keeping the topic of the Syrian Civil War under control. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — To reiterate, I think agreement to apply the specific GS to People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which suffered from chronic edit warring, has proven to be quite successful. Slowly but surely progress is being made, whereas edit warring is now approaching zero (note that I did try to suggest applying the same thing to Fascism in Europe and did not even get a response from participants — so, you win some, you lose some). At any event, Vanamonde93's proposal to extend GS to other post-1979 Iranian politics articles, I am confident, would aid editors, article quality, and reducing conflict on the project overall. El_C 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why post-1979? Is the revolution itself free from these disputes? If this area needs general sanctions, I would guess that it should be post-1978, unless you believe that items specifically from 1979 aren't being disrupted. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nyttend: I don't think there's a political topic free of disruption on Wikipedia. I was trying to draw a line between a topic that has egregious localized disruption, and other related articles that merely have pedestrian levels of bad behavior. So far as I can tell, the conflicts on Wikipedia that prompted me to propose this stem from real-life conflicts between the current theocratic government of Iran and its opponents. As such, I haven't seen the same conflicts spill over into the revolution itself, yet. I'm not necessarily opposed to a broader regime of general sanctions; but I think that if a line must be drawn, it must be drawn at 1979 or 1953 (or 1905, when the constitutional revolution occurred); and it has been my impression that the community favors narrower areas of broad admin discretion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Vanamonde93, if we're drawing a line at the Islamic Revolution, that's perfectly fine, but the revolution happened in 1979, and your proposal is post-1979, i.e. beginning in 1980. For example, the proposal doesn't cover the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis or any of the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. That's the reason I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Nyttend. The revolution should be encompassed as well, since a lot of the disputes are rooted in it. El_C 00:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nyttend and El C: Okay, fair enough. I'll amend it to "1978", as that is more concise that trying to spell out post-revolution, and ping the others. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for amending, Vanamonde93. Looks good. El_C 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for sure. In fact I'd cover anything where the troll of all trolls is involved - North Korea, China, US trade deficit, and so many more, but this one is obvious and long-standing. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – per nom – Levivich 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If further evidence were required that this is getting out of hand, there's these two conversations in the last week. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Vanamonde93: I was surprised to see this discussion where, I think, active editors had to be pinged to comment. Also, El_C's intervention is shown to be pretty excellent, but slow. Surely much better than the previous condition. Now, your arguments are really seen and considered. --Mhhossein talk 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue

    This is a request for advice, not necessarily a request for administrator intervention. I think that a couple of editors have identified a real problem on the pages about current US presidential candidates, but I don't have a clue as to how to address the problem they describe. Thus I am asking for advice on what to do, if anything.

    At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again I saw this comment from Masem:

    "We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting."[31]

    Then Levivich added this:

    " I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area."[32]

    I happened to notice the problem at the Tulsi Gabbard page (Giving undue WP:WEIGHT to certain negative opinions published in obscure sources) and I am dealing with that issue in the usual way, but what of the larger problem that Masem and Levivich describe? Where would I even start if I wanted to make things better? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a sea change needed across all of Wikipedia. I am not going to reiterate my long-winded stance on the lack of NOT#NEWS enforcement particularly in the AP2 topic area (and not limited to that), but needless to say, we need editors to think about what material is being report "right this second" and how much of that material is going to be valuable in 5-10 years, and how much of that is just the fact news stations have 24/7 hours of broadcast time they have to fill. Understanding the difference between something like the reactions to the latest shootings in the US, versus a Tweet sent out by a presidential candidate. Because we have let NOT#NEWS weaken, we get these articles that are tons of proseline, filling in every possible news story that the topic is in, which is not what we should be doing. But its hard to force a policy on this, we need a sea change in how editors see the news and write about it, and to exactly that point, I don't know how to push that even more beyond stressing the need for "encyclopedic" writing, not "newspaper" writing. --Masem (t) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one fairly simple stopgap measure (for the bigger elections) would be to spin off "political positions" and "20xx campaign" from the person's BLP. Most of the motivation for the BLP-stuffing I've seen is the desire to affect the opinions of those who google the person once and idly read their BLP once. In 2016 I suggested that all 4 candidates should have their political positions page separated from their BLP to lessen the attraction of posting the week's smear to each candidate's BLP (this courtesy was afforded to 3 of the 4 main candidates). The logic is this: since the political positions page and 20xx campaign page aren't the top google responses... most who want to spin google will lose interest. BLPs could be full protected / flagged revisions / etc. As for the wider question about news, I'm not so sure. It was interesting to follow various social movements / events (DAPL, overthrow of le pouvoir in Algeria, Sudan, YVM, Western Libya Offensive etc.) and I'm not sure these pages have done so much damage to the encyclopedia as what is being done on BLP in AmPol. The difference may be -- in part -- the media being cited, I suppose, and the goal of informing rather than persuading. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't fix the problem. Those spinouts would remain BLP pages and will still suffer the same problem. It's sweeping the issue under the rug. Yes, I do think that Google's draw to Wikipedia may change if those are spun out, but that's not really feeding the issue as most of the problems seem to come from semi to readily experienced editors. --Masem (t) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you say so. I have noticed that those who hurry to oppose spinning off BLP pages are those who help curate negative information on those BLP... some evidence: (Gabbard, Stein). Theoretically at least, they would be less tempted to do so if their voices weren't so easily multiplied by google. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem goes well beyond just presidential candidates. WP:NOTNEWS is very frequently ignored when it comes to WP:BLP issues in general. I think a revision to WP:GNG to identify that coverage in reliable sources does not automatically confer notability for information regarding BLPs might help. That and perhaps giving WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT a bit more assertive language concerning notability and routine news coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA - I agree with Masem entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is about WP:Summary style. Writing in summary style requires writing in Wikivoice and that requires consensus, which requires collaboration. By contrast, writing in WP:QUOTEFARMs allows an editor to take a quote from a particular WP:RS (especially a recognized RS, like a green one from WP:RSP) and then "defend" it to the death, arguing that it must be included because it's a verbatim quote from a recognized RS. So we end up with alternating quotes from RSes instead of summary prose in WikiVoice... and battleground behavior on the talk page instead of collaborative editing. Some thoughts on solutions:
    1. Further deprecate quote farms, perhaps just in BLPs or BLPs in DS areas (BLPs are a DS area, but I mean like AP2 BLPs, PIA BLPs, etc.), perhaps just for mainstream news sources. Or maybe for recent events articles? Something like, "quotes from mainstream news sources are strongly discouraged" maybe added to WP:MOS? This will force editors towards collaborating to come up with consensus language in Wikivoice rather than sparring with RS quotes.
    2. Write a WP:Summary style specifically for BLPs or political BLPs. WP:BLPSUMMARY? Or maybe MOS:POLBLP?
    3. Do we have a "model article" for politician BLPs? Not every politician BLP can be based on FA political BLPs like US presidents. But what does an "ideal" article for, say, a first-term national legislator, look like? How much detail? How much about their personal life? Their political positions? Their controversies?
    4. One of the aspects of this problem is our poor existing mechanisms for content dispute resolution. For example, say Guy and I want to include Quote A, and Masem and Sashi are opposed to it or want to include a countervailing Quote B. The four of us can go around forever and never reach a consensus (that an uninvolved editor will close), and too often it comes down to one side dragging the other to a noticeboard over a conduct complaint (alleging WP:DE, WP:TE, etc.). If the four of us write walls of text, other editors won't help at DRN or by closing our RfC (or worse, we get a bad close, or an admin protects the wrong version, etc.). If an editor sees a poorly-written article that violates NOTNEWS, but there are a group of editors WP:OWNing the article, we don't really have a way to address that. Someone was recently writing about binding content dispute resolution–I think it was Isaacl? (Apologies if I'm mistaken.) Maybe pilot that (or a return of mediation?) in the area of political BLPs? – Levivich 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written recently on binding content dispute resolution, and plan to release a proposal for discussion. Although I'm not optimistic that consensus can be achieved at this time to mandate such a process, perhaps there may be cases where the interested parties would voluntarily agree to it. (The "binding" part, though, would be hard to enforce without a larger consensus in place.) isaacl (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've made a very good observation about quote-farming Levivich. I'll admit I have no idea if there's an AmPol2 project page where such modifications to the MOS and examples of model BLPs could be discussed. I did notice there were some comments made on the H R Clinton FA (BLP) recently by the principal author. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A few more points:
    First, in general, adding material to a PROSELINE approach is often easiest for newer editors. Find where the event happened in a list of dates, throw that event and source in there. End of store. So we get articles that reflect dates of announcements of planned events, or focusing too much on social media announcements, or the like. Filling out timelines is alluring. Same if you have another type of structure that is easy to organize and add too. (evidenced by "Reactions" sections of every world gov't to a mass death event; and the fact that if you leave an empty line in an infobox template, editors will want to fill that in with something). So part of the problem is natural tendencies of the editors to fill in as much as they can. But that's only part of the reason, and not something easy to fix.
    Second, I would argue an additional consideration that I have seen, going back to the Gamergate situation, though I think the behavior I described was starting before then.
    As the Gamergate situation outside en.wiki started to ramp up, we get media that was clearly critical of those calling themselves part of Gamergate. Because of "verifyability, not truth", our article reflected that. We got wave after wave of brigading IPs and new editors trying to force the minor/fringe viewpoints of Gamergate, which ultimately led to the 300/50 page protection because of that disruption.
    However, I think emboldened by fighting those editors, existing editors on WP started thinking that to fight fire with fire, more emphasis on whatever the reliable sources published was necessary. Technically all within policy, but this, to a degree, meant than anytime a report dropped about GG, it needed to go up onto the article to assure that non-RS could be used to counter it. This in turn would often lead to any criticism of notable individuals tied to GG to be included appropriately - again, technically within BLP policy.
    So now we're in a situation where we have one of the most hated Presidents in power, the media on edge in trying to report as much negative material about him, his ideas, and people that tend to share these ideas. Add in elements like the alt/far right, white nationality/supremancy, etc., and there is a LOT of media effort going to characters these people and groups as "bad" as far as they can do within ethical journalism. This leaves any material supportive of those groups in the minority (but which also tend to be FRINGE views). We end up documenting still under "verifyability, not truth", reflecting the media's take on the situation which frequently omits the views from the other side of the aisle. So just like at GG, we have new IPs and editors trying to insert the counter-views, which experience editors review, and bolster the media coverage by insert every mention of the topic in the news. This then extends to those that are seen favorably in the media's eyes as well. It has become this war of attrition as to document every ounce of media coverage that indirectly helps extend the media's general dislike for certain people and groups.
    Now, I do not think any experienced editor is doing this on purpose or maliciously. I think its a pattern that developed that seemed natural and the right way to fight back against disinformation, all within policy. And because this has become popular in political circles, it has spread to other areas as well. I can fully understand editing this way feels right, as well as doing as much as WP can do without actively engaging in righting great wrongs. But, in the end, it has created this pattern that does ultimately run aground against NOT#NEWS - editors are writing for the now, not for 5-10-20 years down the road. There are other ways to fight disinformation attempts that still stick to policy and without weakening our articles on controversial figures, and still staying current on factual information. But we need editors to recognize this pattern, how it came about, and how to get out of it. There is no easy immediate solution, and one that I don't think can be implemented by establishing a new policy or guideline, but just reworking how some policies and guidelines are meant to interact. --Masem (t) 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, soibangla, please read and take this discussion to heart. A number of your edits including these [[33]], [[34]] are the sort of thing that is under discussion here. This [[35]] isn't something to be proud of. Springee (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Springee, pinging me here is inappropriate. You got a gripe with me, take to my Talk page. Then again, don't bother. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me offer a contrarian view. Let's start with policy. WP:NOTNEWS begins by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
    Point 1 on "Original reporting" says that editors cannot engage in original reporting. I am unaware that any active editor engages in original reporting, so that is not an issue in my opinion. For example, I attended a local political event on Sunday where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke frankly about the political implications of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I added no text about those speeches to Wikipedia because I am not a reporter, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I do not believe that any reporters were present. I did, however, upload a portrait photo I took of Newsom to Wikimedia Commons. I see no ongoing problem of Wikipedia editors trying to add their own original reporting, and if it does occur, it can be dealt with promptly and decisively. Point 1 closes by saying "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."
    Point 2 on "News reporting" wisely chides us not to include "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" because that "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Accurately and neutrally summarizing how reliable sources characterize the political positions of notable politicians cannot possibly fall under this language. The policy language in this section explicitly does not exclude "including information on recent developments".
    Point 3 on "Who's who" basically applies to WP:BLP1E which is not relevant to biographies of clearly notable politicians.
    Point 4 on "Diary days" says we should not list all the ongoing events of a celebrity's day. I do not see a lot of content saying, "On February 30, candidate A flew to metropolitan area B where they spoke to farmers in rural community C, soccer moms in suburban town D and ethnic communities in big city E." Is that a problem? I do not think so. Any editor should revert that type of content on policy grounds if they see it.
    None of the things derided here as violations of NOTNEWS are genuine violations of that actual policy language. Instead, they are things that a few editors here do not like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia's Main page has a prominent section called "In the news" that always features half a dozen or so current news articles of worldwide importance. Another fact is that 99% percent of Wikipedia articles about historic events of the last 18 years started out as summaries of newspaper coverage, and evolved over time into excllellent articles through the normal editing process. Another fact is that post 1932 American politics is covered under robust discretionary sanctions that give administrators heightened unilateral powers to deal with disruption and aggressive POV pushing in this broad topic area. The great weakness of the NOTNEWS policy language is that it recommends Wikinews as an alternative. Wikinews is a moribund project rated #59,184 in website popularity. Take a look at their article about the El Paso shootings, which is amateurish crap compared to the excellent and rapidly evolving Wikipedia article. Currently #3 in their news feed is "Wikinews attends Texas Haunters Convention", an article so bad that it defies description. So, sending editors interested in recent historic developments off to Wikinews is fit only for Alice in Wonderland. It's cray-cray.
    WP:QUOTEFARM is a link to an essay that begins by saying "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Of course, quotes can be overused but editors cannot rely on the QUOTEFARM essay for advocating radical reduction of quotes because it is not a policy or a guideline, and says no such thing.
    All that stuff about Gamergate is really just an argument that we should abandon our core content policies that call for neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say, and instead let fringe, extremist figures spout their vile advocacy on Wikipedia in some misguided sense of "fairness". The day that happens is the day I resign from Wikipedia.
    Instead of radically counterproductive measures, what we really ought to do is rely on the normal editing process, and our core content policies and widely accepted guidelines. That is what has made Wikipedia (despite its flaws) the #5 website in the world. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I actual disagree: coverage of a running candidate's political positions is "routine coverage" from the news, presuming it doesn't cause any further controversy. Or at least the manner of how we get one aspect of the position from one source, another aspect from another source, etc. While it is not wrong to build up a politician's positions this way, it's not writing from the encyclopedia long-term view. We want editors to look more at summary works that better encapsulate all elements of the positions than trying to piecepart from disparate sources. NOT#NEWS discourages the latter by nature of what today is routine reporting, given how many news channels there are running 24/7 coverage, compared to when NOT#NEWS was developed. --Masem (t) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To further add, this is nothing about trying to push fringe views, but instead getting editors to wait for better summarizing reliable sources to cover more subjective elements than trying to stay that current; this further removes the likelihood that FRINGE sourcing would be used if we are basing coverage on more retrospective articles than "written this moment" ones. This is not about the factors at work behind GG but only using the editing patterns from experienced editors in the GG case as an early example of this type of problem. This is happening, regardless if GG happened or not. --Masem (t) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A possible solution is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My views:

    1. (1) It is very rare that recent reporting gets added to articles and the reporting is shown to be wrong. When it does happen, it's usually sources of marginal reliability such as Fox News (the RS status of which some editors above defend even though it has a record of fabricated stories and even though peer-reviewed publications say it is unreliable on certain issues) and Newsweek (which maybe once was a RS but should not be one anymore). So the argument that RS get things wrong and we should therefore adopt a policy of an arbitrary waiting period is weak.
    2. (2) Most of the content that gets challenged on NotNews grounds is content that does in fact have long-term encyclopedic value. Opinions that something does not have long-term encyclopedic value are arbitrary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases that I've witnessed just seem to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. A recent example of this was a prominent senior White House official appearing on a national talk show and telling lies about the health care policies of the Trump administration - it was removed on NotNews grounds (despite extensive RS coverage) but then on a RfC there is unanimous support for its inclusion. Masem may think it's irrelevant that gubernatorial candidate X intends to kick Y thousand people off of Medicaid when he gets into office, but I personally disagree. Simply relying on RS coverage and talk page dispute resolution ensures that agreement is found on what is due weight and what violates NotNews.
    3. (3) It is far easier to comprehensively cover an issue in an encyclopedic way when the topic is fresh and where all the sources are easily accessible. As someone who edits both on issues that happen now and which happened 10+ years ago, it is incredibly hard to add encyclopedic text to events that occurred years ago. The way to cover an event in a comprehensive and neutral manner is to write it up with contemporaneous sources, and then tweak in the years that follow if comprehensive works appear (usually these works do not rebut contemporaneous reporting).
    4. (4) There's a bizarre distrust in the media in the comments above. I don't know to what extent these editors are familiar with the work of historians and social scientists (or non-cable news media for that matter), but publications in these fields are replete with contemporaneous reporting by the very same news outlets that the editors above treat as lesser sources of dubious quality. They also reflect an unwarranted disdain for journalism, a field comprised of people working under horrid job security and little pay, yet who do priceless work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1, 2, and 3 I would address as the fact that when you have 24/7 news coverage, it looks like we can stuff a lot of material into current event articles, but in actually that doesn't help in the long run for these stories, and it is better to write these from a summary standpoint, after the dust has settled and we can separate better fact from opinion and speculation. For example, Watergate scandal is one of the US's biggest political gaffes, and it was heavily covered by the media, but at that time, the media was not 24/7 - you had your morning paper, your morning and evening news, radio news updates, and maybe a special run. Because of this, the coverage is much more focused on actual events rather than speculation and opinion. The focus today on what any talking head says in an article or television news is far too displaced because we don't know the context if that commentary is going to be relevant or not when the event is over. I do appreciate the argument that older events, even with Google and archive.org, can be more difficult to write for because those sources become harder to find, but we should be trying to focus on how those events were covered years after they happened, rather than at the time. And if you are really wanting to document the news in real time, that is what Wikinews is for. We can then incorporate material in a more encyclopedic fashion from the Wikinews articles once we know how best to present the situation.
    4 is not about distrust of the news, but simply its bias. Doesn't mean they are any less reliable, but they are going to be overly focused on some things and less focused on others, where if we were talking a truely neutral format there would be more "equal time" to a degree. That lobsided focus does influence our articles because of UNDUE and "verifyability, not truth" if we are using the immediate news reports as our basis. If we wait for the dust to settle and use more summarizing sources, that lobsided-ness tends to go away or shows why it was justified. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your rebuttal to 1,2,3 reflects a misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being added to political articles. No one is citing cable news segments, and I certainly do not add speculation and opinion (unless the opinions are written text authored by recognized experts) to articles. If such content is added, it usually gets removed immediately and uncontroversially. And the suggestion that we wait years for the birdseyeview historical assessment is impractical, because there are not going to be multiple high-quality peer-reviewed books on every subject, and not every peer-reviewed history book is written in a way that makes it easy to add relevant text to Wikipedia. Also, while I do add lots of peer-reviewed content and I would also prioritize a study over a contemporary news report, there are not many Wikipedia editors with easy access to gated journals and books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You may take care, but 90% of most arguments I see pop up at AN/ANI/AE related to AP2 is due to how current commentary from any old person is being included into an article, so there is a significant segment of editors that do not. No, we don't have to wait years, but we should wait for a few months to try to figure out what are the appropriate high points that 5-10 years down the road will be most important. I would actually argue that trying to figure out what is most important around a controversial situation as it is happened is approaching the "original journalism" aspect as it is assigning perceived importance to information before secondary sources have a chance to filter it. Now, there's a very grey line here because we also do the same on breaking disasters, and, myself in video games, writing about on the spot updates to works and the like. But I think in comparison, with these type of events, we know what is generally going to end up in these articles (For a disaster, when and where, what happened, how many died, for example) so we can recognize what is worthwhile information from past experience. But in political events, for one, that's generally impossible to know. Maybe a comment from a regular expect on the matter would be fine, but again, its generally the commentary from any random talking head that gets added. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also completely reject that the media is biased against Trump or conservatives, if that's what's being suggested (something you mentioned earlier). If anything, I think the media unduly tiptoes around bigotry, falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and is afraid to call things as they are. As a result, by following RS, we are actually being overly careful. That's for example why I was forced to advocate that we refer to Steve King's racist rhetoric as "racially charged rhetoric", because that's how RS portrayed it one point in time (the RS changed its description of him as become more explicitly racist) rather than calling it "racist rhetoric". Also, of the peer-reviewed publications that have been published about political events in the last 5 years, they typically describe things far more bluntly than the purportedly anti-Trump media does, which suggests that media RS are being overly careful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Not that the media are being gov't watchdogs, they are doing that job appropriately, but they are doing it in a manner that I would say with ridicule and contempt to a point of trying to convince the public of their viewpoints. The media's job is not to try to sway the public but to inform them - unfortunately, this is the new status quo with "opinionated journalism" as adopted by sites like the AP. Now, we're not talking as bad as FOX here in terms of their advocacy, but they are advocating in addition to reporting, and we have to be wary of using the on-the-spot advocacy in en.wiki. The less we focus on trying to write from the breaking news and more from the long-term picture, the better off we are to avoid injecting media's opinions on the matters. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, I am bewildered that you continue to recommend Wikinews, which is an abysmal failure. My time is too valuable to me to spend more than five minutes every six months looking at that trash heap, if only to verify for myself again how bad it truly is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been here for years and wasn't even aware it was a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was established by the WMF to be for more "news reporting" than "encyclopedia". WMF hasn't turned it off so it remains a viable project. The problem is chicken-or-egg - we need more editors to use it so that it gets more attention so that more editors use it, etc. The failure of Wikinews does not mean its functions should be done by en.wiki. --Masem (t) 17:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit that "viable" is not defined as " WMF hasn't turned it off". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple change (which will never be implemented because reasons) would at the same time invigorate Wikinews and get rid of 90%+ of the conflict on Wikipedia. A simple announcement on every page saying "Wikipedia is purposely out of date by at least 48 hours. For late-breaking news on this topic see Wikinews". Sounds radical? Are we an encyclopedia or are we a newspaper? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be interesting to pilot this on one article and see how it goes. – Levivich 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire Wikinews concept is strange. Who would read a news aggregation service by Wikipedia editors as opposed to reading a normal news outlet? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Same answer as to why readers would turn to an encyclopedia to read about current news instead of a normal news outlet. Unfortantely, I have seen it argued that too many reader put their trust in WP to be so up-to-date to surprass news outlets in terms of current-ness as a reason to not follow NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 23:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    News stories are rarely written in an encyclopedic and comprehensive way. I don't know about you but I find myself reading a news story or a study, and then checking Wikipedia for the additional context that the study or news story lacks. For example, today, I appreciated that some great editors had written the Bruce Ohr page with contemporary reporting from 2018 to clarify the reports that emerged today. A few weeks ago, I was out of luck because I wanted to learn more about William Barr's role on criminal justice reform in the 90s after reading one 2019 story on his "key" role in tough-on-crime reforms, but unfortunately no editors had added contemporary high-quality reporting from that time, so the Wikipedia article had horrible coverage of his role in criminal justice reform. I had to add such content myself, but I could only find it in peer-reviewed criminology publications (databases for academic journals are better than databases for news reporting), which resulted in some improvements but the page's coverage of his role in tough-on-crime reforms still remains incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have to be up to date to provide that context that helps a reader coming from a news story to find out more. The problem usually starts when people start to double guess of what will be important in the future from a few days of current news coverage, and rush to insert the speculations, commentary, and opinion stuff. Coming back a few weeks or months after the events have died down, where there should be a better sense of what is actually important, would be key factors - or even if it is worth including to start. Today, a few weeks or months arent going to change news availability. And the lack of Barr's stuff in 90s is a factor of WP being a volunteer work. I bet that there's better coverage of newspapers and magazines of the time, but that's not going to be readily online, as you found. (I have found that the NYtimes actually has most of their back issues online, so adding "Site:nytimes.com" to a search on William Barr brings up a lot of possible sources like [36]). I do understand the argument that it would be nice to make sure we document sources "now" while they are available before they fall off the digital landscape, but realistically, that's on the order of years or decades, not weeks or months, and we can easily wait those weeks or months to have a better understanding of events to know what to use instead of trying to distill a massive amount of news in a short bit. --Masem (t) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this just speaks to me cognitive abilities, but I struggle to remember the details and nuance of political events older than one month (I am sure this is not just me). In my experience, writing about something six months down the line with six-month old reporting, as opposed to writing it with contemporary reporting as the stories are released, results in sloppier and incomplete editing that is more likely to lose nuance and violate neutrality. And in my experience, the reliable sources very rarely highlight the wrong things and overemphasize silly things of non-encyclopedic value - things that a hindsight view should expose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To that regard, there's two things. First, I'm often in the same boat in other topics that I can't write with an sureness if its been several months since I last read up on it. But the exercise of searching and reviewing the detail via a Google News searchs often helps to fine tune how to think about the topic in a more summary manner, since I'm not likely to read through every source that exists, and because GNews typically goes in reverse chrono order, I'll get the aftermath first and have a better idea of what's more important as I move backwards in time. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong to drop links to articles that are believed to be relevant in the future but shouldn't be added immediately, on the article's talk page. {{refideas}} exists for this, but you may have more than that. Or a user page, or the like. So there's a way to keep "clippings" so that when you are sure things can be written with a more hindsight view, you have a body of work to remove.
    And I strongly disagree with reliable sources placing importance/highlighting the wrong things. The press went crazy on Covfefe to the point we had an article on that. Fortunately, saner heads on WP prevailed, and recognized this as part of a broader, more enduring topic of Trump's use of social media. This is all tied to the bias on the media, particularly with Trump and those associated with him, trying to find any and all weaknesses to write about. This is what happens in 24/7 news coverage, any tiny issue can be seen as big major front page story if there's no other interesting news going on. --Masem (t) 00:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The real problem in this thread, Masem, is that you are pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree: I believe I'm restating the intent of points #1 and #2 under NOT#NEWS. Points that have gotten lost over the last several years. I mean, we had an RFC a couple years back that still affirmed NOT#NEWS is still a valid policy, not to be weakened nor strengthened in language, but given that we're seeing more and more conflict over trying to keep certain classes of articles (like politician) "recent" under claims that this is within the context of NOT#NEWS, tells me we may need to review that further (hence the discussion started here). --Masem (t) 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Masem's analysis is spot on. Rather than "pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language" he is pushing back against us slowly and without a lot of thought falling into a habit of violating NOT#NEWS on the pages of US political candidates. Alas, certain individuals who have spent years rooting for Team Blue, rooting for Team Red, or rooting for individual players on Team Blue have taken advantage of our mistake and are inserting whatever NOT#NEWS advance their political agenda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As recently as today, I've encountered editors who chafed at excluding material that was WP:TOOSOON on the basis that it might take months to get the sort of secondary source coverage necessary to be due inclusion on Wikipedia. Frankly, WP:NOTNEWS is as notable in how infrequently it is observed compared to other elements of WP:NOT. When someone puts up a blog post, or an indiscriminate list of cruft, or uses a userpage as personal web space, the community shuts it down quickly. But when people try to treat Wikipedia as a newspaper, well, even AfD doesn't work at that point. So I'd strongly support anything we can do to prop up adherence to NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    We could have a WP:CENT RFC on a proposed guideline for inclusion of material in political articles, so that all new content should meet one of the following:

    1. Covered in depth (more than repeating a press release) by three or more reliable broadcast or print, not web-only, sources.
    2. Still subject to ongoing independent print or broadcast coverage after 3 months.
    3. A policy that has become a focus of broadcast debates supported or opposed by multiple candidates.

    I call out print and broadcast media because online publishing costs nothing. If a news organisation devotes costly resource to something, that implies a level of significance.

    The blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now. Very few things get pruned when the news tornado moves on. And I would include serving politicians in this as well. Not every tweetstrom is notable. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There probably needs a bit more thought as it is not just limited - in this case political candidates, but generally any topic that has political implications. (Though politics is likely where 90% of the problems lie). Also to keep in mind, a few recent RFCs that we have to recognize exist and how conditions have changed to challenge them again or that what is being proposed is different: [37], and [38]. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please redirect Https://en.wikipedia.org to Wikipedia please?

    99721829Max (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unsure how to parse this.--Jorm (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have en.wikipedia.org as a redirect to English Wikipedia already; I think he's asking for the same thing from a page with the full URL as the title. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem like anything even remotely plausible as a search term. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's the only way I can understand this request. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done redirects are cheap. I've sent it to Main Page, as that is the normal landing spot for someone entering that URL. I'd take an argument to send it to English Wikipedia as a possible alternative landing spot, since it explicitly includes en. — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really like it if Wiki's search could automatically parse external links to itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean the English Wikipedia article. 99721829Max (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Who'd be putting the URL for the English Wikipedia into Wikipedia's search engine? It'd be like putting Google's URL into Google. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jéské Couriano: hope you were joking? — xaosflux Talk 01:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: It should probably go to English Wikipedia as http://en.wikipedia.org already targets there. It's a {{R from domain name}}. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done per the clarification of the requester above and to conform with the other page which was the subject of a previous RfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the question of "Who'd be putting the URL for the English Wikipedia into Wikipedia's search engine?": It's very common these days to be looking at a browser with a URL box, a browser Search box, and a site-specific Search box immediately below. It's very easy to paste a URL into one of the search boxes by mistake, or a search term into the URL box or the wrong search box... I do it all the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal my Deletion TBan

    I would like to have my Deletion TBan appealed. In the past, I was obsessed with the deletion process and even put an AFD list on my userpage as a scoreboard to flaunt my "achievements", but that is no longer the case. Over the course of the past year, I have been editing constructively to my topics of interest (anime, voice actors and video games) and fighting off vandals by reporting them to WP:ARV. I think I am ready to have my editing restrictions removed; I humbly request that my appeal be accepted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the timeline. I admit to having socked before, and it was extremely foolish of me to have done so. That mistake almost cost my final chance in regaining most of my editing privileges, so I am thankful to the unblocking admin for giving me a final chance at redeeming myself. I would like to think that during this time (from September 2018-August 2019), I have done a good job at regaining the community's trust, with very little to no issues. Nowadays, I try my absolute best to communicate with other users when content disputes arise instead of deleting their messages off of my talkpage. While there were issues in the past regarding my attitude with AFDs, I can assure that it will not continue to prove to be a problem in the event that the TBan gets successfully appealed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the TBAN is removed what do you plan to do around deletion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to nominate articles that fail our notability guidelines for deletion, and vote to keep articles that I believe are worth keeping, giving valid rationales that is in line with the AFD guidelines. I would also place speedy delete tags on blatant spam in accordance to G1 and G3. I will not keep a scoreboard if the articles I've nommed for deletion end up getting deleted. Instead, I would place the deleted articles on my watchlist to prevent them from being recreated unless the article has been improved exponentially since. Otherwise, I would place a G4 tag. Some of my issues in the past in regards to AFD include exhibiting a battleground mentality and biting at anyone that does not agree with my rationale (which is bigotry; I now understand that is *not* welcome on Wikipedia). I will be open to different perspectives and rationales, even I happen to disagree with them. With this, I hope that the community assumes good faith that I would contribute efficiently and effectively in that area if my TBan does get lifted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I say remove the ban and give him a chance per WP:ROPE. The above sounds heartfelt, and I am reminded of how disruptive I was when I first started editing Wikipedia in 2006. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know.... I am a bit concerned about how Prince is with IPs recently [39], [40], [41]. He was also involved recently in an argument about the removal of maintenance tags from articles with no just cause. He also technically violated his T-ban here [42]. If he is going to lose his temper with IPs, then what is stopping him from doing the same at AfD? Actions speak louder than words and I encourage the deciding admin to look at recent past behavior before making a decision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify something. I did not violate my TBan. Let me quote it for you: Sk8erPrince is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia, broadly construed. User is permitted to cast a single !vote for each of the pages created individually if they are listed for deletion, with no exception otherwise. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure.

    Unless I'm understanding the restriction wrong, it says that I could cast only one vote for AFDs. And that's what I did. I just cast the one vote, and nothing else. But if I'm wrong, then I would like to clarify that it wasn't an intentional violation, and I will not be casting any more votes in AFDs until this discussion is finished. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I'm not exactly "losing" my temper with IPs if they're engaging in long term disruptive editing. A good majority of the IPs I report end up getting blocked. I'd say it's more than 80% of them. The Sailor Moon one in particular even got rangeblocked. I even brought up this issue on WT:Anime to inquire for advice before I even reported them, because I wasn't really sure what to do with their constant edit warring and reverting without any edit summaries. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct in that the wording would need clarification per the original ban in 2016 saying AfDs created by you. As for IPs just dont feed the trolls, if an IP is trolling then just don't respond. Not providing an edit summary in these situations is better and more acceptable than exploding in edit summaries. For the record I have no problem with the T-ban being lifted if lingering behavior is addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, for the sake of this discussion as well as the current TBan in place, I can totally refrain from participating in any more AFDs to avoid potential complications. I might have misunderstood the wording, after all. But yeah, you have my word on that. I can also assure you that I'm not feeding the trolls, since I mainly just hand out warnings and report them when I spot them. But you're right - your suggestion is more sound, and it speeds up the troll disposal process even faster. Anyway, I intend to participate in AFDs with an open mind - not everyone's gonna agree with my perspective, and I am not gonna expect that everyone that participates in the discussion to vote for "Delete". And if they vote for Keep, I'm not gonna lose my temper because of that. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. My failure in recognizing that simple fact in the past was why I got the Tban in the first place. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but your edit summaries say otherwise.... you are losing your temper in your edit summaries, and are giving them what they want by doing so. I can picture in my head you using something like "When are you going to STOP slamming citation needed tags? Do you honestly think refbombing THE HELL out of this article benefits anyone? JUST STOP. PLEASE." in an edit summary or during discussion dealing with an AfD. I want you to change my mind here as this is my stance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will let others weigh in here, I just don't want to see you lose your temper again knowingly or not at an AfD and get banned for it. Nobody wants that as you do make good edits to the encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that your suggestion for dealing with trolls in the future is more sound. That was not a good edit summary. In the future, I would revert troll edits and report them right away, instead of feeding them. Also, thanks for acknowledging my contributions to the project ever since I got unblocked. I am trying my best. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for lifting editing/creation restriction

    It would be nice if these very old restrictions could be removed. I feel they are a dead letter. (Indeed the creation was supposed to be temporary.)

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    • For clarity, I believe we're talking about these two discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Automated creation of incorrect categories. The restrictions are as follows (taken from Taken from WP:EDR):

      Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

      Imposed October 2010, and

      Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation.

      Imposed January 2011. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What reason does the community have to lift those restrictions? --Izno (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • You say that they were "supposed to be temporary", but they are both indefinite, which means that no one thought they were temporary at the time they were imposed, except perhaps for yourself, or they would have had a time limit placed on them. You give no reason for lifting them, except, basically, that you don't like them. Considering that you have been the subject of quite a number of sanctions over the years, included a de-sysopping for cause [43], there's no particular reason that the community should lift these sanctions absent a very good reason to do so. Please provide a rationale for their removal which is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say they were supposed to be temporary, I said the creation one was:

    I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.

    — RD232 [the editor who imposed the sanction]
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • One editor speculating that a sanction would be superceded is not the same as a general expectation that the creation sanction would be "temporary". As I said, if they thought it would be temporary, they would have written it that way. They did not, they made it indefinite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Related:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • You aren't helping your case by misrepresenting easily-checked facts. The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". That's the definition of a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." You had your chance to withdraw before the RfA closed. You didn't and the RfA failed. At this point our page at Law of holes may be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to this. And I have amended my statement above to be more accurate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose Thanks for the handy links, Guy Macon. I had already gone over the Arbcom ruling and amendments. Rich's block log was, ah, informative. I won't say never but it would take a lot of convincing for me to go along with changing Rich's current restrictions. Old they may be but I'd say earned from the evidence. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The restrictions were earned through Rich's actions and after much discussion. They serve the useful purpose of preventing the resumption of those actions. If Rich wants to explain why those actions were wrong and to assure the community that they will not resume and to agree that an immediate block would be the proper outcome should any of them occur again then I might reconsider this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support my interactions with Rich have led me to believe that he is here in good faith and I therefore favor giving him another chance by removing these sanctions from eight years ago. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question to Rich would be whether he intends to do either of the following: "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page" or "mass creating pages in any namespace, [without] prior community approval for the specific mass creation task".
      I'm mindful of a recent discussion where it was suggested that we could lift a TBAN where the editor in question wasn't intending to go do the stuff that was banned would agree that he'd abide by the TBAN even though it was removed from the rolls (WP:AN#Request to remove Topic ban). In other words, the editor was agreeing to have an off-the-books TBAN, which struck me as improper for a few reasons. My way of thinking is that if Rich has no interest in doing those things but does want the bans lifted so, for instance, there's no concern with things that might be edge cases (i.e., whether a handful of articles means "mass creation", or whether the occasional cosmetic wikicode change merits being dragged to AE/AN/ANI), there should be little problem with this request provided there's no recent (say within 6 months-2 years) issues with violating them. I would not make that exactly a binding guarantee since, as I said in that other thread, it's tantamount to an off-the-books editing restriction, which we shouldn't be doing. Rather, I'd consider Rich immediately going back and doing the same stuff that got him these restrictions, we could reasonably infer that he had lied in order to get out of this restriction, and reimposing/blocking would be appropriate. And if he does go back and start disrupting but beyond "immediately", the same restrictions can be reimposed.
      Another idea would be to add a sunset provision to both restrictions. Something like: "Effective on [date of closure], this editing restriction is suspended. On [date of closure + six months], if a community discussion does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse. This paragraph is not intended to limit the community or an uninvolved administrator's ability to impose appropriate sanctions for disruptive conduct that is incidentally covered by the suspended editing restriction." Thoughts on this? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not a fan of the off-the-books restrictions and conditions either. I prefer a clearly defined set of conditions, explicit in the details. This is the current status quo. The sunset arrangement has problems as well, particularly if there is a delay on it (closure + six months or whatever.) This puts a burden on others to check up on Rich at a later time. Overriding some Arbcom decisions makes me a little queasy. There are levels of AFG and giving people another chance that I have trouble with. This is one of those times. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mark Ironie This is not an arbcom provision, it was imposed by [[User:RD232], who left the project seven years ago, without a !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Right, my thought with the sunset provisioning is more if people think there's reason to give Rich a shot (i.e., if he's not violated the sanctions in a long time) but don't want to risk a full lifting right now. I'm with you as there being an added burden to watch for problems, but I'm really not sure how much of a burden that would be. People subject to long-running sanctions—Rich had both community-based and Committee-imposed ones (the latter having been vacated entirely in 2016)—tend to have no shortage of folks checking up on them as a matter of course. Here's an alternative thought though: "After [date of closure + six months], Rich may open a community discussion on WP:AN to request that his status be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the restriction is still needed. If this discussion, having duly considered whether the restriction is still needed, does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse." That way, the burden is on Rich to ask at the end of the probationary period before the restrictions will be vacated. I'm certain that the AN regulars would provide a robust discussion. Anyway just my thinking on how to approach this procedurally if it's decided to be worth trying. I'm still not decided on whether it's worth trying at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have thought 9 years is probably a long enough sunset provision.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • As far as I am aware, there is no such thing in Wikipedia policy as a "sunset provision", so citing it as a reason for lifting these sanctions is an invalid argument. Perhaps there should be sunset provisions. If so, then someone should propose it at WP:VPP and get it approved by the community. Until then, sindefinite sanctions stay in place indefinitely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv I do not intend to make non-rendering changes which do not have consensus. Page creation as described is now written into policy, which, of course, I do not intent to break. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose - No reasonable rationale provided for removal. As demonstrated by the links above, RF has a history of being sanctioned, and a further history of then violating those sanctions, which means he simply cannot be trusted. Lifting the sanctions still in place leaves him free to take the same kind of actions that got him restricted in the first place. I don't trust him, and do not think that the community can afford to place its trust in him, any more than it did when he applied to be an admin again, and his RfA failed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approximately 70% of the community supported my RFA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Which put it in the discretionary range at the time, and the 'crats -- who are, after all, part of the community -- decided against promoting you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they didn't. To avoid placing them in an invidious position, and to avoid an adminship tainted by being a close call I asked them to close as no consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". In other words, a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." BTW, good job getting Beyond My Ken to agree that both of you stop WP:BLUDGEONING this page and then continuing to post comments after he stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it wasn't a "parting shot". I made two (maybe 3??) comments, including one about the lack of good faith, turned my attention to other stuff (no edits, but a five minute gap in activity, according to my contrib log), and then came back to re-read the thread, which is when I saw Golden Ring's remark and immediately agreed to his suggestion. So, the history may look damning, but it doesn't actually indicated a parting shot, which it was not. In fact, I distinctly remember thinking that I wish I had seen Golden Ring's suggestion before I had added the previous comments, just for the sake of appearances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fair. Stuff often gets overlooked in these conversations. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in the absence of evidence that the banned conduct has been a problem in the last, I don't know, two years? Eight years on, IMO we should be giving someone the chance to show they've changed enough in that time that the restriction is no longer necessary; if eight years is not enough, I don't see any way that these could ever be lifted. I don't object to the sunset clause proposed above, but don't particularly support it, either. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per WP:Bygones (this page should exist). Seriously, restrictions from 2010??? I trust Rich to be wise enough not to be disruptive today, especially not in the manner he was disruptive nine years ago. — JFG talk 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Eight years is long enough for these restrictions to be lifted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • An indefinite sanction is not "infinite", but it does stay in effct until it is lifted. It does not dissipate, or fade away over time, it is just as much in effect at this moment as it was the second after it was imposed. These "support" votes seem to be saying that the evidence the sanctions should be lifted is the fact that the sanctions have done their job well, so we no longer need them. Someone attempting to get a restraining order lifted on the basis that they had stayed away from the person for the 8 years the order was in place would be laughed out of court - the fact that the restrainimg order worked is the evidence for the restraining order continuing to be necessary. Add to that that other people are providing rationales for the sanctions to be lifted, while RF has made no argument of substance at all, and you have more than enough reason to reject this frivilous and unnecessary request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this Procrustean argument before. "It worked, so it was necessary. Had it not worked, a stronger sanction would have been necessary." By this logic indefinite is infinite.
    Moreover there are side effects, people oppose granting of bits based on things like this.
    I don't think that calling my request "frivolous and unnecessary" is WP:AGF - but then little you have said here is.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    You are correct. Your behavior ran out every possible bit of AGF I had regarding you years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting the cosmetic restriction, as it was being broken as recently as Jan 2019. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could Rich Farmbrough and Beyond My Ken stop trying to bludgeon this request to death and let the community review it please? GoldenRing (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm game. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
      Sure, I'll refrain from further comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don’t see any need for these to remain in effect. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Mr Ernie, I respect your opinion/!vote, but have a question - regardless of whether it's a "good" restriction (i.e. let's put aside whether it's appropriate for the ban to be in place), do you think someone under a restriction should be violating it before they have it lifted? Primefac (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      What was the negative effect to the project from breaking the violation? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      In the case I listed above, and in general, hundreds of pointless edits and flooded watchlists. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • support per WP:ROPE and the spirit of WP:UBCHEAP. The violation Primefac brings up is noted, but Rich's explanation was actually quite reasonable even if it violated the letter of the restriction. It's been nearly a decade; I think it's worth seeing how things go without the restrictions. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I wasn't going to take a stand on this, limiting myself to providing some related links, but since then I have taken a deep dive into the edits in question. Too many errors of the type caused by poorly-written automated tools combined with a failure to preview the edits and fix obvious screwups by the automation. Things like nuking a ]] without removing the matching [[. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity, this restriction does not apply to the type of edit you describe, only to edits which make no rendered difference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose as these restrictions really apply to all users. But most do not step over the line. Any mass action should have consensus. Our appealer here has not indicated that compliance will be observed, just that it is not nice to have restrictions. Mass editing requires mass checking and mass errors need mass fixing so much more care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see no evidence of a benefit to the community. Automated mass edits are difficult to safeguard on a good day, and user has not demonstrated a need to make them or the ability to make them safely. ROPE is not a good reason-- the user should convince the community the sanction is no longer needed before removing the sanction.-- Dlohcierekim 00:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree, necessarily, but I guess my question is how Rich would show he can make these edits if he cannot make them? That's really the point of my rationale. If this is as recurring a time sink as Guy below says, perhaps the efficient route is to give Rich one last chance to prove us wrong, and if not we can resolve this quickly at that time. I'm fine maintaining the restrictions, I just think that, at this point, perhaps an ultimatum will save further drama in the future. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Graeme Bartlett. If these restrictions really apply to all users, what's the point of marking Rich with the aforementioned scarlet letter? By this token, you might ban someone from worse things, like "no replacing pages with obscenities" or "no disruptive sockpuppetry". If policy prohibits something, applying special restrictions to a certain person basically just gives enemies "gotcha" opportunities, which it definitely seems to me has been the situation with Rich. Just look for interaction between him and Fram, including five of the six "Related" links given by Guy Macon at 22:45, 11 August 2019. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS, for years I've noticed that Fram was frequently (maybe almost always) the one filing complaints about Rich. It's one thing if you edit in an esoteric area and one other person is basically the only one who has the chance to notice, but when you edit in a very public manner and one person is making most of the AN/ANI/AE/etc. complaints about you, to me it looks very much like you're being targeted, because if you really were the massive problem that's alleged, lots of people would have made such complaints. We shouldn't treat one person's persistent complaining as if it were truly representative of what most editors think. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as a minor note, I might not have been raising anything at ANI or AE, but I've noticed a lot of these issues over the years (as can be seen in Rich's talk page archives) - this is primarily because I'm an AWB/bot user and Rich edits in the same areas that I do. Just because no one has put something on a noticeboard doesn't necessarily mean they don't notice; I just preferred to discuss the issues with them on their talk first. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that whether the complaints lead to sanctions is a key point. If editor A keeps reporting editor B and pretty much every time editor B gets a warning or a block, that's one thing. If there is a long string of the result being no violation, content dispute/not an ANI issue and/or boomerang, that's another thing entirely. Either situation is a problem -- somebody isn't responding to feedback. If I kept being reported and warned, I would figure out what I was doing wrong and stop. If I kept reporting someone and my reports didn't result in any action, I would give up and stop reporting that user. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Very much like in the other case on this board, people with this sort of block log would need to give a very good reason for why we should explicitly allow them to do things that all users should not do in any event, and I'm not seeing it. Sandstein 18:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not asking for that, I am asking for special restrictions to be withdrawn. These have a tendency to be hair-trigger, as you know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    Proposed additional restriction (withdrawn)

    Proposal withdrawn: not getting any traction. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed: If the above appeal fails, Rich Farmbrough is not allowed to appeal or otherwise ask again that his restrictions be lifted until January 1st of 2020. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Edited 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. The previous requests have been a major time sink. Note: If this passes, he makes another request after Jan 1. and it too gets shot down in flames, I intend to request a one year extension of this restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Guy Macon: Is this requested often? It's the first one I remember seeing (a poor metric), but if this is a recurring time sink, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose seems less than ideal to make this suggestion before the above thread has been closed, especially in light of the fact that it is not exactly SNOWing up there. Lepricavark (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added the phrase "If the above appeal fails". I probably should have specified that from the start. Does that address your objection? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It kinda addresses it, but at the same time I don't believe such a restriction is necessary unless there's a recent history of Rich filing these appeals too frequently. Otherwise, it almost seems like piling on. To be sure, you could reasonably contend that this proposed restriction is preventative rather than punitive, but is it something we normally formally do? Lepricavark (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not formally and not normally. There is an explicit six months before an appeal will be considered that is added on to many arbcom and ANI decisions, but there are plenty of times (I would guess more often than not) when this is not done. And of course any such time limit can be undone if, for example, new information completely exonerates the blocked user. That would be a legitimate situation to invoke WP:IAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin's use of full protection at Moors murders

    SlimVirgin has full protected the article to prevent improvements and demanded that any discussion take place according to Featured Article rules. Individual wikiprojects do not dictate content, how articles are edited, or what improvements can be made. Apart from locking the article in their preferred version, SlimVirgin demanding that discussion take place elsewhere is an egregious abuse of admin power over article content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence that this is SlimVirgin's preferred version; they don't seem to have edited that article in that article's past 1000 edits. Can you please clarify as to why specifically you think this is SlimVirgin's preferred version? --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    She last edited the article in 2010, before protecting today. I'm struggling to see her "preferred version". I'm also struggling to see where FA is defined as a "wikiproject", any more the GA, B-Class, C-class are... - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)See the discussion. "I've protected the page for 24 hours. I can lift or extend that according to whatever the editors who are working on it at FAR prefer." That is stating a preference for one group of editors contributions over another in order to control content on an article. I described FA as a wikiproject as its a kinder description than others have used. 'Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria' doesnt roll off the tongue as easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It doesn't state a preference for one group over another, just one process over another: anyone can partake at FAR, even all those who have been on the article's talk page. 2. "Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria"? thanks for the incivility, and/or your personal take on the FA process. We have a grading system and FA is part of it. If you don't like it, open an RfC to overturn it and see how far it gets you, but please don't insult the many, many editors who put so much effort into writing articles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: in fairness here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. I'm also pretty sure, with a few exceptions, anyone can participate in any WikiProject. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat and Yamla: They expressed an opinion that a certain version was better without the tags [44] "Tag bombing (subject heading) This needs to stop because it's making the page unreadable". They then protected at the version [45] about 30 minutes later. Someone doesn't need to edit an article to have a preferred version. It may not have been their intention to protect their preferred version, but they did so, and therefore as I said below, at a minimum this creates a perception they are abusing their tools to protect their preferred version. The way this can be avoided is by not using your tools when you are involved. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in death, I decided to remove the tags & the red error messages because I strongly believe our readers deserve better and randomly chose the previously protected version [46] to revert to, [47]. I don't have a dog in the fight, haven't even been following and haven't a clue whose is the "preferred version". EEng reverted, [48], and I reverted a second time, [49] and honestly would have kept going even if I got my first block. It's no way to treat an article, regardless of what anyone thinks of the content or the editors. SlimVirgin protected, which was probably wise. Just thought I'd set the record straight. If you have an issue with my actions, fine, I'll take the hit. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, for one, don't think there is anything wrong with SlimVirgin's actions here. The article was clearly undergoing a slow motion edit war for which protection was an appropriate response. She may well have protected it in the wrong version but that's normal for this sort of action. I am not impressed by the head-in-the-sand reaction of some of the other editors of that article over claims that the article has sourcing errors, but I don't see SV's protection as taking sides in that debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, FA is not a Wikiproject, and anyone is welcome to edit FAs, including FAs at FAR, bearing WP:STEWARDSHIP in mind, which is policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." I said I would lift protection early, or extend it, if the people working on the article wanted it. It's not unusual for me to say that when I add full protection. I protected for 24 hours because EEng had reverted three times to his extensive use of {{failed verification span}}, which was making the article hard to read; see this section for example. I suggested that, if he wanted to make heavy use of that template, he should post the article to a sandbox and do it there, which would be just as useful for editors. The FAR is now open at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1. Input there would be helpful. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good protection. The behaviour of established, respected editors at the talk page of that article is shocking. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I disagreed with SlimVirgin's actions, and told her as much, but I don't see them as being outside admin discretion, nor do I see evidence that she is abusing her authority. This discussion is only increasing the heat-to-light ratio; I'm getting sick of saying this, but really the only reasonable way ought of this mess involves us focusing on the specifics of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully support the good call to protect the article. The talk page discussion says it all, and also the fact that this was brought to this noticeboard also proves how infected this situation is. If anything the protection is too short and the edit disputes will continue for sure as soon as the protection is gone. BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse protection; I've also just extended that protection by another week out of an abundance of caution. Please let me know if a resolution is reached before then. El_C 22:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think either side of this dispute is completely in the right here, but given that there is clearly edit-warring going on here, +1 good protection. I also suggest that Only in death not go accusing people of abusing tools to force "their" version of the article without evidence, it smacks of casting aspersions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse protection and support El C extension as well.--MONGO (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we also acknowledge the quite bad timing of the FA status review nom of Moors murders. In the middle of a huge edit dispute.BabbaQ (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BabbaQ, huh? That's precisely the time an article should be taken to FAR; it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day is explicitly necessary for an article to remain FA. ‑ Iridescent 06:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see the FAR as an opportunity to depersonalize this mess and refocus on the actual article content. This sort of thing is what FAR is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO it was right for the article to be protected. It was wrong for SlimSV to do so, because they had already expressed an opinion on their preferred version and protected it at that version and there was no emergency requiring an involved admin to act. While everyone admin would have protected it at the WP:WRONGVERSION and of course it's quite common for someone to request protection just after they've reverted to their preferred version, an admin protecting at their preferred version at a minimum causes unnecessary ill feeling and perceptions that admins are entitled to use their tools to further their views in a dispute. Note that because the article should be protected, and because this is only a single instance there's actually nothing we can do here which is unfortunate. We're now at a situation where people are going to reasonably feel aggrieved and there's nothing we can do about it. This is precisely why involved admins should not act in an administrative capacity except in exceptional circumstances. If SlimSV had just waited for an uninvolved admin to act, e.g. El C or anyone at WP:RFPP perhaps people wouldn't be entirely happy, but I think most experienced editors will feel it's fair enough and the way things go. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW, in case people think this is something to do with me being unhappy because my preferred version wasn't protected, I only looked at the article after I wrote all above precisely because it didn't matter. Now that I've looked, I am of the opinion that the extensive tagging was not the best way to handle the concerns and it was better to revert and deal with them in some other way. There may have been a decent chance we could reach consensus on removing them on the article talk page. Or alternatively an uninvolved admin may have returned to the version when protection expired or protected at the wrong version by chance. Yet even if this didn't happen and we were stuck with the the tagged version for a while, this would not be a big deal and a far better scenario than an involved admin protecting at their preferred version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This only serves to air a grievance that was I thought others judged to be spurious, how was SV somehow "involved" in their unobjectionable administrative action? [ec] At least there is a clear admission that you thought it was the "wrong version", which provides some context to assuming a COI in others. There is an FAR for improving the article, if there is a problem with the version. ~ cygnis insignis 08:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      @Cygnis insignis: I don't know how explain more clearly whatever I've already said 2 times now. When someone expresses an opinion that they prefer a version of an article and fully protects it, their are involved, and their actions are objectionable. Also when I said "wrong version" I assumed it was clear I meant WP:WRONGVERSION especially since I already linked to it in the first reply. Every single version is the wrong version, that's the whole point. That's such a basic concept in administrative discussions, that frankly even if I hadn't linked it once I would have assumed it understood.

      I admit I should have said "the right wrong version by chance", but reading it feel my point is still somewhat clear. I do think it was preferable to return to the version without the extensive tagging which yes, despite my preference is clearly by definition the wrong version, as is the version with tags since they are all the wrong version. As I see it, there are at least 3 ways we could have gotten there which would have been acceptable. By chance an uninvolved admin (rather than an admin who'd already said they preferred the version without tagging) protecting it at that version. By consensus i.e. at a community level. Or by an admin making an decision to return to the version of last protection without deciding which version seemed better.

      What is not acceptable is for an involved admin, who had clearly expressed an opinion on which version was subjectively better to be the one protecting. And especially not if they were going to protect at the version they preferred. Even if they just protected without considering which version it was, this is impossible to prove and so still gives editors the impression that perhaps they are using their tools to advance their preference. I would add they continued to express the opinion that the version without tags was better, in case there was any suggestion their view was only that more tagging was inappropriate but they had no clear preference on the already added tags.

      Rereading Cygnis insignis's reply maybe I should say this as well. In case there's still confusion I re-iterate again that the version SarahSV protected was my preferred version. The reason I'm arguing against what they did is not because I'm unhappy with the outcome. I already said there are several ways we may have gotten there but if we didn't it would still be preferable if we got there the correct way. This is one of the cases where there was no urgency and so process matters since it harms the community and causes unnecessary ill-feeling and unhappiness when it isn't followed. And so SarahSV should not have protected any version let alone their preferred version. The fact it's also my preferred version is in my mind at least further evidence this isn't a case of "sour grapes because you didn't protect my wrong version" but rather "IMO we shouldn't do this, it causes harm for no benefit since it's not super urgent so we could just wait for someone who doesn't clearly prefer one version to protect". Also I should mention I do not know and frankly never cared in either this reply or my earlier replies about whether there was any other difference between the contested versions other than the tags since that was beside my point.

      Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Account creations appear to be getting throttled to 2/day for editors

    Throttle has been reset. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T230521
    Resolved

    Hello all, if you are running in to this, it appears to be a temporary issue. Discussion and linked phab tickets are available at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#T230304_and_account_creation_being_blocked if you want to follow for more information as it becomes available. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There was an email to the ACC list a couple days ago indicating this was intentional, to fend off a spambot attack, and yes it's temporary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there was an insane amount of spambot registrations xwiki, including large projects. As an example of the sheer number, take a look at my deletion and block log here and registrations here. Not that it changes anything here but just to give an idea of the sheer number that various projects were dealing with. Praxidicae (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang it! I'll have to create my evil sock army another day.... 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 17:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just became the latest account creation at warwiki, simply by browsing your deletion/block log link. It also created my user page, copying it from meta. I don't know if this is intentional. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlanM1: yes, "autocreate" accounts are normal the first time you visit another WMF project. — xaosflux Talk 17:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On all projects where you are registered and have no userpage your meta userpage, also known as your global userpage, is shown. For example, I have no userpage on enwiki and the global one is shown. Vermont (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, phab:T230521 rpeorts that the wgAccountCreationThrottle setting has been restored to 6/day. — xaosflux Talk 17:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    blanking for page move

    Accidental page move corrected. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I accidentally recreated Juliano at Juliano (surname). Then I blanked Juliano (surname). I would like Juliano moved over (surname).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted the accidentally recreated page, now you can move the other one over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unblock appeal by Darkfrog24

    • Note: The below appeal has been posted on behalf of User:Darkfrog24 for review by the community. For the purposes of this appeal, Darkfrog24 will have their user talk page access restored for use for the sole purpose of the appeal.

    I am writing to appeal an indefinite block from June 7, 2018. It started as an AE/DS block, but the enforcing admin then left Wikipedia. No one else had the authority to lift or change it until its one year of AE/DS-ness expired.

    I think the immediate cause was this post: [50]. It looked to me like admin Spartaz asked me a question just then, but it was actually posted a few hours earlier before the appeal closed.[51]

    I replied on my talk page. I now recognize that I was not permitted to answer him. I also understand that I am not permitted to refer even indirectly to anyone with whom I am under an IBAN. I did not intend the word "someone" to mean anyone specific, but I guess the admin didn't know that. I will report any escalation through formal channels. In the future I will avoid making any similar posts on Wikipedia.

    I plan to focus on the same main areas as last time I was unblocked: updating articles using material written for Wikinews, helping at RSN and 3O, and so on.

    These were constructive, uncontested, noncontroversial edits. As you can see from my edit history before the appeal, I was an asset to Wikipedia during this period, with no complaints, accusations, or fights. I also never interacted with the editor with whom I am now under an IBAN – a voluntary decision on my part.

    I am a lead reporter in Wikinews, having drafted over a hundred now-published articles. This often leads me to new material not yet in Wikipedia. If my edit count seems low it's because I often add large amounts of text to mainspace with a single edit e.g. [52] and I was splitting my time across many parts of Project Wiki. Notable activity:

    • Imported material to mainspace from 61 articles I originally wrote for the Spanish Wikipedia. [53] See my contributions [54] under "(translated from Spanish Wikipedia)".
    • Updated several Wikipedia articles with new content from Wikinews. [55]
    • One of the facts I added from Wikinews[56] made "Did you know?" [57]
    • Over 100 contributions to RSN. [58]
    • One RfC. [59]
    • Three 3O cases. [60]
    • Two ARCA cases, for one of which I was awarded a diplomacy barnstar. [61] in recognition of [62]

    For future appeals of the 2016 topic ban, it is my understanding that the admins recognize that I reject the original accusations but as of June 2018 do not merely advise but require me not to present evidence about this. Instead I am required to focus on present and future positive contributions.

    Please inform me if there's something I haven't understood, or if you want me to add or change anything. If you decide not to lift the block, I hope you will consider restoring talk page access. I will respond to any other issues the admins think necessary upon request. Because I am not permitted to reply here, please place questions and comments on my talk page. Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkfrog24 responses

    Copied across from usertalk page at Darkfrog24's request -- Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphimblade, I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but I guess I didn't:

    I will continue to stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.

    I see others among you saying that their biggest concern with my user access being restored is that I would immediately return to what they call relitigating the original accusations against me. As GoldenRing points out, I've been clearly ordered not to. I will not discuss the matter on Wikipedia outside legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as we are engaging in right now.

    My plan for the topic ban appeal, a year from now, to prevent relitigation, is to list my plans for future contributions but add a line at the end, "If any admin here wishes me to address the original accusations, I am prepared to do so." I don't expect anyone will take me up on it, and if so, that's the end of it.

    Is that acceptable?

    In my time since the original sanction was imposed, I have also taken several steps to explore conflict resolution and deescalation, with noted success at 3O and noticeboards, as you can see from my edit history during the previous six months when I was unblocked.

    Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures.

    I have edited Wikipedia in a conflict free way in all the topic areas mentioned in the appeal (mainly RSN, and adding material from Wikinews and the Spanish Wiki). I have shown I am an asset to the encyclopedia, as you can tell from the six-month history before the last appeal.

    These topics are also far from MoS with no gray-area issues. An AE admin made it clear that I am permitted to do style edits (wikignoming) of Wikipedia articles generally, so long as I don't discuss the edits, and in practice that caused no problems.

    Seraphimblade, do you feel I have addressed your concerns?

    If there is something else I haven't addressed here please ask and I will respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Community comments

    Where is the link to the actual AE/DS block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, reading backwards through Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log, Darkfrog warned of discrentionary sanctions in 2015, topic banned in January 2016, topic ban expanded in February 2016, indefinitely banned later the same month, after discussion here. Related arbcom motion here. Appealed again in 2018 declined. Indeffed (again) here (oversight only diff). There is some weird shit in there, and arbcom might know more. There are also a half dozen declined UTRS appeals, btw. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This appeal is missing the crucial point: Darkfrog24 must indicate that they understand exactly what the topic ban imposed upon them means, and will stay far away from it. The entire previous disruption was the endless requests for "clarification" regarding it. No more "clarification", stay far, far away from that area, doing nothing that could even be remotely construed as touching on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with and share Seraphimblade's concern. I am glad that the user found usefulness elsewhere, but until they recognize that their behavior was wrong, we would be reinforcing these same impulses - which would recur. I suspect the user is playing along, checking the boxes she needs to get unblocked, and will likely try to avoid trouble. But not for long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think they’re a good guy, but based on my interactions with them, they are the type who will never get the point and honestly in good faith will think whatever disruptive behaviour they’re engaging in is helpful. While that doesn’t make them a bad person, it does make them a bad fit for the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Strictly speaking, for a petition for relief of sanctions (this really isn’t an “appeal” in the proper sense, which challenges the correctness or propriety of the original action), I don’t usually think it’s necessary to admit wrongdoing, though it can be persuasive. After all, there may be cases where there is a legitimate difference of opinion with the blocking admin. I’m not saying that’s the case here—actually it’s hard to tell what the whole story is from Darkfrog’s explanation, which I actually do find problematic. As such I’m in much the same boat as Someguy1221; there’s some weird stuff here that I don’t really understand. Moreover, seeing as there are suppressed diffs connected to blocks (per Someguy1221), I think we may want an oversight person to give an opinion on whether this request adequately addresses the block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The suppressed diff is just a block notice. Doesn't appear related to the reason suppression at first glance, but I haven't looked closely. To clarify my stance above, yeah, it's similar to yours: he's rambly and doesn't really ever get to a point. I revoked his email access because he was sending multiple followup emails to a reviewing admin from UTRS via the email user function and they appeared to find it very frustrating. I'd put him fairly firmly in "Well meaning but bad fit for the project who doesn't get why." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "weird stuff" was added to the page before the block notice, and removed afterwards. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, yes, I was looking just at the diff you linked the block notice in. I think I remember there being a discussion on the list about this at one point. Anyway, having looked more closely at the suppressed material, I think it falls in line with my general impression here that this is someone who may have issues that are not best addressed through noticeboard discussions and that this may cause concerns in the future. I'm not really sure how else to put that, but yeah, I think it's likely to cause issues in the future... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • In light of this further information and discussion, I oppose the request. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No convincing rationale provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per TonyBallioni who analyzes the situation persuasively and provides the right amount of additional information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support - appreciate above that there are quite a few issues. I don't necessarily agree that someone blocked should stay blocked forever. I think the standard offer should apply here, with a clear understanding that a) They must stay away from absolutely everything to do with the Manual of Style, in any description, and drop the subject about their topic ban. It's not exactly necessary to admit fault here, just a commitment to avoid the behaviour in future. Violations can be dealt with swiftly with blocks/reimposition of indef, but I think given their proposed work on Wikipedia I'd be open to them at least having a conditional unblock, perhaps with namespace restrictions if really seen as necessary. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The main problem that led to this block was the interminable relitigation of the topic ban (trying to appeal to AE after being rejected at ARCA twice and various other venues). It seems from this request that Darkfrog24 acknowledges that further relitigation is not acceptable. The conditions of the topic ban (according to AELOG) are that it may not be appealed until twelve months after an unblock, and their IBAN may not be appealed until the TBAN is successfully appealed. I'm happy to see an unblock under those conditions; any TBAN violation or attempt to relitigate the ban should be met with an immediate re-block. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per Tony but also the idea that "if someone violates again, they'll be swiftly reblocked" is patently untrue around here, it's often harder to re-ban and undo the damage that's been done in situations like this. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Praxidicae: In general you might have a point (though actually I see this said a lot but don't really see it happen), however this topic ban is under ARBATC and any admin can unilaterally block for violations. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Other communications and behavior from the user in question lead me to believe that he is incapable of working collaboratively and actually listening. I'll leave it at that. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm unconvinced that will not re-enter the relitigation of the original topic ban, furthermore, based on their behaviour on IRC, where they repeatedly appealed their block (to the extent they were banned from the unblock channel) I have no confidence that they will not engage in obsessive litigious behaviour concerning disputed edits to content. I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned, is likely to result in significant disruption and excessive use of administrator time to manage. Nick (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've watched this case for a long time. While I do agree that Darkfrog's reaction to the original topic ban was less than ideal, I believe they understand that it will not be accepted. That said, all the subsequent issues stem from what was a blatant guideline-violating load of near-libelous BS that should have resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG block and almost amounted to harassment. Even the current block was an overreaction to Darkfrog asking for help to prevent further interaction with the slinger of false accusations. The fact is, Darkfrog was severely wronged, and their reaction since then is not only understandable, it's outright justified. The continued punishment (and at this point that's all it is, as it prevents nothing) of the wrong person is outright ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per Tony, "I don't get it" springs to mind when reading their unblock request, Also getting yourself blocked from the IRC unblock channel is worth a block alone. –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I second the comments by oknazevad, User:Steven Crossin, and GoldenRing, on these two principles: 1) him apparently having learned his lesson about his original mistakes including spilling gasoline on the campfire and 2) excessive sanctions. Admins should seriously research the background of GoldenRing's comments because they indicate a lot of wrongful conviction and harassment, aside from whatever actual transgression. I met Darkfrog24 a few weeks ago in #wikipedia-en on IRC, where he spends all his time building people up, and showing the utmost respect for the project. Never a bad word about anyone or anything, just a joy to be around all day. He's given editors careful, detailed, general advice when they ask. When the topic of blocking has come up, maybe if someone else jokes about getting blocked, Darkfrog24 was speaking of the remorseful regretful longsuffering for his block status. He has advocated to people not to get blocked, and explained the ways to generally avoid it. Generally speaking, based on that first impression, if I saw someone with that kind of personal attitude, that kind of a heart for the public works, that kind of eagerness to contribute ASAP, that kind of hurting for being unable to contribute, and with those academic credentials seen on his User page, I'd be seriously wanting that person as a contributor to public works. And then seeing his outstanding quality of writing on at least one article, I'd be wanting to drag that person in to Wikipedia. Being blocked for a year, and being unable to even appeal it for a year at a time, is like a sockpuppet parole or like a murder or burglary parole in real life. Speaking of which, I know people are saying that he was severely annoying in the past and climbing the walls about his block, but I believe his lack of sockpuppetry and his suffering over it shows a commitment to justice. He didn't ask for my comment but I looked this AN up and I just can't do nothing. Please find a justly sized parole sanction, and review his interim contributions. Thank you! — Smuckola(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I decided to review this with "would I support if he'd never mentioned his old cases in his appeals or now?", and with Steve as a mentor below, I think it's reasonable. It can certainly be irritating if someone wants to relitigate issues constantly, but they've been prohibited from that. I still feel that requiring people to concede every accusation before allowing them back in is unfair and just tests editors' lying skills. There are differences here from what we have seen before. Any attempt to relitigate should (re)trigger the indef, but factoring in the IBAN, TBAN and mentoring I think rope is legitimate. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeRight off the bat, Darkfrog24 has been incredibly persistent in their requests for unblock. In most cases, this persistence would simply be annoying, but in this case shows that Darkfrog24 has not understood the reason for their blocks. I believe that they are contributing in good faith but can not learn to drop the stick. The mentorship proposal is not encouraging to me either. Unblocks with mentoring only really work when the mentor is ready and willing to impose sanctions and when the mentee has already made strides toward resolving the issue that lead to the block. I don't see either of that in this case. Darkfrog24, I encourage you to continue working on other projects. Show that you know when it is appropriate to be persistent and when it is appropriate to back away from the horse carcass. Come back in no less than 6 months and make exactly one unblock request. Do not discuss it off-wiki except for a single request to restore talkpage access if necessary. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      AntiCompositeNumber (talk · contribs), I've made some suggestions below on namespace restrictions if they're unblocked under a mentorship agreement. While I don't have access to the block button, I won't be one to give them much rope, and any problems that occur, I'll be the first one to bring them right back here. Past editors that I've mentored can attest to my firmness, let's just say that. I definitely appreciate that it seems more value than it's worth to unblock, even on a very short leash, but if they are put on a short leash with the understanding a violation will lead to a swift re-block, I think they maybe should be given a chance. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Tony, mainly, but if he is unblocked then there must be an incredibly short leash - mentorship or no - with an immediate reblock if the mere thought of another "clarification" even begins to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing his mind. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would offer the suggestion that if someone wants to take responsibility for Darkfrog's editing behavior here, I'd go along with it. However, the sole caveat is that whoever decides to take that responsibility gets precisely the same block as Darkfrog when/if she goes off the rails and tries to reframe the rules again. Now the question becomes - whoever chooses to back Darkfrog -v are they confident enough in Darkfrog's restraint to put their own editing freedom at risk? If not, you shouldn't support turning her loose in the wiki. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Would not be willing to accept such a suggestion. Offering to guide a user to ensure they keep their nose clean is one thing, being subject to sanctions if the user fails is another. For the record, I also think that if such a rule was ever imposed on a mentor, it would make them excessively punitive and harsh as their own neck is on the line, which I think would be counter productive. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The responsibilities of a mentor include pulling the plug on the mentoree, but does not include being a legal guarantor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Perennially disruptive editor with a ridiculous number of unblock requests. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentorship suggestion

    Coming to the community with a possible idea. In the past, I have mentored editors that have had somewhat problematic pasts after a discussion at AN, ANI or an RFC - (here and here). Acknowledging that there are issues presented above, I do think Darkfrog is sincere about trying to do better here and keep his nose clean. I'm wondering if the community would be open to an unblock if they're placed under mentorship, perhaps with similar conditions to the ones Knowledgkid87 was put under (and in addition to their current topic ban?). Appreciating that some may feel it's not worth the effort, I am willing to take this on in order so this user can be given another chance. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As an addendum to the above, I would think that a namespace restriction would help Darkfrog prove they can keep their nose clean - I'd recommend starting with mainspace, mainspace talk, their own user space, file and category space, and a select few other Wikipedia namespaces they wish to work in (Third opinion and RSN I think is fine). Over time they could approach their mentor if they wanted to edit other spaces - the exception being their MOS topic ban obviously. Of course, the community may feel that this is too much trouble, but in the past this responsibility has been delegated to the mentor so the user isn't a constant burden on the community as a result of their unblock. If there's a problem, I'll be the first to drag them back here, or to ArbCom if I see fit. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Steve has had luck in the past working with users that have run into difficulty - I'm willing to support him here. — Ched :  ?  — 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely - I've already !voted above in a general sene, conditional on this, but I wanted to push that I think it would be worthwhile. It's not always helpful but I think mentoring seems a reasonable use here, if Steven is willing to take it on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose no. There are many issues with this proposal: the first being, as I indicated above, Darkfrog24 likely has issues that cannot be resolved through discussion and mentorship. I don't really know how much more explicit I can be than that while still respecting him. This proposal would not be able to address those, because he's indicated by his behaviour that he is incompatible with the English Wikipedia
      Then there is also the issue that "Mentorship" is Wikipedia code for People who I will use to prevent me from being sanctioned again even if I am exceptionally disruptive and who will do nothing to actually change my behaviour. I have never seen a mentorship proposal work, and like many who are finally coming around to see that "reblocks are easy" is a fantasy, I'd argue that the idea of mentorship as an unblock condition that works is a hallucination. If someone is unable to edit on their own without the need for handholding they should not be unblocked. Pure and simple. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very strongly oppose this and perhaps I'm missing something here but mentorship from an editor who is fresh off a 7 year break doesn't exactly seem ideal, especially given Wikipedia's changes over the last five years with regard to policy, consensus and general community standards. That aside, what exactly will mentoring do? I'm also concerned about the IRC canvassing that has happened here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • *shrug* It's worked before (mentorship). Nor was I one that cut the people I mentored slack - the user made a commitment to do X and that user failing to hold up their end would have been a poor reflection of me. I do disagree with your characterisation of me not being here for 7 years and thus not knowing my way around here or being familiar enough with policy and consensus - while my edits haven't been overly frequent until recently, I was somewhat active in 2018, 2017, 2016 etc and think I've demonstrated I still know how things work here. Nevertheless, Darkfrog here is asking for a chance. I'm here because I think they should get one, but at the same time, I don't know the user and I'm really not vested in this conversation. I'm not going to start an angry mob over this discussion if the status quo remains. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you and that is okay. However, I believe that Darkfrog was given ample chances and threw them away, however the bigger issue here is, as Davey2010 said, is "I don't get it/WP:IDHT" behavior I don't see any evidence that they understand the reasons that they are currently indeffed or the opposition here. Mentoring doesn't help bullheadedness. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point re bullheadedness, mentorship is not very effective in those situations. I guess the only other question I have is, in situations where a user is indeffed, what would one need to do to be unblocked? My understanding of the standard offer (of course, this isn't given to everyone) is that one doesn't necessarily need to apologise, but commit to avoiding the problematic behaviour in future, which seems to be the case here. If this request is indeed declined, what does it take for a user to regain the confidence of the community in future? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The question on unblocks is simple: do the potential benefits of unblock outweigh the known risks of disruption. It is not about regaining trust, it is about whether or not the community is willing to take a risk to let you work to regain that trust. There is nothing here that suggest that would be anything other than a horrible idea in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)r[reply]
    • Oppose as per Tony and Praxidicae - I have a saying in my head but out of respect for DarkFrog I won't say it ... so in polite terms I'll say "Mentoring won't fix it". –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll get no arguments from me - sorry I stumbled onto an AN thread anyway. — Ched :  ?  — 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Per TonyBallioni. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Some froggies change their spots. Steve is generous and experienced, and is commended just for offering. — Smuckola(talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per others above, especially TonyBallioni. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Mentoring works, if done properly. I trust Steven Crossin (talk · contribs). I trust that he knows what it means, and the responsibilities. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (alternate: Food for thought): I just happened on this because I left a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page, saw it, and visited. WOW! I haven't reviewed the history so only know what I see. The subject apparently isn't allowed to respond here so I would have to bounce back and forth to his user page to glean possible information or seek third-party inquiries, and I have not. Two editors (one admin) that I respect opposed any "reprieve". TonyBallioni is adamant it is a lost cause ("horrible idea"), is very convincing as to reasoning so much that other editors just agree with what was stated, and I believe it is well thought out and "maybe" even possibly prophetic. User:SmokeyJoe has swung to supporting a reprieve with a mentor. On that note I see that User:Steven Crossin has some earned respect and I don't think "time away" is relevant because changes mentioned won't hinder the goal of "keeping someone away from the well they have a need to jump into." The subject stated "Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures. That is a concern. Why not find a new playground and "stay the hell away from the one that got you into trouble?" If Darkfrog24 is interested in returning to Wikipedia I would wonder why a permanent T-ban would not be placed on the table? Anyway, if a conditional reprieve didn't work everyone involved would be less forgiving in another instant of 3rd chance and I would just comment "agree with whatever Tony said". Also, everyone would have to acknowledge "I told you so" would be deserved. If successful I am sure he would not really mind being wrong as "exceptions" can occur. The issue of slow justice should the subject run for the well, seems to be answered satisfactorily. I am sure there would be enough eyes on the subject should a transgression occur or the mentor screams "pull the plug". I am really on the fence, and the wind was leaning me to the prophetic side, but a surprise would be a welcome change bolstered by the equalizing wind of SmokeyJoe's comments. Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Otr500 (talk · contribs), I agree with your concerns regarding their topic ban. As I understand it, the topic ban is indefinite but not permanent. I disagree that a topic ban should ever be for life without any ability to appeal, however. People can change their ways. Perhaps instead of allowing an automatic appeal after one year since the last topic ban appeal, they must satisfy to the mentor in some way their contributions to the community first, and also give a rationale for why they want to edit in the topic banned area, before it can be considered. Once that time comes, restrictions could possibly be relaxed slightly and gradually, rather than all at once. I am not necessarily saying that this will be an overnight thing, and I will be encouraging (and restricting them) to certain activities, so they can gradually re-cement themselves as a member of the community. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I suppose it is a good thing I have ADHD. I can work in an area or not and bounce around. I am just wondering! What timeline would this normally involve and how long would you commit? Even the wording "overnight" brings images of short term failure. I am trying to wrap my head around how it would successfully work considering the negative rationale of User:TonyBallioni, User:Praxidicae, and User:Davey2010 that it won't work. Conditions would have to be discussed, and agreed upon by Darkfrog24 per User_talk:Darkfrog24#Restore user talk page access (point 3). These should include:
    1. A minimum length of time you agree to, as discretionary is too unsure,
    2. A definitive length of time on the T-ban,
    3. A review at the end of your timeline (or the minimum) if this is deemed appropriate.
    I hope at least the three names I just mentioned would agree to give input on restriction/condition discussions if consensus does determine a reinstatement. The reason for the review is to ensure not only that others agree when you feel a release is appropriate, but since a comment was made about mentor responsibility I think if all the criterion has been met then that is all that could be asked.
    "IF" a reinstatement with a mentor finds consensus and at a minimum the above is acceptable I would support such a move. If a consensus determines no then at least I tried. Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say at least a 6 months to year as a minimum, I'm open to either. The topic ban at the moment on MOS should remain in place until that period is over. I think a review at the end of that period would be appropriate. It's up to the community here. I'm happy to take this on if the community is, but I of course understand the reservations here too. I've been inactive in the past for some periods, but I've come right back and I think my judgment is as good as it was back then. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be alright with a year if others were. I had to leave some comments on his talk page before I even think about getting on board. There was just some issues and I needed some resolution on. I have a lot of reservations also with what I have read. I would think with his credentials and a change of attitude (if possible) he could make some great contributions in his field without ever thinking about MOS. I am glad I was more blessed with common sense because to me it seems really smart people can sometimes make really bad decisions.
    I also randomly looked at one of his contributions and he added 959 bytes to an article (Thermococci) with no reference or inline cite. The article has only one reference and possible referenced through the "Further reading" section. It was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Although he may have the knowledge to know the information is correct most of the rest of us (maybe excepting the other 27 editors involved) still consider unsourced material as possible WP:OR. I don't know if this will go anywhere but commend you for volunteering. I can only imagine it could be a challenge. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett

    Well it doesn't look like much more is going to be accomplished here. Scotty doesn't appear to be receptive to discussion, and Eric doesn't appear to be sticking around. If someone wants to try to make sense of that Arbcom mumbo jumbo- it's over at WP:RFAR. Ched

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

    In the last week Eric has been baited into a block on various threads, mainly surrounding Moors murders which is currently at WP:FAR as a result of being ruined by some fairly well-intentioned editors. Eric was blocked by GoldenRing for 72 hours and was asked we he can't "let stuff go". Then, 72 hours later (maybe more) Eric is visited by an admin, Scottywong, who leaves this rather unnecessary and provocative message, in order to provoke an equally unnecessary and provocative retaliation from Eric. It is clear that Eric and Scottywong have history, so will it be a case of sitting back and watching with bated anticipation, to see if Eric responds with an equally uncivil retort, so he can be blocked, or will Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble? CassiantoTalk 03:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully, EC will ignore the bait. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point. Someone should have the foresight to deal with the instigator rather than the instigated. CassiantoTalk 03:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can demonstrate to some standard that the intention of the comments to which Eric is reacting inappropriately is to provoke just that reaction for the purpose of having Eric blocked or banned, then I think there is grounds for intervention. Otherwise, it still comes down to Eric needing to bite his tongue and not rise to the challenge. If nobody can prove to some reasonable standard that the baiting is intended to cause Eric to violate his editing restrictions, then we're well into WP:NOTTHERAPY territory. As to that one diff, I just don't see it as being intended to cause him to violate rather than an unfriendly, snippy remark. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For "unfriendly" and "snippy", read incivility. There is not a separate rule for sysops. CassiantoTalk 04:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read my filing comment? SW's comment offers nothing relevant to the thread, other than to mock Eric's "style" - indicated by the provocative use of quote marks. EC and SW have history, further evidence with regards to a motive. And no, it does not fall to Eric to bite his tongue when we have people actively going about provoking incivility. If this kind of provocation didn't exist, Eric wouldn't react. Can you demonstrate the positivities of saying such a comment to someone who's just come of a block? CassiantoTalk 04:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who has tried to understand and get to know Eric as a person knows that he has a touchy or prickly personality, but also that Eric is a great Wikipedia editor when nobody is trying to pick a fight. And very smart. I will never forget the help he gave me on my first Good Article, an article that I really cared about. He has provided similar assistance on many, many other articles, when other editors were happy to work with him. In my opinion, any administrator who comments on his talk page (or the talk page of any recently blocked editor) should have a clearly articulated and valid reason to communicate. Poking at a person who has gone through such a tough experience is a very bad idea. Administrators should always try to keep caution and compassion in mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I accidentally removed part of another editor's comment, then I apologize. Please feel free to refactor to clean up my mess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion one must "demonstrate the intention" or "prove the baiting is intended" is absurd in the context of text-only WP. (Even in court of law, successful perjury cases are nearly non-existent, because the standard of proving intent, that the liar "knew they were lying" is an almost impossible bar to meet. So in WP, which is not a court of law, the suggestion is doubly inappropriate & absurd.) The text is there in black & white for any reasonable person to read & interpret whether baiting or not, as well as any accompanying history or context. --IHTS (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There must be intent. In the absence of intent demonstrated to some standard, you're assuming bad faith inappropriately. So in WP, which is not a court of law, the suggestion is doubly inappropriate & absurd. Of course Wikipedia is not a court of law. But we still must adjudicate problems like this fairly and even-handedly, according to policy, rather than what we "feel" is right or wrong, baiting or provocation. I see no clear facts being asserted to demonstrate intent to disrupt or intent to cause Eric to violate his sanctions. In the absence thereof, I would advise that this discussion be ended. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, I think you sometimes go way too far with your attempts to interpret things on a legal basis. You know full well that Wikipedia is not governed by such things. I realise that, like me, you cannot read SW's mind but can you please try to explain how you think their comment was useful/what purpose it served, bearing in mind in particular the past interactions and the unusual grammar. That is, in your terms, the "intent". - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, I think you sometimes go way too far with your attempts to interpret things on a legal basis. You know full well that Wikipedia is not governed by such things. On the contrary, I'm trying to bring a measure of logic and analytical response to this matter, rather than an endless reliance on "concern" for "problematic" comments. One needn't read someone's mind to determine intent, after all. And, indeed, I don't think SW's comment was constructive or intended to be particularly constructive. But I also don't see any indication that the comment was intended to push Eric into violating his restriction. If that comment is worthy of sanction under the ordinary policies, then it should be sanctioned. If not, it should not. All this talk about "baiting" Eric is meaningless unless there's intent to cause Eric to violate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the law or its processes are particularly good exemplars of logic. Given your opinion of SW's "intent", why should the comment have been made at all? - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the law or its processes are particularly good exemplars of logic. I have no interest in your prejudices. The only interest any of us should have is that this complaint is resolved rationally. The only way to do this is to put aside personal, subjective feelings and by pursuing this in an objective, repeatable manner. This is the approach I have advocated from the beginning and will continue to advocate. If SW can be shown to have intended for Eric to violate as a result of his comment, then he should be sanctioned. Similarly, if SW's comment violates standards for civility, then he should be sanctioned accordingly. This is not hard by any means. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv: No, the only interest any of us should have is that this complaint is resolved in a way that minimises disruption to the encyclopaedia project. If totally irrational actions result in that end, that's fine with me. I don't care what SW's intent was; anyone can see that this is unnecessary and likely to be provoking, especially given the history between these two. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing, totally irrational actions don't result in minimizing disruption. Totally irrational actions–especially admin actions–always increase disruption. Exhibit A: deleting dlthewave's firearms page as a DS sanction; Exh. B: indef'ing Huldra when Sir Joseph had a 3 month tban; Exh. C: removing Scottywong's comment but doing nothing about Corbett's just-as-bad-or-worse comments (see my next comment below). I wish you would take on board that Mendaliv's point here is correct and yours is not: there needs to be rationality in enforcement, or else the people rebel. That's why the real world has laws and not just cops who do what they think is right from moment to moment. – Levivich 15:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that Golden Ring blocked Corbett less than a week ago? Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Exhibit D: when an editor is blocked for incivility for a month, then comes back and is even more uncivil, giving him a 72-hour block is irrational and leads to–you guessed it–he's back after 72 hours, and still uncivil. (In fairness, GR's issuing of the AE block was per admin consensus and not a unilateral action, as far as I read it. But it illustrates mendaliv's point about rationality in enforcement actions [though I'm not sure if mendaliv supported the block at all, I can't remember]). – Levivich 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric is always going to be uncivil. I've never much cared for that and I used to be one of the editors making a big deal of it. Frankly, I don't know what should be done about his incivility and, if yet another discussion was held to try and figure out a resolution, I wouldn't touch it with a 39-and-a-half foot pole. But none of that makes it okay for Scotty to bait Eric, and I'm not down with going easy on Scotty just because Eric is uncivil. I brought up GoldenRing's block because you made it seem like he was completely ignoring's Eric behavior when, in reality, it takes a great deal of courage to block Eric given the backlash that normally ensues. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to imply that GR was ignoring Eric's behavior (I might take issue with how GR uses the tools sometimes, but GR certainly doesn't ignore issues; he often tackles the toughest disputes, much to his credit). As for EC always being uncivil, I hope you're wrong, but if you're right, the answer is an indef block. Having recently read his last 500 contribs (going back to May 2008), it seems to me he is definitely capable of communicating normally, he just chooses not to. – Levivich 16:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to say that every single interaction with Eric includes incivility, but rather that I believe these civility issues will keep reoccurring in perpetuity. Baiting is a large part of the problem, although not the entirety of the problem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly the facts don't much matter here, but the recent one-month block was not for incivility but for mentioning a certain project with a tangential relationship to GGTF. Eric Corbett 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    poor judgement [...] in her membership of WiR was the offending statement. – Levivich 17:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been concerned about this too. Cassianto, thanks for bringing it here. One of Eric's FAs, Moors murders, was recently edited extensively (I'm choosing my words carefully) just as Eric was blocked for a month. To cut a long story short, it led to Eric receiving another block when he returned, several editors turning up who seemed hostile to Eric rather than interested in the article, serious personal attacks against Eric, the opening of a FAR, and editors who could have fixed the issues taking the pages off their watchlists in disgust (including the FAR nominator). I followed suit and took the FAR off my watchlist today.
      It is unfair that when Eric is baited, only he receives a block because he is under an ArbCom civility restriction. I'm pretty sure the ArbCom would not have intended to create that disparity. SarahSV (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Sarah, it's even worse when one of the baiters happens to be an admin. Talk about lead by example. CassiantoTalk 04:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • SlimVirgin Please explain why you raised the FAR in a thread that is about editor behavior rather than article content, and why you appear to think that opening an FAR (to address what appear to be extensive and specifically stated article content issues that earlier measures including directly editing the article and discussion on talk had prominently failed to address) can be interpreted as a personal attack on an editor or indeed as anything other than purely being a step towards keeping our FAs high quality. Interpreting the FAR as an attack, as you articulate here and as Eric Corbett has explicitly articulated on the FAR itself, and then stepping away from the FAR as you and Eric Corbett both say you are doing, appears to make the failure of the FAR more likely. Your continued protection of the article, despite being necessary at the time, also stands in the way of the success of the FAR, because without being able to edit the article it is difficult to fix any issues. I'd rather think you'd prefer (as I do) that the FAR succeed in addressing the issues, returning the article to FA quality, and reaffirming its FA status. But for that to happen, it is essential that the review be depersonalized and depoliticized, or to put it more bluntly that editors feel free to criticize the wording of the article without fear that in doing so they will be taken to WP:AN as trying to bait Eric Corbett. It appears to be the case that criticizing or even editing the article acts to bait Eric Corbett, but if so, that should be his problem, not the problem of people trying to make FA and FAR work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've misunderstood. I protected the article for 24 hours only. I did not interpret opening the FAR as a personal attack. SarahSV (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then why even mention it at all here, in a thread that is purely about personal attacks to or by Eric Corbett? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Personal attacks? I think you may be confused with another thread somewhere. No where have I said this is a "personal attack". This is about baiting behaviour, aggravated by the fact that it was by an administrator. But thank you for your valued input as always. CassiantoTalk 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • David Eppstein I'm not sure why you're attacking SlimVirgin but the FAR is to some extent directly related. Regardless, as I've explained to you now numerous times opening a FAR was my suggestion as the only means forward to solving intractable talk page issues at that article, almost all of which occurred in Eric's absence. I expected that Eric would and should be involved in the FAR, but it's not yet another venue for editors to attack each other. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally don't see any baiting on the part of either Scottywong, GoldenRing, or Sandstein. None of them use clearly insulting wording like "incompetent gutter-snipe", "Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills", "stupid", or "unpaid goons" -- for all of which Eric Corbett was blocked [63]. If Eric Corbett wants Scottywonng to stay off of his talkpage, he has only to say so. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 with Softlavender. Much as I love Cass and Eric and the absolutely outstanding work they have contributed (even saying this sounds patronising; and that's what I feel is the top value of their work), there is no baiting here – though I am sorry Eric has to go through all this. Lourdes 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Softlavender, yours seem to be the "naughty words" approach to civility. Putting style in scare quotes, as SW did, is clear baiting. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quotation marks were directly quoting what Eric Corbett had said immediately above; therefore they weren't "scare quotes". If Eric Corbett wants Scottywong to stay off of his talkpage, he has only to say so. If the community wants to enact an interaction ban between Scottywong and Eric Corbett, then someone needs to propose it. Scottywong's comment does not appear sanctionable per se. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you believe Scottywong's comment is sanctionable per se, then what sanction to do you propose? Block? De-sysop? And based on what policy? Ad hominem comments like "Oh, come off it!" appear to indicate that you have no argument at this point but are merely bludgeoning those who disagree with your point of view. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read Cassianto's opening remarks in this thread. I have no idea why you are using the phrase ad hominem. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if you agree with Cassianto's apparent suggestion that "Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble", then I would suggest that you compose a boldfaced "Support" !vote for a block (including a policy rationale), rather than telling good-faith commenters to "Oh, come off it!". -- Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My congrats. First you insert ad hominem, which you know is usually used in the context of WP:NPA, and now you insert good faith with its implication that I may not be such because we're disagreeing here and you are. Smart stuff: if you honestly cannot see the baiting and totally unconstructive nature of SW's comment then I despair and hope that our paths do not cross in future because it doesn't look like I would get fair treatment. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • More ad hominem remarks instead of clear arguments. I never said Scottywong's comment was totally constructive; I said, and repeated myself, that in my opinion it is not sanctionable per se. If you believe it is sanctionable per se, then please propose an actual sanction and back that up with a policy rationale, and stop bludgeoning the conversation, questioning the good faith of those you disagree with, and posting ad hominem insults. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So says the editor who replied to my comment at RfA (that admins have no business being admins if they can't do the easy thing of turning off their mouths from saying "Fuck you", as cops on-the-job don't do to citizens) by referencing my block log. (Seems to me that makes you transparently hypocritical re your ad hominem complaints.) --IHTS (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eric Corbett has a number of restrictions by Arbcom because admins like SlimVirgin singularly failed to curb his bad behaviour, agressiveness, and article ownership issues. In many cases enabling it further. So whinging that he gets sanctioned under those restrictions is amazingly lacking in self-awareness. It is unfair that editors have to deal with Corbett and his protectors every time he throws a fit over his contributions being criticized, articles he has worked on being edited etc. But they had to deal with it, and it took an arbcom case to give them some form of parity. If admins had taken a more rigourous approch when these issues first appeared, it wouldnt have ended up at arbcom with Eric under a spotlight. So, only the enablers to blame at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't consider it actionable in this case given that SW and Eric seem to have avoided each other for the last five years, but Scottywong used to have a long history of appearing in threads in which he'd never previously commented to try to goad Eric (take your pick here). I can certainly appreciate that this kind of petty point-scoring is conduct unbecoming, although I can't see that a one-off instance is anything actionable. It takes two to tango and if Eric stops rising to the bait, SW will get bored and find another game to play. ‑ Iridescent 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is the "conduct unbecoming" which is the issue here. You are placing the onus on Eric Corbett not to rise to the bait. SW needs to be trouted and told to stay away unless they're going to contribute something which is, without question, constructive. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but as far as I can tell this is the first instance for five years, which is why I said "not actionable". On the general issue of taking two to tango, All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken is explicit written Wikipedia policy. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Yes, it is the "conduct unbecoming" which is the issue here. Then this needs to go to the Committee, which has exclusive authority over such matters. You are placing the onus on Eric Corbett not to rise to the bait. The onus is already on Eric based on the GGTF remedy, which requires him to disengage if he feels the need to fight back against someone that's annoying him. If this is unfair, an amendment should be sought at WP:ARCA. Until such time as that remedy changes, the onus is on Eric. This is not difficult. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree completely that Eric should not rise to the bait - no issue there. However, if there were no bait there would be nothing that might cause reaction. This doesn't need a formal sanction, just an informal shot across the bows so that SW is in no doubt that the edit was bad form. And all that needs is the notification of this discussion on their talk page + a consensus that it was indeed a poor comment. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Iridescent. It was baiting, it was inappropriate, and it doesn't rise to any blockable level. Funny, I thought Scottywong had retired--was their activity level substantial enough to keep the tool? They haven't been really active since 2013, or 2014 if one is charitable. And here they are, picking up where they left off years ago. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was unnecessary, ill-advised, inappropriate, etc. etc. Clearly provocative. But why bring it here and increase the potential for drama? Words to the Admin's. own talk page directly would have been more effective. This section is another unnecessary magnet, as can be seen..... Leaky caldron (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sanctimonious, self-promoting, trolling and clearly unsought comment which says more about Scottywong then Eric would ever be permitted to say. Probably not sanctionable as a first “offence”, but if this regrettable behaviour continues, then removal of his tool should be the first step in discouraging him. We expect better behaviour from our Admins. Giano (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the comment (and a response to it as collateral damage). It was completely unnecessary provocation of an editor who's just come off a block for responding to similar. It is deeply disappointing to see an admin stooping to this level and I agree with others than any repeat should be sanctioned, either by the community (IBAN?) or arbcom. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((edit conflict) with GoldenRing) I'm sorry to see Scottywong has ignored the ping in the original post, even though he's active. I'm also sorry to see Cassianto has not alerted Scotty that he's being discussed here, because pings are not sufficient (they don't always work). I have rectified the second thing, and posted an alert of Scotty's page. My opinion of this thing is that, no, it's not necessary to "prove intent", Mendaliv. Since we can't inspect the insides of each other's heads, we don't know other's intent. Scotty made a post that he should have known was provocative, a few days after Eric was blocked. I don't agree with Cass's implication that that post was specifically intended to cause Eric to flare up "so he can be blocked"; I don't even believe anybody would block him for responding rudely to provocation; or, if some admin did block, there would be an outcry and an unblock. No. But I do think it was a very poor idea, @Scottywong:. I don't know about past interactions (Cassianto's link for "have history" is less than helpful), but it's enough that you're an admin and Eric is not, which means that you have more power here. Eric had a recent block in his history, which was an appropriate and sufficient sanction IMO. GoldenRing, who placed the block and a note about it, was very polite, as was appropriate. There was absolutely no call for Scotty to go there and poke Eric. Please hold yourself to a higher standard. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oops, sorry, Cass, I see you did notify Scottywong. I should have checked the page history. He removed your notification with the comment "lol", and didn't deign to reply here. Lovely. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • I endorse GoldenRing's action and analysis. Haukur (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse GoldenRing. See "admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric" (July 2014). Also, Scottywong indeffed Eric on 5 July 2013 (reduced 7 hours later). Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO it's clear baiting and I certainly endorse GoldenRing - Any repeats should result in sanctions (I would've liked to have seen sanctions now but maybe that would be punitive. –Davey2010Talk 10:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just like to note the irony of Cassianto filing this complaint. My talk page is a good example of Cassianto baiting just as good. Anyway, ScottyWong should be at best warned about the behaviour. It is up to EC to ignore it. Thats it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't about me, so kindly do one. You're like an itch that wont go away. CassiantoTalk 11:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This comment by Cassianto is a striking example of incivility in a thread where I would expect everyone to be more careful of their own behavior than that, however provoked they may feel. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • This comment by David Epstein is a striking example of someone trying to create a straw man argument to take the emphasis off of the real issue, which is Scottywong's baiting behaviour. CassiantoTalk 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your incivility, in a thread on AN about incivility, is not a straw man. And I believe in the ability of AN participants to continue examining both Scottywong and Eric Corbett's behavior despite now also being pushed by your incivility to add another incivil editor to those under examination. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is a straw man as this was never about incivility. Why don't you put some spectacles on and actually read my very first comment? CassiantoTalk 18:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is that the main incivility that strikes you in this thread, David, really? For my own part I'm more disturbed by the fact that Scottywong has removed Cassianto's AN alert from his page with the edit summary "lol" and has now also removed my own alert with "yawn, not interested". He can't be arsed to reply to the comments here, from many users, including the admin who blocked Eric (GoldenRing). I call that incivility and nonchalance. Note also WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
            • Removing material from one's own talk page and laughing it off is not incivility. And the existence of other incivility nearby does not provide any justification for Cassianto being incivil. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something about stones and glass houses. For the record, BabbaQ's comment could also been considered an attempt to bait Cassianto. As for Scotty, perhaps a short block would remind him to not do this in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is tu quoque a useful response to this? But if you insist on going in that direction, and the least civil thing you can find by trawling through someone's talk page looking to discredit them is a mildly-colorful adjective directed at the quality of Wikidata rather than at an actual editor, then you should look harder. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could've brought up other stuff. Be grateful that I didn't. Regardless, it wouldn't be okay to scrutinize low–level misbehavior on the part of one editor while completely ignoring the blatant provocation even if you weren't yourself guilty of recent incivility. But of course, the exchange between BabbaQ and Cassianto is a microcosm of this entire thread. Person A provokes Person B, and a sizable number of people want to give Person A a pass while suggesting that Person B better not say anything dumb in response. Seems unfair. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, let's not have a long game of 'oo killed slagged off 'oo. And while I'm pretty disappointed with Scotty's response to this, a block would be punitive, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not necessarily. Scotty's given no indication that he understands he needs to refrain from such behavior; indeed, he seems to find this all very amusing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'll be making a full comment about this alleged baiting later, but for now I ask people refer to my previous statement at AE (which will likely get ignored by most admins again). My friends and I are going to the beach for now, though because I need to do something that isn't Wikipedia for like a day, I mean come on MJL you were editing for most of your birthday too.. that's just sad.
      I'll comment later, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the point of raising something that was already covered in a now-closed AE thread? It is history and Eric got a block for stuff raised in that thread. The current issue here is not merely about baiting but about admin conduct, which is arguably a higher level of concern. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • MJL, I'm sorry, but who are you? Why do we need to know that you will be making a "full comment" later? And if not a single admin comments on your comment...maybe your comment wasn't all that exciting. And now I see that we have yet another Arb case, where you're throwing in some comments from, what, 2016? That actually was a pretty useful comment: "wasted enough of my time already" is applicable in many circumstances. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: [Thank you for the ping] I was going to make a full comment, but I read some of the discussion asking for this to be punted to arbcom. I obliged. As for the rest, I am unsure as to how best answer your question on this forum. I'm kind of new here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SW's comment, I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style"., has been removed by an admin. So far, no admin has removed Corbett's comments from the two days since his last block expired:
    I doubt anyone cares about your book right here, right now. That issue is done and dusted. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't this report supposed to be about Scottywong's behaviour? Why not close it now with a summary to the effect that it doesn't matter how uncivil anyone is towards me, as that's evidently the conclusion that's being drawn here. Eric Corbett 17:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further discussion

    El C, I'm sorry but I think discussion needs to continue. I don't think Eric was actually asking it to close. SarahSV (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly wasn't asking for it to be closed, I merely asked a rhetorical question. Eric Corbett 18:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. Will undo. Anyway, do (any of) you have a concrete proposal on how to resolve this? El_C 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, if the discussion continues, we might be able to figure out what's been happening. It isn't straightforward. SarahSV (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Sorry again. El_C 18:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What bothers me here is the intentional goading, EC is responsible for his own behavior and responses but at what point do the people trying to right great wrongs become a large part of that problem too. One very valuable thing I learned from the Lightbreather arb case is that even when you feel the other person is the problem the actions you (SW) take not only make the problem much much worse it obfuscates the actual "problem behavior" they wish to highlight. It may not just obscure that POV it may also deepen the problem for both individuals...took me a I-ban to figure that out but it was a lesson I have learned... Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote up this reply to Levivich, but then the thread closed, so I'll post it down here.
      I've seen nothing but good work from you since you started editing in 2018. I was surprised to see you arrive at Talk:Moors murders on 13 August to support installing EEng's shorter version, after your detailed post against Eric on 11 August at AE. That seems to mix up editor disputes and content issues. It seems from your comments that you're not familiar with the topic, and you've followed whatever EEng wants (e.g. you were about to make an edit request but stopped when he advised against it). You've also ignored personal attacks on Eric.
      For example, when EEng found the sourcing issues (common in older FAs), he posted a link to his comment with the heading "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs!" on the talk pages of eight editors, including you and five admins. [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] No one blocked him. Goldenring warned him. You thanked him. [73] Is this not a clear example of double standards? Increasingly it feels that anyone can say whatever they want to or about Eric, can undermine his work while he's blocked, and if he doesn't express his frustration in the right way, he (and only he) gets blocked again. SarahSV (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin:
    • What you leave out (and you do have a way of leaving things out) is that I agreed poseurs was overboard, and changed it to have feet of clay just like other editors on my own initiative [74]. My unutterable astonishment on finding – even while the target of a barrage of nonspecific allegations that I'd edited out "nuanced meaning" allegedly present in the sources – that our vaunted Content Creators pushed an article through FA with scores of unverified passages is best summarized here [75].
    • While we're here, I'm sick and tired of you repeating your fucking bullshit (which you emitted once before in this very thread [76]) that I undermined [E.C.'s] work while he's blocked. To quote myself:
    I had absolutely no idea EC had been blocked. I've worked on this article here and there for a year or two, and it's simply a cosmic coincidence that I really got into it the other day. In fact, EC was blocked that day after I started this round of edits [77], which was stimulated by this [78] pretty-awful edit by an IP.
    That quote is from the article's talk page [79], where you've been stalking about with a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick for some time now, apparently without bothering to read the thread (the one I just linked) which was the background to the events on which you've been pontificating. Or did you, in fact, read the above and just choose to ignore it because the facts are inconvenient to the poor-baited-Eric mythology to which you've married yourself? You tell us which. I'm not in the habit of asking for apologies, especially from those willing to insist that black is white, but now that this particular lie has been exposed in this very public forum I assume we'll hear no more of it.
    • I've got one more for you before I leave you to put all this in your pipe and smoke it. Where was the baiting in this thread [80] that led to E.C. suggestion that I extract your head from your arse and get on with all your "improvements"? Do inform us.
    EEng 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern is that you are prioritizing Eric's feelings over valid article content issues. Who cares whether EEng presented the issues with the moor murder article in a somewhat abrasive way? Who cares whether one of the people who brought it to FA status ten years ago got himself blocked for unrelated reasons a day or so after EEng started copyediting the article? None of those things is a reason to prevent improvements to the article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me try and spell it out for you. That "complete fraud" accusation was why I will take no part in the FAR. Which, just to be clear, I would have opened myself if nobody else had. There's nothing in it for me whether Moors murders keeps its bronze star or not; The standards for sourcing are different now to what they were ten years ago, but I'd defy anyone to find any "fraud" in the article. Eric Corbett 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • And at the risk of yet another block, let me be even more blunt. Any problems with the sourcing could very easily have been fixed by those who actually had access to the sources and knew that material. But no, all of them were chased away. So you will end up with a camel of an article which in the end will satisfy nobody. Eric Corbett 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The difference between fraud and falsification is merely one of intent. I have good faith that there was no fraudulent intent in the creation and editing of the article; it could much more easily be explained as sloppiness. But once problematic content has been identified, and a group of editors reacts not by fixing it but instead by kicking up a huge fuss about civility as an excuse to not to anything, protecting the article in the old problematic version, repeatedly reverting to that version, and then claiming to walk away from the mess while simultaneously derailing the improvement process with off-topic comments about how offended they are, that good faith is harder to maintain. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • David Eppstein, I went through a period of being harassed several years ago. I recognize the signs of it, and I think it's happening here to Eric. That doesn't mean that everyone not on his side intends to do it. But regardless of intention, we need to be aware of it and find a solution. SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • We should not allow anyone to harass Eric or anyone else. Scotty's comment that kicked off the thread is of a type I have seen from others on Wikipedia: carefully staying this side of the line of overt incivility but intended to provoke. If we're going to sanction that sort of behavior, good, but we should do so consistently with others as well. On the other hand, we should also not allow claimed harassment to be used as an excuse to avoid content issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David, the problems at the article are to do with citation density, nothing more, which is common with older FAs, and we deal with it routinely. The content is almost certainly solid. No one has removed themselves "as an excuse". The authors and others familiar with the topic have decided they don't want to interact with someone who keeps attacking them and people they respect. If you agree that Eric should not be harassed, then please take a step back and look at the recent two AEs, and the timing of people arriving at Moors murders. Just as harassment should not be used as an excuse to avoid content issues, content issues should not be used as an excuse to engage in harassment. We should also recognize that people can engage in harassment without intending to. But that doesn't make it feel any better to the person at the centre of it. SarahSV (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the it-just-citation-density plea. I addressed that here [81] when E.C. entered the same plea:
    This has nothing to do with citation density ... but rather WP:V, which has always been policy. There can be just one cite for a whole section, if it supports all the material there. Instead, [at FAR] is a list of 55 points at which the source doesn't support the text (and that's after a review of only half of the article, and doesn't include the 5 or so instances which have been fixed and removed from the list), most of which seem to have been there since you nominated the article for FA. I have little doubt that 90% of that material is correct and verifiable; but that leaves the 10% that isn't and needs to be removed, and there's no way to know which is which without the citations. If it's all so easily verifiable you should have done it ten years ago before nominating it for FA; now others are going to have to do it, and you can either help or get out of the way. Articles often have problems like this, but they're not supposed to be FAs, and this constant heaping of abuse on those now doing what you should have done is transparently defensive.
    EEng 20:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, you asked for an analysis of timing of arrivals to Moors murders and their relation to other events involving Eric C. Eric violates a topic ban on an unrelated issue: July 1 2019. EEng (who had edited Moors murders as early as November 2016, and made some other significant copyedits this May) starts a long string of copyedits to the article: July 2 2019, with no evidence of having seen the AE thread on Corbett's violation. Eric is blocked: July 3. Martinevans123 (who had edited the article since at least a year earlier) starts interacting with EEng: July 5. Iridescent (who had also edited the article since at least a year earlier) starts interacting with EEng: July 9. Cassianto, DrKay, and Kieronoldham (who had edited the article since at least a year earlier) start interacting with EEng: July 10. So far, all very peaceful, although not all editors agreed on all edits. Eric C is unblocked: I assume some time around August 3. First major reversions: Serial Number 54129, quickly self-reverted, then Cassianto, restored by now-blocked Hari-kiri Te Kanawa and re-reverted by BabbaQ, August 5, leading to the first round of protection. So EEng's timing appears to be a complete coincidence, but Cassianto's and Te Kanawa's timing might have a connection to Corbett's block, and after that things became a mess. Is that what you were trying to imply? Or is there some other entrant to all this that you're referring to instead? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't refer to me as "Corbett". I find that most insulting. Eric Corbett 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      [edit conflict] Ok, will do, sorry about that. I have complained before about people addressing me as "Eppstein" (although I don't mind if they use that name when talking about me in the third person) so I know how it feels. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      ... he said, completely ignoring the substance of the post. No doubt if he'd referred to you as "Eric" you'd be bristling at the presumption of his overfamiliarity. EEng 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh? The post was in response to Slim Virgin, not Eric. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh? What? Who's on first? What are you talking about? What post? Who are you talking to? EEng 20:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      User:EEng is there really a need for the bad faith assumption about what EC likes or wouldn't have liked? Can't we stop the baiting at least here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Paul August ☎ 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Evidently not. Eric Corbett 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      -1 Paul August ☎ 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well the point was that his complaint about the form of address, sincere or not, distracted from the fact that he ignored the substance of David Eppstein's post. But you're right, so I've struck the bit about the form of address, leaving just the bit about the ignoring. EEng 21:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, thank you for looking at the AE reports (1 July and 11 August). First, please note that WP:STEWARDSHIP is policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." That was ignored, and it has led to this situation.
        Eric was taken to AE on 1 July for having referred to someone's membership of Women in Red during an RfA. On 3 July, when it was clear he was about to be blocked, EEng arrived at Moors murders to make a series of edits he had argued for (against consensus) in 2016. I'm going to AGF and assume he didn't see the AE. But I think most editors would wonder, if they started making edits that had previously been opposed, especially to an FA, why the main author was silent, and when they saw from his talk page that he was blocked for a month would stop.
        It was clear that at least some of the edits were against consensus. People asked EEng to stop; Iridescent said he was literally begging him to stop. When Cassianto reverted, EEng of course reverted back, and there were a flurry of reverts, including from a sockpuppet who reverted to EEng's version. When Eric's block ended, he reacted to EEng, and was taken back to AE and blocked again. Only Eric was blocked because he has a civility restriction. Now the page has to be protected so that no one can edit it, just to stop EEng from reverting to his version. Meanwhile, it seems he can say whatever he wants about Eric, including "fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" in an edit summary. Levivich, who took part in both AEs, commenting against Eric (in the second one extensively), has arrived at Talk:Moors murders to support whatever EEng wants. I AGF of Levivich, who is an editor I've had good experiences with, and I respect his work and his opinion. But I think what has happened here is not good, and that everyone needs to step back and examine how best to proceed with minimum disruption to the article, with respect for the FAR process, and with respect for the authors of the article, which is a sensitively written piece about a very difficult topic. SarahSV (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I want to thank you for recognising that Moors murders was a very difficult article to write. We tried very hard to strike what we thought was the right balance, but it was written ten years ago now. Some new information has come to light, and standards for the required citation density have changed, but I can state categorically that we made nothing up, which is why the repeated charge of "fraud" makes it impossible to collaborate with EEng. I am in favour of many of the improvements made in the intervening years, particularly dealing with the death of Ian Brady, so the charge of ownership simply astonishes me. We did what we could, so now let's see what EEng can do. Eric Corbett 21:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • SlimVirgin You are misrepresenting the chronology that I carefully laid out for you just above. "On 3 July, when it was clear he was about to be blocked, EEng arrived" is a falsehood and a statement that you would have known to be false had you actually read my comment. He had edited the article sporadically since 2016, had already made more significant edits in May, and started his edits on July 2, well before the block. Please stop casting false aspersions based on a false chronology. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps you can explain why you're trying to divert attention away from Scottywong's behaviour? Eric Corbett 21:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • David, please look more carefully at the chronology. EEng's 2016 suggestion that the article was "over detailed" gained no support. Just before Eric's block, but after it became clear that Eric was about to be blocked, EEng's started cutting the article down. I accepted above that it might be coincidence. Another coincidence is Levivich, who spoke against Eric in the two AEs, arriving to do whatever EEng tells him. For example, Levivich was about to make some edit requests. EEng suggested that he not do it, because it would cement in the version EEng doesn't like. Levivich then announced that he had changed his mind. As I keep saying, Levivich is an editor I respect. But I think opposition to Eric is interfering with people's decisions about content. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • FWIW, I posted the list of [EEng's edits on the FAR this morning. I don't see any in May. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry, I misread the date; the May ones were actually May 2018. He did edit the article in February 2019 as well. And as I said, even earlier in November 2016. Regardless of the exact dates, the notion that he first arrived at the article on July 3 is nonsensical and wrongheaded.
              • [edit conflict] I did look carefully at the chronology and found from my careful look that your theories of a connection to Eric's block are nonsensical. Your continuing to push these falsified theories after you have been shown evidence that they are false does you no credit. I have to point out that the usual standard for accusations of editor misbehavior on Wikipedia are: diffs or go home. So: please provide a diff with positive evidence that EEng learned that Eric would be blocked (not merely that he might have happened across an AE thread proposing to block Eric, but that he actually did learn of an actual intent to block Eric, prior to beginning his batch of edits) or stop accusing EEng of collusion. As for Levivich, I imagine he might have learned of the Moors murders article issue from watching EEng's talk page (which has many watchers, including me), took a quick look over there to see what the fuss was about, and naively started participating in content improvement, without realizing what he'd stepped in. That same scenario more or less explains my own participation there, and (although I doubt she got there the same way) it looks like what happened to another newcomer, Victoriaearle. It requires no theories of conspiracy to commit harrassment to explain it. And it would have started and ended at trying to improve article content if only the longer-term editors of that article could put aside their battleground mentalities and their attitude that editor feelings trump content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • David, you were the reason I took the FAR off my watchlist, so I'll stop responding here too. I want to say only one thing. I repeatedly said above that harassment can be unintentional, in the sense that one doesn't always realize how one's actions come across, or how they are perceived by the target as part of the actions of a wider group. You have taken my posts and produced "theories of conspiracy to commit harrassment". I can't keep commenting when I'm accused of saying exactly the opposite of what I did say. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Is it normally considered acceptable for an administrator to make vague accusations of misbehavior against other editors on WP:AN, refuse to provide diffs when asked, and then walk away from the discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This comment is not constructive and not a good way to establish a collegial collaboration, which is what's needed. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That comment may have been infelicitously worded, but its intent was to get the focus away from editor personalities and back to where it should have been, article content and on the appropriate process needed to get the article content up to par. I think your recent edits to the FAR are very helpful in that respect, by the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SarahSV: Thank you for the kind words; you know I hold you and your deep well of experience in the highest regard, and I always enjoy working with you here. I'm bummed that our viewpoints on this one are so diametrically opposed. In rapid response to all of the above: there were three AE reports against EC since he returned in May, not two. The first one, I said nothing. The second one, I made a snippy "unblockables"-type comment. The third one I diff-bombed. The third one was about Moors murders, that's how I came upon the article. I posted at the third AE my comprehensive thoughts on EC's incivility since his return and on how EEng was treated at that article, and I don't want to take up space repeating that here. Suffice to say, I don't see how anyone can look at EC's contribs and conclude that he is the victim of anything, as opposed to the perpetrator. I think it was EEng, not EC, who was provoked, poked, baited, bullied, or however you want to put it–wronged. EC's first comment on the Moors murders thread was to call EEng's edits "childish" and other stuff. If you look at the time stamp, by the time I saw and responded to EEng's posting on my talk page, he had already struck the header, which is good enough for me (EC hasn't struck any of the offending comments in my AE diff bomb). And, tbh, I didn't say anything before, but I didn't not use edit request templates because I was unaware of them; I didn't use them because I didn't think it was a good idea. When you suggested it, I took that as a hint that that's what I should have been doing, but it wasn't EEng's comments that made me change my mind, it was the fact that the first "informal edit request" of mine that was made by an admin was challenged on the talk page (and the admin later reverted it). That, in my opinion, was a waste of the admin's time, and it convinced me that my initial inclination not to use the edit request tempalte was the better way. Anyway, I think Victoria and EEng have agreed on a way forward in the FAR that is probably the best bet for resolving the content dispute–I think the suggestion, below, of putting something else on Arbcom's plate is sheer insanity–and I'm happy to agree to disagree on how we view EC and all the rest. – Levivich 01:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ... back to the original topic

    Whatever else may be relevant here, this remark: 'I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style".' by Scottywong to Eric, is inappropriate and unhelpful, especially for an admin. If I were voting for adminship, such behavior, were it shown to be more than a one off loss of temper, would lead me to vote against. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul August, per WP:NOTVOTE please consider amending the above as to not mislead others. —Sladen (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I though @Scottywong: was deysopped, I don't support his having advanced permissions. Admins have advanced authority here and as such they should be held to higher standards than users and if they are shown to be raising disruption they should have those advanced permissions removed post haste. Deysopping of admins should not only be done for admin actions but also for all their actions when they hold those advanced permissions, it is an admins duty, responsibility and requirement to reduce disruption not increase it whether it is using the advanced tools they hold or not.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into this a bit further, I'm also not pleased with Scottywong's lack of any apparent awareness or concern that his comment was inappropriate. I see this edit by Scottywong removing Cassianto's ANI notice with the edit summary: "lol", and his removal of another ANI notice by Bishonen, with the edit summary: "yawn, not interested". @Scottywong: would you please respond? Paul August ☎ 21:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, totally agree, lol, yawn not interested? His actions are a fail and a fail for a user with advanced authority on the project and if he is not prepared to stand up for those responsibilities he should have those advanced permissions removed straight away. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scottywong, please comment here about this situation. SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the subject of advanced permissions, this is only resolvable by the Committee and honestly belongs there. Certainly the comment was not constructive. Onto the broader concern of Eric being harassed, which I believe there may be evidence of, the complexity of the situation when combined with the previous arbitration remedies just about requires arbitration to sort out. This is, after all, what the Committee was created to do. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the comment was not constructive. I'd be happy to see our standards tightened so that deliberately-unconstructive statements intended to provoke (as this appears to have been) are considered uncivil. But if we do that many other editors than Scotty would fall afoul of such tighter standards; I think such a change needs a broad community education program rather than a sudden shift of the line that catches one of the people walking up to it by surprise. As it is, with the standards I've seen so far for other similar cases, I think this warrants no more than a trout for Scotty and a let's-pretend-nothing-happened-this-time for any reaction Eric may have had to Scotty's provocation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what reaction might that have been? Why do you keep making stuff up? Eric Corbett 23:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was just being careful in case there had been a reaction I didn't know about. If there wasn't one, so much the better. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you don't know what you're talking about, why talk? Eric Corbett 23:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • In a world where Scotty's comment would be sanctioned as unconstructive and inflammatory, so would that. Is that the world we want? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David, I don't know what you mean exactly by "sanctioned", but at the very least we should express our disapprobation, for things like this. If enough editors did that, such actions would become less and less acceptable. Paul August ☎ 00:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bored now.

    Can we punt this to ArbCom? It seems to be beyond our ability to fix here, and the user conduct issues are getting worse, not better, as people dig their heels in. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Completely agree. The depth of the evidentiary issues being raised screams for a structured discussion at the very least. And there are, and have been, ongoing question as to how Eric's unique remedies need to function. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll also note that Scottywong's responses to demands for a response have been less than impressive. See the edit summaries accompanying these removals of talk page notices of this discussion: "lol", "yawn, not interested", and a rollback. So there's definitely more than a single improper comment at Eric's user talk at issue here. Is it enough to open an ADMINACCT case at the Committee? Who knows. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This message is to acknowledge that I'm aware of this discussion, however I politely decline to participate in it because I find it to be an immense waste of everyone's time, and frankly I have much better things to spend my time doing. I believe that the very brief comment I posted is self-explanatory and does not require any further interpretation by me (however, I will say that the assumption (of bad faith) by Cassianto that my intention was to "bait" Eric into doing something blockable was incorrect and unfounded). If the community believes that I shouldn't have access to the admin tools because of the single sentence that I posted, I'm happy to accept those consequences. However, I have to say that I find it comical how much discussion there has been above about trivial things like whether my use of quotation marks was uncivil, while just a few lines above my original comment, an editor is referring to other specific editors as "fucking morons". Somehow, these types of comments escape the civility police radar while my sentence about someone's "style" - (gasp!) - triggers an insta-tattle to AN and the predictable dramasplosion that follows. Anyway, I don't intend to fan the flames of drama by participating any further in this discussion. Please be sure to let me know if anything results from this discussion that I need to be aware of. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 23:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scottywong: thank you for responding. You say there was no intent on your part to bait Eric, OK what was your intent then? Paul August ☎ 00:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is the immaturity shown in Scottywong's need to poke an opponent yet again. See "admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric" (July 2014). That is after Scottywong indeffed Eric on 5 July 2013—six years is a long time to hold a grudge. The solution is a one-way interaction ban which would be readily achieved if the poking is repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Johnuniq I think you hit it on the head an Iban would probably help here if SW can not help themselves except further the acrimony 6 years later. It does rise close to a recall but probably falls short of that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m honestly not sure that goes far enough. SW’s comment was inflammatory, and there should be an examination by the Committee to determine if it was intentional, and if so, whether more serious sanctions are merited. And there are quite a few other cases of misconduct surrounding Eric that merit investigation (e.g., the curious early close of the last ARCA). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally not of the belief that one comment 5 years after the last "incident" is misconduct rising to a desysop case focused on one individual: an admonishment or IBAN is the most that would likely come of it, and well, to be honest, the community can do either or those on their own without the need for ArbCom.
    That being said, you likely could have a case over the entire Moors Murder's saga and have this incorporated into it. Basically, this a full case for one comment is over the top, imo, but presenting evidence of it in another case would potentially make sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I read this conversation, and I am rather frustrated by our inability to resolve this dispute. I've opened up Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eric Corbett for comments. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, MJL, I'm shocked. Probably I should sit on my hands and not say it, but still, I'm shocked you felt you needed to do this. Now we have a full blown fire. Well done. Victoria (tk) 02:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please just indef User:MJL already. How much dramah does one editor need to cause in such a (hopefully) short career? ——SerialNumber54129 02:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I'll push back a bit here. I didn't cause this drama. (1) I did not make the comment that inspired this thread, (2) I didn't open this thread, (3) I've ignored the entire drama on the Murders page, and (4) I don't believe I knowingly have ever insulted another user.
    If arbcom feels I otherwise acted improper, I'd rather they be the one to sanction me at this point. I opened up the report knowing full well that my own conduct would immediately be scrutinized. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make me laugh. Push back all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that in the same breath as you open an arbcom case you also admit to having no involvement in the case/people/subject. Whatsoever. ——SerialNumber54129 03:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that? I don't recall, but if I'm not mistaken I said I've ignored the entire drama on the Murders page (which is true). I make it pretty clear that I had poor run-ins with Eric in the past right there in the case request. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Victoriaearle: [Thank you for the ping] No worries. It's a reasonable criticism to make that this may only escalate matters. In the short term, I have no doubt that would be true. However, I am a rather naïve believer in the process's ability to sort this out when given the chance. I struggled with this for awhile. My apologies for any disruption you feel this has caused in the meantime. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: [Thank you for linking to the page about the ping] do you mind changing "Eric" to "Eric Corbett" in your Arbitration document? You are well over the word limit, but surely adhering to that little but sometimes important formality won't make it much worse. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I just wrote like five minutes ago that I thought an Arbcom case was "insane" (and I don't know how they're going to make time for this), in fairness to MJL, it's not like they were the only one who thought a case was due, and if they hadn't filed it, someone else would have. Even before this AN, the suggestion of kicking it to Arbcom had been made at the prior AE cases (where the five-year-old sanctions have caused much friction in their application). @SN: that was an unnecessary PA. Every time I see you lately, you're sniping. – Levivich 03:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you think so. Let me consider my response. ——SerialNumber54129 03:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: It's a template. I welcome a lot of new users who probably want to read that page. It's kind of a habit as a way of saying I like getting pinged. I trimmed already, but that would have been a good idea as well. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, this is not a good step to have taken. I said above that it was starting to look as if Eric was being harassed (and I'll stress again: without anyone necessarily intending to do that). One of the features of being at the centre of harassment is that, if you complain about your treatment, there will be further escalation against you. SarahSV (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SlimVirgin: I considered that as well. My understanding is that, though I have filed this request, arbcom may wish to accept it in whatever scope they so desire. In fact, part of my concern is that the community is unable to take that allegation seriously, so arbcom would be the best group to design modified sanctions to avoid that scenario. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is harassment, then it doubly needs to be handled by the Committee. I urge you to provide any evidence of this claim to the Committee via the proper channels. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how harassment can take place without mens rea. If it happens once it might be accidental (although by that token, not harassment, just hassle), but that can hardly apply on repeated occasions. ——SerialNumber54129 03:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that harassment should require intent. As I've said elsewhere, harassment is a crime in many jurisdictions, so saying "X harassed Y" may be libelous if you don't mean it in its proper, legal sense, which would absolutely require intent. Of course, others have complained that one needs to be a mind-reader to know someone's intent—this is untrue, of course, and I assure all here reading that I am not a mind-reader and neither is a jury. In reality, intent can be demonstrated circumstantially, by an objectively reasonable standard, to a reasonable standard of proof (e.g., "more likely than not" or "clearly and convincingly"; the latter is commonly used in sports, such as American football, as the standard required for a replay referee to overturn a field referee's decision). I think that if SV has evidence of harassment, her best move would be to provide that evidence to the Committee. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Requesting an ARBCOM case against the apparent victim of this thread? Really? This seems to reward the apparent baiting of EC, and to be part of the apparent ongoing harassment of EC that other editors are seeing and complaining about above. I would strongly suggest that you remove your request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is yet another example of MJL, who is still a relatively new editor, involving himself in needless drama despite multiple attempts to get him to concentrate on building an encyclopedia. For how long is this going to be allowed to continue? Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pawnkingthree: *themselves. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Apologies. To my point though - a complicated case like this should be left to experienced editors or admins. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pawnkingthree: The only negative impact me filing the case as opposed to any other editor doing so is that there are now calls for me to be banned. If it had been Sandstein or Scotty... wouldn't that just be proving the point that these users are just out to get him? There would be demands that they get desysopped for escalating the dramah.
    That's to say nothing of the filer being someone who has history simply agreeing with Eric in these sorts of disputes. That filer would likely be charged with escalating as well and with trying to be rid of their perceived shared enemies. There was likely no ideal filer for this case request from my perspective. Am I wrong in these assumptions? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ... back to the original topic again

    @Scottywong: I'm willing to AGF and accept that your intent wasn't to "bait" Eric Corbett. But I would still like to know what your intent was with regard to your: "I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style", on that user's talk page? Paul August ☎ 11:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be obvious that his intent was to show up and get in a dig while the opportunity was there. So, are you asking rhetorically? Whenever anyone brings up the trolling and lack of courtesy shown toward Eric, the conversation is redirected to be about things he's said, apparently to make us think he deserves whatever abuse is aimed at him. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SW has backed away, EC hasn't taken the previous bait & a junior member of the community suddenly proposes an arbcom case. Must be something in the air, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Improper WP:RFC closure on Talk:Richard B. Spencer.

    User:Tvx1 closed an WP:RFC on whether to reflect reliable sources calling Richard B. Spencer a neo-Nazi in the lead of his article; in doing so, he both ignored an unequivocal consensus to include and "found" a consensus for a compromise that had almost no support (by my count, it is nearly two-to-one in favor of inclusion in some form compatible with the current version - which was the only question at hand - vs. those favoring exclusion.) The discussion was very lopsided in favor of inclusion, and many of the opposes were SPAs or cited things unrelated to policy. I'll also point out that in closing the discussions, Tvx1 ignored a specific request for an admin closure in Requests for Closure; while of course admin closures are not required, I feel that it's reasonable to respect a request for one when it's made, and that stepping into a situation that they themselves admitted was complex, while ignoring a clear request that the discussions be closed by an administrator, was clearly ill-considered. Finally, when I asked them for clarification and to explain their closure on talk, their explanation made it clear that this was a clear-cut WP:SUPERVOTE - they focused primarily on objections that had not been raised on talk (eg. Another factor I had to take into account is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person here. Natural precaution is taken with adding such a significant label to such an article., which is something for discussion to consider, but not something a closing admin can use to discount such a lopsided consensus to include, at least not in terms of assessing consensus - in certain cases, WP:BLP can trump local consensus, but misstating the consensus like this is not the way to go about it. Note that only a single opinion in the discussion, excluding the closer, directly cited WP:BLP concerns, so this was not them summarizing discussion, it was them expressing their own concerns about the material via WP:SUPERVOTE. That's the sort of objection that, if they had it and don't feel it was adequately discussed in the WP:RFC, they should have made as a contributor to the RFC rather than trying to force it through with a close.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I still stand by my reading of the discussion. I'm a completely uninvolved and neutral person on this subject and have no personal interest in the outcome being either way. I certainly did not WP:SUPERVOTE. I carefully weighed the arguments and presented sources. The arguments presented in support are actually no as strong as this user considers them to be. Also on closer inspection, the sources purported to support the proposal strongly did not turn out to actually do so. So after weighing up everything the balance between the different sides of the argument turned out be much closer than this user claims it to be. I also reject the claim that "many of the opposes were SPA's". Checking the contributions of the participants did indeed reveal SPA's in the RFC. They were present on both side though and only one such participant opposed the proposal. So that claim is simply false. Having stated that, I have no prejudice against my closure being reverted in favor of an admin closure if it is deemed necessary.Tvx1 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) It looks like a proper no-consensus close to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and clear consensus, and neither was present in that discussion. What sources were put forward were pretty well discounted (for being in opinion pieces, marginal RS, just in the headline, or other reasons). There were some obvious socks or SPAs or whathaveyou, but even discounting those votes, what's left doesn't look like consensus to include to me. On the other hand, WP:BADNAC 2, likely to be controversial. – Levivich 18:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that, as a general rule, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence if we were to call a member of the U.S. Senate a neo-Nazi we'd need extraordinary evidence. But it's hardly extraordinary for a self-identified white supremacist (yes, he actually calls himself a white supremacist and imperialist) to be a neo-Nazi. Many white supremacists in America are also neo-Nazis. So in this case, the evidence we have presented is sufficient. GergisBaki (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any RfC in this subject area should only be closed by an uninvolved neutral administrator. While non-admins can close RfCs, closes in controversial subject areas are likely to be controversial themselves, and having an admin close them significantly reduces the possibility of controversy. I recommend that the RfC be re-opened, and an univolved admin examine the RfC and close it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true of extraordinary claims. Widely sourced claims that are in line witht he observed facts, not so much. Multiple reliable sources are presented to show he's a neo-Nazi. WP:CRYBLP doesn't overcome that. I don't doubt your good faith, but I think you were excessively deferential to an invalid policy argument. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I read the discussion as no clear consensus either. No consensus does mean that the article should stay as it is pending further discussion, I wouldn't support making changes to the content in question until an RFC does manage to garner a clear consensus, one way or the other. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted the close. Not doubting good faith, but a disputed NAC is usually reversed pending closure by uninvolved admins. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @JzG: that's not true at all. At DRV and MRV the established practice is to keep the close in place until consensus exists to overturn it, unless there are exceptional reasons otherwise. And I'm not aware that a different standard applies for RFC closes. That applies whatever the admin status of the closer. Please revert your reopening.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, I see that you've then gone on to support the motion, making your reopening WP:INVOLVED. Allowing further contributions in this fashion while a review discussion is taking place clearly muddies the waters. Put the close back, and let's assess it on its own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It is true. From the beginning, a non admin close can be summarily reverted by any non involved admin. An RfC later clarified the obvious, that the reversion can’t be merely because the close was a nonadmin. A good reason to overturn the nonadmin close was that it was a BADNAC. Since MRV became official, once a disputed RM was listed, uninvolved admins became timid to boldly revert, preferring to let the MRV play out. This is less so at DRV, where NACs are frequently boldly reverted by DRV admin regulars. Reverting the RfC close was the right thing to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Becoming INVOLVED, by !voting, is not retrospective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The close is being reviewed (this discussion), nothing should be done with it until this discussion concludes. But there's no sense wheel warring about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite, and I'm aware that I'm involved myself, which is why JzG should reinstate the close. Uninvolved Admins reviewing this close should be able to do so without the complication of the RFC being reopened and new votes coming in.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They can read this, that's what I did. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the arguments, noticed that the close doesn't reflect them, and reverted because (a) it's a controversial NAC and (b) as above, and as per my own readong, it doesn't reflect the balance of the discussion. In the process, I was convinced by the arguments that the merits favour inclusion. That's a sepaarte issue. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close - having read the discussion, there is clearly not consensus on whether or not to directly describe Spencer as "a neo-Nazi" in the lede. There is however clear consensus that his close associations with neo-Nazis and his endorsements by neo-Nazis should be mentioned somehow, and exactly how to do that should be the subject of a new discussion. Any comments added subsequent to Tvx1's original close should be removed, and the editors who added them advised to add their comments to a new discussion. This RfC has been going since April and has as conclusive a result as it's likely to get, there's little sense in overturning and relisting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    About that. Quick count (may be a couple out, I didn't keep the scratchpad where I toted this up before)
    Yes, Include, Keep if supported by sources (which it is): 18; No but go white supremacist (potentially including ties to neo-Nazism): 3; Clear no: 6.
    Of the No !votes, a couple seem to be arguing that he's not even alt-right, which is an absurd position given the sources.
    I would actually have suggested a second RfC offering (a) is a neo-Nazi; (b) is a white spuremacist with ties to the neo-Nazi movement or (c) exclude. I suspect that b would gain supermajority support. But to argue, as some did, that nobody calls him a neo-Nazi, seems to be wishful thinking. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that sounds like a reasonable RFC to launch to me, and I'd support (2) myself. I see you have in fact launched it already, which is all the more reason not to have the original one running concurrently. The close by Tvx1 explicitly said "which exact sentence should be included can be decided in a new discussion", which is basically what the fresh RfC is. Can we now reinstate that original close, comment in the new RFC, and move on with our lives?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't do a head count, I rarely do. I read the comments and saw a pattern emerging, having discounted the poor "nobody calls him a neo-Nazi" arguments and the equally poor "of course he's a neo-Nazi, duh" ones. What was left matches Tvx1's reading pretty closely. I endorse relaunching as a subsequent discussion, but suggest the original should remain closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close. Aquillion, I think you and I have agreed more frequently than we have disagreed, but I think you maybe need to recalibrate here. This is more or less how I would have closed this discussion, because, and this is crucial, local consensus cannot trump BLP. Ever. Any reasonable closure needs to weight the arguments by policy, and there is a substantial difference between "has expressed support for neo-nazi ideology" and "is a neo-nazi". There needs to be very substantial support in the source material for the second option over the first, for the second to gain consensus. Note that I'm not endorsing either position here; I'm no fan of Spencer, but I haven't looked into this enough to have an opinion on this question. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Resignation of Callanecc

    Effective immediately and per his talk page statement[82], Callanecc (talk · contribs) has resigned from the Arbitration Committee. He has also relinquished the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service and wishes him well.

    For the Arbitration Committee,

    WormTT(talk) 10:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation of Callanecc

    Changes to functionary team

    By motion, in accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary permissions and activity, these permissions are removed from the following users:

    Supporting: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

    The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Fox, HJ Mitchell, LFaraone, and There'sNoTime for their service. The Committee also extends its gratitude to the current CheckUser and Oversight permission holders for their contributions and service as functionaries.

    For the Arbitration Committee,

    Katietalk 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to functionary team

    Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

    For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=911594635"