Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290

Dispute over philoSOPHIA article
I don't quite fucking know how to react to this, but this is textbook WP:INVOLVED. For context, the dispute involves SlimVirgin and a handful of others who steadfastly argue that the editorial board of philoSOPHIA must be included in the article, despite having no reliable sources discussing the role of the editorial board, which runs against our convention on academic journals. This has been explained to them many times on Talk:philoSOPHIA, by myself and other regulars from WP:JOURNALS, but she just doesn't get it. Having lost the consensus debate, she now slaps both me, Randykitty, and the article with horseshit discretionary sanctions, saying this is somehow a gender-related dispute.

This is utter fucking horseshit, and appalling behaviour from an admin. Remove the DS template from the article, and desysop them please. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Headbomb has misunderstood the DS. Anyone can add an alert, and it's a requirement to do that if sanctions might be pursued at a later date. If you read the template, it explains. The dispute is indeed gender-related. I was in the process of writing this up for another noticeboard, so I'll continue doing that rather than responding in this thread. SarahSV (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The dispute has nothing to do with gender, and no one in the discussion ever brought gender up. You're the only one that ever mentioned treating this article differently because it was a feminist journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Going to ping and  here, since they too are admins involved in the dispute. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The magazine's tagline is "A Journal of Continental Feminism" and it's named after a goddess of feminity. The subject is gender-related. The dispute about the inclusion or exclusion of a list of the advisory board. The dipute is not gender-related. The DS applies to "any gender-related dispute or controversy", not any dispute involving a gender-related article. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That being said,, , and  should all be trouted for engaging in edit warring during a discussion. Folks, with the amount of years of experience amongst you, you should not need your debates to spill over to AN before taking a step back and remembering WP:BRD -- edit warring is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever appropriate, and especially not as a form of dispute resolution. Just because you avoided 3RR doesn't mean you aren't all actively edit warring and reverting each others multiple times (I count about a dozen over 3 days)!! ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Headbomb: You're reverting two women who are trying to write an article about a feminist journal, and you keep removing the names of the women who run it. It doesn't get more gender-related than that.


 * I don't want to keep discussing this here, except to say that the aggression—"I don't quite fucking know" and "utterly fucking horseshit"—is a huge part of the problem. I don't know you. You're an anonymous man on the internet who has been inexplicably aggressive for several days at an article in which you have no interest. It's actually frightening. I'm not exaggerating when I say that. It frightens me.


 * My options are to abandon the article so that I can stay out of your way, or try to use dispute resolution to resolve it. I've initiated the latter, even though what I really want to do at this point is retire. SarahSV (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Your options are dispute resolution, not edit warring. (2) How do you "know" Headbomb is "a man"?  (nvm I thought this was an assumption becaue of the lack of explicit userpage mention but I remembered this has been disclosed on-wiki)   (3) Equating the use of expletives with aggression is a fallacy. "I don't fucking know" is not an aggression (at best, exasperation perhaps). ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, popups and one of my user scripts tell me Headbomb identifies to the wiki software as male. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, yea, sorry, up to recently he had an infobox detailing everything, and he lists he published works under his real name, and we even share a last name. Apologies for forgetting this and assuming SV was assuming. :( ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want my intention to be misconstrued. Sarah, I respect you greatly and have nothing but admiration for your decade of dedication to the project and the monumental body of work you've contributed, often on crucial and underrepresented topics. I just wish you'd take a step back and realize that you're all currently edit warring. It's not "against you", or "against women". Just seek outside opinions. WP:DR exists for a reason. Edit warring is never the answer and is a total disservice to readers. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Great, now any dispute involving women editors is considered a gender-related dispute unless it's only women that are involved in the dispute? And I'm supposed to check an editors' gender before reverting them? I'm pretty sure ARBCOM would have said "Discretionary sanctions apply whenever editors who happen to be women and men disagree about something on Wikipedia" if that's what they meant. Get off your high horse, and stop claiming you know my mind and I have no interest in the article. I have plenty of interest in academic journals, as you'd see in User:Headbomb/My work or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 4. If that somehow scares you... I have no words. You started this agression by abusing your admins powers by putting me, Randykitty, and the article under discretionary sanctions when you are yourself involved in the dispute. And somehow I'm the bad guy here? If there ever was toxic feminism, this is it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification: adding a DS banner to a talk page is not an "admin action", so a claim of "abuse of admin powers" does not appear justified. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding a DS banner is (which for the record states, "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions"), according to WP:AC/DS something only an admin should do, and something only admins may remove. I fail to see how this is not an admin action. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AC/DS says: Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.. How is that and admin action?  It explicitly says "any editor"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So is philoSOPHIA under discretionary sanction or not? Because if it is not, then Talk:philoSOPHIA should have the template removed as grossly misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:AC/DS is that only admins can impose discretionary sanctions on topic areas placed under DS by ArbCom (or a community decision), and this is not what SV has done. She has not imposed any discretionary sanctions. She has placed a talk page banner alerting contributors that this article falls under a topic for which the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized. This is usually not a controversial thing -- topic areas are generally well-defined enough to leave articles unambiguously included or not under the DS umbrella. Whether an article is included under a DS topic or not is treated similarly to WP:TBANs. The DS page doesn't specify which venue should host discussion of whether a specific article does fall under a certain DS or not (I'd recommend asking ArbCom clerks for clarification of policy), but I supposed an AN consensus would work just fine. The problem is that you didn't come here to discuss whether the article fell under DS or not, you flew in here demanding blood for what you perceived as admin abuse and "toxic feminism", which just cannot possibly lead to anything constructive. Please... just take a breath, okay? SV isn't out to get you or men or anything so sinister. Please stop showing her that you're out to get her either. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It makes me to sad to see 10+ years veteran editors reduced to duking out insults over AN.... ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I got mentioned here, so I thought I'd respond. I've never been involved in a dispute like this. I did keep making edits, all to the aim of coming up with reliable secondary sources. But when I'd add one, somone would respond that "well, being on a list means nothing" or something to that effect. No matter what I tried to do to add reliable sources, they were dismissed. I didn't say anything about gender, but it damed sure started feeling like the wikiboys against the women. I didn't see anyone rushing over to the other journals with similar issues to fix them. I just saw people saying this journal probably didn't merit inclusion at all. Classic bad terrible logic. Just keep switching the complaint. So today I did more to add more 2d sources to substantiate that the journal merits inclusion in WP at all, which is absolutely a ridiculous thing to have to prove. Hypatiagal (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, it is under discretionary sanctions. Initiating DS has nothing to do with being an admin.

Does it not bother you that that behaviour is frightening? The aggression, the sudden intense focus. I don't think I've ever acknowledged that on Wikipedia. Women talk behind the scenes about being scared on this website, but we usually don't mention it onwiki.

All we were trying to do was fill a small space about a really interesting feminist philosophy journal, and look at the utterly pointless timesink it has turned into. No reasonable person would choose to work in this environment. Pinging to make them aware of this thread. Hypatiagal, by the way, is a newish editor with a PhD who is exactly the kind of editor we want to retain, and you're doing your best to make her miserable.

I would appreciate it if someone would remove my name from the heading. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't want "a sudden intense focus", then don't bully people you disagree with into submission by shoehorning disputes into things they are not so you can use your position to "win". And I would appreciate it if you stopped speaking on behalf of others when you do not know their minds, or try to make this a gender issue somehow. I have said nothing, nor done anything "unwelcoming" towards anyone save for disagreeing with whether or not we should have a section on the editorial board. This was explained to you at User talk:Randykitty, which you've resoundingly ignored and rather than discuss, escalated by putting us and the article under discretionary sanctions despite being involved yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "yes it is under discretionary sanctions" -- this statement is obviously contested thus it is not unambiguous and no single editor can "decide" how to interpret policy by themselves. The DS talks about "gender-related disputes", not "disputes unrelated to gender on gender-related articles"; it may sound tedious but when it comes to arbitration the devil is in the details. In this case I can certainly see the other perspective -- the inclusion of the board was argued purely upon precedent and how journal articles are usually covered and not on the gender of the board or editors... all I'm saying is, it would merit further discussion because there is obvious disagreement that isn't easily resolved. SV, mass-pinging to canvass doesn't reflect brightly on your intentions to engage in discussion but what is done is done anyways and I suppose on a public venue like AN most interested people would see the thread anyways. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the name in the heading, I've removed it at your request because it does not substantially change the meaning of 's words (especially since the paragraph just under it mentions it all anyways) so hopefully this proves to be agreeable to all parties. (Done by someone else while I EC'ed.) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;
 * And I agree with you, it is highly regrettable that new, valued editors like are exposed to this nasty fight between veteran editors. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing the heading. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that has yet to substantiate that any of 's actions are actual admin actions. The one policy that they linked to, placing DS notice, actually says it is an "any editor" action. If Headbomb is going to continue to criticize SlimVirgin for having "use{d} {her} position" then there should be diffs of actual usage of her admin bit, shouldn't there? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop encouraging SV and Headbomb to point fingers at each other. Shit got heated, it happens, let's find a calmer and less confrontational way forward. It probably goes by an ARCA request to clarify the scope of the "gender-related disputes" DS with regard to "disputes unrelated to gender on gender-related articles". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm asking a genuine question, not trying to increase shit-throwing. As you point out below, the statement of admin bit usage in this case is missing something.  I was asking for clarification of what admin misusage is being referred to.  I might have missed something.  I am not aware that only admins can ask for clarification here. I have no intent to inflame anyone. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's okay. As you can see, the accusation of "admin abuse" rests not with usage of special admin functions but by posing an action (adding a DS template) that Headbomb believed could only be performed by admins. See my explanation lower. Not "only admins can ask for clarification here", and sorry if I've led you to think that. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have provided the diffs. Slim Virgin said right above she placed the article under discretionary sanctions. WP:AC/DS says "Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use." Slim Virgin is WP:INVOLVED. I don't see what's ambiguous about this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat -- SV did not place a discretionary sanction. If she did, you're be able to point out what the discretionary sanction is (1RR, block, tban, iban, etc.) All SV did was warn editor that the topic falls under a topic area for which the application of discretionary sanctions has been authorized. Whether the article does indeed fall under the umbrella of said DS or not is currently what y'all are disagreeing upon, and a quick ARCA to clarify the scope is probably the best resolution. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So why then is there a notice in bold letters on Talk:philoSOPHIA that the article is under discretionary sanction? And that SV says Black-on-White that the article is under discretionary sanctions? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is not under active discretionary sanctions. The article is subject to discretionary sanctions, meaning that an uninvolved admin could apply discretionary sanctions because the article falls under a topic area for which the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized. Whether that is the case or not is something you disagree with, hence my nudging towards ARCA to clarify scope. You may be able to build an argument that you believe SV's addition of the DS warning template while involved in a dispute is poor dispute resolution behaviour, but it would be so regardless of her status as an admin. You could've been the one to add that warning and she might've reacted the same way you're reacting now. You're both at each others' throats over a (relatively) small dispute and y'all have been escalating for the better part of the weekend. You've both been around for over a decade. You both know nothing gets resolved this way and that nothing constructive can come out of pissing in each others' coffee. Please, just take a breath and take it easy, mkay? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If Headbomb would read the alert, it explains. The article falls under DS. He has been alerted to that. That an alert be given is required before an admin (someone else, not me) can take action under the DS. SarahSV (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for accepting to refocus the discussion on the actual content dispute underneath. I'm hoping y'all end up with something productive in the end. I'm bowing out. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So what next? User:Salvidrim!? How do you get that god-awful bullying notice off the article's talk page? Can anyone remove it or must it be done via a formal WP:ARCA thing? What happens if SV refuses to remove it, since WP:AC/DS states those can only be removed with the consent of the admin that place them? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you continue to disrupt the article, including by removing the tag, I will take this to arbitration enforcement. The point of dispute resolution, which I'm trying to follow, is to resolve the dispute, not to manufacture another dispute about the dispute. SarahSV (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG, please stop threatening arbitration enforcement, we're trying to de-escalate and focus on the content dispute here!! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ARCA to clarify the scope of the DS since there is disagreement (or perhaps ask the clerks at WT:AC/N for guidance). Perhaps would even be amenable to temporarily removing the notice until the clarification is ascertained, in the spirit of BRD? Hopefully de-escalation is helpful for everyone. Please, SV?  ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll even be happy to file a neutrally-worded ARCA myself for your benefit so this can be clarified, if you prefer. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be very appreciated, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In case anybody is interested, there is a recently-filed request for clarification from the Arbitration Committee over the applicability of the DS tag. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute: Philosophia
This is what I was writing up for AN/I when Headbomb opened this thread.

I re-created an article recently about philoSOPHIA, a small peer-reviewed journal that explores continental philosophy from a feminist perspective. It's a good journal—created by the Society for Continental Feminism, which was founded in 2008 by Kelly Oliver of Vanderbilt University—but it's a minority interest, so there are few sources. created the article in 2014. It was prodded and deleted. I recreated it on 25 May; it was taken to AfD and kept. Other editors active at the article are and.

Headbomb and Randykitty have repeatedly removed from the article the names of the advisory board; e.g. see this version. These are prominent philosophers who are involved in writing and steering the journal. They're not simply names added for PR purposes, as is sometimes the case with these boards.

Headbomb removed the names five times in a few days, reverting against three editors. Randykitty then arrived, reverting Hypatiagirl three times in under eight hours. Things briefly seemed to settle down, then Headbomb removed the names again. . There has also been tagging and referring to the journal as a "special snowflake".

They're basing the removal on WP:JWG, an essay they wrote themselves for WikProject Journals. The essay insists that editorial board names be based on independent sources. It was Randykitty who added that requirement. It has no consensus, and it makes no sense, because editorial boards are almost never written about by independent sources. I'm basing inclusion on WP:PRIMARY, which allows the use of primary sources and is policy. The WikiProject Council guidelines (see WP:ADVICEPAGE) say:

"[I]n a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages [advice pages] as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox ... and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor."

SarahSV (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Succinctly if " They're not simply names added for PR purposes, as is sometimes the case with these boards." then you should be able to find WP:IS attesting this is so. And for clarify, the only one that has claimed this journal was a special snowflake and needs to be treated differently was you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Specifically what I'm requesting here is input from admins and experienced editors so that (a) the editorial board names are not repeatedly removed without gaining consensus to remove them; and (b) that the policies are affirmed as applying here and not an essay written by Headbomb and Randykitty. The article doesn't belong to WikiProject Journals.

One of the things I intended to do was develop the article by writing about the articles these women have produced for the journal. A constant theme is the future of philosophy and the exclusion of women; the existence of the journal and the work of the board is all about that. But as things stand, I'm not "allowed" to say that the women I'm writing about are on the editorial board, unless I find an independent source that lists their names, which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist. SarahSV (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We write Wikipedia based on sources. If you do not have them, then we should not write these things. We do not tolerate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. WP:JWG is quite in line with community expectations, and represents the collective experience of project members, as has been repeatedly explained to you before at User talk:Randykitty and elsewhere. It is not simply 3 guys writing in a corner own their own, but a continuously updated documentation of Wikipedia's best practices when it comes to writing about journal articles, reflecting the experiences of hundreds of editors across thousands of articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are sources, but they are from the publisher, which you won't "allow". SarahSV (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, because they are not independent of the subject. WP:NPOV and WP:DUE matters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that says we need independent sources for something as basic as that. The journal is an RS and there are lots of articles in it by the editorial board in which they discuss their interests. So that can be mined, and it can be done carefully. But it's a nonsense to do it if I'm never allowed to tell the reader that these women run the journal, just because you and Randy wrote an essay to that effect. SarahSV (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but there is consensus that editorial boards are best left out unless there are sources discussing their involvement. Otherwise is it WP:PROMO/WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and that is policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, what I hope from this thread is that other people will offer an opinion on whether we can use the journal and the publisher as RS for the names of the editorial board members. SarahSV (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Their names are not in dispute. This is about WP:PROMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing the gender content gap is a key aim of the movement. But regardless, the point of this discussion is request other views. SarahSV (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Since SlimVirgin mentions me as an editor active at the article, I may as well note that I've made very few edits there, a grand total of two, in fact. I have read through all of this rather wearying discussion, but I've decided that I've nothing to contribute here, especially considering that much of the discussion would be more appropriate to Talk:philoSOPHIA. I'd hope that consensus for or against including the Advisory board can be established there, as with any normal dispute. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ack! Two of Wikipedia's most esteemed editors are about to rip each other heads off. I've created an RfC on the talk page so that hopefully we can get some 3rd party opinions. In the meantime, I hope everyone involved can take a breather and have a cup of tea. Kaldari (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Editorial boards of prominent people are essentially there for advertisement, unless there is so actual evidence they take an active role, which is exceedingly rare (In some early 20th century journals, they acting as panels of reviewers, but that is not particularly notable either) . The more important the people, the leas likely they are to be anything but advertisements. Their names are essentially saying, we support this journal's purpose. If it's a relatively new journal, they are saying, Look at this! using the star power of their names, as if they were famous performers in a clothing advertisement.  There is a fundamental non-paid COI inevitable here, because almost everyone write about what they care about; it easily leads to lack of objectivity. The very last people qualified to decide what belongs in an article are the people who write it.  Probably a few people can be utterly objective about what's important to them, but in general I doubt it. I make no claims for myself--I avoid every political or social issue that I support. Possible some editors here are really AIs, and can be coldly objective,  the rest of  us need to recognize human limitations.
 * Sometimes projects tend to be over-reaching, but the are usually right--especially projects based on form. That one is interested in novels doesn't mean one likes all novels regardless, but rather that one is likely to know the relevant conventions; that one is interested in academic journals doesn't mean one supports every cause an academic journal supports, but that one is likely to understand the conventions of the field.
 * But the argument above is essentially an argument in favor of POV and bias. A good working assumption is that this is usually the case with anyone who makes arguements of how the rules don't apply to them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reverted 's closure -- no hard feelings, yes this is a content dispute, yes, AN may not be the usual venue, but discussion of the content dispute is an absolute improvement over the previous "drama" so let's try to help it along and not shut it down (IAR!); what this needs is more input from a neutral venue (i.e. not the talkpage or a Wikiproject/essay/policy page), not less discussion. If leaving it on AN really irks you so much, at least kindly let it be moved to DRN with the usual "discussion moved to" left behind and all that. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * *Obviously, I disagree, but I won't revert you. I fail to see why this level of discourse -- which I agree is preferable to what went on before -- can't take place in a venue that's intended to deal with content disputes, rather than here, where we routinely shut down content disputes as not proper subject matter for AN and AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 

Fake reference problem

 * First Teahouse link
 * WP:REX link
 * WP:REX link

I recently came across several Wikipedia articles containing this particular sentence "Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat". I am not familiar with this version of Mahabharat and I cant find any supporting documents to this version in internet. I suspected these contents are fake because it's simply POV contents. Suspected these reference as fakes and pointed out. But my edits were reverted.

I pointed out these issues in Teahouse, see Link 1 and also requested WP:RS, see Link 2. Both reply I got from Teahouse and WP:RS is that it's a very sneaky case of vandalism. The WP:RS guys can't find "any resources " on this particular reference. They found out all these edits were made by editor @Pinkfloyd11. This is also the user who keeps on reverting any edits by anyone on certain articles "maintained" by he/she. I looked into the edit history of this particular user and found many cases of adding fake references. I talked about this problem in the Teahouse page Link 1. I am also adding another case of fake reference by this particular user another example. I can also point out many cases of suspected fake references from the edit history of this user. This user is simply adding a book name with no chapter number or page number. But 99% of the case it's a fake reference. Verifying this without a chapter number or page number is an impossible task. The problem is removing these " fake contents" added into Wikipedia pages. Its enormous. The issue here is I simply feel that anyone can add any amount of ridiculous content if we provide a shadowy reference for an offline source.Vijays1127 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The point made by User:Vijays1127 seems to be that there is no 'Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat' that can be cited like a book. I'm leaving a ping for User:Pinkfloyd11 to see if he can clarify what he intends by these mentions of the Chatahurdi edition. If there is no actual book that can be consulted, then it's unclear how it can be a reference. The claims of 'vandalism' are not yet confirmed, so far as I can tell. One dispute between these two editors has happened at this diff where Pinkfloyd11 wants to reference the 'Chatahurdi compilation', and his actual link is to a web site at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b115.htm. (This page describes itself as an 'Internet Sacred Texts Archive' though I can't tell what particular book is intended by Pinkfloyd11's quote.). At a minimum we have an incomplete reference, and possibly we may have a website that does not qualify under our WP:Reliable source policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will include what I typed in the Teahouse: In India, no name is spelled the same way. Wikipedia has his name as Neelakantha Chaturdhana. Here is the Wikipedia article on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelakantha_Chaturdhara. Here is the analysis/compilation he is known for:https://books.google.com/books/about/Bh%C4%81ratabh%C4%81vad%C4%ABpa.html?id=52trGwAACAAJ where he traveled India and compiled different versions of the Mahabharat into a single version, adding his own flourishes and analysis around the way. The Ganguli translation of the Mahabharat is heavily influenced by this analysis according to the introduction of the translation itself (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01001.htm). Sacred Texts has an online version of the Ganguli "translation" of the Mahabharat, a translation that is heavily influenced by the Chaturdhana analysis/compilation as well as a Bengali version of the Mahabharata IIRC. This reference is a popular reference for many of the Mahabharat articles on Wikipedia due to being online and in the public domain, so if it isn't a reliable source, there would be a lot of work to do (I don't necessarily disagree...the Ganguli translation has many errors and translational problems, and to an extent, Ganguli himself has modified the interpretations of Chaturdhana by picking certain interpretations as well.) You could replace the statement "Chatahurdi compilation" with "Ganguli translation", but I felt that the source of the "translation" would make more sense to include than the translator. The Critical Edition of the Mahabharat, or the Poone edition, is the edition probably most referenced by scholars (and is a synthesis of over a 1,000 different versions of the story), but only an incomplete translation is available.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You added everywhere "Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat" not Neelakantha Chaturdhara edition of Mahabharat. Both are different for a layman and most of the Wikipedia readers. They are not experts on this matter.

We can't say Ganguli's work as Chaturdhanas. Ganguly didn't " translated" Chaturdhanas work. He wrote a new book but admitted " influenced by" Chaturdhanas work, Bengal and Bombay versions of Mahabharat.

So in Wikipedia how can we say " As per Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat". If it's used, then reference to Chatahurdis version (with chapter and page number) should be given. Anyone can write any nonsense by quoting " As per Chatahurdis version". I feel all edits done by saying "As per Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat "should be removed. If As per Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat is changed to Ganguly better provide reference to Ganguli's version with page and chapter name. That's fair I think. If no such references is available then removing the contents would be better. I read somewhere verifiability is one of the core principle of Wikipedia.Vijays1127 04:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijays1127 (talk • contribs)


 * I'll admit that I've frequently used logic to come to that conclusion. The Poone Edition is based off the Bengali and Bombay editions as well as other sources. The KM Ganguli translation is based off of the Bengali/Bombay editions as well as Chaturdhara's commentary. If we take Ganguli at his word that he didn't outright add any new information (why it is called a translation), if a story doesn't appear in the Poone Edition, it must be based on Chaturdhara's analysis. For example, the Ashwatthama story about him invading the camp with the help of Shiva only appears in Ganguli's translation, and not the Poone edition. If we say that is Ganguli's version, you could point to the fact that Ganguli's said he didn't add anything and just translated. It is very messy since the source of the Mahabharat is very messy. I'd be fine with deleting any content based off of Ganguli's work.


 * That brings me to another point. Frequently, you have deleted contributions saying that they come from TV shows/drama/pop culture. I'm seriously asking, how does that make them less valid? You are correct, for example, that the story of Draupadi humiliating Duryodhana is not in the Ganguli version or the critical edition (from what I can find). But it appeared in the incredibly popular BR Chopra TV show. It appeared in the Amar Chita Comic. It appeared in the Gautam comics. It appears in the CJ Rajagopachari's version of the Mahabharat. It appeared in Dharmashektra TV shows. There are scholarly analyses of the supposed event. At what point does it become "part" of the story? This works the other way too. The Poona edition completely dismisses one of the oldest versions of the Mahabharata, an incomplete version where Arjuna is a master sword warrior, the Panchals and the Kurus hate each other, and Shantanu's father is a murderous lunatic. They dismiss it because that version of the story has disappeared from the zeitgeist. Similarly, they take almost no influence from the Kannada version of the Mahabharata because of the strong oral tradition. There's supposedly a version from worshipers of Duryodhana where Duryodhana is a heroic figure to the conniving Pandavas (I've never read it) and that get's dismissed since so few people believe in at. What should we at Wikipedia do? Include all the different versions? Pick the best? Combine them like some have? My inclination has always been to include everything, but then I get pushback from editors (not you) that the article is getting bloated and wordy, and that that's not the version that "they" know. Maybe it would be best to scrub all the articles of any primary sources (backstory of any character) and just include analyses, which of course would mean 95% of the Indian mythology pages would be stubs. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said above, provide reference according to WP:Reliable. You can add anything but provide with a reliable reference. The usage of term "Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat" is simply not enough. Provide page, chapter numbers when adding contents. If it's not then anyone can add anything saying "Chatahurdi compilation" says so. About other issue regarding versions of Mahabharat, I only say stick with WP:Reliable contents. Do add anything, I don't care but better provide reference, reliable reference as per WP:Reliable. You can't add any nonsense and tell " x or y said so". Vijays1127 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijays1127 (talk • contribs)


 * This discussion is in the wrong place. That said, perhaps it will end here if all parties bear in mind that substantive claims in articles need to be directly sourced (meaning that the claim is in the source cited, and that the editor including it knows that this is the case) - and that a lack of rigor in sourcing is not prima facie proof (or even evidence) of perniciously subtle vandalism, but also more ill-advised than usual on topics like the one in question (a central epic of a major extant religious tradition, with no single canonical version). Advocata (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It was fine to bring here at first since it seemed to be a behavioral issue. Now WP:RSN would be the right place since there are very valid questions regarding the reliability of the sources.  Until then, in my capacity as an editor, I would recommend not using that source.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant - to restate the last part of my last sentence above more forthrightly, in a scenario where a contentious claim about the contents of a major faith's scripture cites a nonexistent compilation that probably-but-not-necessarily is actually a mistransliteration of an idiosyncratic quasi-mystical secondary commentary from the 1600s, and in Sanskrit, while the source linked turns out to be yet another distinct work (Ganguly's), and with no editor here and now actually directly attesting to any of these sources saying anything in particular, it's probably best to just kill it with fire and be excruciatingly precise in reconstructing the claim (or, frankly, if this is widespread, the article(s)). Advocata (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wanted to clarify that it isn't a nonexistent compilation, just a misspelled one. The Teahouse guys agreed it wasn't vandalism once I clarified the source (Vijays posted their conclusions prior to that input, ironically in a very sneaky way). The source linked to, Ganguli's work, is the "mistranslation of the idiosyncratic quasi-mystical secondary commentary from the 1600s".Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. That's fine with me. I am very much concerned about the reliability of the source. I won't recommend that reference in any article anywhere until reliability is proven. I hope other editors involved in this issue too don't use that source until reliability is proven. The issue will be discussed in WP:RSN. I believe the issue is closed for me here in this page. Vijays1127 11:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijays1127 (talk • contribs)

Reverting closure without discussion
I had closed an RFC at based on a request at WP:AN/RFC (Request). The user reverted my closure (diff) with a note calling it personal opinion. I reverted his edit (diff) and took the matter to the talk page asking him to present his reason for overturning my closure (diff). I asked him to show me any points I missed. Before I could reply to his assertions (here), he again removed the RFC closing statement (diff) and left a note asking any other editor to close the discussion. My reply to his assertions (here) were actually written before he reverted my edits. I asked other editors to comment on my closure. I was working as per WP:closure review where I would have reviewed my own closure and changed the statement had anything meaningful been brought before me or if most of the participants were unhappy with my closure. Please correct me if my closure was wrong or take action against him if I was in the correct place. Also, I only wanted to resolve the issue with proper discussion but this reverting of closures isn't really helpful. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:AN is better place for this. Capitals00 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Yashovardhan (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place but I've already grown tired of these jibes and personal attacks every time our orbits come into contact. I avoid the guy because he is always creating conflict but I feel he is trying to intimidate me into not commenting with these constant comments. WCM email 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. That's kind of like WP:Battleground behaviour that he's showing. I've notified him of this discussion but he seems to ignore it. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * has displayed battleground behaviour throughout this RfC. He edit-warred continually to add his disputed content back into the first sentence while the RfC was ongoing, even when it was crystal clear that consensus in the RfC was against that content (the choice in the end was between two neutral alternatives to Asilah's version). Then he changed tack and edit-warred to add a "failed verification" tag to the second sentence on the spurious grounds that three citations in the second sentence failed to verify the first sentence. He even admitted that this was what he was doing. Note also the tendentious edit summaries like this and this. Asilah made it clear that he didn't like how the RfC was going, and that if he didn't get the result he wanted, "of course he would take it further". He followed this up by posting "Invalid RfC", though he did strike this when he thought he was going to get the result he wanted. Reverting the close without a policy-based reason is just his latest attempt to disrupt the process.
 * Asilah has a history. He was indef blocked after this discussion at ANI at the end of last year (you can find the sequel to that – the offer of mentorship and the failure of same – between here and the end of the page, and in this section and this); and although his behaviour has been not quite as egregious since then, he continues to show a battleground mentality on multiple pages. In my opinion he needs to be sent a message. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We're running short of messages we can send that don't involve blocks and bans. He's been ticked off by admins before and just ignored it or insisted that he was in the right.  We offered him mentorship and he agreed terms - but then reneged on them as soon as they involved actually changing his behaviour in any way.


 * I have not interacted with Asilah recently because he's mostly stayed away from my areas of interest. The problem back then was that Asilah appeared to believe that anyone who did not unconditionally support his position on any matter was acting in bad faith.   He'd claim to AGF but then in the same message insist that you were trying to torment him by asking for evidence to back his position.  When I read things like this, along with the other behaviour described here, it is clear to me that this may have moderated but not fundamentally changed. Kahastok talk 17:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't know about his long term behaviour but I did check that he had been blocked earlier. I just think he needs some good mentoring and a lesson about how to discuss at talk pages. For instance, I had notified him of this discussion but he didn't respond here (yet). Instead, he chose to continue discussion about (attacking?) other editors at the article talk page. He is showing childish behaviour which needs to stop (unless he's actually a child). In any case, I again left a note at that article talk page where he was discussing. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this really worth an ANI, Yashovardhan? I reverted once or twice then moved to talk page. I disagree with your closure but I have long working hours and I'm not willing to waste more time on this. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Something I have noticed, which is tantamount to gaming the system, every time this escalates to a point where it reaches here or ANI, then they back right off. It appears like the need for admin action has disappeared and so nothing happens. Then its back to the same battlefield behavior again. WCM email 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So devious of me....Asilah1981 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading the concerns raised by others here, I'll say it needs to be discussed. It's high time you stop this behaviour. I suggest he requires good mentoring. This was the reason I first raised it at ANI but it was redirected here. An admin action is required now. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no point. He had a good mentor, who asked him to agree some conditions.  He did so.  He then ignored them.  He didn't try and fail to make the standard.  He made no attempt whatsoever to follow the conditions.  The mentoring ended because the mentor decided that it could not succeed without Asilah's cooperation.


 * Unless there is a reason to assume that the same won't happen again, mentoring is a non-starter. Kahastok talk 21:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * His latest comment on a talk page, this is words of encouragement to an editor trying to make sense of an awful article. I agree with the comments about mentoring, it would appear that mentoring was agreed to when a permanent block was being considered for disruptive editing.  As soon as the focus was removed, they quickly reverted to the same behaviour elsewhere.  WCM email 23:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is a ban or block being suggested here? I think a temp block will have no gain as he has a history of being block. If he is particularly disruptive in one field, a Topic ban may be a better alternative to an indef block. If so, we have to identify the particular field in which he is disruptive. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would endorse a topic ban from topics related to the Iberian peninsula, broadly construed, until he demonstrates some vague understanding of WP:AGF. Calling people psychopaths is not on. Kahastok talk 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As a note, this post by Asilah1981 on WCM's talk page would have to rank among the worst types of personal abuse. Calling other editors a 'dick' and a 'psychopath' is totally unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I was going to warn him for this but I think it won't do much good. Instead, its better to discuss this ban proposal here. I now think an indef block woulld have been a better proposal. Maybe WP:DNR is a good policy for him as well but now its too late for that. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposal for Asilah1981
As suggested by just above, I propose an indef topic ban for  for pages related to the Iberian Peninsula (interpreted broadly) (or until he stops his disruptive behaviour). To recap: The user has a history of disruptive editing and previous blocks have led to no good. The user has failed to assume good faith even when he has been told to do so on multiple occassions. Previous mentoring for the user has bought no good either. I propose that the ban may be lifted only when the community agrees that the user has stopped his disruptive behaviour. Pinging who have participated in this discussion here. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the ban as proposer. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As suggested by some others, I'd extend my support to all  political subjects including the Syrian war. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I thought for a while before making this suggestion above because it's a tough action and I want to be fair to Asilah.  But this has been going on, to my knowledge, for close to a year.  How long should we have to tolerate an editor disrupting every attempt to improve a set of articles with such a resolute and unbending insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with him is acting in bad faith?  I wouldn't bring this up but it is entirely typical of Asilah's behaviour for close on twelve months.


 * He's been indeffed once already. Mentoring has been tried and failed almost immediately.  Something has to give, and I think this ban is proportionate. Kahastok talk 18:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry on what basis?
 * 1) I have NOT made any edits to this article od my own. WCM began promptly edit warring with another editor (Anes pur sang) who was just trying to improve the articles, with what seemed like considerable effort and research in a completely non-political way.
 * 2) I noticed the disruptive pattern and supported him.
 * 3) I have requested (with strong words, he has done this too many times) WCM not to harass me on my talk page.
 * 4) I have not broken the 3RR.
 * Two nationalistic editors disliking me is not grounds for a topic ban. Danke schon.Asilah1981 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I think an indef block will be better if this kind of behaviour (as pointed above by Nick and Kahastok) continues. A topic ban is a slightly lighter proposal if this personal attack is considered. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan Indefinite block? Q? Mazaak band karo yaar... Asilah1981 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Translation in English : Why? Stop this joke... --Yashovardhan (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bro, we are not joking here. Not meaning to insult you but you should have been more careful about these interactions. You already know that Personal attacks are strictly not tolerated here. Here's my suggestion, just read it once if you will, its for your own good :-
 * Accept this topic ban
 * Move away from all editors you have had major issues with and try moving into a field where they are not regular. (I know its hard but its not impossible, you can create a self imposed interaction ban if you want).
 * Show that you understand what this ban is being proposed for
 * Stop personal attacks altogether
 * Make a good fresh record for yourself and come back in a few months to get this ban lifted.
 * I hope you understand that I have never interacted with you earlier so my opinion is as unbiased as it could get. I have the deepest respect for you and know that you can prove that you dont need an indef. Oh, and please do provide diffs for personal attacks that you alleged others have done against you, it will make your case stronger.
 * I wish you all the best of luck for your future endavours! Now if you could excuse me, its my birthday in a few minutes. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well happy birthday Yashovardhan but do not claim you have "never interacted with me and are unbiased" when only recently we have had a dispute over a questionable RfC closure as can be seen above, I believe. Its best to remain honest on these matters. Chalo, soja raha hoon. Mazaa karo.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What I meant was that I've not interacted with you before this issue. If you look again, i used the word 'earlier'. Sorry if I sent any wrong impression. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * CommentYashovardhan Excuse me?? Do you know how many times WCM has called me a Dick in discussions? He even has edit summaries calling me a dick and I'm pretty sure he has called me a dick a number of times on my talk page. Do you want me to post the diffs here? I'm getting tired of this cry baby attitude, the same two guys coming to this board over and over again after baiting and insulting me, hoping for a topic ban or block of some kind. All I ask from them is to be left alone, to not post on my talk page and to not track my edits in other articles. (They can call me a dick, Im fine with that). And please stop wasting the community's time with more Gibraltar-related moaning. I do not even edit those articles.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have been personally attacked, I dont see any reason for not sharing those diffs here. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan I don't need to trawl through diffs looking for the number of times WCM has told me to stop being a WP:DICK, he knows it is true and he won't deny it, unless he feels wasting my time is worth him looking bad. I am not that thin skinned to consider it a personal attack though. If you think I'm problematic, have a look at my edits on the clusterfuck in Syria-related articles which is an outright warzone (no pun intended) and ask yourself if I'm really a conflictive editor. This entire thread is about editors having personal issues with me, not an edit conflict. It is over one fricking word I used in anger "psycopath" which wasn't even about an edit conflict but about posting on my wall. And yes I have been trying to stay away from WCM. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record: I was briefly permanently blocked for accidentally revealing one of your names, under your past aliases while bringing up in a discussion that both of you have been topic banned on Gibraltar-related articles (not knowing your past aliases were your real names). So using this confusion against me is unwarranted. Also this happened over a year ago.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It seems that no matter where this editor edits, he appears to engender conflict and often for either really silly reasons or for POV reasons. Just for information mentoring was previously considered at ANI as an alternative to an indeff block for this editor.  I was happy for  to try and mentor this user, especially if it stopped the personal abuse directed at me.  However, it seems clear that they never had any intention of sticking to a mentoring agreement, it seems that it was used as an escape route to escape sanctions and once the focus on his editing behaviour was lost he returned to form.   I see a topic ban as a last step before an indef block.   WCM email 13:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I have not interacted with this user. I noticed that he insulted WCM here, so I reverted him. Then I checked a bit more on the background dispute: he reverted the article Disputed status of Gibraltar three times in less than 24 hours, and then stopped. Right in the razor's edge of a 3RR breach, but as he did not revert a 4º time, he could not be reported. But, as I saw here, he has been using this method for a long time. Cambalachero (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Interesting logic "Since he didn't break the rules we can't accuse him of breaking the rules, but since he nearly did, lets topic ban him anyways." By the way, the term DICK I used it paraphrasing WCM since he has been telling me "not to be a WP:DICK" repeatedly for months now, which is offensive yet not enough for me to consider wasting anyone's time over. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:GAME Cambalachero (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that you so strenuously objected to being warned of WP:3RR, it is surprising that you seem unaware of the part of the warning:
 * "Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly."
 * These warnings are designed to help you. I suggest you read them and heed them. Kahastok talk 17:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok and these rules don't apply to you? Because if we look through these articles you and WCM seem to be the most active reverters I have seen on Wikipedia.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The user has a lengthy history of combative, POV, disruptive, gaming editing in the area. I'm sure would agree. He's been blocked 8 times in 2.5 years, and is probably headed for an indef if he continues on his destructive course. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Softlavender Ask the editors who blocked me, but 4 of the times I was blocked were due to a single kafkian situation whereby the admins were forbidden by policy to tell me what I was doing wrong and why they were blocking me. It was a strange event. Eventually, they left me enough hints for me to work it out by myself.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Softlavender Pinging every single editor I have ever had a conflict with as is being done here is not really a correct way to go about these discussions. Yes, most of the active Wikipedia community knows Inaki hates me to death and has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry 4 or 5 times, so I steer clear of him. We already know his opinion. I understand it is fun to gang up on individual editors. This entire ANI discussion is the result of me responding negatively to unrelenting harassment on my talk page as user Valenciano succinctly summarizes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wee_Curry_Monster&diff=783372115&oldid=783304313 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wee_Curry_Monster&diff=783384450&oldid=783382841. It should not serve as an excuse for "payback" for past feuds. Sure maybe I should have not called WCM a psychopath - But when someone claims to be "required to harass you by policy" (wtf?) and does it again within 3 hours of you asking him to stop is certainly not reasonable. WP:DICK does apply I believe, the first time I have used this expression and I responded in kind to the same accusation launched by this very same user. For the record, I don't like this concept of WP:DICK and have suffered it too many times. I use it once and somehow it becomes a shit storm. Talk about "gaming the system"....Asilah1981 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide a diff for your quote "required to harass you by policy". When doing so, bear in mind that editors are required to post certain notices by policy, that this is not considered harassment (a very serious accusation that itself requires evidence), and that you are not allowed to avoid admin scrutiny by banning people from posting those required warnings. Kahastok talk 17:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok The diffs are on my talk page. Harrassment involves repeatedly posting warnings on an experienced editors talk page when involved in an edit conflict when they have asked you repeatedly to stop doing so. And this is not the first time or the second.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find that quote on your talk page. It should be trivial to post the link to the diff you are quoting?


 * Note that I find nothing in WP:HARASS that would endorse your contention that it is harassment to post warnings on user talk pages in circumstances in which they are required or strongly recommended by policy or common practice. Kahastok talk 09:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Thanks for calling me to this unsurprising new incident. I have been largely inactive lately in the EN WP: like many editors of Spanish topics who prefer to dedicate to more productive things than permanent litigation with ubiquitous editors, I am less and less active. I quitted the article Basque conflict for Asilah1981's conspicuous battleground approach defying all patience, the editor in question seems to thrive in litigation and all red hot topics of present-day and long-running Spanish politics, e.g. historical memory, historiography, terrorism/politics related violence, national (Spanish, Basque, Catalan) and territorial (Gibraltar) issues, Spanish race or no race,… POV pushing that puts all patience to test. For what I read above, the editor in question continues set in his ways with an ad hominem, judgemental, divisive approach, parroting the same old generic partial truths… Four months ago, he conspicuously breached a constructive, well-meant sanction (cited above, cf. Irondome), and nothing happened whatsoever, total impunity. Gaming the system is one phrase that suits well his behaviour, for what I can see he has not learnt anything, only more sophisticated ways to circumvent the system. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So I think that's it. That's all of you who have either falsely accused me of things I haven't done (Inaki's favourite method is accusing half a dozen of unrelated editors of sockpuppetry) or who have a long standing grudge against me. Shall I now ping the dozens of editors with which I have edited constructively and thanked me for my work over the last 5 years and turn this into a battle of meatpuppets or shall we just forget about this ridiculous incident?Asilah1981 (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * O actually, I read Asilah1981's latest personal attack as pointed by Yashovardhan above. It just confirms there is no learning whatsoever. I was subject to serious personal attacks addressed to me in Spanish some time ago in his own talk page and MLNV prisoners page, and veiled threats in an ANI one-two years ago, although he has refined his ways of addressing to me in the course of time. Due to his inability to refrain, I should rather support a complete ban, with topic ban as second option. As I have said other times, there is the edit record for everyone to check. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I outlined Asilah's tendentious editing at Catalan Countries in my post in the previous section. I have seen similar behaviour at articles with which I have not been involved, e.g. this at Disputed status of Gibraltar, this at Basque conflict, and this at ETA. He was also involved in this discussion at ANI over edit-warring to replace a copyrighted image in several Iberian-related articles without a proper fair use rationale. Asilah has a problem with objectivity, and a problem with unemotional, rational discussion. He does game the system by withdrawing at strategic moments so that right now, for instance, he could not be blocked because he's not doing anything blockable (his last revert at Disputed status of Gibraltar was two days ago). A topic ban seems the only answer. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire why on earth would anyone block me Scolaire? Because you don't like me? Nothing in policy allows a group of editors to come together on the basis of their opposition to one editor's views on a range of different topics to "topic ban" him. On what topics? "Asilah is banned from editing on anything that WCM, Scolaire, Inaki and Kahastok feel VERY strongly about". The basis of this decision was that Asilah was rude when asking WCM for the nth time to stop posting on his talk page. Really? That is the expected outcome? You think that is how wikipedia works? And you accuse me of gaming the system? This IS gaming the system. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Read your response again, Asilah. It sums up exactly what the problem is. There was a number of ways you might have responded, but the only way you know is to go on the attack with shouty bolded sentences. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support No basis in policy, ? On the contrary, the actual policy states: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive. emphasis added. In the areas cited above, there is evidence of tendentious editing, failure to engage in consensus, and attempts to drive other editors away from an area of editing. This is behavior that falls within the definition of disruptive editing.  Rather than address these complaints, you have chosen instead to attack the other editors as your personal enemies.  I am posting this here in the (possibly vain) hope that input from an editor who has not previously interacted with you may have some positive effect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn Ok fine. I'm done with this issue. Just make sure this guy doesn't harass me on my talk page again and I'm happy. Its ironic that two editors who had to open new accounts to circumvent long-term bans on these very articles, are trying to get me topic-banned. I barely edit them anyways, technically I didn't edit them at all. I just briefly supported the latest of the dozens who has been hounded out by these editors over the past decade. Have a nice week. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SPI is pretty good in dealing with these situations. Did you consider filing a case there with the evidence you might have to make such accusations? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan Its not an accusation, its a known fact by all admins. The reason I was blocked was for outing their former accounts, not knowing that they were their true names. I cannot discuss this topic as per Wikipedia policy, would get me blocked - this time permanently.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should know WP:CLEANSTART then. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do know WP:CLEANSTART, Yashovardhan simply see little change in behavior between then and now... anyways, I have other issues to worry about these days.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Asilah has long been a disruptive influence in these articles and his responses here are classic examples of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Rather than acknowledging there may be a problem, he launches into attacks on other editors, suggesting that they are just bad faith editors, sockpuppets, Two nationalistic editors" who dislike him etc. One of the latest controversies involves him edit warring against consensus, during an RFC which disagreed with his view and adding pointy tags then responding with refusal to get the point when editors took the time to explain why the tags were inappropriate. Now we have WP:GAME examples, making 3 reverts then stopping short of a fourth. Since this part of a long pattern rather than an isolated incident, an enforced break from these articles would be best. Valenciano (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic-ban from all topics related to the Iberian peninsula, broadly construed. The disruption has been repeated over a very long period of time and consistently involves personalizing disputes with editors that Asilah1981 disagrees with. Asilah1981 states above that he 'barely' edits articles in this topic area anyway. If true, then the topic ban will have little to no impact on his editing. But based on the editing history I think this claim is more a case of another example of the tendentious approach to editing that this editor has. MPS1992 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a wider topic ban related to any political subjects Here is their latest edit. He tells that members of "fact checking organizations" "celebrate public executions with militants". What? This is not supported by any reliable sources, to tell this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I support this--I do know that the "dick" comment came after a. Asilah asked WCM to stay away from their talk page and b. WCM didn't honor that request--so it seems pretty clear who was in the wrong here. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I only saw their edits in the area of Syrian war, such as this ("fat unemployed blogger" in edit summary; being "fat and unemployed" is not a reason for removing anything), or that doubtful usage of Amnesty statement . In the last diff he (mis)represents views by Amnesty International and EU as something opposite to the views by US and UK governments. In fact, they are not opposite. But whatever. I have no strong opinion about it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Next comment by Asilah: . He refers to this propaganda "source" by David Icke to connect to a video of public execution by Islamic militants. I do not think this is anything appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And now he violated 1RR restriction on the page to insert a poorly referenced statement by Assad Here his edit was reverted by another contributor. And what he does? revert (note the reinserted phrase about Assad), and reinserts it again. Note that his sources are questionable. And he does it while his editing is under discussion on WP:AN! I think he is simply WP:NOTHERE. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, first revert 17:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC); second revert 05:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC); diff of prior notification of 1RR 22 May 2017. I don't know whether 1RR violations are supposed to be reported to EWN (or AE) while there is an ongoing discussion of general behaviour at AN. Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like this clarified as well? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan, I asked, who is an admin, and he answered, "It's up to you. It's possible that AE gains more immediate attention from an admin, but it's more paperwork." The thing is, I wouldn't be comfortable going to Arbitration Enforcement over a page and a topic where I'm not involved. Probably should do it if he still wants to pursue the matter.  Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * However, I see he has now self-reverted so it's probably best to leave it. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ya, It's best to leave all this. His latest drama - propose a topic ban on me. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, having reverted him exactly once you're now a "bad faith edit warrior", banned from his talk page as well? I increasingly think these talk page bans are aimed at preventing admin scrutiny by banning people from posting warnings.
 * Regardless, this insistence that anything short of unqualified support for his position is evidence of bad faith is the precise behaviour that this topic ban is intended to remove. So, in the circumstances, I would support including Syrian Civil War or other political subjects as described by My very best wishes in the topic ban. Kahastok talk 19:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - persistent disruptive editing cannot be tolerated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the user whose conduct is being discussed here continues to edit (or rather, edit war) in the specified field, when can this topic ban proposal's consensus be decided and it be implemented? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would list at WP:ANRFC after it's been open 7 days (i.e. after 17:58 UTC, 8 June 2017)? Obviously if an admin closes before then, then that works too of course. Kahastok talk 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good enough. I didn't realize ANRFC could close AN discussions as well. On another note, I've extended my support to all political subjects and propose this as an alternative proposal to supplement this. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly disruptive in this topic area. Stikkyy t/c 04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia has a history, especially in the topic of politics, of civil incivility whereby editors will civilly gaslight their opponents until they can build up enough frustration to cause someone to crack, then run to AN or AE for a topic ban and gain full control of a topic. I'm opposing topic bans based on "incivility" on principal until this problem is fixed with a policy change.--v/r - TP 13:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT. If you don't like the current policies, propose the appropiate changes at the policy talk page, the village pump, etc; but elsewhere. Here, we are discussing about this specific user, and we are doing so with the policies that are in force right now. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't just civility though. It's also edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. And come on, this incivility is not "provoked", he pretty much comes right out and makes comments which poison the discussion right at the start and preclude a meaningful dialogue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary proposal: Extend topic ban to all political subjects

 * Support topic ban on all political subjects as proposer Yashovardhan (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Much as I dislike overly prescriptive topic bans, posted here, whilst under consideration for a topic ban, shows the blatant disregard for WP:CIVIL that has resulted in numerous confrontations on wiki. Clearly does not appreciate the problem is his editing, I can't think of a more obvious case of WP:NOTTHEM. WCM email 06:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, given the evidence of his attitude and behaviour on Syria-related pages, not to mention his "Second Supplementary proposal" below. He just doesn't seem to be capable of any kind of dialogue that is not confrontational. Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: should you ping everybody who contributed to the previous discussion? Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, Scolaire; you could do that yourself. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay then, pinging, , , , , , , , and .  --Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. User is clearly rapidly approaching WP:NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per comments in previous section. In addition, based on their comments so far, this user completely ignores good faith attempts by others on explaining WP policies and does not see any problems in their own editing, even though the problems are significant and obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - the editor is overtly combative and clearly WP:NOTHERE. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: The "Secomd (sic) Supplementary proposal" below clearly shows that he's the type of user who reacts to sanctions by further escalating the conflict. If forced to stay out only of the Iberian peninsula, he would cause problems elsewhere as retaliation, so let's just skip that phase and leave him out of political topics altoguether. I suppose he won't cause much harm editing the articles about the Looney Tunes. That's all folks! Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: i.e. ban on Iberian Peninsula + all political matters, per WP:NOTTHEM, WP:CIVIL and notably WP:DISRUPT. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per other editors. Stikkyy t/c 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Unfortunately, I think we've exhausted all the options short of this.
 * To lift this topic ban - assuming it is adjudged to have achieved consensus - Asilah will have to demonstrate his understanding of why his edits in these areas have been problematic, and what he needs to do to change that problem. I hope that at some stage he can achieve this.  But I think it's clear from the below comments both that he doesn't understand the problem with his personal attacks and persistent refusal to pay anything more than lip service to WP:AGF, and that he doesn't want to understand it.  Until this changes, a topic ban is the right course to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 18:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - seems to be long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Secomd Supplementary proposal
I suggest a topic ban for Yashovardhan for all topics related to India, Sushi and Loony Tunes characters.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now seriously, as an example of how farcical this whole process is, I happen to be one of the most restrained editors on Syria related articles. One of the few who is not locked in the massive edit war between both sides and is trying to aid consensus, between warring sides. I thing if you guys don´t stop picking on the little guy as soon as you smell blood WP:BOOMERANG should apply. This whole issue was about me being rude over someone harassing me on my talk page, NOT ABOUT MY EDITING!.
 * You spelled 'second' wrong and forgot to sign the previous comment. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I should not participate in this silliness any further. I am certainly not perfect, but this is a ragtag mob of activist editors and a couple of others who are taking their slander at face-value. I would request an admin to carefully go through my editing history - and perhaps the editing history of some of those most keen on getting me banned. I trust Wikipedia works well enough that such blatant gaming of the system will not work. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comment above.--v/r - TP 13:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure on RfC discussion about WP:NSPORTS
I previously requested closure of Village pump (policy) at WP:ANRFC because someone said one closer is enough. However, another person said that more than one closer, i.e. two closers, may be needed. Therefore, I'm re-requesting a closure here but for two-person teamwork. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on this one wit one or two partners. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I notified those about this, and I'm awaiting more if necessary. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn is going to be another team closer. Two should suffice unless third closer is proven necessary, which I would also welcome. --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Closure is already performed. Thanks to both for the joint closure. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Italy at the World Championships in Athletics
What about this deletion and not this and these others five? or France at the FIFA World Cup? --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The deletion log states it was deleted as a result of this AfD, but it's not listed as one of the articles bundled by the original nom (as these were all linked to speed-skating). I see it is mentioned in the body of the AfD by someone else, making a comment about it, but it looks like this was deleted in error. I suggest this is restored and if anyone wishes to make a case for deletion, it gets its own AfD.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored it. Can be listed at AfD now, if someone is so inclined. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the undeletion. I think it might have been swept up in either a d-batch or other similar "let's-grab-every-bluelink" script. Mistakes happen, glad this was easily resolved. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lectonar.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and that is why I do things slowly ;) see WP:AN. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * many thanks :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure on RfC discussion regarding "joke" categories
The closure on "Wikipedia talk:User categories" was requested earlier in late March. More than two months passed, and the discussion is still open. I had a discussion with the one who started the discussion. Therefore, I'm re-requesting a closure on the RfC discussion. However, I'm unsure whether a solo or teamwork closure should suffice. Though I don't mind solo closure, I can welcome two-editor closure if necessary. --George Ho (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Already closed by Dennis Brown. --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WordGirl S10
Hey all, might someone be able to look into this? I don't presently have time to commit, but my BS detector has gone off. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. —Guanaco 06:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've handled the rest. User is not here to be constructive. Also reminds me of Rodolfootoya socks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you know Queue
The Queue to be put up tomorrow is empty .Some admin please assemble the queues or the DYK section will be blank tommorowFORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Obnoxious talk page
Hi B, Talk:Iron Fist (TV series) has been a hotbed of sock accounts (NokSuk, Oscar22, Listen45) as well as IP editors demonstrating poor talk page etiquette. My guess is that the sock accounts may be continuing, and potentially while logged out. This SPA lobs a personal attack against an editor, this IP restores it. The same IP editor creates a brand new section here to (ironically) lob a condescending attack against Alex. I've participated in the dispute !vote, so I'll abstain from adminning, but any CU checking and/or adminning you find warranted would be helpful, even if it's just closing the discussions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock of Oscar22; block applied, paperwork not filed. I've semi-protected that talk page. Fascinating discussion, BTW--with the sock gone, it might improve, if that Alex person can start talking like a grownup. Drmies (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That Alex person thanks you for your suggestion. --  Alex TW 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing: I mean it in all seriousness and with the best of intentions. Cyphoidbomb, can you maybe tag those socks? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Carolus
(previous discussion: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive953 from early May 2017)

Multiple users have contacted User:Carolus about issues with his article creations and additions, including (but not limited to) sourcing problems. One such problem is that sources like "RD 8.4.1932" or "RD 21.7.1924" (only source on Hubert Krains) are not understandable to our readers at all. This has been noted during the past few days by User:Reb1981, User:Andreas Philopater and myself, while User:Boleyn has tagged similar articles for sourcing issues as well (see e.g. Werner van den Steen de Jehay). User:TonyBallioni has also suggested that Carolus should change his approach to article creation and perhaps develop them in draft space first. Carolus' response to this polite and patient editor was "If you want it back, then stop crying, i have other things to do. sorry, but do not delete and come back crying" which was completely missing the point.

Now, his latest reply to the requests to change his "RD date" sources to something readable and understandable is "No, i will do as i like, evreryone understands the meaning of an RD in Belgium." Never mind that we don't write for people in Belgium but for people around the world, and that both I and (I think) Andreas Philopater are Belgians and still had trouble understanding what was meant...

Considering this reply, his approach to editing, his manner in other discussions (see the previous ANI discussion, and see User talk:Carolus and related pages for another recent good example), I think it is time that some sanction is implemented. I don't know which sanction, apart from a block, would prevent all these problems though, as they are not all limited to e.g. article creation. A topic ban from the main space (forcing him to use either draft space or article talk pages) may be a solution. A good mentor, assuming that Carolus is willing to be mentored, is also a possibility. But seeing that his userpage states "This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 9 months and 22 days." I fear that no swift and easy change should be expected. Fram (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You choose Fram, 1/ i leave EN wiki, or you leave me in peace, no other options; you decide. Do not wast my time, and say what you want. I have a problem with you as well, but i do not cry like a child. So let me know your decision. --Carolus (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The most cursory of checks would have verified that this user has been on Wikipedia for about 2 years. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And a somewhat more indepth check would have verified that this user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, with the first 6 or so on nlwiki (where they got indef blocked), then a hiatus, and now 2 years on enwiki. Fram (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Izno, don't you understand Fram?? He is very clear? But i don't get the point if someone is blocked elsewere? If Fram does not see that a Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Leopold II is enough notability, then he has a serious issue about the facts of wiki. --Carolus (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I can see the situation: A user gets blocked on Dutch Wikipedia for sock puppetry (the block reason includes a URL to their equivilent of our WP:SPI), joins us a couple of years later, and creates pages with cryptic source data, and he says that No, i will do as i like, evreryone understands the meaning of an RD in Belgium [sic]. We need sources to be understood by English-language readers, not by Belgians; amd sockpuppetry elsewhere is clearly a red flag, IMO. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not a sockpuppet? I am Carolus? what is your point?--Carolus (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, forget other solutions, time to indef block them for WP:CIR. His latest claim is that he doesn't write full biographies because "people will change them anyway because of 1/ their oppinion, and 2/ the spelling errors. The last one is discriminating people who do not speak fully english". Yep, you read that right, correcting spelling errors in encyclopedia articles is now a form of discrimination... Fram (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if "mentor" is the word, since Carolus has been active longer than I have, but I would be willing to partner with him – for example if he's willing to create new articles in draft space I'd be happy to check them through and move them to main space. His interests to some extent overlap with mine, and I've effectively been revising his work as and when it shows up on User:AlexNewArtBot/BelgiumSearchResult anyway. (I'm not actually a Belgian, but I did spend a year in Belgium as a student, and have been working in Belgium for the past couple of years.) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left Carolus a final warning. If they carry on editing like this, I'll simply block them. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This was the response to the final warning. I think we're quickly approaching a CIR block for not wanting to work with the community on the issues presented. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * i don't get the point? being blocked for a sockpuppet of 5 years ago? Ok, then block me please.--Carolus (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the Belgian monarchs situation, I agreed to compromise on that topic (even though we don't chronologically number monarchs), in order to stop the edit warring. PS - Again, Philippe's title is "King of the Belgians", not "seventh King of the Belgians".

GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You really might want to tone it down, you're not going to win any allies by issuing ultimatums. Also, the RD (Royal Decree - which you explained on your talk page ) isn't  referenced anywhere online, nor is it referenced as a printed item (no ISBN numbers or anything ) so I'm not sure it can be used.     Regarding R.D's,  if this was the Dutch Wikipedia you could possibly get away with "everybody knows what RD's are, however on the American English Wikipedia, none of us really knows what that is, you would need to explain that, otherwise someone could, potentially remove it as "unreferenced".  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   14:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that wall had been built already ;) I think it's still the English Wikipedia though   :D   !!!   &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wall? ,  BLP violation removed  !  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   14:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In online discussions it's often helpful to sleep on things before reaching a decision. Carolus isn't a vandal, and a tetchy response in not unusual online even from the calmest of characters. As to the American Wikipedia – I'll bite my tongue. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK guys? what is "tetchy", me no speak uk?? and who is Carlous?--Carolus (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Tetchy" is not "uk", tetchy is English. I'd like to see a clear response from you regarding the sourcing concerns others have brought up, please. --Neil N  talk to me 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you expect me to change my sourcing, sorry, no can do. There are no other sources. But that is not my problem. If you realy think you can do better, yourself, please be me guest. If you don't like it, please delete them, no problem. Better it it is not getting, but your choice. Some people like to make a point by deleting articles, i like to create articles to make my point. that is all. So, perhaps you should only allow UK people to write, then the world would be happy. So, now my question, again, what has an old sockpuppet here to do? What is that point?--Carolus (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Creating articles to make a point, could be seen as a violation of WP:POINT, however. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, indead, so please block me, naughty me. :D--Carolus (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

as you've shown on Augustine Kasujja, you do in fact know how to create articles with better sourcing. Like I've said to you on your talk page: the articles you create are almost always notable, but also almost always not fully in line with what we expect for an article in the main space. I'd really suggest working in the draft space to develop the articles first, or even send it through AfC. We want your contributions here, but when they involve living people in particular, and biographies in general, we tend to prefer clear sourcing upon creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I expect you to provide enough info about a source so that a competent English reader can discern what the source actually is so they can find it if they should choose. --Neil N  talk to me 15:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Carolus, the editors here want you to use a standard format for citing a Royal Decree. I don't personally know what that is, maybe someone else could link to a guide? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Carolus has in fact been improving these references over the course of the day, e.g. this diff. It's an improvement, although it still isn't optimal. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, they're referring to specific source material although not in a standardized citation format. I imagine there is one for this type of source, probably similar to citing a legal statute? But I don't know what to suggest. cite act maybe? It would also be helpful if could provide a link to where they're finding these sources, if they are online. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The standard format in Dutch would be "KB 1923-7-21", in French "AR 1923-7-21" (with KB/AR standing for "royal decree" in the respective languages). Carolus's attempt to translate this into English as "RD 21-7-1923" is what triggered this round of scrutiny of his editing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * tetchy = irritable --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will just add, as I've already mentioned on my talkpage, I once put a new article on nlwiki. Within minutes it was at AfD with people mocking my poor Dutch rather than discussing the substantive merits. My response was, I have to admit, not dignified. Hitting the right tone in a foreign language in an online forum is very tricky, especially when people seem to be knocking your good-faith efforts. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On Belgian Royal Orders as sources: these are published in the Moniteur belge (or Belgisch staatsblad - basically the Belgian Gazette), which is only online from 2003 onwards (barring some scans of 19th-century copies that crop up unsystematically on Google Books or Internet Archive). Going by deeds rather than by words, Carolus has in fact made an effort to improve these references, and as they are to paper-only sources it is true not much more can be done to improve them, but they should ideally include a reference to the issue number and/or date of the Moniteur belge in which they appear. If "RD 21.7.1923" in fact means "Royal order as published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge of 21 July 1923" then something like that would be best as a reference. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Andreas, you are almost Correct, the date is when the King has signed the koninklijk Besluit, but this can be put in the Staatsblad on a different date. You should ask concrete someone who knows the procedure of the procedures of a Koninklijk Besluit. I am not a Legal specialist, but i know that only after they appear in the Staatsblad, the royal decision is legal. I realy am suprised nobody never heard of this basic rules of Belgian law.--Carolus (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not having the paper publication myself, I cannot know whether you are giving the date of the decree or of its publication (this is why references are important: so those of us who don't have the publication in front of us know where to look!). So the ideal reference would be: "Royal order of 21 July 1923, published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge of xx [month] xxxx"--Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok then i wil stop writing those articles, because that is realy impossible, i do not have time for that. --Carolus (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your call. But you could keep the format handy as (on your user page, say) and just copy/paste it and fill in the dates when editing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

, you have been offered some really excellent advice, and I ask that you please please please consider carefully following it, or adapt in some other equivalent way. As a reader, I would have had no idea what a reference reading "RD 21-07-1923" or something like it actually meant. I would find it useless for either trying to find or verify, or to use to obtain further information (wording, for example). I would be stuck, and I doubt that you would want every reader who is trying to understand it to come and ask you, potentially years after you have made the edit. By contrast, if you follow the advice from, you would leave a reference that tells me that the source is a Royal order from the Belgian monarch, and I could follow a wikilink to find out more about what that is. It would be clear that 21-07-1923 was a date and not some sort of file reference. I would know that it would be published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge and the wiki article or a google search would tell me that it is only available offline for that date. I would have a concrete date to start searching. If you happened to have the title of the royal order, providing that would be helpful too, but even if you don't, the reference would give me an excellent starting point. If you don't know the date of publication, you could at least note "and published shortly afterwards" as something like: For the ones available online, using a cite web template would provide a link and all the bibliographic information. It is great that you are adding sources to Wikipedia, and I thank you for that, but it would be much more helpful to add them in a way that what they are is clear to a reader... it is really not fair to expect others to change your "RD XX-XX-XXXX" references to something like that shown above, especially as you only need copy and paste the code and insert your XX-XX-XXXX where it says [date] in my first dot point. Please, this is not difficult for you and would be helpful to others. I understand that you may feel stressed / targeted for adding references, but now that it is clear what the references are, might I say that we are all working towards a common goal – high quality and source encyclopaedic content? Please, you are only being asked to make a format change that is for the benefit of readers now and in the future readers. EdChem (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Entirely off-topic. In my time here I have got on with contributing with a minimum of interaction. After finding myself pinged in this discussion I also found myself involved in an editing dispute that I have taken to Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard (hopefully the correct forum). Since this has so far been my only experience of dispute resolution, I have put notifications of that other discussion on the talk pages of a number of the people who took part in this one, in hopes of generating a speedy response (it is somewhat time sensitive). I am not sure where else to ask (and should perhaps have asked first), but I hope this will not be regarded as spam or as undue canvassing? I'm not asking people to agree with me, just to take a look. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - Why are we bending over backwards to keep an editor who is carrying a chip on their shoulder, won't listen to good advice, is combative and issues ultimata at the drop of a hat, and clearly wants to be blocked? Especially since they have been indeffed for socking on another language Wikipedia, and don't appear to have an especially good grasp of English? What is it we're getting from this editor that makes all this effort worthwhile? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that his latest edit was this, where "replying" to a question about a 1432-1508 person, he insists that his pre-move name for the article was right, pointing to a source about someone with that name in 1632, I second this question. He wants to contribute, but only on his terms and even then with many competence issues. See also Articles for deletion/Charles-Joseph de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace, where his "contribution" to the AfD is "This has been nominated way too fast.", ignoring completely the many errors he made which resulted in the AfD (I have nothing to do with this article and AfD, so it seems that others are observing the same issues independently). Fram (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at their edits/the chats on their talk page, and the first three 'positions' of theirs I saw that I can myself competently assess (the Belgian monarchs, plus the Swedish dowagers and orgs with Thai royal patronage) are frankly very weird, to the point of being dispositive as far as WP:Competence is concerned, especially once you take into account their penchant for fossicking about with actual (alleged) letters patent and other (allegedly) promulgated primary sources. Having a mediocre command of English doesn't account in the least for all the idiosyncratic and (seemingly) arbitrary takes on perfectly straightforward things. Advocata (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm considering removing the numberings from the intros of the Belgian monarchs articles. As again, it goes against our practice on monarchial bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed that and was curious: did you mean the lower-case ordinal prefixes, or the regnal numbers, or both? I above was only referring to the bizarreness of suggesting that ('upper-case') ordinal prefixes were actually part of the sovereign title, as opposed to a (lower-case) description. Advocata (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples: In the intros - "..third King.." at Albert I of Belgium, "fourth King..." at Leopold III of Belgium, etc. These won't make much sense, when a female ascends the throne. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I thought, but wanted to make sure you didn't mean the I and III, etc. You can of course rescue the wiki-convention by describing that future Elisabeth as the 8th monarch + first queen regnant, but there doesn't seem much point to it. It only seems to be a thing on the Belgian monarchs' articles because of the comparative newness of the Belgian throne. Advocata (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Carolus' combative nature, didn't help either. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to verify information he is now adding to articles. This Romanian violinist supposedly became a member of the Belgian Royal Academy aged 19, which seems extremely young for someone without a link to Belgium (Romanian-born, studied in Germany, played in Russia). The source, "Index biographique des membres et associés de l'Académie royale de Belgique (1769-2005)" doesn't seem to exist with that name. It presumably refers to the "l’Index biographique des membres, correspondants et associés (1769-2005) de l’Académie". Older versions of this source exist as well, none are easily accessible sadly. Fram (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Testing search in deleted pages archive
Hello Admins,

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. Now we are ready to deploy this capability in production, and are asking admins of select wikis to test-drive this feature. After accommodating any feedback from this trial, we plan to deploy it on all wikis and enable it by default.

To test it on your wiki, please go to the  page, and add   to the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. Then search for the pages you're interested in. The results should show more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension). If you find anything that is not right with the results, or that you want to be changed, please comment.

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to admins. Thanks, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good on testwiki - as far as "anything .. want changed" - change it from a STARTS WITH search to a CONTAINS search (or enable a wild card option to toggle). —  xaosflux  Talk 00:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh looks like it is already working like that, perhaps change the default prompt at MediaWiki:Undelete-search-prefix to match? — xaosflux  Talk 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's improperly truncating the results. I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1 and searched for fuzzy, and it gave me precisely 100 results, from "All Fuzzy" to Fuzzy rule.  Aside from the low likelihood of there being exactly 100 pages with deleted revisions associated with a title containing fuzzy, I find it suspicious that the final item begins with "f".  Probably there are pages beginning with "fuzzy" that would come after "rule", and I can't imagine that there aren't some deleted pages beginning with "g" through "z" that contain the word "fuzzy".  It would help if we had an ordinary navigation link, one of those things where you can go to the next 20 or 50 or 100 or whatever-you-want links.  Less important, but perhaps also useful: could we get a little check box to toggle whether it gives us only pages that are redlinks or pages that are red-or-bluelinks?  Maybe one day I'm looking for all pages with deleted revisions of fuzzy, whether redlinks like American fuzzy lops or existing pages like Fuzzy Zoeller, but another day I might only be looking for pages that are redlinks, since after all I can already find the bluelinks with an ordinary Special:Search.  Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch "contains" makes much more sense. Task filed for the team to look at. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it does only return 100 results. This limit existed in the previous implementation, and we kept it the same with the inclusion of fuzzy results. Doing unlimited search would be difficult for both performance and UI reasons, and pagination is not implemented for Special:Undelete yet. There's an old task for it, and I've just updated the task with your request. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it's intentional, that's fine. Just please add a notice "First 100 results..." or something of the sort.  Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed revival on Administrator review
Hi y'all (my first time saying that ;)&thinsp;). Administrator review was tagged "historical" back in April due to inactivity. Someone is proposing a revival of the feedback process at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), where you are invited to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Howdie :)  I think an AN/I thread should be started on why you've never said 'y'all' before. It is, in fact, completely disgraceful.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page restrictions at Carter Page
Following recent changes to WP:AC/DS, there is an ongoing discussion at WP:AE about whether to lift DS page restrictions at Carter Page. Admins and other editors here are invited to participate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be great to get some more admin input on this. Four so far have chimed in and I think it's generally leaning one way, but it'd be good to have a strong(er) consensus for whatever we decide to do.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

3000+ pages now have a link to an unrelated commercial website as "reference"
(This didn't seem to really belong on any other noticeboard, so here goes). Databaseolympics.com used to be a good 'or certainly useful) source for information about olympic athletes, and is thus used as reference / external link on more than 3,000 pages. The site is no longer functioning though, and brings you to rotowire.com, a commercial site for fantasy sports. I guess all the links have to be removed, unless there is some migration that can be done. Tagging them as "dead link" would be wrong (the link isn't dead, it just is being misused by another site), and just leave them in the articles would provide free hits for the site.

Removing the links may change a number of BLPs into unreferenced BLPs though. To make things slightly more complicated, many articles using this site also link to sports-reference.com (e.g. Paolo Milanoli or Tommaso Costantino), but sports-reference.com will also shut down in "early 2017".

As this is not a complaint about whoever added these links originally (as these were valid at the time, and probably added by dozens of editors), I haven't notified anyone. I'm just looking for what the best solution may be for this problem. Fram (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cut the non-reference links, because they're not being used to support content. But for the reference links, couldn't we just do a bot request?  Bot goes to the Internet Archive and finds the most recent result that predates the citation and then replaces the old URL with the archived one.  If it's a citation template with no accessdate, or if it's a written-out citation with nothing of "Accessed on" or "Retrieved on", the bot can use the page history to find when the citation was added, or if that's too hard, it logs the item for a human.  And since the Olympic stats haven't yet gone down, couldn't a bot-run help there as well?  Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's something specific that needs to be done to IABot to make it archive live links, but I don't remember what it is exactly. Pinging, who does. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is certainly something for IABot to do, but I'll have to contact the Wayback Devs to archive the massive amount of links still working into their servers so we can save them in time.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sports-reference.com is used on more than 40,000 pages so yes, starting this in time would be wise. Can anything still be done for the databaseolympics ones, where the site is already down? Fram (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The process would be the same. Find and use the relevant Internet Archive link. bd2412  T 13:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would blacklist the entire domain so IABot considers the URLs dead and the best to hope for is that an archive exists.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have blacklisted the domains for databaseolympics, and summoned the bot to those pages containing it. The progress can be tracked at https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=viewjob&id=369 — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, Cyberpower and Fram, are you sure that the sports-reference Olympics links are dead? Go to  and click random links; it looks like they've not yet taken it down.  For example,  gives stats for Paavo Nurmi, and  for Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 5000 metres.  Do I remember rightly that at any time the IA can be instructed to archive a page at that moment?  As far as I can see, there's no reason that these links can't be archived right now.  Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sports-reference.com still works, but may shut down any moment now (per the linked announcement, which is linked from every page on that site). Archiving them right now ensures that they are well and truly archived, which is less certain with databaseolympics. Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I put in a request to the ArchiveTeam, and they'll work to archive as many, if not all, links as possible for sorts-reference before it goes down. They know they have a time limit.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * While this is here, it's worth noting that Databaseolympics.com was one of a family of sports statistics websites that were similar to Sports-Reference. There was Databasefootball, Databasebasketball, Databasehockey, and Databasebaseball. The football site in particular looks like it is used frequently as a source here. It might be worthwhile to check a few of these links to see if they also redirect to rotowire.com. If so, attempts should be made to archive links from those sites as well as the Olympics site. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 17:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ They all redirect and I have blacklisted the domain in the bot now, and summoned the bot to the pages containing them. Here are the relevant bot jobs.
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=viewjob&id=369
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=viewjob&id=371
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=viewjob&id=372
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=viewjob&id=373
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=viewjob&id=374
 * — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 19:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with a content dispute
(A lot of my WP work involves dealing with geographic coordinates, which is how I was led to this problem in the first place.) There has been edit warring at Labyrinth of Buda Castle—apparently a partial translation of a hu.wp article, and not a particularly good article in any event—with regard to the coordinates in the article. It's apparently related to a dispute over the ownership and location of a particular exhibition named "Labyrinth of Buda Castle", but the exact details are unclear to me because I'm unable to fully understand the talk-page posts. I semi-protected the article for a month to allow users to hash the matter out on the talk page; but after the protection expired the warring resumed, so I've semied the article for another month. Now an aggrieved editor is claiming multi-WP admin abuse (one of the involved users is a hu.wp admin who has apparently blocked some of the warriors there) on the talk page. For my own peace of mind I usually try to stay out of disputes, and I consider the article protection nothing more than a stopgap measure, so I'm asking you more experienced admins, What's the best way to deal with a situation like this? Nothing that's likely to be effective is coming to my mind at the moment. Deor (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At a glance: I don't think we can do anything about admin actions on other projects. Besides, the complaints on that talk page come off like a) it involves a real world legal dispute that we should probably not join in and b) I find the accusations of "admin abuse" in this context to be rather suspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The disputed contents were hopelessly unreferenced. At this edit I have removed it all. I hope that keeps things quiet. I'd further suggest that the article should be a redirect to a (currently nonexistent) section of the Buda Castle article. Also, the present article is interesting only for its picture gallery, and the article probably needs deleting, with the pictures being moved to Wikimedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That works, I guess. I was reluctant to take an axe to an article translated from another WP, and I've perhaps grown overcautious about nominating such stuff for deletion or merger. I've become less bold as I've aged—not entirely a good thing. Deor (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin needed
Please see above, Administrators'_noticeboard, and scroll down to where you see a ton of editors mostly going "support": either of the two proposals is ready for close. Note also that the editor,, is currently throwing around ancient accusations on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) which, as far as I'm concerned, are way out of line. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

✅  78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin action review
The vandalism by this editor popped up on my watchlist about half an hour ago. Since highly visible pages were targeted, I performed moves, deletions, revdels, and a block myself. Since I am involved on one of those pages, I am asking for a quick review here, though in my view the edits were blatant vandalism. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm calling for an immediate emergency de-sysop, with a public flogging and reparations to be made. In all seriousness that was more than needed and that was blatant vandalism as you said. Kudos though for asking for a second sets of eyes, nothing wrong here in my book. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's completely okay. As I mentioned elsewhere, regardless of the high profile of some of the pages, some / most of them were egregious BLP violations, and they don't need no satisfaction self-justification. Let alone the blatent trolling / racism, etc. On the other hand, if 's proposal is adopted, then can I have 's shoes before he leaves  :)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What racism, and what trolling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.250.100 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell by the edit summaries then no one can explain it to you. Doug Weller  talk 09:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And although they've been rev/del'd, that was after this IP posted. Doug Weller  talk 09:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Good block. Doug Weller  talk 09:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call, both with the original block, and on bringing it here for a review on the basis that there might be a BLP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC).

BLP request for Malcolm Nance
Can an admin please add the following to the top of the talk page for Talk:Malcolm Nance :

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate some savvy editors helping fix the mess of the talk page after random removals of talk page comments by SageCandor. I tried but found it a bit too difficult for my feeble mind.  Arkon (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was fixing the vandalism this user made with zero edit summary: . Sagecandor (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * this was your "fix". Removing others comments is not fixing anything. Arkon (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User even had the gall to remove a notice to WP:BLPN discussion about WP:BLP violations, at . Sagecandor (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Admins: Please also see request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Malcolm Nance. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See this and Template:Editnotices/Page/Malcolm Nance. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Compromised account?
I'm not sure if I handled this correctly or not. Please feel free to revert me if I'm wrong. Responding to an AIV post regarding  created May 14, 2017, the user page has history links to  who has not edited since April 25, 2017. James ville is claiming to be Non-dropframe. I blocked James ville, because I see nothing on either account that indicates Non-dropframe now wishes to be known as James ville. I don't even find a user page block notice template that fits this situation. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like James ville has lifted non-dropframe's user page in its entirety (except a pic) and dumped it on their own page- including, of course, user permissions they have not been assigned. Since the account name is completely different, can tha=ey actually be said to be impersonating? WP:IMPERSONATOR is pretty clear that it's names of accounts that are important, IIRC. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, I did the correct thing on the block. If not, this is a good place to get it all straightened out. I have posted a notice on both user pages to respond here. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, James ville makes this claim, "Hello! I'm jame ville, or Nic, if you like. I'm a free-lance photographer by day and a recent changes patroller/new pages patroller by night. Or whenever I happen to be around. In any case, I've been on Wikipedia since 2008" It begs the question of what identity they have been using since 2008 as a new page patroller. Could this be tied to a sockmaster somewhere? James ville began uploading on Commons on April 30, 2017. User Non-dropframe has been around since 2008. — Maile (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth, I think you made the right call by blocking the new account. If it is non-dropframe, they'll make a post on their talk and try to explain (or email the relevant helplines). If it's not, then you've stopped an impersonator. Either way, this will get sorted out. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've modified the block by removing autoblock and enabling account creation, as if it is non-dropframe, these elements will make it harder for him to do anything. Someone please restore those components, however, if it's more important potentially to stop an imposter than potentially to avoid problems for non-dropframe.  Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at their contribs it clearly isn't Non-dropframe, but someone wanting to promote themselves and/or their company (see their global contribs, WikiData page, WikiNews userpage or their WikiNews article). It's important to realise that some new users will see an article or userpage that they like, then copy it and adjust it to suit their needs. But in this case, see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of N R Pavan Kumar -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh-uh. I wondered why deleted that sandbox  :) excellent detective work, all round, there.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting that all the socks have the obvious tip-off style of not capitalizing the last name. Also, a bit of thanks here to the anonymous IP whose sole edit on Wikipedia was to report this at AIV. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Definately not me. I apreciate the vigilance involved here everyone. — Non-Dropframe    talk  23:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the hard block. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Conveniently, he impersonated another account at Commons (a bot, no less!), so I've blocked him there as an imposter and nuked his contributions, since they're fundamentally spam. Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals
What is the best way for me to help get this unanimous discussion closed, besides dispositioning the simplest threads by myself? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , go for it. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, go for it, Jax. The whole stub sorting proposal process is a joke anyway. If you've been here long enough and know what to do, why bother with that out-dated process at all? I know I've not bothered with it for the best part of a decade.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Logjam at MFD
Could I get a hand with some closes at MfD? I do the majority of the closes there, but there are a number of discussions that I participated in that I can't close, and they are piling up at the bottom of the screen. I don't normally need to ask because CambridgeBayWeather usually turns up every so often and clears out anything I don't, but I haven't seen them there in a week or two. Shouldn't be anything too contentious, if that worries anyone. Thanks! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can probably get to these tomorrow if no one arrives sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I remember, I'll see what I can clear out (assuming NYB doesn't get there first). Primefac (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

backlog at AIV
There is a backlog at AIV, oldest report is 4 hours old, backlog is increasing. Most of the reports are coming from an anon IPv6 address. Nördic  Nightfury  11:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:This is a redirect
Could an admin or user with an adminbot substitute the remaining 103 uses of This is a redirect? Almost all of them are on fully protected pages. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jc86035, I found a bunch that weren't on protected pages. Moreover, I've unprotected a lot of these pages.  Several were protected in the last decade for reasons that probably aren't applicable anymore, e.g. Baby 81 because of a 2007 move war.  Also, several old protections were basically "no reason to edit this" on pages such as Nail polish remover, and since maintenance of this sort is a good reason to edit, I unprotected those with rationales of "protection's getting in the way of maintenance".  I've not looked at all of them, and others I've intentionally not unprotected, e.g. Main Page. or Create article, but I figured I might as well help with the underlying issue on several of them.  Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Syntax mangling at WP:RFPP
Can someone who isn't me work back from Special:Diff/784901693 and determine what went wrong, why requests were being placed inside a hidden comment, and why the bot didn't fix everything automagically like it should. It's 2:50am in my timezone, so I'm going to bed. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * made this edit, which broke the header, and since there was no proper header the bot added it back in the subsequent edit (but for some reason inside the commented-out bits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was brought here, but it appears to already be resolved.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I pinged you in the hope that you'd be able to make the bot fix such situations in the future. If that isn't the case, feel free to close this discussion. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Should Linode ranges be blocked?
African-American family structure and a couple of other articles have had some pretty nasty racist vandalism from three IPs in recent days, 162.216.16.92, 173.230.138.88 and 97.107.130.206. All three are static IPs operated by a company called Linode, which looks to be some sort of Virtual Server/VPN provider. Should the relevant IP ranges be blocked? If so, is there a willing volunteer who knows how to do it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd say it's justified. Would you know the specific ranges that each of those IPs belong to? Primefac (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure, as the default Geolocate lookup doesn't give ranges, but I'll try some others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems like they're in IP ranges "162.216.16.0-162.216.19.255", "173.230.128.0-173.230.159.255" and " 97.107.128.0-97.107.143.255". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's not too bad a range. I'll crunch the numbers and see how much fallout we're looking at.Primefac (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 162 range (/22) = 1022
 * 173 range (/19) = 8190
 * 97 range (/20) = 4094
 * Given the tacit approval given below, I'll indef those ranges. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As a CheckUser, I've blocked Linode IPs, single and ranges, frequently. I'm not too fussy how I label the blocks, either, because Linode is one of the more notorious proxy servers. Whether they fit the precise definition of an open anonymous proxy matters relatively little. That said, I have never blocked an IP or an IP range (and some of those ranges are wide) indefinitely, and I don't recommend it and it's against policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, VPN and virtual server providers are effectively open proxies, even if that's not their operators' intention. -- The Anome (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's more at WP:ANI. I've been range blocking Linode IP rangess for the past couple days as I spot them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You may wish to contact the stewards to consider global blocks on those ranges. Sometimes they are used by legitimate users in China, or users operating bots, but they can request a global IP block exemption. --Rschen7754 22:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this action being considered different from a webhostblock? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Filter Manager access request
A request for non-administrator edit filter manager access is currently open for discussion at Edit filter noticeboard. Interested parties are welcome to discuss at that page. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Abdulahbkhan
Earlier today I blocked this user for legal threats made regarding the topic of images in Muhammad and related article. I have subsequently exchanged several emails with him, in which he asked me to redact his statements, and has assured me that the perceived death threats were not intended as such. I have redacted or revdel'd his comments, and am of a mind to unblock, but after email conversations with Boing! said Zebedee and Yamla, have decided to open it up for discussion here.

The edits leading up to the block are as follows (some have been deleted and will thus only be available to admins): ,, , ; see also this version of his user talkpage for context.

Please indicate below whether you are in favour of allowing this user to return. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an editor failed to KEEPCOOL. The fact that they asked for their comments to be redacted says something, . Primefac (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC) but I missed the diff posted by TNT and agree: that post went a little past just pissed-off. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good block. Having already seen the deleted material, I was planning to place a block once I arrived at work, but Yunshui and Boing! got there first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't really agree on an unblock based on this revdel'd diff - getting pissed off is one thing, but referencing those attacks tells a lot about the sort of person they are -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been somewhat involved insofar as I deleted his (old) userpage; and was mulling over a block. I am usually lenient and very laid back concerning user behaviour, but this users whole demeanor strikes me as....let's just say I would not be happy to see him return. Using open death threats and implied threats of terror-attacks as a means to gain an advantage in a discussion is just excessive. Lectonar (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This editor threatened physical violence and death to other editors, in addition to the legal threats. That has no place here on Wikipedia. I wouldn't personally choose to unblock this editor, but I'm not opposed to others choosing to unblock. I would suggest the necessary requirements would be an understanding of why their behaviour was inappropriate, a retraction of the physical threats, and a vow never to threaten violence again, on Wikipedia. Possibly editing restrictions, too, though I can't immediately imagine any that would be particularly helpful, here. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The diff highlighted by User:There'sNoTime is the one that did it for me. Coming amid a stream of rants about blasphemy and demands about Wikipedia's coverage of Muhammad, it would have had me considering reporting him the police had he been here in the UK (especially after the recent atrocities here). We should provide no platform for religious extremists who think it is acceptable to use the existence of death penalties for blasphemy and terrorist atrocities to try to impose their ways on us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The views expressed in that diff, particularly where they excuse terrorism, should never be tolerated here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly against unblocking. Unacceptable religious extremist statements. El_C 14:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just not comfortable with people like this editing here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As a die-hard liberal I'm always for unblocking and educating, but I just can't tell if this person is intelligent enough to understand what's going on. For one thing, he doesn't seem to realize that the world consists of great variety (and includes dappled things), and wishes to impose that one standard on everyone--but this is so elementary that it's possibly irredeemable, depending on their age of course. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Astonishingly, we had biography. El_C 14:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I've not checked the diffs, since I'm on my non-admin sock for using not-my-own computers, but I trust the analysis presented by Boing and others here.  I'm uncomfortable with an unblock, ever, for someone whose actions might warrant having the police called on him.  It's not quite as serious, but just almost as unforgivable, as what got Ecoleetage sitebanned.  Nyttend backup (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee emailed me the text from the diff to which he was referring. This text reinforces my opposition.  198.62.73.7 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, this is me. I'm very much out of town right now.  Nyttend backup (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the diff highlighted by TNT is a deal breaker for me. I'd want to see explicit repudiation of that behavior before considering unblocking. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ealdgyth. I don't see anything positive coming out of allowing this person to edit.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord no that rev-del'd diff raises all the red flags that I have. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the biggest no I've ever given on this project. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not a misunderstanding, or poor phrasing, in the diff TNT shared. That's an outright terroristic threat. User should never be unblocked. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  17:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tagging IP addresses with Template:IPsock
Hi all. A few days ago, I handled Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101/Archive. There, an IP address was reported after having removed templates from sockpuppets of the long-term abuse vandal. The documentation for IPsock is vague about when its usage is appropriate, as is SPI's admin instructions, which only states that the additional IPsock template "may" be applied to an unblocked IP. The most helpful advice I could find regarding this template is the wording at Template:Sockpuppet category/suspected and Template:Sockpuppet category/confirmed, which states that IPs may be added to this category using IPsock if they are static.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bertrand101 lists over 900 IP addresses, most of them from the following ranges: I asked for advice at the SPI linked above, and CheckUser agreed that the templating here was pointless, since the IPs are dynamic (not static, as sockpuppet category advises). It is actually counterproductive tag hundreds of dynamic IP addresses in this manner with IPsock because it is more likely that an innocent user will one day switch to an IP address with this tag on it than Bertrand101 switching to the same IP address. Additionally, adding these tags provide the vandal with a level of recognition that might fuel their desire to disrupt Wikipedia further.

For these reasons, I'd like to propose that the IPsock templates be removed on a large scale from all of the IP addresses listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bertrand101. Instead, we should present this information over at Long-term abuse/Bertrand101 by listing the most frequent IP ranges that Bertrand101 has used (which I've done above). I think this large-scale removal could probably be done with a semi-automated tool like WP:AWB in less than an hour, but I wanted to ask at this noticeboard first whether this is okay before doing it.

Additionally, we should clarify our documentation at Template:IPsock/doc and WP:SPI/AI to state that IPsock should be applied in rare cases and primarily to static IP addresses, not dynamic ones. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion (March 2014): Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. I've cross-posted this discussion to WT:SPI. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The categories are used to identify the user's edits and ranges - if it's documented elsewhere then there's no reason to tag all the pages and I'd agree with removing them. On the wider question of the documentation, tagging dynamic addresses can be used to build up a picture of the ranges being used - not to say the user on it is the same person but to assist in identifying patterns of previous edits, so tagging dynamic IPs can serve a useful purpose. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't remember ever applying that tag. I checked on the pages that were recently reverted and found that most of them are being applied by other IPs and not by admins, checkusers or clerks. The only hesitation that I have about mass removal is that this may override the special cases where careful discretion was used. How would that be prevented?
 * I was thinking we would avoid removing the templates if they were added by an admin, SPI clerk, or CheckUser. The wide majority of the IP addresses tagged are covered in the ranges I listed above, so perhaps we could start by mass-removing the templates from all of the IP addresses within those ranges, then decide the rest later. Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Harassment Tools prioritization
Good Tuesday, Wikipedia! I'd like to invite you to participate in a discussion about how the Anti-Harassment Tools team at the WMF is prioritizing our work, and how you can help. Join us at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia.

Thank you, and I hope to see you all there! — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the Anti-Harassment Tools team

Block review
Third Second time this week for me to ask for review. This is a block of an alternative account that I did,, who was using this alternative account for WP:Advocacy and likely breaking the policy on good hand, bad hand accounts. His input at Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, Talk:Jewish Bolshevism and User talk:Newyorkbrad were not the only factors, but they do frame the situation well. This block wouldn't extend to his primary account, just to the alternate account, which I do not have dots connected on anyway. It isn't often I block an alt account only, so wanted a review by my peers. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unusual indeed, and a novel situation. I'm not sure but I believe the subject are is also under discretionary sanctions, in which case I believe a block would apply to the account owner and hence to all their accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed, is under discretionary sanctions, and Franzboas was alerted to that fact on 17 May. However, Dennis hasn't framed this block as a discretionary sanctions remedy. I don't think discretionary sanctions blocks are supposed to be indefinite, so an ordinary oldfashioned indef as placed by Dennis may be preferable. The option of blocking the main account as well is something that can be discussed here. (The main account isn't known, but a CU can presumably find it if they want.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Oh, and I support this block, did I forget to mention that? Bishonen &#124; talk 15:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC).
 * You are correct, that often it is better to push the boundaries of admin discretion and put it to community review than to deal with the limitations of Arb restrictions. My actions may not extend to the parent account, but that doesn't stop anyone else from acting on that account, ie: a CU, who might have a better view.  My goal was only to stop the immediate disruption as it wasn't likely he would make the same edits with his main account.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A CU could run a check and issue a Check user block without necessarily disclosing the main account. I contend that PoV/Advocacy is related to the owner of an account, in which case such an attitude exists in the person, not just in one of the accounts they use.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Good block. Saves ArbCom some trouble. There seems to be no inappropriate overlap right now so let's put that to rest for the time being. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support block. See User talk:Rockypedia, where the editor falsely asserted that I "supported" her or his antisemitic vandalism. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good block. This was a classic example of tendentious editing at its worst. GABgab 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought about proposing an indef topic ban for Judaism for the unknown parent account (either as Community or WP:AE), but this would drag us pretty deep in the weeds as far as enforcement is concerned. They should understand that they may not create a new account and do the same thing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good block. Thanks for taking it upon yourself to do what needs to be done. El_C 16:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously a good block. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good block - this user got my radar over on Race and intelligence, a page known for sockpuppeting by Mikemikev. Given that Mikemikev likes to rail against Boasian anthropology, I thought this account was a sock of theirs but apparently​ there's a legit main account. Anyway, the block is needed given the comments on Newyorkbrad's page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good block - I knew it would come to this after the arbitration request. My only question is why this wouldn't extend to the primary account, since it is the person who made the edits, not the account. {Which I've just seen is a point that Kudpung makde above.  Obviously, I agree with that.) It concerns me that the editor involved is still free to edit with their main account, and even to make another  so-called "legitimate sock" to continue their advocacy.  In my experience, it's rare that people with hardline POVs such as shown by Franzboas are able to edit in other areas without being influenced by those strongly-held opinions. Of course, we don't know if that's the case, because we can't check their editing because we don't know who they are a sock of.  This penalizes the community, and potentially the encyclopedia, in order to provide putative "protection" for an editor who has now been blocked for illegitimate editing destructive to the neutrality of the  encyclopedia. That doesn't seem right to me.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Commment No need for a CU as the main account is known. I won't comment on the issues as who knows, it might come to the committee. Doug Weller  talk 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps someone who does know can spot check their contributions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I presume checking the contributions of the two accounts was what Drmies, who is a CU, was indicating above that he'd done: "There seems to be no inappropriate overlap right now". Bishonen &#124; talk 18:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Thank you, Bishonen, I missed that part of Drmies comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , it was one of those situations that I decided to deal with this as a non-Arb sanction because that actually freed me up to do an indef block instead of limited blocks and because the behavior (while perhaps violating Arb restrictions) was already covered under standard policy, so I wasn't forced to act under Arb authority. To do this, I felt I needed to limit it to the account that was being misused.  Since I don't know the master account, that was the strongest sanction, and method, I had at my disposal.  Obviously, I knew that Arb or CUs would review and take other actions if they deemed it necessary, but that is beyond my control.  My actions were limited to stopping the disruption.  In short, there is a dash of WP:IAR thrown in but given this is an unusual circumstance, it is warranted.  And that is why I put it up for review myself.  The net of my actions is to remove their ability to use a second account to do this.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dennis. My apology if it appeared that my comment was a criticism of your action, as that was not my intention.  I fully understand what your options were, and I think you acted in the best interests of the encyclopedia with the tools that were available to you.I have just posted a suggested addition to WP:LEGITSOCK which would void the privacy provision of that policy if the sock is shown to have violated basic policies and been blocked for it.  I don't know if it will fly or not, but this instance is certainly a good illustration of the need for such a change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, I know you better than that. I agree that was a limiting factor, since I couldn't compel them to expose their primary account and I thought taking it to Arb was just overkill. If he starts a new account and does the same, he's been warned that it would be truly socking since this alt was blocked, which would mean his real account WOULD be exposed.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the "other" account is a POV pusher, they'll run into problems on their own merit. I saw no need for further investigation by others, though of course it's possible that if someone digs deeper they find trouble. It is also no secret that I have plenty of problems with Franzboas's editing, but, I repeat, I did not see such problems in the other account and thus saw no need for anything else--and that's all that needs to be said about it. Let the other account do whatever it was doing; as far as I could tell it was contributing positively. I know it's an odd situation, and it's the first time I see something like this, but hey, the world is a big place. Dennis, thanks again; I am so happy to see you back. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

He says he isn't going to fight this now, but adds: "@Dennis Brown: I think this is an abomination, but I'm not going to fight it. Not for now, at least. The depth of the bias here genuinely confuses me. Are you aware that one of the people opposing my edits, an administrator, identifies themselves as a "third-gendered sex worker" on their user page and recently defended using euphemisms like "revolutionary action" for ambushing and assaulting unarmed peaceful conservative speakers? (To ice the cake, that admin can and did look at my log information to identify my main account.) Did you know that much of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article was written by a user who identifies as an "androgynous British Marxist"? (Amusingly, this image gets passed around on right-wing social media.) Why are these people judged by their individual edits while I am harassed and deemed entirely malicious and unwelcome? Why is an androgynous British Marxist allowed to edit a contentious article about LGBTQ-friendly British Marxists? Are these people not fringe? Or are they just on a fringe that better fits most Wikipedians' tastes? Franzboas (talk) 9:08 pm, Today (UTC+1)" Doug Weller  talk 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I replied there, as I should since I did the block. It is my opinion that now that the review has taken place at WP:AN, any appeal should be conducted by Arb (or any subset) itself.  This is the only way to guarantee his privacy in an unusual case like this.  I'm happy to live with whatever conclusions they draw.  I would in fact, encourage Arb to review this case before it is requested, and act if they feel it serves the interest of Wikipedia.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, the quote have is too far. Attacking people's identities, suggesting they should not edit Wikipedia because of it... That's some bullshit. This editor should be blocked, not just the alt account. The issue is with their behavior and comments now, not the purpose of the alt account.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue has always been with 'their behaviour and comments' EvergreenFir. The ZOG filth was my straw, so I have been watching since. A comprehensive block is overdue. Irondome (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed his talk page access for reasons that are obvious. I again would encourage Arb to review this case and consider blocking the parent account.  This is not something we can do at WP:AN or as an individual admin as we don't have access to the data needed to do this, so this should fall squarely in the realm of what Arb is here for. , , ,  or another Arb, perhaps you can do this without a formal filing in public, which would defeat the whole purpose of privacy in that account?  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dennis Brown, Doug knows the other account, and I'll be happy to confirm this to the other arbs (I might change to "active" soon), or they can run their own check. I repeat that I didn't see problems, certainly not these kinds of strange, strange problems, with the other account. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , my block was never meant to prevent blocking the master, and given what he has said since, I think Arb should consider it. We are still policy bound to protect his privacy, so Arb is the only mechanism available to do review and take action, if they deem it necessary.  Personally, I think we have crossed the threshold where the parent account needs to be blocked, but the community lacks the tools to effectively do this.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they were made for purposes of WP:ADVOCACY, I have rolled back a number of Franzboas' edits. Any uninvolved editor with no bone to pick who believes that an edit I rolled back improved the article it appeared in is welcome to restore it without protest from me. I would suggest, though, that admins might want to look closely at the motivations of any editor who restores all (or very many) of the edits I reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and thanks to Dennis Brown for decisive action. I saw some of the advocacy and it was corrosive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The main account should be blocked as well. Not sure why it hasn't been. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Main problem is that we can't link the master and this "legit" sock publicly. This is why I'm trying to get Arb to look at it.  Even blocked editors get the same right of anonymity. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a "legit" sock per WP:SCRUTINY. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He declared it for a editing in a sensitive area, something we allow. Had he made good edits, there would be no issue with the second account.  I didn't block him for creating the account, just for what he did and what the account became.  He's been warned if he creates another account to bypass this block, they will all be linked. And yes, I agree blocking the master is a good idea, but my opinion is that Arb should do the dirty work here, given the totality of the circumstances and his expectation of privacy with the account.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that if he had made good edits then there would be no issue. But he didn't, so the legitimate part goes away. We're not going to have editors creating attack accounts and claiming an expectation of privacy and having the main account remain in good standing, their reputation untouched. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When I blocked him, and now, I just felt that was a decision best not made by a single person. Particularly since Drmies check the "real" users other contribs and they weren't problematic.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand Dennis's actions and reason for not blocking the main account. And I agree that the arbs would be the best folks to deal with this. But NeilN is correct: abusing a legit alt account voids the protections that come with it. The issue is the user, not the account, and so the user must be dealt with. Trying to game an alt account to shield yourself from repercussions of what the user clearly knows is unacceptable behavior is not okay.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whomsoever the ultimate jurisdiction should fall to, I am increasingly inclined to expect a siteban. There is no place for (fairly open) antisemitic fascists on WP, who are now openly attacking other vulnerable minority groups. No place. Zero tolerance. Irondome (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Question: It seems to me that the block of  is well supported by policy (based on the account's actions) and the increasingly robust consensus of uninvolved editors here.  However, I am wondering if the two apparent views of the main account – privacy prevents action so long as that account edits unproblematically and it is the editor who took the actions so the main account should also be blocked – are truly the only available options.  Could not an AN consensus impose a topic ban on the main account, to be informed to the editor off-wiki?  Presumably the accounts are notified to ArbCom, so the ban could also be noted on the Arb wiki.  Notification by an arbitrator who knows the identity of the main account could be accompanied by a strict warning that (for example) the topic ban will be noted on the main account on wiki and an AN thread to consider a block / ban started if problematic edits are found (in other words, privacy can't be used to protect an editor from prior advocacy problems on an alternative account being considered if the same problems appear on the main account).  Or, that a violation will see the main account blocked for violations of the sock policy?  Or, whatever other policy-compliant conditions that an AN consensus might support?  I recognise that monitoring the account is an extra burden for arbitrators / functionaries who know the identity of the main account, but practically, any editor causing serious problems within the topic will ultimately be called out at a noticeboard at which point someone in the know will see it and a quick check would allow the imposed conditions to be triggered.  To me, this approach would formally register to the editor the community's disapproval of their actions and keep whoever is behind the Franzboas account away from the topic.  It would also reaffirm to everyone that the community does not approve of using alternative accounts for advocacy (ie. this is not a legitimate SOCK under the policy) and that advocacy and POV editing reflect the views of the editor.  Is something along these lines possible / viable / desirable?  EdChem (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought of that and even typed it out and reviews a few times, but in the end, felt Arb was best to deal with this, and they can do it in private, then decide (based on what policy and community expectations are) what to do. I don't want the bad deeds of one person push us to violate our own rules on privacy.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Just on Neil's T/P. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Craig&diff=prev&oldid=783834101. Who the hell is this? Irondome (talk)
 * A topic ban probably wouldn't do anything as this alt-account was specifically created to edit on this topic, shielding the main account. Also, we are talking about behavioral problems here, not only advocacy. It is well understood that behavioral problems in the past usually result in a (sometimes much) shorter leash in the future, even in unrelated areas. A private topic ban does not address this, unless the Arbs are willing to monitor future behavior in all areas. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I posted a comment on WP:Sockpuppetry suggesting a change to the privacy provision in which a violation of policies by the "legitimate sock" would void the privacy. (The thread can be found here.) An editor expressed the opinion that "This is all already covered, albeit less specifically than in your proposal." So at least one editor believes that violating Wikipedia policies voids the privacy provision. I'm not sure what, exactly, the editor feels covers this (I've asked them to comment here) but it's worth looking into. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Although there was no privacy issue, Til Eulenspiegel's alternative and harmless account was also blocked, by User:The Bushranger. Doug Weller  talk 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restrictions are against the editor, not the account. The current situation is that the editor is unrestricted from editing in the same area, as their main account has not been restricted in any way. If there is a genuine privacy need to keep the accounts separate, then someone with CU access needs to email the main account and let them know formally any restrictions to the Alt-account also apply to their main. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would be looking at blocking the main account as well. It is utterly ludicrous that the misuse of a sock implies some sort of privacy.  Failing that, what I would certainly be doing is informing the two editors attacked by Franzboas on his talkpage of his description and attack on them, and if I was them I would have every expectation of being told the master account name as well, given that they appear to also be engaging in off-wiki harrassment ("Did you know that much of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article was written by a user who identifies as an "androgynous British Marxist"? Amusingly, this image gets passed around on right-wing social media.") The editor lost any claims they might have to privacy when they posted that - regardless of the fact that the sock was not SOCK#LEGIT compliant anyway, as it was only revealed when another editor forced them into it. I have no idea why we're tiptoeing round this elephant in the room. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have in fact contacted RGloucester about that photoshopped image. Of course it's a lie that he wrote much of it, see his edits here. Doug Weller  talk 19:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've pinged some Arbs but no reply. Do I need to file a formal case here, or will Arb simply look into this privately? As the blocking admin, who is limited on what he can do, I can't help but think this is a reasonable request, for an answer.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ArbCom are discussing this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I have no objection to this being handled by the community. Doug Weller  talk 20:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiding behind an alternate account for veiled antisemitism - coupled with the personal attacks - really does render privacy a moot point. Sanctions on the master are the only real path from this point. GABgab 20:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's rather hard for the community to handle it, since we don't know who the master is. I take Drmies' word that the editing of the master doesn't show signs of the advocacy of Franzboas, but I think the issue has now gone beyond that to: do we want the editor who spews personal attacks and antisemitic editing under a mask to be allowed to edit here at all?  We could, in essence, try the master in absentia, and call for a block, which could then be implemented by an Arb without public announcement, but that rather flies in the face of the culture of transparency that WP generally runs under.  In any case, I would think that many people would be uneasy about passing judgment on another editor based on less then the totality of their contributions, which would, again, make it difficult for the community to reach a decision and "handle it". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Thus my harping about Arb reviewing it.  They review stuff in private all the time, I would trust them in this. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of trust; it's a question of need. Incidents should be reviewed in private only when there's an overriding need to. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I had a feeling, but no one told me as blocking admin.  This is one of those times that really does require Arb.  If you decide to link them publicly, not to, block, don't, whatever, that is fine but only you guys can really review it properly. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a naive question. Since nobody saw fit to raise it, I'll do it myself. Why wasn't a topic ban first considered, instead of an indef block? That way, one can topic ban the other account as well, if required. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Admins cannot hand out topic bans on their own for subjects not covered by discretionary sanctions. The editor was warned of the "intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour" DS but what they were blocked for does not fall under that (in my opinion). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. So admins can indef block someone for some reason, removing their ability to edit at all; but not topic ban someone for the same reason, removing their ability to edit in a certain area? Sound rather weird. In any case, bans can be handed out through consensus here. Why not start with a topic ban first? Is there evidence of disruption outside the area? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A block is just a block. When someone is banned in any way, other editors are expected to remove their edits and other admins to block them under circumstances. Blocks don't obligate others in such ways. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin are not allowed to unilaterally issue topic bans unless it falls under GS or DS sanctions. What you need to remember is this is a (questionably legit) SOCK that was created solely to make these kinds of edits, he has a main account.  The only effective way of dealing with it was to block the sock and bump up to Arb to let them make the final call, in order to protect his privacy.  They could lift the block and chastise me, although I wouldn't expect that.  And remember,, my block did not prevent the real primary account in any way to edit any article. What I really blocked was his use of that sock. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's stipulate that the block was fine. After the block, it was brought here for review. I am saying: why not just topic ban them instead of indef blocking them? WP:AN has the power to do whatever it wants. Why go straight to an indef block, instead of a narrower ban? Is there evidence of disruption outside the area in question? One recalls the Noleander case, where they were given a topic ban by ArbCom. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read through the above discussion? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, can we just clarify where we are at this time? I am under the assumption that this issue is now firmly in the hands of Arbcom, as has intimated by referring to ongoing Arbcom discussion, and that Dennis's block is a holding action. Or is the community to decide on whether it goes to ANI or Arbcom? I get the point about two accounts being in play here, which obviously makes things less straightforward. How are we going forward from here? Irondome (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have indeed read it. I wrote a response addressing your argument; but in the middle I realized that this discussion is likely to go nowhere. So I decided that it's better to just let ArbCom deal with the weird rules of Wikipedia. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing going to undo the block of Franzboas, if that's what you are asking. And it is my opinion that it is up to the community to decide if it wants to handle this at ANI. Although we may take some action in regard to the main account I personally don't see why the community can't handle it and would prefer to see that happen. The issue for me is whether we treat both accounts the same way or say that if the main account has not been editing problematically it can continue to edit. I'd argue for the former. Doug Weller  talk 20:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the community can decide on what sanctions to impose (or if) when only Arbcom knows what is the main account. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I was aware this is not about unblocking this individual. My question was who is handling this issue now, Arbcom or the community. Basically would Arbcom prefer the community to handle this, and is that the majority feeling there? In which case we can take this to ANI and propose a topic ban on all Jewish related subjects, broadly construed. (Although wording may be harder as this individual has edited the ZOG Conspiracy theory and that old chestnut, The over representation of Jews in Communist organisations. I would argue further that this use of two accounts has been a cynical gaming and the community treats both the same. The arguments for privacy have been well critiqued above as being undeserving of further GF by the community. Irondome (talk)
 * Just one caveat, Irondome, AN is the proper venue for a topic ban discussion. Generally those only get handled at AN/I when they're connected to a discussion about an incident which has been reported there, and keeping the discussion in one place is valuable. Since this was brought here in the first place, any discussion about a topic ban for the master account should take place here... and since Arbitrators are open to letting the community handle this, I think I'll do just that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic ban for master account of Franzboas
The account "Franzboas" was created by an editor currently unknown to the community at large (but known to ArbCom) as a supposedly "legitimate alternative account" under the privacy provision of WP:LEGITSOCK. However, it appears that the master actually created the account to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, as the edits made by Franzboas were almost entirely to identify article subjects as being Jewish, whether or not that identification had any relevance. After the sock account was indef-blocked for WP:ADVOCACY, Franzboas made a number of personal attacks against other editors on their talk page, until talk page access was removed. At the very least, the editing of Franzboas indicates that the editor behind that account has an unhealthy fascination, damaging to the encyclopedia, with labeling people as Jewish, whether or not doing so is relevant or not; at the worst, their editing shows them to be an antisemite who gamed the system and used the privacy provision to avoid any ramifications of their POV editing on their main account. On the grounds that there is a legitimate need to protect the encyclopedia from the bias of this editor, this proposal is for a topic ban on the main account from editing all things, anywhere on the encyclopedia, having to do with Judaism and Jewishness, broadly construed. The topic ban would be indefinite, but can be appealed to the community on AN after one year. Should the editor be blocked, this topic ban would remain in effect if and when that block is lifted.


 * Support as proposer, in conjunction with the indef block in Proposal 2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Irondome (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as obvious—if a person makes an account that is indeffed for advocacy, a minimal outcome is that the person is indefinitely topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can Support this, but I don't know if it's necessary. Since the master is known to ArbCom and has no previous edits in this area, topic banning them doesn't do much. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support At a minimum. Its clear from Dennis above that the block was to prevent problematic editing - which as an (allegedly) legit sock is generally limited to this topic area. I do not see any real dissention above that people are disagreeing their edits in this topic are problematic. So there is no privacy issue in extending a topic ban to the editor and getting someone with the relevant advanced permissions to notify the editor on his main account in private. It would need to be logged at WP:RESTRICT (suitably anonymised) though for future reference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not sufficent. Their comments on their talk page show that their bigotry goes a lot further than anti-semitism, and their interest further than articles about Judaism. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Siteban? Frankly I would support that, as I indicated way upthread. Irondome (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, mainly as per Only in death. I understand Kingsindian's point here, although I think this is a necessary prophylactic and precautionary measure. GABgab 22:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in addition to proposal 2. BMK's views on this subject throughout the thread sum my views up well. This is neccessary in case proposal 2 doesn't get consensus or if it does and it is appealed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - along with proposal two. To be clear, this alone is insufficient in my view. Would still support this should proposal two fail.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't see how the indef. block of the sock for advocacy can fail to translate to a topic ban for advocacy of the master. Don't know whether this should be by an arbitrator informing the master account quietly or whether a public link is necessary – certainly monitoring is more difficult without it – but the topic ban is absolutely necessary.  Also, in the event that the master account decided to do an RfA, this ban would need to be disclosed either by the editor or by someone knowing his or her identity.  EdChem (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Indef block for master account of Franzboas
(Please see the description of the situation under Proposal 1 above.) Given the attitudes and bias of the editor behind the Franzboas account, as expressed in their editing and their personal attacks, the Wikipedia community has decided that the editor is not one that we wish to have as a contributor to the encyclopedia, and for that reason, we have decided to extend the indef block for ADVOCACY given to Franzboas to the master account. Should this indef block be lifted, and should the topic ban in Proposal 1 be affirmed, that topic ban would remain in effect until such time as it is lifted by community consensus.


 * Support as proposer, in conjunction with the topic ban in Proposal 1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Let us deal with this in a decisive way. Irondome (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Without knowing anything else about this user (master account and alt), except what is here and the editing history of the alt account, comments on their talk page, this just seems like it was a mis-cue to allow the alt account in the first place. Given the subject matter the alt account was set up to engage in, and the whole Arb Com discretionary sanctions within that subject matter, it seems right to indef block of the master account. — Maile  (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - If current policy is interpreted to mean that users can create scrutiny-evading socks to make racist/anti-Semitic comments on the encyclopedia and level despicable personal attacks at other editors without penalty to their primary account, our current policy *is fatally broken and must be changed. The limited license for users to create alternative accounts must not be allowed to provide an anonymous platform for behavior that is corrosive to the very fabric of a collaborative encyclopedia. We do not need editors so badly that we must be forced to accept the presence of someone who openly treats other editors in such a manner. That they have done so under the cover of an "alternative account" is of no account — this user must no longer be welcome on the project in any way, shape or form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for the abuse of WP:VALIDALT in order to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY in a sustained way. That alone is enough, without even mentioning the nature of what they were promoting.  The thing that is puzzling is that as ugly as the editing was, there was this shred of honor in disclosing that it actually was an alt account.  So odd.  Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Editor X cannot evade sanctions by making alternate account Y for a particular purpose, and later repeat with account Z (or X) after Y is indeffed. It would be a mistake for anyone to think they could evade scrutiny by making an alternate account for an activity that is likely to lead to that account being indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The master is known to ArbCom, and there is no chance of repeating this behaviour with another account, for obvious reasons. One should start with a topic ban and see how it goes. It would be in line with the Noleander case. Bad behaviour in one area is in no way necessitates bad behaviour in another; otherwise topic bans would be meaningless in general. In my opinion, WP:VALIDALT was not violated. See the inappropriate uses here. None of them apply. It was claimed that "Good Hand, Bad Hand" was violated, but I don't see it. There was no intention to evade scrutiny or deliberately try to vandalize or disrupt articles. The behaviour was judged as disruptive after the fact, that is fine. But there is no evidence that the alt was set up to disrupt. The editor said that they set up the alt because they wanted to edit in a sensitive area, and didn't want to disclose their main alt for privacy reasons. This is explicitly covered in WP:VALIDALT. In any case, if there are problems with alts, one can simply restrict them to one account instead of indef blocking them. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Undecided. Not comfortable discussing an indef block of a user without at least some details of the user's editing patterns seen as a whole. Do they perform significant amount of good/productive edits on their main account? Is their main account hardly used and their legitsock make up the bulk of their edits? If the former - many editors can be productive once restricted from areas that get them in trouble. If the latter - there is no real benefit in allowing them to continue editing. Is this something someone with the ability to see both accounts can answer? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I understand this is under view by ArbCom, however let me just try to clear something up here. We have an editor, who has a legitimate alt account, that was making anti-Semitic comments. How is this not gaming the system? And if we are going to use the idea of "privacy" to protect the master from a block, then haven't we just given carte blanche for ANY user to do this? This is completely uncalled for. Both the sock and master need to go, this behavior has no place here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - see my 2 comments at the beginning of this issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment this may in effect OUT the master. Is this something the community can do? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OUTing requires the attempt to identify an editor's personal information, but there is no possibility of this being OUTing, since any personal information about the master (if there is any) would already be on the master's user page. It would only potentially link the master to a misbehaving sock, and possibly not even that if ArbCom chose to make the application of any community sanction private. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Anti-semitism, homophobia, and anti LGBTQ slurs. No reason why the master should be allowed to continue editing here.  I'm not entirely sure why we're having this conversation; if the master for this sock was known, it would have been indeffed on the spot. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Undecided Before going off the deep end, all I see here are a lot of comments on talk pages. I was involved in some of those discussions, and I wasn't impressed by the logic of his arguments or what seemed to me like inaccurate use of sources. But that, by itself, is not unusual. Neither are intensely offensive comments from editors on talk pages, there are many such comments daily on contentious topics. A lot of editors seem to be deeply morally offended by the comments on Newyorkbrad's talk page. Is it because he noted a lot of academics are Jewish? Seriously? When did noting the background of academics become weird? Even Newyorkbrad doesn't think it rises to the level of antisemitism. And Jewish Bolshevism — well, this much is for sure, it was an important part of Nazi propaganda. Far more concerning then anything on Newyorkbrad's talk page, there were some truly offensive comments, about race and iq —which is around the time I checked out of the discussion. Generally, I agree generally with Jytdog's comment above that this was an obvious abuse of policy and Franzboas should have known better.. Black Kite mentions slurs, and if slurs were in fact used, on talk or in edits, that would be different from what I read on Newyorkbrad's talk page. I will note that while most of the support for this proposal is from editors who believe this was abuse of an alt-account, the way the proposal is worded suggests that the issue is attitudes and bias of the editor—to echo what Jytdog says above, it is enough that Franzboas made statements to the effect that the purpose of the account was to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS—it isn't necessary to mention the nature or content of the advocacy.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose users without the right to know the identity of a master account are unable to block him even if these is some users in support of doing it. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per BMK and other below. Socking to hide views that one is ashamed of and are reprehensible is not okay. If the accounts had been one, a topic ban would have been fine, but since socking was used the appropriate response is an indefinite block/ site ban given the actions of Franzboa both before and after they were blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would again repeat that it would be preferable to see that Arb and the editing community in general is able to make decisions like this in content-neutral terms. Jewish Bolshevism is a toxic article for many reasons. The best thing to do is probably stay away from it. I don't know if it's true but our article on Menachem Begin says he accused Mapai of "Bolshevism" and this has been repeated and discussed by other Israeli scholars. Long story short, there are numerous long-standing issues with this article. Probably, Menachem Begin was not an anti-semite. Hmm. There is something deeply disturbing and toxic about the entire topic, and while I did not find Franzboas' editing style to be especially productive or constructive, I find that uncritical hypersensitivity to the topic is equally unproductive. I have not seen any posts that rise to the level of racial slurs (there may have been such posts but I have not seen them) and editors should really post such evidence if they are going to continue to use the term "antisemitism"—I would generally agree that this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=783735678] is pretty clear evidence that the direction Franzboas was heading in would not have been an improvement for the article, as far as his intentions seem to have been to legitimize the canard. But this is one edit out of many, and it is a talk page comment, so I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think blocking the alt account was the right call, but extending it to indeff the master account may be too heavy-handed, at this point. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While he has made a lot of posts adding Judaism to biographical backgrounds, many of his edits weren't negative. This seems to be mostly about statements that he has made that he added this material to prove that Jews were "overrepresented" in certain fields [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Gabriel_Seligman&diff=prev&oldid=783379656]. As for the actual content of the edits - what is anti-semitic about this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Sherman&diff=prev&oldid=782874311] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Newhouse&diff=prev&oldid=783223500] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Stringer&diff=prev&oldid=783373738] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucian_Wintrich&diff=prev&oldid=782638955] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Eisenman&diff=prev&oldid=782304739] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Jacobs_(journalist)&diff=prev&oldid=782389991] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caryl_M._Stern&diff=prev&oldid=782620110] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Greenblatt&diff=prev&oldid=782283086] is this anti-semitic [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Bronfman&diff=prev&oldid=782779877] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Friedman&diff=prev&oldid=781874009] is it anti-semitic to mention that someone's mother admired Emma Goldman [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Sahlins&diff=prev&oldid=783380788] is it hateful to mention that someone is gay [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Duberman&diff=prev&oldid=783253756] ... is the concern here the content of the edits or what motivated the content of the edits? The edits themselves don't seem like WP:ADVOCACY, they seem on the whole neutral in tone, some are even positive, like a mention of Jewish values being a factor in personal success —but there are statements he has made about his motivations that could show his editing pattern as a whole is motivated by WP:ADVOCACY, though I think that reasoning is borderline at best. But regarding anti-semitism, I don't think the content of (most) of the edits rises to the level of what most people would think of as "anti-semitic fascist" pattern of editing, and I don't think indeff-ing the master account would be preventative. These articles are very closely watched, and if problems arise in the future, we can deal with that when it happens. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As with many other things, context is what matters. An editor who adds that the subject of an article is Jewish, when that is relevant to their history or work, can hardly be considered to be an antisemite, but an editor who does so in practically every edit they make, with a number of reasons given for why it is relevant, some of which are stretches at best, is doing nothing but spreading around the stigma of being a Jew .  You don't have to pay attention to what this person says, because he's a Jew .  This person writes about antisemitism, but that's to be expected, because she's a Jew .  This one over here is a physicist, but that's not unusual because they're a Jew  and many physicists are Jews.   The net effect is that Franzboas was handing out scarlet letters to people with Jewish backgrounds in order to smear them. There was nothing innocent about their editing, their user page made that clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel this was an attempt to delegitimize individuals based on their religious background, but I am having a hard time applying that reasoning to a post that, for instance, notes that someone is Jewish because they are critical of Israel and support Palestinian rights [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Friedman&diff=prev&oldid=781874009] Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That a Jewish person supports Palestinian rights and criticizes Israel is only relevant if one is of the opinion the normally all Jews support Israel and are opposed to Palestinian rights. That is an antisemitic prejudice, pure and simple, presupposing that all Jews think alike, are incapable of independent thought, and walk in lockstep with Israel, something I know from personal experience is not true, and something that any intelligent person editing this encyclopedia should know is not true. Franzboas didn't seem to know that, which means that the master doesn't know that, which makes them a ticking time bomb in our midst. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "As with many other things, context is what matters." Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Too many preconceptions, . A productive editor can add material that they feel is relevant, and if a consensus of other editors disagree, they can remove it. All this conjecture about what is consistent with what and what is inconsistent with what, is little more than a difference of opinion between you and . I didn't always agree with the edits of Franzboas. I found myself going around and tweaking or rewriting some of the material he added to articles concerning the Jewish identity of a person being written about. But I feel there is enough working substance to his input to keep him around as a contributing editor. I have no understanding of alternative accounts. I fail to understand their utility. I think we should tell him to keep one account and cease using the other. As to which to keep and which to discard I haven't the foggiest idea. How about the eeny, meeny, miny, moe method? Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're welcome to your opinion, but preconceptions have nothing to do with mine. Experience and knowledge of history have a lot to do with it, but preconceptions are what drove the edits of Franzboas, not mine. You, personally, may think the editor who socked as Franzboas is an asset to the encyclopedia, I, personally, don't want an editor with those vial prejudices around the place.And may I just add that the master editor knew that the editing they would be doing as Franzboas would be unacceptable, or there would have been no reason to create a so-called "legitimate sock". The privacy provision of WP:Sockpuppetry says: "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." However, the editing of Franzboas wasn't "editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle", what Franzboas was doing was making antisemitic edits, which should be generally rejected, as any edits which are prejudicial to any group should be. And what's happening now is that they're not only "avoid[ing] real-world consequences from their editing", they're also avoiding consequences on Wikipedia, which is not what the provision was designed for.In other words, they misused and abused the purpose of the privacy provision because they knew their edits would not be appropriate to Wikipedia, and they wanted to protect the reputation of their main account.  Well, that reputation is now totally shot, the only problem is we know it only as "the master account of Franzboas", not by a specific name.  That may or may not change, but the need for a sanction on that account seems obvious to me, and to many other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If Franzboas' edits were antisemitic, that would be the most circumlocuitous form of antisemitism I've ever seen. You might be right. I found his edits curious. But I would not accept that they were antisemitic without further evidence. Incidentally, you mean "vile prejudices". I agree that the use of multiple accounts seems indefensible. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I meant "vial prejudices" - didn't you see their derogatory comments about small glass containers? <g> Thanks for the correction. And yes, in my opinion they were antisemitic in the context of the number of them, and taking into account their comments on their user page, which made their agenda quite clear, at least to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the statement presently at the top of the page User:Franzboas? A "fascination" with "Jewish identity" does not necessarily constitute antisemitism, not in my opinion. It is not a clear statement. I don't know what it means. For instance I don't know what the "taboo surrounding Jewish group identity" is. But a poorly expressed thought is not necessarily antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we read it differently, as it seems obvious to me what the agenda behind the thought, poorly expressed or not, is, and why he or she is hiding it behind a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi —when something is nonsensical you can't pin a meaning on it. I'm referring to the "taboo surrounding Jewish group identity". If I had to come up with one best interpretation of what that is I would say that it is "antisemitism". Let me be clear. Let me restate what I'm saying, for the purposes of clarity: the taboo surrounding Jewish group identity is antisemitism. What other taboo is there surrounding Jewish group identity? This is a poorly expressed thought. Probably nothing more. Again—I agree wholeheartedly that the use of multiple accounts is highly problematic. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Support I was waiting on more Arb input to point out how the privacy policy outweighs, and protects, abusive and pointed socking and I've yet to read anything compelling. If the master has real world identifiable info connected to their account then that's on them. They should've thought of that before socking so they could let loose with what they're really thinking. I know this vote functionally can't force a CU or ArbCom to do anything but they should openly link the master to this sock. Otherwise we have a scenario where anyone who has identifiable info linked to their account (true or not) has a built in immunity to sanctions for illegitimate socking. Capeo (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - After discussion, I have come to the conclusion that nothing less than a site ban would be warranted. If the human behind the account is afraid of the real-world consequences of having their anti-Jewish hatred exposed, they have the very limited right to have the reason for the site ban kept secret, making it an ArbCom block.  However, their original reason for using an alternate account was that their behavior was shameful.  Let the ArbCom inquiry run, but only for the purpose of determining whether there are any other socks, or any other shameful behavior.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (non-admin comment) -- By bifurcating their accounts in this way, the owner has clearly demonstrated that they knew that such editing would be objectionable. This demonstrates that they wanted to avoid scrutiny. If they truly believed that this so-called systemic bias should be remedied & that they had reliable sources to back up their positions, they should have done so from the main account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Was waiting on ArbCom but they're taking too long for my liking. The only acceptable option. Would add that the alt account and the master account should be publicly connected. This is an abuse/gaming of SOCKLEGIT and the protections that are afforded to legit socks were forfeited with that abuse. Further, add noted by below, there are other unknown socks as well. Those accounts, I if identified, should be blocked and connected to the master. The users reprehensible bigotry and abusive comments are not welcome here.  Eve rgr een Fir ' (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * —I would be interested to see an example of their "reprehensible bigotry and abusive comments". I simply have not seen that yet. That is the disconnect, for me. Please show me such comments on the part of . This is of course entirely apart from the use of two or more accounts, which I don't find defensible. I haven't seen "bigotry and abusive comments". You might be right, but I simply haven't seen that, so I'm asking for examples. Bus stop (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Anyone who can seriously write on their user page that they created a sock account to edit in their interest in "Jewish identity and its effect on characteristically Jewish political movements and schools of thought" is just using euphemisms to get around accountability for holding various anti-semitic canards. For that matter - his comment "Jews are, however, a group, and a strongly identified one. They have group interests, and those interests are sometimes at odds with those who they live amongst." is again, a more polite way to push the idea that Jews are some shadowy monolithic group that controls things from the shadows. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I'm inclined to think that any decision that might ultimately reveal someone's real identity and expose them to real harm, if that is a risk here, should always be made by attorneys with a fiduciary duty to the relevant organization, and not a mob of community edtors (for a number of reasons, for example, Franzboas might be a minor, or any number of things that no one but a paid attorney has time to consider fully) I am inclined to agree that the comment Ealdgyth highlighted was the one that I thought crossed a line, and additionally his comments on the links between race and IQ weren't stellar either. But limiting it to our internal policies, I still don't see how it would be preventative. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * —I don't derive from the quoted sentence "that Jews are some shadowy monolithic group that controls things from the shadows". A society is composed of many groups as well as many individuals who do not perceive themselves as being primarily part of a group but rather perceive themselves primarily as individuals or independent-minded people. That the interests of Jews are "sometimes at odds with those who they live amongst" is not in the least bit surprising. Is it at all surprising that the interests of people as a group or as individuals are "sometimes" at odds with the interests of other people in a society? This was said by in the context of a Talk page of an article on Jewish Bolshevism. If we want to have an article with that title we should expect Talk page input that is vulnerable to misinterpretation because the topic is inflammatory. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not Ealdgyth, but my take on it is that it is problematic because it assumes there is such a thing as "the interests of Jews" in the first place...his poorly reasoned argument was basically 1) Jews have group interests 2)that may be at odds with "those they live amongst" 3)Jews are Communists 4)He is open to considering that it might not be a conspiracy. Personal feelings aside, he draws this conclusion out of thin air and repeatedly insists that the sources support his inferences, while seeming to ignore repeated attempts to explain the WP:OR policy. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: If all the edits were by one account, the decision between topic ban and indef ban would be being debated here, and I might have been willing to support only a topic ban. However, adding in separating the edits into a good hand / bad hand mode seriously weakens my good faith.  I saw the explanation about systematic bias, but I find it difficult to accept when the views expressed were controversial because of blatant prejudice and bias.  I accept the master account appears to be editing unproblematically so I can accept a decision not to site ban, but I would much prefer to see a linking of the accounts and a community assessment of the master account.  Failing that, I would like to see a statement from the master account (relayed through an intermediary) with the editor's response to recent events.  To those who know the master account's identity, is seeking a voluntary disclosure or at least a comment possible?  EdChem (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3: No community action is warranted, ArbCom can act if it sees fit
Adding this for the sake of completeness.


 * Oppose - I have no objection at all to ArbCom acting if it chooses to, but I don't consider the possibility of an ArbCom sanction (or no sanction) as precluding community action. It's hardly unusual for ArbCom and the community to deal with problems in parallel, and while the community does not have access to the full data, the proposals as written are based on what is available to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yeah I would agree with that. This is actually a serious business and I would expect it to be given due weight. An ideal solution is to allow the community to continue giving it's opinions under the above proposals, and see whether they chime with ArbComs' considered view. As BMK says, the community and ArbCom should be dealing with issues in tandem, and I suspect that the considered final community consensus and ArbCom sentiments will chime. Irondome (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ArbCom can of course act if it sees fit, but that is not a reason for inaction from the community. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - see my 2 comments at the beginning of this issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - This was a block given by an admin (me), who did so without any community input as it wasn't required, but I volunteered for community review after the fact. I asked Arb to review it, which of course means they review my actions as well.  I could have just blocked and made a request to Arb via email but chose not to because I put my actions up for review.  Because it involves privacy issues, I think Arb should review first.  They may bump it down and link the accounts, or just take action, so the penalty may ultimately be up to the community, but linking privacy accounts is only something CUs (and Arbs) have the tools and authority to do.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It now looks like Arb may have already been on the case before or just as I blocked him. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - no community action is possible without Arbcoms say so, all of these community suggestions are pointless without elevated authority in this case. No one will name the master apart from Arbcom. If Arbcom quietly ban him as he is clearly high profile  all users will know his identity, if he edits under his real name that would create additional privacy concerns. I also see that  even Newyorkbrad doesn't think it rises to the level of antisemitism. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with qualification that the dichotomy between community action and ArbCom action that is the underlying assumption is a false and misleading dichotomy. ArbCom is not somehow separate from the community, it is the tool of the community (Jimbo created the "Wikiquette Committee" after several requests and community suggestions).  In contrast to the, what, 1-200 or so editors that might see an AN/ANI discussion, ~2000 editors vote in ArbCom elections.  That is a whole order of magnitude more participation.  My point is, however, that the community has placed its trust in ArbCom.  That trust was freely debated and extensively discussed.  ArbCom acts only as long as it keeps that trust.  That suggest to me, for what its worth, that the community can wait for its designated tool to take the actions that may be needed.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose that ArbCom is looking into it does not preclude community action. The community should be able to voice its opinion and form consensus on this, and ArbCom should implement if a consensus is formed. This of course is not being opposed to ArbCom acting on its own. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose with qualifications I think ArbCom will have to enforce any community decision related to the master account, unless they decide to publicly link the accounts (which does not seem likely)—they've raised the possibility of privacy concerns if they indeff the master account, but at the same time community input is something they should consider during their deliberations. But the final the requirements of the privacy policy is something we don't get a say in. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I realize ArbCom has to deal with this in the end. But I also think the community has a responsibility to the project as a whole to take action on this. While ArbCom has their own perspective on anything, they surely will note what we do here. — Maile  (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ArbCom should act, but this proposal is incorrect that no community action is warranted. Rather, I'm hoping ArbCom acts in line with the community's wishes in proposal 2.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose any action by ArbCom when the community can handle the issue. Right now, it appears the community is leaning toward a block, which is fine for now. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: ArbCom can act, but that doesn't preclude at least a community-imposed topic ban. EdChem (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals
Please note that Arb is discussing this case as we speak, so it may or may not be out of the hands of WP:AN. Because of the potential privacy issues, it was my preference that Arb handle it. I have no authority to require how it is now handled, I already know that. Not everyone is as concerned about privacy concerns in this case, which is fine, and Arb may yet bump this back to us. Even if someone is a jackass here, I'm not inclined to unmask their master account without some careful deliberation about those consequences, and we can't do that here because we don't have the information. I don't expect everyone to agree, but that doesn't change my concerns about privacy. Since ArbCom members are reviewing, unless they tell us the master account's real identity, all this is kind of moot. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well Dennis, you did an excellent admin action right off the bat, and brought it here for perusal. I also note that there were strong concerns about this individual and their editing patterns from (on his talkpage) which was strongly echoed by, so there is deffo an issue. The main problem to my mind has been a lack of communication by Arbcom to the community about what was happening, and how to proceed. This has led to this community driven initiative, which I am sure Arbcom can understand the reasoning behind. With regard to the privacy question, from this individual's talkpage jibes, it would seem that respected Wikpedians are being ridiculed on 'right wing' sites, very probably initiated by this individual. I do not know how this links to the complex WP guidance on user privacy, but it would seem that would be damaging to the priviledge of privacy that this individual may claim or invoke.  Irondome (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis: I initiated the two proposals because I took the two comments by Arbitrator Doug Weller, saying that he had no objection to the community dealing with this issue, as a sub rosa indication that perhaps there wasn't a developing consensus within ArbCom as to what should be done, so if we wanted something to happen, we shouldn't hesitate to start the ball rolling. Admittedly, I could be misreading that, but that was my take-away.Because of the situation, I framed the proposals as not being dependent on the quality of the master account's editing for the simple fact that we don't know who it is and cannot determine that for ourselves; however, my feeling is that the editing of his or her sock is sufficiently egregious that it alone can be used to justify sanctions against the master without knowing anything about the editing of the master.  Of course, we also cannot apply any possible mitigating factors, such as the high quality of that editing (if such is the case), but that's entirely the result of their gaming the system, and we should not be hamstrung by that manipulation.I would be as pleased as punch if ArbCom were to rule on this, but, frankly, my reading of the tea leaves does not indicate to me that they're heading towards a sanction, or even to a consensus ruling short of a sanction -- hence my proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Question What in the hell provision of SOCKLEGIT is being used here to even protect the master? They gave that up by posting a bunch of malicious, discriminatory and basically awful shit. What if someone took this to SPI? What would the response be? We have to protect the "privacy" of the master's anonymous account? If this was any other sock they'd be blocked and all their other accounts would be logged. I can't believe this many words, and this much time, has been spent on someone who should just be blocked. All of their accounts obviously. Capeo (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BMK, ArbCom drinks coffee, not tea. Irondome, ArbCom doesn't frequently post updates of things they're discussing, but I can tell you that this is a thing they're discussing. Capeo, I'll chime in with some of your words, and if I may speak ex officio, can I just say that hey y'all, this is really not worth all this time and attention. We had a problematic account; it is blocked (thanks Dennis). Drmies (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think one can prognosticate from reading the eggshells in the coffee grounds as well.Of course I don't expect ArbCom to issue press releases on privacy matters they're considering in camera, I'm just explaining why I thought what I thought and therefore why I did what I did. I should also say (to be obvious) that I disagree with you -- as apparently do other editors who have commented here -- that blocking the sock is sufficient, as we are dealing not with a "problematic account ", but, in my opinion, with a problematic editor, someone I, for one, do not want wandering around Wikipedia with complete freedom to do as they will.  Unless ArbCom is going to take the responsibility of monitoring the editing of the master account in perpetuity, there's no way that the community can be assured that this editor isn't going to get down and dirty again, since we don't know who it is and can't keep eyeballs on them. So, considering that, I'd say that it is worth the time and attention, in spite of your assurance (which I absolutely believe) that you found no hint of bias in the master account's editing -- it's not their past I'm concerned about, it's our future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with BMK and Capeo. The issue is the account and their forfeited their right to privacy when they abused a legitsock and tried to game the system. The issue is the user, not the account. We block otherwise productive or unproblematic accounts all the time as socks for past abuses by a sockmaster (parent/master account misbehaves, all future child/alt/sock accounts are blocked when found). I don't see why we shouldn't address it same way when the time order is flipped (parent/master account behaves well but child/alt account doesn't). I'm withholding a vote on the proposals until ArbCom makes a decision.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be necessary to ask us, the committee, to implement this, and of course even if we did, it would be because of the specific circumstances and not a precedent suggesting that we'd always agree. I'm not sure I was suggesting anything " sub rosa". Doug Weller  talk 05:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I quite see that ArCom would have to be the agency to implement any community-based sanction, just as an administrator would have to implement a community block or ban in a normal case. I trust that if the discussion is closed with the authorization of a sanction, ArbCom would not impose its own will and override the community decision if it disagreed with it, but would faithfully act as the executor of the community's will. Further, if a sanction is agreed to by the community, ArbCom would have to be the conduit for any future appeal of the sanction, either deciding on it themselves in its role as a venue to appeal community sanctions, or by bringing the appeal to the community in such a way as to preserve the account's privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral pointers to the proposals above have been placed on the user talk pages of every editor who contributed to the original discussion but has yet to comment on the proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an unusual circumstance. Normally, admin can just deal with it and ask for review if needed.  All things considered, I think it is being handled.  The community isn't barred from imposing a ban/block but only Arb could enforce it, so it made sense for Arb to just take the case.  That said.  Arb DID come up short when it comes to notification.  Brad did tell me, but I get the feeling you were discussing it sooner, and had you just posted "ArbCom is currently reviewing and will take action" then all this additional "stuff" could have been avoided.  You have to keep deliberations secret, we get that, but you do NOT have to the keep the fact that you are reviewing a secret when the block itself was this public.  Throw up a banner or something, for goodness sakes. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can Arbcom at least tell us how the master was identified? Was it via private email from the master or some other way? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We should have. We had been discussing him before, partially because of the case and partially because of sockpuppet accusations. I'm sorry about that. the main account was identified via CU.  Doug Weller  talk 18:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to vote on the proposals, but I will comment here. I do so as an individual editor/admin, not in my ArbCom capacity, although it's true that my role on ArbCom gives me access to the name of the primary account. To begin with the obvious, I was not happy about the editing of the Franzboas account, for reasons discussed in the thread on my talkpage, which Franzboas started after I criticized his editing in voting on his (subsequently withdrawn) request for arbitration. That account was properly blocked (technically it could have been topic-banned instead, but since it was a single-purpose alternate account, it makes little difference). The comments on User talk:Franzboas in the immediate aftermath of the block, which led to talkpage access being revoked, were especially uncollegial and reprehensible.

However, I have also spent some time reviewing the editing of the main account and studied the contributions, although I have not read each and every edit. There is no sign in the edits from that account of the types of edits that led to the block of Franzboas. The account focuses primarily on subjects having nothing to do with Judaism, anthropology, or related fields. The account has been editing for a significant amount of time. It has never been blocked and the talkpage history reflects no user-conduct warnings. My expectation is that if all the edits of the two accounts had been made by a single account, the resulting sanction would have been a topic-ban along the lines adopted in the Noleander arbitration case, rather than a site-ban.

I pass this information along for what it may be worth in the decision-making on this issue. I would also like to urge great caution before a decision is made that the two accounts must be publicly linked, since we do not know to what extent, if any, the identity of the main account is linked to a real-world identity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I wish Arb would have announced earlier that it was already looking at the case, which might have removed some of the stress involved.  People do forget that ArbCom looking at this IS the community looking this, just with tools that the rest of us do not have. We voted you in. This is also why I have said I'm willing to live with the result, regardless of what it is.  I understand that I don't have all the info, and again, this is why I only blocked the alternate account without referencing the master, which is an unusual use of admin discretion.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Brad, I understand your point that banning the alternate account is, in effect, a topic ban, and that Wikipedia has handled other cases in such a fashion. But I disagree with the implication that there should be no further repercussions to the main account holder here. To me, it's not a question of which articles or topic areas the main account edits. It's a question of community standards. This is an individual who has&mdash;in the most charitable possible interpretation&mdash;a creepy fixation on Jewishness and Jewish "over-representation" in certain fields. An equally valid interpretation, in my view, would be that he's a straight-up anti-Semite. So the question becomes: to what extent is such a person welcome here? If they manage to segregate all of their odious contributions under an alternate account, are they welcome to continue to edit using a "clean", unlinked account, immune from the opprobrium that would normally attach? What message does that send about our community values? Is it OK for me to create an alternate account, to go around spewing racist bigotry until I get blocked, and then come back to my main account as if nothing had happened? Because despite the best of intentions, that's the message that I see being sent here, and it bothers me. Of course, I have no idea who the main account is, nor the privacy issues involved, so I'm voicing an opinion without access to all of the facts, but I feel pretty strongly that the main account should be blocked&mdash;quietly, if necessary&mdash;by someone in the know. MastCell Talk 23:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said ! It perfectly encapsulates my concerns, and I suspect many other colleagues who have commented here. Irondome (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MastCell says it well. But to add, Newyorkbrad seems to be saying that "well it's basically a tban which we'd normally do anyway" but that ignore the fact that this user tried to game the system and avoid scrutiny by employing a sock for the illegitimate purpose of spewing anti-Semitism. This is not qualitatively the same as done user who is unconstructive in a particular area and thus a tban is warranted. Rather this user intentionally abused the privacy afforded to users per LEGITSOCK​ to abuse individual wikipedians and malign an entire group of people. Again, if the order of events were reversed, we'd have no problem outing a sock as belonging to a master account and blocking them. Why do we now?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have a comment at this time. If what I have inferred from the posting at User talk:Franzboas is a correct inference, then, on the one hand, it makes perfect sense for the person behind the sock account to use a sock account.  On the other hand, their reason for using a sock account is reprehensible, and Wikipedia should not facilitate it.  I am inferring that the identity of the person behind the master account either is known or can easily be determined.  That is, the person is editing in true name, or has provided their true name.  Franzboas cites fear as a reason for using an alternate account.  In other words, the editor is ashamed of their anti-Jewish views, and does not want their neighbors to know that they are posting anti-Jewish calumnies.  (I don’t like the term anti-Semitic.  Jews are not the only Semitic people who can either be prejudiced or be targets of prejudice.)  Hiding one’s shameful bigotry from one’s neighbors is not, in my opinion, a legitimate reason for using an alternate account.  I don’t see a topic-ban as an appropriate response to bigotry.  The only question is whether the community should site-ban the editor, or whether the community should defer to ArbCom.  If ArbCom is indeed looking into the case, I am satisfied to let ArbCom deal with this editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the following is useful, but I'll say it anyway. The main account did not make any objectionable edits, and thus should not be indef blocked. As Dennis Brown said in making the block, and Drmies repeated, the account was blocked for the edits they made, not the views they hold. The aim of the indef block was to end the disruption in the area; and it has succeeded. Furthermore, it is not true that there are no repercussions for the editor's behaviour just because they used a sock: they are now under a topic ban, and any such behaviour in the future (in another area) will likely lead to a total ban. Even independently of that, common sense suggests that one should start with a topic ban and see how it goes, before going straight to an indef block. Like it or not, there are plenty of people in the world whose views on certain issues are loathsome. I find some loathsome views among my own friends and relatives, as well as among a fair part of the editing population here (perhaps they think likewise about me, who knows). The aim of a topic ban is to allow such people to focus on an area where their editing isn't disruptive.  I can add the following: given how useless the CU tools are to detect anyone who knows what they're doing, they could simply have created a random sock to edit; the way they went about using a (privately) declared sock counts in their favour, not against. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CU worked fine in this case. He said he was a sock, he never declared to anyone whose sock he was. Doug Weller  talk 06:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not employ that model for regular sock puppets; if a sock is discovered of a previously blocked editor, we block that sock (WP:EVADE) even if the sock is being generally constructive.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying. The editor declared that they were a sock of another account. There is no evidence that they tried to avoid detection. WP:EVADE applies for socks which try to evade sanctions. There are no sanctions on the master account. Presumably you had your reasons to run a CU (why?) instead of simply asking the editor, but that simply means that the editor did not try to hide it in any way. If they wanted to do so, it's rather easy to do it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the time order of account creation changes this. Is not the master account in this case effectively evading sanctions given to the sock? The only question is legitsock, but I agree with others that privacy protects and other benefits afforded to to legit alt are null and void when that account is used for hate speech, disrupting the project, and making egregious personal attacks. The editor is the same and by editing on the master account they are in effect evading their block. If I used an original undeclared alt account to edit war, malign Muslims, and accuse a few editors of being isil members, if expect to be blocked on both accounts and be outed. Entertaining the claim upon questioning that your sock is protected per legitsock sets a dangerous precedent. This is not just a user who edited warred to RIGHTGREATWRONGS or got angry and cussed at editors. This is hate speech.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the master is not evading sanctions given to the sock, because after this matter, the master would be either implicitly or explicitly (ArbCom can tell them explicitly) under a topic ban from this area. We can, if required, also add other sanctions, like restricting them to one account. Now, I see some people arguing that the master is not editing in this area at all, so effectively it is no sanction. Well, if the master is not editing in this area at all, and their other edits over a long period are fine, then what's the problem? I am not interested in whatever personal views this editor holds, as long as they don't disrupt Wikipedia. It is up to the people arguing for indef block to make the case that this editor is so bad that even their contributions in other areas are intolerable, so they should be blocked. I do not go along with this argument, I'm afraid. As for starting a precedent, this account only lasted a few months and achieved less than nothing, while getting a topic ban on their main account for their troubles. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the blocking of Franzboas is not in any way the equivalent of a topic ban for the master account, since the master account is totally free to edit in the areas of Judaism and Jewishness, since there is no sanction to stop them. That makes me extremely uneasy, that an editor with the views and attitudes expressed by Franzboas is free to edit in the same area from which their sock has been blocked for ADVOCACY.  That really makes entirely no sense at all.  We can maintain the legal fiction that Franzboas and the master account are totally separate from each other, in order to protect the privacy of the master account, but we cannot forget that in reality they are the same person.  It's not like we're making an unwarranted assumption about the views of the person behind the master account, since the person behind Franzboas is the same person.In any case, I am confused about why there would be a problem with sanctioning the master account with a topic ban, given that both Drmies and Newyorkbrad have said that their editing hasn't strayed into the areas of Judaism and Jewishness.  If that's the case, a topic ban from those subjects wouldn't hamstring the master editor at all, and would -- if the editor maintained that editing posture -- essentially be a null sanction.  However, it would provide the community with some assurance that the master account will not give in to the temptation to edit those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear about what I'm saying, if Editor X makes problematic and disruptive edits in subject area Z, to the extent that it is decided a topic ban is required, then Editor X is sanctioned with a topic ban and can no longer edit in subject Z. In this current case, Editor X has, by their own choice split themselves into two entities, X and Y.  X does not make any disruptive edits in subject area Z, but entity Y does.  Entity Y is then blocked for their disruptive and problematic edits, and it is claimed that this is the equivalent of topic banning X from subject Z, but editor X is, in fact, not sanctioned in any way, and is free to make edits in subject area Z should they choose to. The only equivalent to topic banning editor X from subject Z is to topic ban editor X from subject Z, and any claim that the indef blocking of Y is an equivalent is logically and practically untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the points you are making. If there's a consensus for an arbitrator to privately notify this user that he is topic-banned (on his main account), or even that he must stop editing altogether, that can presumably be done. However, I would oppose publicly announcing a sanction against the main account based on this conversation, because I would perceive it as problematic under the privacy policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll ask again what policy is protecting the master right now? Is this being considered a legit sock because the master hasn't edited in these areas prior to this? So any of us could just make another account and be complete assholes so long as we're not touching on any areas we've been previously involved in? So all this just disappears and the master never gets this connected to them? If a conflict arises concerning the master that has anything to do with the nastily discriminatory POV this sock has exhibited it'll be treated as outlier rather than a history. Unless ArbCom wants to perpetually monitor the master's editing which is obviously not feasible. Capeo (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Question for arbs - is there evidence that Franz's claim here that he didn't know about the legitsock policy plausible given knowledge of the master account? From what I gather, the master account is no noob, so this claim of ignorance seems dubious to me. But, perhaps, the user edits infrequently or is still "green" this is plausible. I ask because if the former is the case, the claim of legitsock seems baseless as this is more likely a case of malicious socking and thus the quandaries being mulled over are moot. But if the latter, this whole discuss makes more sense. I'm not trying to fish for info, but would like to ask if this has been considered. Pinging, , and as they've participated already.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's always difficult to try to read another person's mind, but my answer is that it looks like the editor was relying on the portion of the alt-account policy that recognizes segregating edits on a particular topic from other edits as a legitimate reason to have a second account. He did segregate the edits, and to that extent, he followed the policy. Also, please note that the WP:SOCK policy recognizes (under the heading "Privacy") that alt-accounts created for this reason will typically not be linked to the main account. Of course what is implicit in the policy's authorization is that the user must make proper edits on the second topic. Here, the widely shared opinion of almost everyone commenting here, including you and me, is that the edits were highly inappropriate&mdash;but I'm sure Franzboas still disagrees with that. So I think it's likely the user sincerely believed he was following the policy, for whatever that might be worth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that . This is exactly why I handled it the way I did and pushed for Arb to review.  I don't think we should publicly link to the master account if the master sincerely thought his edits were acceptable. Instead, we stop the disruption using the least force and ask for review for the block, and a separate review of the master in private.  We aren't mind readers, but we need a deliberative process for deciding this, which is what we elected ArbCom for.  Linking just to punish him would be punitive.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - Can the master account be privately restricted to editing from one account, the master account, only, with the knowledge of that restriction known to the ArbCom and to CU? If so, shame will protect from any more offensive edits by this account, since they are publicly ashamed to make their anti-Jewish edits.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems difficult, though it is one of the things Arbs are discussing--it would make Arbs and CUs the enforcers of something that any regular admin should be able to decide on. "Private" violations are ... well, contrary to many things most of us believe in, unless there are seriously mitigating circumstances. My position and Newyorkbrad's (with whose comments just above I agree almost completely) differ only to the extent that I no longer think the editor is owed much privacy consideration anymore. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , most of the time, an admin could make the call. Lord knows, I'm not afraid to go out on a limb.  When privacy is a consideration, however, I don't have the tools to review their other edits and make the call.  To ask me or the community to make the call blind is unreasonable, or choosing to would be unwise.  Besides, this is why you ArbCom types make the big bucks and get the free health and dental plan.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * about these speculations that the person operating these accounts may have thought that using the alt account in this way, was somehow truly legitimate and done in some kind of good faith.... please do consider what Franboaz said in this diff: ...but remember that I created this legitimate sock to lessen systemic bias on Wikipedia that I didn't feel comfortable addressing with my main account.... Like many other editors, I quietly took a long hiatus from Wikipedia because I was so frustrated with the systemic bias and how most editors were blind to abstract levels of that bias (e.g. how articles' topics are defined)..
 * Some editors go off the rails trying to correct perceived "systemic bias" and fighting the secret cabal that controls WP. That is what happened here.  We indef those people.
 * This person's argument that it is OK to do that under ALT is in my view pure wikilawyering and should not be respected.  I don't care that they did it believing WP is controlled by Jews; it would be just as much a violation of SOAPBOX if they did it to fight the skeptics, or big pharma, or the liberals. And likewise if they did it not out of passion but rather for pay, to promote or attack some politician for example. The person harmed Wikipedia and wasted community time dealing with their promotional campaign.  This is not a legitimate use of editing privileges, period.Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Jytdog puts the case extremely well, and, while I respect Newyorkbrad immensely and am glad that he is giving due weight to the privacy issue, I agree with Drmies that the editor is due very little, if any, consideration of his or her privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well put Jytdog.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, let me say that I am not defending Franzboas's editing; as I noted before, I was one of the main people who confronted him about the troubling editing pattern, leading directly to the block and to this conversation. But the relevant policy here is that we do not knowingly damage editors' or even ex-editors' off-wiki lives. Let's assume, without my saying too much, that the real-world identity of the user in question can likely be discerned from his main account. And let's agree, without trying to decide whether the Franzboas account's edits were borne of bad judgment and bad philosophy or something much worse, that the edits reflect badly on the person who made them, and that at least some here regard them as overtly anti-Semitic. If we announce a public sanction against the main account based on this discussion, we are effectively lobbing the brand of irredeemable bigotry not against a username, but ultimately against the human being who is behind the username. We would be doing so on one of the most visible websites in the world, in a way that could affect his life in severe and unpredictable ways. I am all for stopping the bad editing that happened here, which we have, and making sure it doesn't start up again, but not at all for taking a step that risks permanently harming the editor's life because he said some very stupid things on a website. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with "effectively lobbing the brand of irredeemable bigotry not against a username, but ultimately against the human being who is behind the username." This was not an innocent mistake, editing under the influence, or some other mild form of disruption. They chose to use this high profile site, with the knowledge that their edits could be connected to their identity, and chose to do so regardless. If they are a bigot, let them live with the consequences of spewing hate speech, attacking specific editors, and disrupting this project. Again, this isn't a typical goblin just acting a fool. If they wanted to engage in this behavior they should go to /pol/.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a possibility of real world harm stemming from revealing someone's identity, and it sounds like there is in this case, then there is no choice but proceeding with caution. I think any individuals who are ultimately found to have violated the privacy policy are personally responsible for it under WMF's policies, so that is something to look into and confirm, as well—but if there is a risk of actual harm, then for sure, mull it over. Even if consensus decided it was necessary, if I were in your positions, I would run it through WMF before taking any action. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , how is this any different than if any editor who uses their real name as a username says the same bigoted crap, attacks editors and then gets indeffed for it? That's what I'm not understanding here. That's their problem if it has real world consequences. The master, for all intents and purposes, did that but used an illegitimate sock to do so. I recall an Arb case I participated in during which an editor, also actively commenting on the case, socked as an IP, also commenting on the case, claiming the same type of privacy concerns. They were CU blocked and their IP was publicly connected to their account, and they didn't do/say anything nearly as horrible as Franzboa. Now, because the master apparently has real world identifying info on WP, they have impunity to get away with illegitimate socking? This just seems all backwards to me. It's the person who did this, not a username. There's probably thousands of editors who have used some variation of their real names or have identifying info on their user page. You're saying any of them could do this and our hands are tied to do anything about it? Capeo (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anytime there are negative real world consequences, and the privacy policy may be implicated, it may have implications beyond our internal decision making processes. That is a lot of maybes. I, personally, don't like a lot of maybes when dealing with something like this. But it woul depend in part on what the consequences are...no, when you cause harm to someone else it is not enough that you feel it is "their problem" or that you feel it was justified. The editing pattern I've seen does not justify this, it is not a widespread persistent attack, he has not resurfaced from multiple IPs, he does not currently seem to pose any threat to Wikipedia. This is not a tool to punish someone who may hold views that many editors find distasteful. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is well within the purview of the community to ban  any editor whose views are distasteful to it, such as pedophiles, racists, sexists, and bigots of all kinds, as well as those who violate and abuse our policies, or attempt to game the system to their own advantage. We do it regularly, and very properly so, and we do so without any consideration of whether their being blocked or banned would reflect badly on themselves in the real world.There is no right to edit Wikipedia, this is a private website, and the owners of it, the Wikimedia Foundation, have given to this community the control of who is allowed to edit here or not. That there may be "real world consequences" to being banned is something that an editor who abused their editing privilege should have thought of before they did so, or, if they expected (as seems to be the case here) to get away with what otherwise would be disruptive editing by creating a sock, they need to feel the consequences of those choices they made, and not be given immunity because of the loopholes they exploited.  This is clear to the majority of editors who have commented here, only a few have held that privacy considerations are more important than protecting the encyclopedia from the edits of a person who has been shown to be an antisemite. I, personally, reject that utterly.The actions by the master account of Franzboas abrogated any reasonable expectation that their privacy would be protected, and we must act with that in mind, and not pussyfoot around.  If the master account had made those exact same edits, without the beard of Franzboas protecting them, they would be indef-blocked at this point, and that is the only real consideration which needs to enter into this.  We really cannot afford to allow people to take advantage of us in order to make, yes, distasteful edits which have no place in a NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * we should not hurtle headlong into calling someone an antisemite in the absence of evidence. You are referring to "a person who has been shown to be an antisemite" but you are neglecting to provide the evidence for that characterization. I agree with you that using multiple accounts is a very serious problem. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue would be that, if I am not mistaken, the CheckUser policy is implicated here, and the comments that you and other editors are publicly making about this may not be in line with what that policy says. You might be surprised—under our policy, a sincere distasteful belief is most likely better protected then if he were simply trolling (Which I personally think is what was going on, btw.) Bearing this in mind, self-righteous declarations that They need to feel the consequences of those choices they made should honestly be enough to demote you for not being able to understand that others have rights too, don't take into consideration that even those with (distasteful) minority views have rights, and they certainly have rights like anyone else to be protected from harm unless there is actual necessity that will justify risking harm to another person. That is going to be, like, the first comment that Franzboas pulls up if it comes down to it. Given your position as an admin, supposedly trusted by the community and all that, your strikethrough your comment about Wikipedia's core policies is more distasteful then most of the ill-conceived comments at issue here — this is what our policy actually says Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. There is no evidence that he will engage in anything even remotely "disruptive" with his master account, and ArbCom can privately topic ban him if they want to. This bloodlust to punish him is the most distasteful thing going on here, have a beer and try to relax or something. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, never have been, never will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, let me assure you that I'm not sitting here trembling with rage and righteous indignation about this situation. Is the core issue (which for me is the combination of illegitimate socking for antisemitic purposes) one that I feel passionate about? Yes, it is, for a number of reasons I won't go into.  Has it clouded my reasoning, and made it impossible for me to engage in clear-minded thinking on the subject?  No, I don't think it has, and I hope that I have demonstrated that in my commentary.  Am I, or any other commenter here, part of a mob?  No, I don't believe that is the case, since each editor has a different line of reasoning which brought them to their conclusion, and they did so at different times. In point of fact, I think it's rather dismissive and, frankly, insulting to categorize these disparate people in that way. "Bloodlust" is an extremely strong and derogatory description that I would urge you to strike through.There are no pitchforks and torches here, what I see are people who are reacting to the misuse and abuse of our beloved encyclopedia for prejudicial purposes and who wish to see that abuse properly sanctioned, as it would be in any normal circumstances in which the system hadn't been gamed by the master account to ward off repercussions from the edits they made through their sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The "bloodlust" to punish is the most distasteful thing going on here? Not the socks edits? Okay then, on that we'll have to disagree. Capeo (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read through a lot of his comments, and he has stated that he believes he is correcting a systemic bias. He has, quite seriously, denied being anti-semitic and racist and indicated that he felt editors were blocking him from adding legitimate content. I don't think the content was legitimate—I think it was explained to him enough times that it was WP:OR, that he can't just draw his own inferences from statistics, etc. But yes, the strong appearance is that this is about a community perception of his views. Most importantly, he did not use abusive language or abusive racial epithets (until his post-block meltdown.) The implication is Kafkaesque, I still have to say that takes priority over someone saying things that I find offensive. (I'm a big kid now!) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bigots don't necessarily rant and rave, some of the worst of them never use abusive language or hurl epithets. Some of them even wear nice suits, and speak softly, and get to become commentators on cable TV news channels. There is nothing in the least "Kafkaesque" about sanctioning someone for what they clearly did, based on their editing, and their user page comments. (In fact, even bringing an innocent person to trial is not ipso facto "Kafkaesque", it is only so when the crimes are never specified, and the goalposts are constantly kept moving. You may disagree with the community's perception of Franbzboas' editing, but you have to agree that it has been abundantly clear what the sock and the master editor have been accused of.  Hence, Kafka, like "bloodlust" has no place in this discussion, except as unnecessary rhetorical overkill.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock master accounts are blocked at SPI as a matter of routine when a sock is blocked. If they don't block the master, the socking continues. The only difference in this one, is the sock was pre-sanctioned by ArbCom, and that sock is troublesome. Let's put aside the personal issues here and get to the actions of the sock. — Maile  (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly think that this account was trolling. I and other editors who interacted with him went through rounds of discussion trying to explain WP:OR to him. His responses in those conversations strongly suggested that he was trolling—confirmed by the fact that he is an experienced and competent editor, who obviously understands the basics of the core policies. In my view, his political views, and his statements about correcting a perceived systemic bias, even if they are distasteful, may be protected (at least as far as CheckUser and Privacy is concerned), to the extent that CheckUser is not a tool that can be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. But his trolling and incompetent editing is not protected, because alternate accounts are only allowed so long as they are not used in violation of the policies. Early in this discussion, I urged that this matter be evaluated in a content-neutral way and focus on abuse of the account. You may not agree that there is a pro-Jew bias in Wikipedia, but he may sincerely believe there is, and feeling threatened, choose to use an alternate account to correct that perceived bias. Using an account to edit on a contentious topic is a legitimate use of an alternate account. The trolling, and pretending not to understand core policies, wasting volunteer time, etc. are abuse of that account. I vaguely recall something about a triple parentheses being added somewhere when this was going on—I am not sure if that was him, but if it was, something like that would also be a clear abuse. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ADD Triple parentheses was not him, it was an ip [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis?diff=next&oldid=777809275] Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * —has he expressed that there is a "pro-Jew bias in Wikipedia"? Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He could have expressed it better, but I think that was the thrust of his last comments on talk before his talk page access was revoked - actually it was more about a perceived left-wing and gay/queer/transgender and Marxist bias. Some of his other comments indicated that he wanted to bring attention to the effect that Jewish identity has on scholarship and academia. That is basically like a site-wide WP:OR project. If its been studied and written about, great, write an article about it — but adding bits and pieces all over the site to push a thesis is a problem. All in all, I support the block, and I support even a TBAN for the Master Account, but I don't think anything more is necessary right now. Under normal circumstances, I think the last comments on talk were intensely personal, and earned him a significant block, but I do think he reasonably believed that his privacy and identity would be protected under our policies, in fact that is the entire purpose of the alt-account. It's nice that Jytdog clarified the policy, so that it would not be misunderstood in the future... Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Who, exactly, are you accusing of being a troll? — Maile (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Franzboas, sorry if that wasn't clear. I don't mean to be accusatory either, just saying that was the impression I got from my brief interaction with him, and why I stopped replying to him. For example comments like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=781016529] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=781012979] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=781114653] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=781193165] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=783356233] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rockypedia&diff=prev&oldid=783406586] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=783563331] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=prev&oldid=783705475] ... it seems like classic trolling like, "I'm not suggesting we use a white supremacist source, I'm suggesting we use a white supremacist source."  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That slant gives a new aspect on why they say they created the account; one explanation does not necessarily discount the other. Hopefully, we will see something concrete from ArbCom on this.  However, whether it's the sock or the master, it's exactly the same fingers on the keyboard, the same individual behind it.  We'll see what ArbCom comes up with. — Maile  (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Question to ArbCom: Assuming that the master account is not publicly identified, if it opened an RfA and did not disclose this situation and the indef. block of the Franzboas sock, would the community be informed? EdChem (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I see absolutely no chance of that happening. Doug Weller  talk 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pest, but can you clarify, please: absolutely no chance of the editor in question filing an RfA (which is what I assumed you meant), or absolutely no chance of notification if they did? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the former. No chance they will file an RfA. That's all I can say about it.  Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I'm glad I understood it correctly the first time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for replying, and I accept that an RfA will not be filed in this case... but I am uncomfortable on the wider issue: If ArbCom is aware that an editor is operating multiple accounts (either disclosed under the SOCK policy or through CU or whatever) in an arguably or clearly legitimate way, and one of those accounts has been sanctioned in some way, and the editor launches an RfA through an unsanctioned master account and does not disclose, will ArbCom inform the community? I understand that an initial step may be to contact the editor directly and ask for a disclosure, so publicly linking the accounts would not be a first-step response, but would the community's need to know ultimately outweigh the privacy concerns associated with linking accounts?  EdChem (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps policy should be amended to place restrictions, or at least cautionary language, on those who avail themselves of WP:SOCK and additionally run for adminship. Perhaps there could be some boilerplate-type language added that cautions against using legitimate alternative accounts if the editor contemplates running for adminship. The language could say that disclosure of alternative accounts may be a prerequisite to running for adminship. Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How many socks
How many socks? I think there were more. He told Newyorkbrad " I quietly took a long hiatus from Wikipedia because I was so frustrated with the systemic bias and how most editors were blind to abstract levels of that bias (e.g. how articles' topics are defined).". On his talk page he wrote " Regardless, I have not been substantially active on any other accounts since starting this one, nor have I participated in topics or discussions I've participated in with previous accounts," - accounts plural. It is clear to me that there have been other socks. I don't know who these were but it wouldn't surprise me to find at least one was blocked or banned. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't weighed in on the privacy issue here. On the face of it nothing in the WP:VALIDALT "Privacy" section itself explicitly says that the intra-WP privacy protection may be removed if the alt account is used illegitimately. What it does say, is Although privacy-based alternative accounts are not, by nature, publicly connected to your main account, they should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page.. (That language was added here in May 2016, which arose out of this talk page discussion about improving that section, but this bit wasn't discussed explicitly).
 * I could see someone reading that as an assurance that the accounts will never be linked; the account is by nature private. That is really .. unfortunate.  I could see Arbcom being cautious and not linking them in light of that lack of explicit "fair warning" especially in light of the high value the community places on privacy.  That said, the rest of the policy is very clear that inappropriate use of a sock can lead to sanctions including linking the accounts and under any common sense application of policy, there is plenty of reason to link them publicly.
 * But I will not be surprised either way the linking issue goes; like Dennis and others have said, this is why Arbcom gets the big bucks. I do expect that the main account will be indeffed, however.
 * I have boldly made an edit to SOCK to clarify the "private" provision for everybody (people who want to use it, the community, and people who handle privacy issues for us) for the future (who knows if that will stick). It still leaves discretion as to whether to link them, but makes it clear that they ~may~ be linked if the private account is used abusively - nobody should be able to read that policy and be able to make an argument that they believed the accounts would never be linked.  There has been a discussion ongoing on the Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is that something a CU on the master account could determine and, if so, if the justification for using it? The apparent admission to having other accounts and the abuse by one account would seem to warrant a private CU by the ArbCom to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unquestionably, some Arbs have done their own CU tool usage here. I would disappointed if not.  They aren't saying much, but I trust that several people are eyeing this closely.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The way the other accounts are described they seem to have been used certainly more than three months ago, so CU won't and indeed didn't help. Doug Weller  talk 18:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a shame.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, in response to NYB's latest comment, that if a sanction is determined to be appropriate, either a community-based one, or an ArbCom sanction, because ArbCom is the only entity that knows the identity of the master account, it would obviously have to be put into effect by ArbCom. That being the case, I have no problem whatsoever in ArbCom doing that in whatever manner they see fit. If the Arbs think that a publicly-announced sanction is akin to outing, and want to do it privately (or even via a trusted third party), well that's OK with me, although it raises the concern discussed above of how, for instance, a topic ban can be policed if only ArbCom knows it's in place. That puts an onus on ArbCom to monitor the master's editing, as well as one on the master account itself to be self-policing. If that situation comes about, I don't quite see how disruptive editing in that subject area by the master which is noticed by a non-Arbitrator can be easily handled, since only the current Arbs would be aware of the prior sanction. The whole thing is a conundrum which is created by the master's misuse of the sock account, and by the lack of anything specific in policy which allows the privacy provision to be stripped away. That's what I was attempting to fix with my suggested change to WP:LEGITSOCK, a version of which Jytdog has now WP:BOLDly added to the policy page. Clearly, this case shows the necessity of such a provision, so that the next time this happens we're not tying ourselves into knots once again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me just add one more thing, and then I'll try to stop commenting, as I've already said an awful lot: what happens if the master account is hit with a secret sanction applied by ArbCom, and in the future files an RfA, or, if they are already an admin, runs for 'crat or Arb or is up for CU? Do we expect that they would willingly reveal themselves as the master behind Franzboas?  If any of the current Arbitrators privy to the sanction see that they haven't identified themselves as editing with Franzboas, is that sufficient for that Arbitrator to "out" the account as the master of Franzboas, or does nobody say anything and the community, not knowing the full story of the master's editing history, potentially rewards the master with a functionary position?  Just another possible conundrum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I trust that it is not the case, but if the account is an admin, then ArbCom really ought to reveal their name immediately, regardless of the privacy concerns, or at the very least proceed with an in camera desysopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that the editor is not an admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad to hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom
Will ArbCom be monitoring the master closely enough that they will catch new socks? From my observation, socking seems to be like eating junk food - hard to stop with just one. I give ArbCom credit for knowing their responsibilities, but it's hard to understand how a sock could have been allowed for a hot-button topic. And as we have seen above, this one has admitted to operating as other socks, with or without ArbCom's permission. For admins and clerks who handle talk pages, Edit Warring, AIV and SPI, wouldn't it be helpful if they knew who the master is? Otherwise, they're flying blind. But editing pattern of prolific sockmasters seems to indicate a mind set that slipping by on yet another sock is some sort of game they play. When it comes to those of us who deal with the issues on the various conflict sites and talk pages, wouldn't it help for us to know who we are dealing with? — Maile (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Another question for Arbitrators
Thank you for letting us know that the master account of Franzboas is not an admin, but I also think that the community deserves to know if the master editor has commented in this discussion. Because if they have, I'm going to have to ask, as forcefully as I can, that they immediately be indef-blocked immediately for gaming the system, again.We don't allow editors to edit with socks in order to create a false consensus, because other people involved in the discussion are not aware that Editor A and Editor B are, in reality, the same person. Well, that's the situation here, if the master account is involved in this discussion, except in this case we know who Editor B is (the indef-blocked Franzboas) but we don't know that Editor A is the master account, and therefore is not a disinterested or uninvolved party. So, again, I ask the Arbitrators monitoring this discussion to affirm that the master account of Franzboas has not been involved in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the master account has not been involved in this discussion. Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. That, too, is a relief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , as the blocking admin in this case, I don't expect to know the outcome but notification that the case has been finalized would be appreciated, email or public. I think that people are missing the point that no matter what the community decides here, no one can compel ArbCom or the individual Arb members to implement or enforce the consensus here, nor compel ArbCom to out the editor. Editors with advanced bits can not be forced to use them.  That said, I'm sure ArbCom is listening and will be sensitive to the views expressed.  This is why I've just focused on Arb *communicating better* and using the same process they would any issue with privacy considerations. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can say that I am trying to get this settled as quickly as possible. Once that's done someone, perhaps me depending on when that happens, will post here about it. Doug Weller  talk 15:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the part you are playing in resolving this very knotty issue. As Dennis says, I hope you and the other Arbitrators will be sensitive to the will of the community as expressed in the commentary on the proposals above, and that your corporate decision will take that into account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm still failing to see what's knotty about this. At this point point, the only thing I can conceive of, was that was an ill-conceived joke account trying, an failing miserably, to be clever. We allow to many alt joke accounts on this site to begin with. Capeo (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If one is of the opinion that privacy is a paramount concern, then the tension between the privacy of the master account and the desire of the community to levy sanctions on it due to the editing of its sock is where the knottiness comes in. Like quite a few here, I believe that the master has lost their expectation of privacy by their actions, but I'm not a Wikipedia functionary, with an aspect of representing the community (and the WMF, to an extent), so I don't have the same burden that the Arbitrators do. At the same time that I wish they would hurry up and resolve the situation, I'm sensitive to what I believe are their concerns, and understand that their outlook on this is going to be somewhat different from mine, or from those of other non-Arbitrators in the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolution
Arbcom has been in touch with the editor and by mutual agreement they intend to stop editing Wikipedia under any account; they will need to contact the committee in the event they wish to return in the future. There is no need to publicly identify their other account, whose editing is, as mentioned above, entirely ordinary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is this the ArbCom resolution here, and the editor will stop editing on their own? Is there going to be any notification posted anywhere, any closing of this thread here at AN? Call me suspicious, but "...oh yeah, I won't do it anymore ... " seems like famous not-last words by sockmasters. — Maile  (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be helpful if we had a bit more, like knowing if Arb alone is going to police this, or at least knowing that Arb has put in a mechanism in place to police it, if you don't want to give details. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose this solution is the best we could have hoped for, given the situation, and that it renders the community proposals moot -- as ArbCom would be unlikely to agree to impose any community-based sanctions after reaching this mutual agreement with the editor. However, membership in ArbCom changes every year, so I assume that there would be some kind of "paperwork" in ArbCom's private archives to let future ArbComs know what had been agreed to.  If that's the case, then the documentation should include a link to this discussion, and a note to the effect that the community was (1) in favor of community action, regardless of what actions ArbCom took; (2) thought an indef block of the editor was called for; and (3) also thought a topic ban from the subject area of "Judaism and Jewishness", broadly construed, was appropriate.  To my mind, I believe that means that for ArbCom to allow the editor to return to editing without consulting the community would be an abrogation of their responsibilities, and that they should either turn down such a request pro forma, based on the community's expressed will, or open a community discussion about it without revealing the editor's name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course we have internal documentation of various things. Where else would we keep the lists of editors we're conspiring against, the secret plans for taking over the wiki, and most importantly, the bar tab to bill the WMF? ;) Seriously, arbcom is 15 people including experienced checkusers and editors knowledgeable in the subject area; you don't need me or anyone else to explain how to look for socks. As suggested above, I'll close this thread now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - will CUs be performed regularly to ensure the user's compliance? This user was here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and resorted to socking to do it. I, for one, highly doubt this user will stay away from the project. Some explanation of the enforcement mechanism, monitoring, and violation consequences should be posted by ArbCom here. For example, will the accounts be publicly linked if the user is found to have not abided by the agreement?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Private information obtained by CU is made public only under extremely limited circumstances where there is no other realistic way to manage a problem. For example, it happens sometimes in long-term abuse cases. This isn't on that scale at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV again
There's a bit of a backlog at WP:AIV  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've dealt with a number of reports. There were a noticeable number that I declined as not obvious vandalism, and a couple that need someone more familiar with music genre-warring then me to deal with.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Feels like half the reports at AIV lately have been genre warring related.. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Appeal my 1RR restriction
Just over one year ago, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. Today I would like to appeal my 1RR restriction. I have, to the best of my knowledge, never contravened this restriction, turning to discussion rather than reverting, at every opportunity. To be honest, I plan to continue limiting the reverts and using the discussion route to improve articles, as I have found discussion to be more productive and resulting in a more stable content than a continual flip-flop of content. The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Glad you took my advice to withdraw the last discussion, break it apart and deal with one appeal at a time. I had been involved at SPI and in other admin-like duties in your past, so I am familiar with the case.  At this time, I feel comfortable supporting the removal of this particular sanction and I'm hopeful for the future.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It's been a long time with no problems, so I say yes (especially as Dennis, who has experience in the case, supports). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support Only weak because I'm not familiar with the situation - but the support of Dennis and BSZ counts for much here, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No issues seem to have arisen with regards to this restriction; I'm confident that you can continue in the same vein if it's lifted. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - the contrition seems genuine. I see no reason not to lift the restriction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Restricted more than one year ago, time served. Capitals00 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * He has a total of three restrictions. I would be less inclined to lift the others today, but I think this is the best one to start with and we can revisit another in 6 months.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

User:LanceLaytner has moved his user page to draft Draft:LanceLaytner
Please could an admin try and sort out a bit of a mess. User:LanceLaytner has moved his user page to draft Draft:LanceLaytner to make a second incorrectly titled copy of a draft of Draft:Jeremy Josse. Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed - moved back, and blanked. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

CU backlog
Hi all, there is a CU backlog at WP:SPI. Your kind attention (and laborious efforts) would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See also.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Disputed RFC close at Controversial Reddit communities
This is a request to review the closure at Talk:Controversial Reddit communities to determine whether it has been closer correctly. After heavy lobbying from an IP hopping user USER:Winged_Blades_of_Godric has chosen to ignore the majority of arguments and votes and declare the RFC “No consensus”. His motivation for this is that he believes those arguments, including my own, are illegitimate due to wp:canvasing by user:Koncorde - a user he singles out in the close message.

The matter has been discussed with Wings Blades here: User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric

The “canvassing” in question raising concerns about the IP hopper’s activities on various users talk pages. Note that in my own case I’ve had numerous past disagreements with Koncorde and there is no reason whatsoever for him to suspect I am going to agree with him on anything. I have, on the other hand, had plenty of experience on pages where POV pushing SPA’s and IPs have been an issue. Personally I would not make a user page post like that myself but I believe it falls just short of the types of action WP:CANVAS is supposed to prevent. I do not believe it warrants Winged Victory disregarding the RFC arguments of myself or others and would like the close to reflect the consensus. Additionally I do not believe the editorializing in the close message calling put a particular user is appropriate and would like to see it removed.

Thank you all in advance for your input. Artw (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * note I have laced a notice here for the IP hopper, I am not going to track down all the other IP talk pages and place notices there as well. FWIW I believe the reliance on multiple IPs may be a startegy to make dealing with this user more difficult. Artw (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have, personally, no issue with any warning I get / got, I'll let edit history and contributions stand for myself. Regarding canvassing (I first note a discussion above relating to this very issue); I engaged with a series of Editors from the similarly themed Gamergate Controversy and did so based on most recent contributions to the talk page. I posted the same message to each. I have been clear in each case on both personal talk pages, and on the article talk page itself , , that this was about a due RFC process regardless of their agreement or disagreement with my stance. Under Godric talk page I have pointed out the IP's modus operandi and highlighted my serious concern that the user was a motivated SPA and potential sock (who has so far used around 30 IP addresses, several core ones are listed here   but I know this to be incomplete). Thank you. Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am indifferent to that RFC (I was one of the people you notified, though I didn't weigh in on it). But I would point out that if you're worried that someone else is canvassing or otherwise abusing the RFC rules in the future, the best solution is probably to post neutral-ish notifications about the RFC on various relevant centralized discussion forums - the Village Pump, various noticeboards, and the talk pages of relevant articles.  This reduces the impact of canvassing or other abuse by attracting more comments for the RFC overall, without the risk of running afoul of the canvassing rules yourself. In particular, if you felt that it was closely related to another conflict, posting on that page is fine, ie. if you felt it was relevant to Gamergate Controversy, the best thing to do would have been to post a notice on that article's talk page rather than contacting individual editors from there.  You can sometimes notify individual editors without running afoul of WP:CANVASS, but it's more difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. And as I had attempted to get attention of admins related to the potential sock activity with no success, it was a relatively last act after becoming aware of canvassing by IP, and 8chan discussion etc. It may have been quicker on Gamergate, but was liable to draw more "attention" on the Gamergate monitoring thread. In the end, don't want my actions to detract from the not-RFC. Koncorde (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Closer--Regretably, while I initially concurred with the views of Artw--that the IP is plainly tedious,disruptive et al; that does not overshadow the blatant canvassing by Koncorde.That the IPs could not be established as socks(Result was inconclusive) do not necessarily confer any user to venture out on righting a perceived wrong.I don't know but a statement ---SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote in the mass-call-out is canvassing.The best way to post such messages has been clearly discussed by Aquillion.Lastly, while the technicality of the close may vary, the outcome is same-- the content remains excluded.So, until and unless I'm faced with more compelling arguments; I'm refraining from changing my closure. Addiionally, it is not under the purview of my limited abilities and technical scope to draw on-wiki conclusions from off-wiki activities. Winged Blades Godric  08:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you lack the skills to assess the situation possibly you should have requested help before pressing forwards with a contentious close that assumes bad faith of users? Artw (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Artw, it's getting to the point of WP:IDHT.I don't think you will find any volunteer from the community(I read somewhere that it's forbidden due to privacy related issues)(other than those serving at ArbCom) willing to link off-wiki evidence with on-wiki behaviour.If that means you expect an arb to close the RFC, your time and efforts would be spent better, somewhere else, than this thread. Winged Blades Godric 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There WAS bad faith. By you, Artw.  You unilaterally changed the result of an RFC.  2600:1012:B01B:6D00:DC4E:1497:F42E:EF8A (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking it was improper, yes, I did. That was subsequently reverted and now we are discussing it here. Artw (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment our IP hopping freind appears to be forum shopping like crazy over at WP:Teahouse, someone should probably check in on that. Artw (talk)


 * The matter was raised at the Teahouse before it was raised here, if I am not mistaken, two days before this thread was opened. I suggested an ANI discussion in my response at the Teahouse. I don't think that constitutes Forum Shopping, and in any case the Teahouse is always open to people with questions about how to use Wikipedia, including questions about ongoing DR processes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The links to the AN and demands for help with it appear to postdate the creation of the AN. As I understand it the teahouse is for helping new users who are confused about policy, what IP is neither. Artw (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously one cannot link to a discussion that hasn't happened yet. But those were continuations of an existing thread at the Teahouse asking for help with the close in question. The Teahouse has a very broad remit, it is for assisting any user (not just new users) who has a problem with how to do things, any things, on Wikipedia. This includes askign for admin attention to an issue. In any case, i was already considering raising this issue here or at ANI before this thread was opened, nor did the IP editor ask for the Teahouse volunteers to make any decision, merely to look over the matter and advise or respond here. So there is no forum shopping involved, and the Teahouse posts were in no way improper, nor is my commenting here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's directly appealing to you from these edits.     I also very much do not appreciate his defamation of me as an editor and question the appropriateness of the Teahouse as a forum for that. Artw (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP editor did ping me, yes, presumably because I responded to the first Teahouse post on this issue, and perhaps because I ahd expressed the view that a change of close by an involved editor was generally not proper before I ever knew what page was involve, or your username, . As for defamation, I suppose you refer to the IP editor's comment that and the IP's statement later in the same paragraph that  Be assured that I gave no significant weight to those opnions, and my views here have been based solely on the edits at Talk:Controversial Reddit communities, largely the ones I have linked to below. I really don't think debating whether the IP editor in some way acted poorly at the Teahouse is highly relevant to whether the edits changing the close statement were or were nor proper. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears to demonstarate a double standard on your part as regards to WP:CANVAS and further underlines that the IP Users own canvasing efforts have been ignored. Also that the IP user is engaged in this form of manipulation also underlines that Koncorde was right to have suspicions about them. Artw (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not been addressing any canvassing or alleged canvassing by anyone. If the IP engaged in improper canvassing, that can be taken note of, and sanctions applied if need be. Asking an experienced user to review a situation and act as the merits may appear does not seem to me to be a violation of WP:CANVAS, nor does drawing attention to a situation on a public forum. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Now to a more substantial issue. In this edit reverted the close of an RfC, and in this edit replaced it with a quite different close, changing "no consensus" to "opposed". All this after Artw had commented in the RfC, and was therefore WP:INVOLVED. There are processes for challenging closures that seem to be in error, starting with a simple discussion with the closer. Just reverting a close, by an involved editor no less, is not a proper way to handle such a situation, no matter how mistaken the close may seem to be. On the merits of the close, i see significant arguments made for inclusion, and for non-inclusion, with sources cited and disagreements about the quality and meaning of those sources, on each side. "No consensus" seems well within the discretion of a rational closer. I haven't read all the sources, and i don't know how I would have closed it myself. But my main point here is that involved editors should not simply revert closes they belive mistaken. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of case where Process is important applies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Process is great. Selectively applied process is a problem. Artw (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be, yes. What aspects of process do you feel are being ignored here, if any? What would you like done about them? Do you disagree that the change of close was, shall we say, injudicious? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I beleve by reclosing the debate after lobbying from the IP user and disregarding one side of the argument in the favor of other on the grounds of “CANVASING”, when said IP user is engaged in a canvasing campaign of their own is extremely injudicious and appears to be a snap decision that ignores all context, That the same IP User has now canvased you and you appear to be responding to it is the cherry on the cake. Artw (talk)
 * IP is manipulating all concerned, , , etc etc. Koncorde (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * IP user IMMEDIATELY (5 minutes) reverted three of those edits with an apology. I had not received any sort of response from my initial inquiry so I engaged two other forums/users and DISCLOSED (hint hint Artw) that I had brought the issue to the attention of other forums.  Further I stated plainly if engaging separate users was inappropriate I would immediTely revert which I then did. 2600:1012:B01B:6D00:B144:599F:75ED:8217 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You canvas like a motherfucker mate. You just apply a level of low-key deniability to it that a child could see through. Artw (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've canvassed literally no one. The ONE possible exception was asking Wordsmith to take a look at the SRS deal.  That is the only time.  I've disclosed every edit I've made from every IP address I've used (I frequently edit from a cell phone). Your accusations are without merit and everyone can see this.  More importantly, you've managed to use misdirection to change the subject of the discussion at hand (completely improper closure,  blatant disregard for policy, and disrespect toward other editors) into something completely unrelated 2600:1012:B01B:6D00:B144:599F:75ED:8217 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember now what was going on that prompted me more than anything. IP pinged Wordsmith, who then responded, and then changed his vote to Supporting the RFC. The IP then voted using a new IP address, and attempted to close the RFC itself using its other IP . At the same time, the ping on Wordsmiths page attracted the attention of Mark Bernstein and Jorm. Good times. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there anything to their claim that they are disclosing their Ips somewhere and are therefore trustworthy? I would have thought a username a better way of doing that. Also I hope the RfC close took the double vote into consideration. Artw (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There was ONE vote from ONE IP address. More lies from you.  There was no "double-voting". 2600:1012:B01B:6D00:B144:599F:75ED:8217 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From the edit history this is absolutely one of yours. Note the vote. Artw (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They likely doesn't consider their non-neutral RFC or arguments from different IP's as a vote, which is fair enough, but clearly misleading. Regarding openness of their IP's, they are known only where I raised the list on the Sock investigation . Approx list of those I am aware of are here in my sandbox. User has been informed / advised on at least 3 occasions to create an account, including by myself back in November 2016 when at that time was only the two IP. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If there was an actual user attached I would be requesting an immediate ban for the maneuver where they vote under one IP/user and immediately attempt to close under another. I'm surprised that didn't go straight to AN/I. Artw (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Immediately" sounds sinister but if these are the relevant edits they're more than 3 hours apart: vote, close. The related claim "The IP then voted using a new IP address" is accurate but should be clarified: the IP only voted once in the RFC, 3 hours prior to a defensible (but IMHO inappropriate) snow close. Full disclosure: I participated in the RfC. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment All the above is great fun and all, but the initial request was for a reassessment of the RFC voted based on arguments. Are there any univolved Adkins out there who could actually do that? Artw (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NO it was not. You REOPENED an RFC, then  CHANGED the result.  That's what this is about. 2600:1012:B01B:6D00:B144:599F:75ED:8217 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did indeed. And it was reverted (two days ago I’d add) and i was informed of the proper procedure for reviewing an RfC, and here we are. As it turns out you did far worse with an actual intent to deceive. But no matter: It would be nice if we could get to the actual review part without further derails. Artw (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * it does matter.  You are exhibiting behavior that suggests either lunacy or a pathological dishonesty.  There was never, on my part any intent to deceive.  Nor does any evidence support such a ridiculous assertion.  You, on the other hand, RE-OPENED an RFC, CHANGED THE RESULT, and then RECLOSED it.  This does not just suggest bad faith or dishonesty- your behavior IS deception.  The actual literal definition of it.  That is why we are here.  To see if there will be some level of accountability for your blatant disregard of all five pillars of Wikipedia. 2602:301:772D:62D0:DD89:DC80:6EF:3F30 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Civility is also a pillar, so strike your comment now or I will block you. There is no justification for your personal attacks here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown: he's responding to an editor who wrote above: "You canvas like a motherfucker mate. You just apply a level of low-key deniability to it that a child could see through" – which appears to be the first personal attack in this conversation. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that after I wrote my notice, and just ended up blocking both of them for 24 hours. We don't need this kind of behavior here.  One doesn't excuse the other.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In this thread we have seen the following comments that are at least uncivil, and in some cases fairly clear attacks:




 * Perhaps i missed a few, but I think that is quite enough from all involved. 22:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, it has been made very clear that Artw reverted a close and reclsoed it differently. Those changes have now been reverted, and Artw says. If Artw should in future revert or change a close while involved, This discussion will not doubt be cited so show that s/he should have known better. Now can everyone stop throwing insults and aspersions around? Artw has asked for an impartial review of the close, and given the various people arguing with the close, that is a reasonable request. I could have done such a review, but given my exchanges with Artw above, I might now be considered WP:INVOLVED. Will any clearly uninvolved admin or experienced closer step up, please? This isn't by any means the most involved or intractable RfC ever seen on Wikipedia, after all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Closers should be advised of the admitted ("This is rather blatant canvassing by myself") and significant (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) canvassing by Koncorde in that RfC, in addition to the alleged off-site canvassing for the other side. (Again, full disclosure: I was involved in the RfC) James J. Lambden (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if you had left the full context of that sentence in James, "This is rather blatant canvassing by myself to support a due RFC process that has seen the IP canvas on his behalf. Otherwise, you wouldn't find me doing such a thing". I have previously provided such summary to Godric and in each summary or response to anyone in any talk. Only ArtW responded to my request (much to his now assumed misery I am sure) at the RFC. All other users were actually attracted by the canvassing by the IP at the Wordsmiths talk page or (I assume) have the page on their watch-list in some fashion.
 * I did not "canvas" for a win, I allege no "side" other than correct process (such as not deleting the RFC header, and declaring it "closed" so as to not invite further commenters), any suggestion that I picked people who would agree with me is patently not true (as revealed by their actual responses to me). If the RFC was for inclusion, then it gets included, but it should be included appropriately and ideally via consensus not because an IP improperly followed RFC process and tried to WP:SNOW.. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Canvassing in response to canvassing--is not a good argument to put forward.You did show me no-evidence of on-wiki canvassing(other than on Wordsmith's talk) and if you demand all the supporters of inclusion arrived from that particular venue;I may as well say, that the chance that all the opposers arrived from the multiple venues where you canvassed is pretty higher.May-be that was an absolutely good-faith effort from you but somehow the language of the callout et al. do not give that look! Winged Blades Godric  06:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll let 11 years of uninterrupted continuous editing wikipedia and wider contributions to the project speak for myself. As stated, I don't actually care about any such admonishment, and whatever negative response from Editors received is irrelevant to the question of how the RFC was conducted, how it was closed initially, and subsequent questions over the re-closing and changing of the result (which actually bothered me far less than ArtW) subsequent to the IP's appeals across several Talk pages and noticeboards (including at least 3 personally criticising yourself).
 * However; my argument is not merely canvassing vs canvassing, that is an oversimplification. Reducing it down to that does not reflect even a cursory glance at the issues with the RFC that, from the onset, did not meet the standards expected (and I would expect any Closer to recognise that behaviour).
 * I was responding to an IP who demonstrated sock-like behaviour, I was receiving no response to any cases I posted to the noticeboards about the user, the IP had brought the same argument to the table 7 months earlier, rejected a Third Opinion (at the time I was UNINVOLVED), on return created a POV RFC, canvassed Danaa, Wordsmith (and due to nature of IP, an unknown number of others, I believe there was at least one other clear example that you could see from the list of IP's on my sandbox but you'd have to click through all 30+), made arguments in support from several IP, on receiving a few votes in favour despite the issue with the RFC being pointed out to him, voted on own RFC under another completely different IP, then declared it closed under (again) another IP and removed its header from its public venue to cease supporting the veneer of the RFC being legitimate. Mark Bernstein and Jorm (opposers) came from Wordsmith. There is no indication that any user, apart from ArtW, came from my canvassing (and instead I received comments back regarding why it was inappropriate which I readily accepted).
 * That the RFC vote, per your response to ArtW was apparently a headcount, rather than WP:not counting heads is of a wider concern. I argued a case from policy (and had done for months over several instances). The weight of the arguments are meant to be the basis of the decision, and adhering to the policies of wikipedia relating to the content is supposed to be paramount. Koncorde (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * From reading the RFC, imho, Godric's close accurately reflected the consensus, taking into account the various canvassing allegations. The only real ongoing solution to a canvassed RFC, is to set up a new one and advertise it in all the relevant locations. Unless someone is actually going to do that, all the above is hot air. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OID has it right. The RFC was so compromised from the very beginning by bad behavior on both sides, that this was the only close reasonably possible. I find Artw's reclosing to suit his preferred outcome grossly improper, though he does say he was not aware it was inappropriate. My suggestion is to have a new RFC, properly advertised in the correct venues (and only them), to establish a true consensus. Demands that the IP editor create an account are spurious, since creating an account has never been a requirement to participate in discussions. A dynamic IP is not sockpuppetry in any way, shape or form and those accusations need to stop. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would agree that we don't seem likely to see any progress here. I withdraw my request for review, feel free to close. Artw (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup on 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis ?
Could someone with free time take a look at the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis page? The volume of events (and edits) has calmed down enough that it should be possible to have some stability in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it? If I understand you rightly, there's something rather obviously wrong that anyone should be able to see (since you asked for outside review without specifying any details), but I saw no blatantly bad problems, no cleanup tags aside from occasional inline content problems (e.g. fact), and nothing else that could easily and quickly be fixed.  So obviously I'm missing something here, one way or the other.  Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think he's just wanting an uninvolved admin to work the talk page, stay uninvolved and mop and archive the talk page, like I'm doing on Talk:2017 Congressional baseball shooting. He asked me, but I'm a bit busy to monitor two of these.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I've been editing it for the past week as events develop and would like to take a break. It could use a copy-editor ( User:Emir of Wikipedia is doing some of this) and a separate un-involved editor to clean up the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Category creation
I'm performing some R from fictional character tasks and added multiple Tiny Toon Adventures character redirects to Category:Tiny Toon Adventures character redirects to lists. Creation of this category is currently restricted to admins, perhaps because of past vandalism? This is standard naming as subcat of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists, actually generated by the Rcat template itself by using. Can someone please create this category for me? Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 00:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅., no idea why "Tiny Toon" is on the title blacklist (I suspect "porn" reasons), but I've created the page for ya. Feel free to expand the page as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 00:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was added by back in 2012 but with no explanation as to why. I've removed the entry as it is far too broad to be put in the titleblacklist without an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit filters and the Ross fans
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Some sort of glitch in mobile view
Not particularly administrative; I've moved this to WP:VPT. Nyttend (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted RM at Template talk:2016 US Election AE
The ongoing RM discussion at Template talk:2016 US Election AE is relisted, so feel free to comment there until closure. --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing appointed trainee clerk
The arbitration clerks are excited to welcome to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Banned (or rangeblocked) IP still able to edit?
User 41.138.78.20 has edited their talkpage with questions, I have noticed that had rangeblocked 41.138.78.0/24 but the IP is still able to edit? Is there an issue here, or am I missing the meaning of "rangeblocking"? Thanks Nördic   Nightfury  10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked users can edit their own talk pages (unless that setting is disabled which isn't done except in special circumstances) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears I am losing the plot then :). Thanks . Nördic   Nightfury  11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Queryable move and edit request about articles about letters of the Roman alphabet

 * The IPA user User:92.229.96.232 asked for the move Template:Latin alphabet to Template:Latin script; I obeyed. Then User:92.229.96.232 asked me in my user talk page to replace "alphabet" by "script" in the protected pages A B C G L and Roman numerals. So I got doubtful about such a request from an IPA user and reverted the original move and decided to query the matter here. And see Special:Contributions/92.229.96.232 for what he has done so far. His user talk page User talk:92.229.96.232 has no edits (undeleted or deleted). His request to me was "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Latin_alphabet could you replace in the protected articles A, B, C, G, L, Roman numerals "{Latin alphabet}" with "{Latin script}"? ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would stick with "Latin alphabet". I am unfamiliar with the use of "Latin script". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Script" is correct, but it's a jargony term. "Latin alphabet" is probably just as valid and no doubt easier for the average reader to find.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC).
 * @Lankiveil, the "jargony term" is used as the title of the main article and main category to which the template is related, namely Latin script and Category:Latin script. Maybe Anthony Appleyard can explain why he named it like Latin alphabet, which is a subtopic.
 * @Beyond My Ken - if you are unfamiliar with the use of "Latin script", you can obtain information at: Latin script, Category:Latin script, Template:Latin script 77.179.202.221 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want this move made, you must present more cohesive arguments, not simply cite Wikipedia articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, since this is now obviously a controversial move, you must open a RM discussion in a centralized place, such as Talk:Latin script, with neutral pointers to the discussion on Talk:Latin alphabet and the talk pages of the various articles in question. This is no longer an admin concern, this must be decided by WP:consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, I don't think I have too, the more "cohesive arguments" have been made in the WP:RM that Anthony Appleyard deleted. "controversial" is the move that Anthony Appleyard made from Template:Latin script to Template:Latin alphabet. 77.179.202.221 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard removed the request including the rational from WP:RM and performed the move. Later he unilaterally reverted the move, but did not revert the removal from the list at WP:RM nor copied the original request to the talk page so it could properly be discussed. Is that a correct procedure? 77.179.202.221 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm with Lankiveil on this one. While it is true that we have constructed a (rather technical and somewhat idiosyncratic) distinction between Latin alphabet (i.e. the original writing system of the Latin language in antiquity) and Latin script (the abstract superset of the Latin-based writing systems of modern languages worldwide) in these main articles, there really is no need to push this distinction into all sorts of other places where readers won't expect it. As for template names (such as that of Latin alphabet), they are arbitrary strings and not even supposed to be displayed to readers, so simplicity is certainly the most important consideration here. If you want it moved, you can of course propose a regular WP:RM on the template talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf. Regarding "(rather technical and somewhat idiosyncratic) distinction between Latin alphabet" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_script&oldid=779263998#The_latin_script_is_NOT_an_alphabet Good luck! 77.179.202.221 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the noticeboard taking over the work of members of the Wikiproject Writing Systems? Why is this at ANI at all? Anthony Appleyard? 77.179.202.221 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not call it "alphabet"; it was called "alphabet" before I saw the pages involved. If the verdict here is "leave the word as "alphabet"", someone may have to go through Special:Contributions/92.229.96.232 and revert the various changes of "alphabet" to "script" listed therein. Shall I start a discussion in Talk:Latin script, or leave the discussion here?, perhaps pointed to from Talk:Latin script? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anthony Appleyard, you named the template Template:Latin alphabet, that fact is easily visible in the page history. 77.179.202.221 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As that is a content matter, I think it's better discussed on the article talk page rather than here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC).

Anthony Appleyard performed a "controversial" move from Template:Latin script to Template:Latin alphabet. Is this allowed because he is an admin? 77.179.202.221 (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no discussion of this move on Template talk:Latin alphabet. I oppose any convoluted move proposal without discussions on the talk page, and support User:Anthony Appleyard in not conducting the move and removing it from WP:RM at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Note: This IP user's profile (and IP location) seems rather reminiscent of, a long-term banned sockpuppeter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was named Template:Latin alphabet from way back. As stated above, I routinely obeyed a request to move it to Template:Latin script, but soon afterwards I reverted that move. I did not invent the idea of using the word "alphabet". It was not moved before, except way back at 14:38, 4 October 2006 when User:Dbachmann moved Template:Latin alphabet to Template:Unicode Latin (which at 06:50, 11 April 2007 was deleted), and changed the resulting left-behind redirect into a new template Template:Latin alphabet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/92.229.96.232; all his contributions were in one big rush between 21:00 and 22:17 on 13 June 2017, and none since or before. Should I revert those edits? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

G13 eligible help?
I personally cleared a 1200 page backlog at than discovered there were hundreds more G13 eligible pages not added to the category. Something got fixed and today the list has balloned from zero to over 1100 pages. I just found out a bot used to CSD this junk. Is there any way someone can automate the CSDing again? It's only a matter of time before some bot or well meaning AWB user or delinking effort touches the pages and restarts the 6 months clock. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've deleted... somewhere upward of 1,000 of these. Twinkle's D-Batch makes this easy - perhaps too easy.  I figured that if a bot used to do this then D-Batch could do it just as well.  If I've done wrong, could someone let me know?  GoldenRing (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * HasteurBot only tagged these, it didn't delete them. In theory, at least, the admin patrolling these is supposed to take at least a cursory glance at what he's doing and defer anything with potential, not robodelete more than 1300 pages in under two minutes without even the standard pointer to WP:REFUND for retrieval.  —Cryptic 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If consensus is that batch deletion is the wrong approach I'm very happy to undelete them and start working through them more slowly. GoldenRing (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Undeleting en masse would be overkill, but taking a second look at the deleted articles might be worthwhile. I looked through the first (most recent chronologically) 150 in that log; only Draft:Three Rivers Regional Library System struck me as salvageable, and that only if someone feels like finding some non-primary sources for it.  (It's not the same subject as the existing mainspace article Three Rivers Regional Library System.)  There were a couple more near misses - drafts that would have survived AFD as-is, but had better mainspace articles created after the drafts were rejected.  Draft:The Search For Everything (at The Search for Everything) and Draft:Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology were typical.  Also a handful of images to be brought to FFD or c:COM:DR.  This was about the same percentage of drafts that need a little more attention that I see when deleting tagged G13s. —Cryptic 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * so there is no misunderstanding I was looking for a CSD tag to be applied enmass. An Admin would then assess them quickly. I've been manually assessing and CSDing but then the Admin also assesses which is duplicating my work. Very very occasionally I see something worth promoting or postponing but presumably the Admin would make the same judgement as I would to postpone. There remain many G13 eligible pages in AfC declined categories. I found several in the last few minutes. Hesteurbot has more to do to ID these.    Legacypac (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking over the list I see a bunch of redirects from user to draft space deleted dependant on a deleted page. There is no point even looking at those. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, but there's no way to exclude them from the log listing. They're a fairly small minority, anyway: 1106 of the 1329 deletions in that run were summarized "G13 (TW)". —Cryptic 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats about typical for % of pages moved to draft vs started in draft. I'm working hard to clean up AfC backlogs. If we want to push thru ACTRIAL in some form we need AfC in better shape not stuffed full of garbage and unreviewed drafts. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that drafts not awaiting review don't contribute towards the backlog total. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yes and no. The +/-1800 waiting for review excludes the rest, but many of the pages in the larger pool will be resubmitted multiple times perhaps for years without reaching N or correcting other issues. If we miss the chance to delete them at 6 months many will add back into the review backlog. A large percentage of the review backlog is resubmissions. Make sense? Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it- thanks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I simply make the comment that if G13-eligible pages were meant to be deleted automatically, Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions would not exist and AfC submission would place old drafts in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions directly. Now if someone wants to make a proposal for G13 CSD nominations made by extended confirmed users for pages that have never had G13 postponed to be auto-nuked by a bot, then I'd be open to that, but I don't think auto-nuking everything without any review is appropriate. The signal-to-noise ratio in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions may be about 1 to 20, but that 1 article is important. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion is a serious business event, and one that very few (if any) bots ever get approved for. HasteurBot simply evaluted the page to determine if it was eligible under a higher bar than the current wording of G13 (6 months completely unedited). At 5 months unedited, it'd drop a notice on the creating user's talk page letting them know that their page is in danger of being nominated under G13. At the 6 month mark unedited, it would go through and procedurally nominate for G13. Admins were usually pretty calm about HB's nominations because we took the more conservative position in nominations. I can take some time and dust off my processes, but I'd prefer to wait for this proposal to finish before I start tinkering with the process. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, pretty clearly I misunderstood what the bot used to do and batch deletion was the wrong option here. My reading of the above discussion is that it's not worth undeleting then all but that I should go back through my deletion log and check them all to see if there's anything salvageable - so unless anyone strenuously objects to that procedure, I'll get on with it.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and for clarity I was only hoping a bot could do the work I, as a lowly user, was doing - CSD nominations. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

She's So California
She's So California has been tagged for G6 speedy deletion for two days now. Is there a reason no one has gotten to it yet? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been moved. Keep in mind that it's the weekend, so things may take slightly longer than usual. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 03:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * can you also please get Wendy Waldman? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 03:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ss112
This editor is condescending and rude towards anyone he disagrees with. Anytime he undoes an edit he is passive aggressive and hostile in the most discrete way he can think. I have tried time and time again to explain to him how certain things in the music industry works but he calls everything he knows nothing about "not constructive" if you call him out for being passive aggressive in the undo edit explanations. I don't care if he's been here since 06. I actually make articles, meanwhile he runs around irritating people by nitpicking at the slightest pettiest things like undoing factual information because it won't show up in a source for another hour. The guy literally just assumes the worst of everyone and thinks any editor who hasn't been here for a decade just edits pages to trash them lol i'm done with his nonsense. I'm obviously not the first nor the 10th editor to become annoyed of him because I've seen his talk page in the past. So why doesn't someone tell him to be less condescending and stop assuming everyone's out to ruin wikipedia. BlaccCrab (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some diffs which illustrate this behaviour? Also, I've notified the user of this discussion per the instructions at the top of the page -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to go back and dig up specific instances because frankly most of them are from a few months back and I need to go about my day. He's going to come on here and talk about how uncivil I am but he knows damn well that he edits as if he's a professor scolding incompetent students and i'm tired of him getting away with it just because he's been here a decade. We're both 25 year old men, i am not a child. He can speak to me as a grown man would speak to another grown man if he disagrees with an edit I make. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I hope we'd all conduct ourselves as though we would in person - I'm not entirely sure what it is about Wikipedia which makes everyone so pent up, but WP:CALM has some rather good tips. I'll have a dig through their contributions, and hopefully we'll be hearing from when they're next around. Maybe this report will make them consider the tone they take when communicating with other editors?  -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will make an effort to be less indignant if he would just take the time to be more straightforward and less uppity when editing. I don't want to cause any hassle for admins or for one another. BlaccCrab (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, BlaccCrab and Ss112. I'm not sure whether to get involved with your disputes, especially this one and that one. I could provide more diffs if anyone wants me to. George Ho (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I previously reported BlaccCrab to ANI in November for persistently reverting me on my talk page; see here. He was blocked by Ritchie333 for disruption. BlaccCrab reverted me on my talk page yesterday, then undid his own edit two minutes later just to write another attack summary. True, I reverted him after, but to inform him that I would be reporting him to Ritchie333, as I was not wanting to post on his talk page—where I then discovered he had left a section titled "Paging SS12". Ritchie333 later removed this, citing WP:POLEMIC.

BlaccCrab has a history of directly insulting editors he doesn't like. The previous thread I started on him that I link to above also has diffs to instances where he called me a "jackass" and an "up tight virgin" for reverting him. Meanwhile, I have never directly insulted BlaccCrab. I don't believe my edit summaries in this instance were condescending. Here I removed a section BlaccCrab started titled "Hop off" and beginning with "My lord man...", where I said "Don't start discussions on people's talk pages with the heading "hop off". How do you think that's going to lead to anything productive?" Then another section he titled "Sweet", where he basically told me he knows more than me about promotion in the music industry, I reverted with the summary "Unless you have something constructive to say, please stop with the talk page messages." I think that is a reasonable request. There was no intended condescension there. For BlaccCrab to assume he knows more about promotion in the music industry and is here to "educate" me about it is the condescending thing. He's not telling me anything I don't already know he thinks, and thus it reads like condescension after his attacks from the past and in his summaries. What sourced information I'm being accused, without diffs, of removing here—and why I would—I don't know, but the other day BlaccCrab was incensed that I reverted him on Fetty Wap discography here because he removed a Bubbling Under peak and replaced it with an inaccurate number, which is against WP:USCHARTS. This report is full of assumptions and things that I have never said nor believe—for instance, I don't believe every user needs to have been here for a decade, nor do I think others are out to "ruin Wikipedia". As for another accusation, if "nitpicking" is undoing edits where BlaccCrab says a song is not a single despite several reputable sources calling it one, then I think that's a misuse of the term. For me to be criticised for my tone by an editor who has been blocked for reverting and insulting me is hypocritical, to say the least. Ritchie333 warning BlaccCrab yesterday should have been the end of this.  Ss 112  01:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do know more than you. I'm in the music industry. Literally all you do is undo minor edits and complain. You haven't created an article in 2 years as far as anyone can tell. Which is why people like you ruin wikipedia. Have a good one. BlaccCrab (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Nobody knows you're in the music industry, so you could be making that up for all anybody here knows. Regardless, claims of expertise in one area does not mean you have any more right to be doing something than another editor. I've created and contributed to plenty of articles (there's off-Wiki counters for that, you can look it up), I just don't update my user page with them. Pretty sure I didn't get to 160,000+ edits only "undoing minor edits and complaining".  Ss 112  08:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and By the way, is this report in the right place? This should be at ANI.  Ss  112  02:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the report is in the wrong place, Ss112, feel free to move it to there. However, ANI threads are archived if left without response for three days. Nevertheless, I was told that ANI venue is more visited there than here. If you want to move it, here are moved discussion to and moved discussion from. George Ho (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC); oops, 03:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be allowed to do so, but I don't feel it's appropriate as it's not my report. If BlaccCrab wishes for more editors to check out my contributions and offer more comments, then he should move the report. However, he should consider WP:BOOMERANG, as his actions directly preceding this report are the same kind of thing he was previously blocked for doing.  Ss 112  03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies. BlaccCrab, wanna do that? George Ho (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Rescinding encouragement per my talk page and above post by Ss112. George Ho (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this thread should be closed by an admin or non-admin as soon as possible. I'm not sure what BlaccCrab thinks is going to happen here, but if anybody should face action, it is he for repeating the actions (reverting somebody at their talk page and leaving attacking edit summaries) that got him blocked previously. Yes, most Wikipedia editors, including myself, need to watch their tone. I certainly am guilty of condescension at times. However, there was no condescension this time as far as I can see, only a refusal on my part to engage in talk page bickering, which is what it has descended into with BlaccCrab in the past, whereby he then feels free to hurl insults like "jackass" and "up tight virgin" at me. He has previously been asked not to post on my talk page, and I don't need to be educated on "music industry promotion" as he thinks I do. I have nothing to hide, but I think if this is moved to ANI, BlaccCrab's actions will definitely be called into question more than mine with the diffs I linked to above. I repeat, this should be closed ASAP, as it is a waste of time on everybody's part.  Ss 112  07:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY is a two way street.. I don't think we should rush to close this until we see where the boomerang lands. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If BlaccCrab isn't going to bring the diffs forward then this should be closed forthwith. If one is going to complain about someone, being the diffs. Blackmane (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Exploring how the Edit filter can be used to combat harassment
Hello! I’d like to invite you to participate in a discussion about how the Edit filter (also known as AbuseFilter) can potentially be used to combat harassment. The Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking into improving performance and adding functionality and we need your input to make our work successful. Join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Community  health  initiative  on  English  Wikipedia. I hope to see y’all there! — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the Anti-Harassment Tools team


 * I hope folks are paying mind to this. The WMF has committed to getting involved in intra-enWP management of harassment via software tools. I am pretty uncomfortable with this but they are at least trying hard to reach out early in the process. This could be a great tool to help admins and the community, and this could turn into something very icky. It needs our attention. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Put under Discretionary Sanctions via American Politics 2?
The article 2017 Congressional baseball shooting has settled down now. Even at peak, it was pretty smooth. I delayed moving this under Arb disretionary sanctions (ie ) as things went smoothly to be so busy, and it would have been more difficult to manage when it was new and edits were flying.

The question now is, does this fully fit under American Politics 2 or not? Politics isn't the primary focus, but it seems obvious to me that there is a strong political element to it. Since I figured some might have an argument against, I wanted to get input from admin with more experience with American Politics articles, as that is something I normally avoid. I'm guessing we don't need to log this if we do? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It fits, and it falls under the sanctions because it's under the topic area - whether or not an admin adds the template.--v/r - TP 14:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Having the template makes it more fair to enforce as all editors will know. I'm just getting feelers as to whether the article as a whole should be added.  Again, not an area I normally patrol. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with that it fits and falls under the sanctions. The template should be added. It has multiple different controversial aspects to the topic. Sagecandor (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dennis: The template actually doesn't change the fairness. Each editors is still required to be personally made aware of the existence of the DS.  A template at the top of the page doesn't ensure that.--v/r - TP 16:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ITN, inappropriate admin actions and shutdown of any discussion.
Earlier today the article on the Finsbury park attack was posted to ITN despite a clear lack of consensus to do so. The admin's subsequent response is far below the expectation required for an explanation 'Go to ERRORS if you dont like it'. This has subsequently been disputed at the ITN until Bencherlite decided to shut down the discussion with a rationale that includes the laughable statement that 'ITN has traditionally be able to tell the difference between the trivial and the appropriate' - when even a brief look at ITN's history shows it is full of what is popular amongst the participating editors, trivial or appropriateness not being concerns of many of them. Firstly I would like an impartial review of the consensus at the time of posting, followed by pulling the item if it is found there was no consensus to post it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean unanimity. Further discussion there is not likely to be productive, so the actions of Bencherlite are quite appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually from the way the comments were going, it was clear that further discussion was indicating the item should be pulled. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read the section. I see people who wanted it pulled, but not indication that it "should be pulled". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They wanted it pulled but secretly, and completely unstated, felt it 'should' stay? Any other imaginary motives you want to impart to them? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that it was all "pull because I opposed and I still do" which is not really how things work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what I meant. Consensus was post and some people won't accept that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the posting admin hasn't provided a helpful reply when challenged on his talk page. However, as far as Bencherlite is concerned, he did provide a thorough rationale: Posted and will remain so. The arguments against posting are/were (1) an IP saying that the article was not sufficiently developed (not now relevant); (2) a comment that this was not a terrorist attack (well, it's being treated as one by police since it strongly appears to be a targeted attack on Muslims); (3) an argument that it was routine for London (not an argument that commanded support); (4) - and this was the main argument - that the same incident elsewhere in the world would not be posted and so it is trivial / lacking appropriate newsworthiness. The stronger arguments are the counter-arguments, namely that (a) newsworthiness will inevitably include a degree of location specificity i.e. what is newsworthy in London may not be so in a capital city elsewhere in the world and vice versa, and (b) ITN has traditionally be able to tell the difference between the trivial e.g. the Kardashian family's exploits and the appropriate e.g. a UK terrorist attack specifically targeting Muslims when the UK does not have a history of such attacks. Comparisons between events that were or were not posted is not always terribly helpful, since ITN can only work on the consensus of those who participate in any particular discussion, ITN does not run on a formal system of precedent (outside ITNR), and a failure to post can in some circumstances be explained by the absence of a nomination or a decent article. Overall, my view is that sufficient time has elapsed for discussion and that the consensus here, involving number and quality of arguments, is in favour of keeping this posted. Participants are welcome to discuss the general question of ITN's approach to stories in different countries but not under this heading, thank you. And, to me, his rationale seems to be sound. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with BQ) A quick response to say: I stand by my decision; I won't lose any sleep, however, if the consensus is that my decision was wrong; more admins are always welcome to help out at ITNC; and please be assured that not every decision you will make at ITNC will be fought over like this! BencherliteTalk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The synopsis above seems sufficient that I don't need to repeat it, except to note that I was misquoted, a strange thing to do considering that my comments can be read. Unlike what Only in Death claims in his complaint, I never said what he said I did.  Regarding why it was posted, I posted it because I judged consensus to support doing so. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see it posted because the last time I checked, it was evenly split, which was far from consensus. There was no rationale for why there was consensus other than the admin just felt there was enough. The fact there were 7 Pull votes after it was posted shows consensus was premature. They were also rudely accused of having "sour grapes" for wanting it to be pulled. TL565 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem here is with personal preference. Some editors consider a terrorist attack on an ethnic minority using a vehicle in a country where such crimes are rare more important than a gun attack on a politician in a country where gun crimes aren't rare.  There's a huge amount of subjectivity, and as we know, our audience is highly slewed towards US contributors who may associate more with the latter story than the former.  That at least one of the "pull" voters had already voted as "oppose" was a completely transparent way of demonstrating "sour grapes", i.e. I had my say, it didn't go my way, so I object.  Consensus is not formed simply from a binary comparison of yay's and nay's.  And to top that all nicely, we have the "assassination attempt" shooting which was posted (with dubious consensus, at least similar to this) where, once posted, it was simply accepted, and we all moved on.  There's nothing wrong here, if people object to the items being posted at ITN, (a) post more candidates (b) work to get people to support rather than yell about opposing and pulling.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Or (c) write some articles! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a consensus to post this. After the posting, many people objected - yet that was ignored. The support for this being posted is just that the specifics of this minor domestic event and its media coverage make it important. Will we report it if there are unusual types of attack against other religions or ethnicities? Unusual doesn't mean notable or important. Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the third time, the posting admin judged the quality of argument and deemed that there was a consensus. Arguing against that is pointless.  The sooner we all realise that "consensus" does not equal "vote counting" the easier this kind of debate will be.  As for claiming it to not be notable, please see WP:AFD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what happened, but the judgement was wrong. The arguments to post were bogus. I never said or thought that consensus is the same a vote-counting. It shouldn't have been posted. After it was wrongly posted, it should have been pulled.Jim Michael (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you actually said "The arguments to post were bogus"? Wow.  That's sufficient for me to leave this to you to dig yourself out of that one! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I stand by that. Several people said that during the discussion (using different words). Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide at least four examples of "bogus" arguments please, with diffs? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do that, but the arguments included the amount of media coverage, this being rare/unique and the victims being Muslim and the perp non-Muslim. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are presumably aware of the whole raison d'etre of ITN? You've covered a couple of them just there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We'd be swamped by trivial stories about reality TV participants if we went by media coverage.Jim Michael (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You realise this attack was covered by the BBC, The New York Times, etc etc? You are completely alone claiming this is all about "media coverage". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So are huge numbers of events which aren't of major importance - especially in the summer. Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha, we're getting there now, your own personal interpretation of importance rather than adhering to the purpose of ITN. Say no more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A common sense interpretation, put forward by several people during the discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything with that many discussion comments, evenly divided between support and oppose, is likely to be news of a political nature, and should generally be covered for a brief period of time. A "no consensus" assessment should default to including it on the front page. Other stories (perhaps Travis Kalanick's resignation or Karen Handel's win in GA-06) will naturally push it off the front page in 24-48 hours. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would open the way for loads of events of marginal importance to be posted with little discussion. In order to be posted, it should have clear consensus in favour. Jim Michael (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is claiming there was "little discussion" in this case. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was arguing against the suggestion in the comment immediately above mine. Jim Michael (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be more clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was very clear. That comment is indented & immediately below the one I was replying to. Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's a good viewpoint. That it has attracted so much discussion probably means it's attractive to our readers.  Perhaps such over-discussed topics should, by default, be posted once they reach 10,000 bytes of meaningless "he said, she said, I don't like it"-style arguments!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties spring to mind as much more controversial topics displayed on the main page where I closed the discussion after WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more bytes than this one... and nobody dragged me to AN or ARBCOM about those. Hey-ho... BencherliteTalk 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'll drag you to Arcbomb, it's been at least a week since I was a featured Abrcomber, and I have to say, I kind of miss those guys, especially the ones who have gone AWOL..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The details of Kim Kardashian's life are attractive to huge numbers of readers. We should be posting important events only. Jim Michael (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And those items wouldn't be covered by Wikipedia per WP:N. Please, this is simple, if you believe the item to be non-notable, AFD is that way, if you believe the admins can't judge consensus, ARBCOM (!!) is the other way.  If you just want to keep the encyclopedia ticking over with things that would GENUINELY INTEREST OUR ENGLISH LANGUAGE READERS, then please, think again about all this objection.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that in this case, the decision was wrong, not that admins in general are wrong. That's why I'm in this discussion. Everyone makes mistakes. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But you realise that a huge portion of our readership is interested in this story, right? Like where it says at WP:ITN under "Purpose":
 * "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."
 * "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events."
 * "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them."
 * "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource."
 * This story ticked all four boxes and was posted because strong arguments in favour of the story meeting the purpose of ITN were met, not just conceding to the "I don't like it" brigade. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The large majority of stories that are in the news aren't posted at ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite rightly. Your point being?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My point,that I've made several times, is that this event is nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're conflating arguments now. We aren't discussing the majority of stories in the news, we aren't discussing whether this is "nowhere near important enough" (of course, it was, it was posted, had consensus, has an article, unless you've AFD'ed it?).  Your position is so confusing that I think it's best if you just propose your new approach to ITN in an RFC so we can all discuss it and vote on it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn't have consensus, as several people said in the discussion after it was posted. I'm not arguing for the article to be deleted. I'm saying it's nowhere near important enough to be on ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you're conflating arguments, either it was badly posted or not, either it had consensus or not, either the admin posting was negligent or not, this "nowhere near important enough" line, which is laughable considering the international coverage it received. It didn't go your way, or the way of some of the others, we get that. It was posted by one of the few trustworthy admins.  If you don't think he did the right thing, please initiate his desysop at Arbcom.  And if you don't like the way ITN works, re-work it via RFC.  Right now, nothing wrong has happened.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * News coverage doesn't equal importance. This gained huge media coverage because it's the type of story that the media love to sensationalise. No-one is desysopped for one mistake. Jim Michael (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Jim, I do agree that we should be posting important events only. But then, how do you define "important events"? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what we need to create clear guidelines for. Jim Michael (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have them, see WP:ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We need better guidelines, so that we only include important events. Worse terror attacks than this one happen every single day. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to review your proposal. In the meantime, we have what we have, so tactically voting against it is harmful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a clear and sound argument for not posting it - I didn't merely vote. Jim Michael (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So your silence was your objection? Please, let us know your plan for new ITN guidelines.  It's clear we're not getting anywhere at all here, so once you have the RFC in place, I'm certain it'll garner a huge amount of interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm wary of the idea that an item should be pulled from ITN because some believe there wasn't consensus. It's the job of the posting admin to judge that consensus - if you don't agree, just move on. Some you win, some you lose. Items should only be pulled if the article is of substandard quality, or if it was posted without sufficient discussion. Neither applies here. The quality is good, and there was ample time given for editors to air their views before a decision was takenPawnkingthree (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

New comment
My comment was (reasonably) mis-interpreted as being part of a thread above, I'm re-posting it here independently.

Anything with that many discussion comments, evenly divided between support and oppose, is likely to be news of a political nature, and should generally be covered for a brief period of time. A "no consensus" assessment should default to including it on the front page. Other stories (perhaps Travis Kalanick's resignation or Karen Handel's win in GA-06) will naturally push it off the front page in 24-48 hours. As multiple people are seriously injured or dead, this is definitely a news story and not merely tabloid gossip. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that suggestion, for the reasons I've given above. Jim Michael (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. Your remarks above as stated are unclear as to whether any point is replying to me or The Rambling Man. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In this comment, I'm replying to you. Your suggestion would result in many things being posted after short discussions with few editors and no consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems (to me) to be precisely the opposite. Should a nomination gather KB of discussion, it's probably a shoo-in for ITN as it's something our readers will be having the same kind of debate over.  This isn't to do with "short discussions", "few editors" or "no consensus", it's to do with serving our readers.  That's why we're here, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because they could have been canvassed from outside WP. Jim Michael (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that would be cause for over-turning a "no consensus" ruling. See WP:CONSENSUS. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - TRM's comment that opponents of this post should resort to AFD struck me as ludicrous, so as I newbie I did some research. The ITN standards say we should "address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated." #2 and #3 make sense, but on WP notability is a very specific concept. Is it the general consensus that the requirement for notability on ITN is the same as notability in general (i.e. meriting a unique article)? If so, this is clearly not understood by the voters at ITN/C. If not, a different word should be used in the ITN guidelines.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment First, I, too, was surprised to see this posted. As several editors have pointed out, there was no concensus to post this.  But I would go a step further.  If you look at the !votes, editors were trending against posting this.  If anything, it should have been closed with no action.
 * Second, what Bencherlite did was flat out wrong. Under no circumstance should an active, civil discussion among editors editing in good faith be shut down.  Shame on you.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything in both the comments immediately above this one. Notability for ITN is at a much higher bar than notability for an article. If it were the same, then we'd be posting many new items to ITN every day. The notability criteria for ITN should be clearer. Yes, the discussion was ongoing, fast-moving and involved many editors. There certainly was not a consensus to post it, nor reason to shut down the active debate. There were more good reasons not to post it than good reasons to post it. I've remained civil and logical throughout, but have been talked down to as though I'm an idiot. Jim Michael (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To expand upon my previous post, many of the early no !votes were for inclusion. But once it was realized that this was not a major terrorist attack as first believed, but a minor terrorist/hate crime, the !votes were trending against inclusion.
 * In fact, at first it was unknown how many people were killed. Five?  A dozen??  Well, it turned out that only one person was killed.  But then it turned out not even that.  The one person who was supposedly killed was already laying on the ground receiving first aid before the attack.
 * I'm not re-arguing the discussion, I am simply pointing out why the discussion trending was against posting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 incorrectly concluded the consensus was in favor of inclusion when in fact the opposite was closer to the truth. Bencherlite compounded this mistake by closing down an active discussion between editors discussing in good faith.  So far, neither is willing to admit their mistakes or do anything to correct their mistakes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment as a "news" functionality, time is of the essence. Expecting discussion to continue indefinitely is unreasonable. If anyone has a general proposal against including these types of stories (i.e. "no terrorist attacks listed unless there are 10 confirmed deaths"), please make one (but preferably on Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news). Power~enwiki (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting discussion to continue indefinitely.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: my opinion -
 * I think it's extremely unfair to allege that Bencherlite made a mistake, let alone was acting in bad faith. This is the same editor who made this edit, and is clearly following Wikipedia's modus operandi. It's possible Bencherlite is on the wrong side of consensus here but that's hardly a "mistake".
 * Having said that I think Jayron32 should explain in greater detail why he posted the nomination. When the nomination is controversial the closing administrator should make some effort to explain the decision, especially when the decision is challenged. Jayron32's explanation also ought to be different from Bencherlite's, because they made their decisions at different times with different information available.
 * I think it's silly that much of this discussion is basically a continuation (in spirit) of the discussion at ITN. Solve the problem, not argue endlessly about it.
 * In my opinion the best way to resolve this is to get an uninvolved administrator to assess consensus. That administrator's assessment should be binding and final by common agreement. Bencherlite is such an administrator actually, but I doubt Bencherlite would object to a third opinion. I'd have suggested Spencer or Thryduulf, but they both participated. Maybe someone like xaosflux or Iridescent could do it, if they dare. Banedon (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing down an active discussion and posting the article to ITN without consensus are definitely wrong actions.
 * The reason that the discussion started with more support than opposition is the false reports by the media that ten people had been killed at the scene. When it was realised that the media had got the death toll badly wrong, opinion turned against posting. There wasn't such a mistake by the media in regard to the Paris and Brussels attacks this month - so there wasn't support for them to be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's completely 100% untrue. The discussion started with a number of "wait"s.  The nomination made no note of ten people being killed, in fact it was ultra cautious: "...  if there are fatalities ...".  I cannot see one single individual making a comment relating to ten people being killed.  I saw the story on the news approximately two hours after the nomination and at no point did I ever see any claim of ten fatalities.  Plenty of support votes came in after mine, mainly relating to the cultural significance of the attack.  Opposition was based mainly on "it's not as gory as the other such events" yet mainly failed to note that the death-free (perp excluded) gun attack in the States was posted only a few days earlier.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRM here - there is no reading of the discussion that could support Jim Michael's theory. There was not a single vote in support on the basis of "there were ten deaths." The nomination was supported because not because of any speculative death toll but because of the unusual circumstances of the attack - a non-Muslim mimicking ISIS's vehicle-ramming tactics to deliberately target and injure Muslims in a major Western capital, which was what made it newsworthy. Also I repeat the point I raised above - a dispute over whether there was consensus should not, in my opinion, be grounds for pulling an item from ITN. Only a substandard article or a overly brief discussion time should qualify. The Finsbury Park article is already down to fourth place on ITN as I write this, and will be off the main page soon if people just work on nominating more stories.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw media reports in the early hours which said 'ten people killed'. Those wrong reports were changed later. I didn't say that people in the discussion said that ten were killed - I said that was likely why they supported it. Vehicle-ramming has been used as an attack method for years before IS was founded. The support for it was just that the specifics of the attack are unusual - but only in so much as the attacker was white. An item being posted without consensus is wrong. That clearly means it should be pulled. There's also the issue of the active discussion being closed prematurely - there was no justification for that.
 * The 2017 Congressional baseball shooting shouldn't have been posted either. I didn't enter that discussion because the consensus was very strongly in favour of posting.
 * Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not one shred of evidence that 10 dead was in the article, reported or anyone supported based on that. Your assertion is incorrect, and most people said wait in any case.  I was about fourth to comment and I read the specifics.  If American press got it wrong, so what?  Not one single individual here mentioned it, supported based on it, claiming otherwise is pure speculation and almost certainly incorrect.  Vehicle ramming of Muslims by white Brits is unique.  Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, if your claim is true, I'm sure someone would have added that claim of ten deaths to the article at some point in its history. But no.  That never happened and I've checked.  So please, stop that line of claim.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And as for the consensus being "very strongly in favour of posting" the US shooting with no fatalities or any consequences, just vote counting comes to 15-10 in support, I'd hardly suggest that's a "very strong" consensus, particularly when people are arguing this is "an attempted shooting of a member of congress"! So what?  It failed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing more to add here, unless the OP and its supporters believe the admin was in dereliction of his duty and wish to seek his desysop, then this should be closed as a storm in a teacup because not everyone can be pleased all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment purely for clarification. It has come to my attention that some people believe I made the nomination in the belief that there were likely multiple fatalities. This is correct. And knowing what we do now, I doubt I would have made the nomination. That said, I don't think that the posting admin misinterpreted consensus at the time and and I'm not seeing any inappropriate admin actions here. As to whether or not the incident should be pulled given what we now know about it, I am ambivalent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the claim was that the support for the nomination came from that incorrect reporting, not the original nomination, which actually didn't even include a claim of multiple fatalities. Just for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll step up, if you like.— S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Another closer please!— S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it.  As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious.  You might as well just go ahead and close it.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * thoughts? Nobody else is stepping up.— S Marshall  T/C 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree. :)— S Marshall  T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go back to what I said 4 comment above. The milieux  can be very difficult to close because of the wording.  I thought the reverted close was a very good attempt to make sense out of M.3 in that it focused on what the consensus there actually agreed on, but that aroused a storm and nobody seems to be able to agree on what was actually agreed on.  Concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, is very much the opposite and I think can be easily closed.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll help close it, but I think the section below the actual RFC should be considered as well, since they're actively discussing the RFC and how to proceed. Maybe we should wait just a little while longer to see how that develops. Katietalk 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. No point in cutting off productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, and S Marshall: I'm going to close a couple separate milieus that receive huge opposition. Casliber, the proposer, is fine with it. However, may I summarize the tally votes as just short rationales? I'll leave the others open. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, . It'll make the overall close a bit cleaner. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed milieu 1 and milieu 5. I closed milieu 2 as "no consensus", but I commented that another closer can summarize that better than me. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind and briefly summarized milieu 2. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1, and Concrete proposal 2 are closed by. Give Godric thanks for the closures. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC); rescinding this consideration. 18:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Milieu 4 and Concrete proposal 3 still remain. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank Gamebuster19901 for closing Milieu 4 (closed as "there is consensus") and Proposal 3 (closed as "no consensus"). Now I shall ping Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, and S Marshall about this, so they can do the teamwork closure more efficiently. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

While I think three closers should suffice, I welcome and don't object to one or more <U>additional closers if necessary. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC); edited, 18:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. The whole discussion is archived into Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 27. Re-pinging Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, and S Marshall for the latest update. To re-summarize, milieus #1, #2, and #5 did not receive consensus. Neither did concrete proposals #2 and #3. I'll recap milieus #3 and #4, which received support from consensus: "Milieu 3: 'The balancing COI and privacy/outing means that the only option is that people investigating COI must submit information in private to the relevant people. Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this.' Closing rationale: 'There is consensus for the proposal with the obvious caveat, that this approach needs a lot .Many have clarified that other bodies shall only refer to editors who have been vetted by the community to handle sensitive and personally identifying information.There has been concerns about the use of the word only as it seems to nullify on-wiki processes based on CU and behaviorial evidence.' Milieu 4: 'We need to balance privacy provided to those editing in good faith against the requirements of addressing undisclosed paid promotional editing. To do so can be achieved with a private investigation with some release of results publicly to help with the detection of further related accounts. These details may include the name of the Wikipedia editing company with which the account is associated (such as for example the connections drawn here)' Closing rationale: 'There is consensus for the above proposal, with a condition that the proposal must be clarified to remove vaugeness, and that any information released must be limited to 'employer, client, and affiliation'. More specifically, the information that is to be clarified is: <ol><li>Who is doing the investigating? (this looks like it's covered by Milieu 3)</li><li>What information is to be released? The proposer has stated in the discussion below (and other editors agreed) that the information that is released is to be limited to 'employer, client, and affiliation'. This renders the argument of wp:outing invalid, which really was the only argument brought up on the oppose side.</li></ol>'"

The following is already posted to Harassment per consensus: "There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." However, even when archived, because of the nature of the whole issue discussed at RfC discussion, I would believe that more discussion is needed to resolve discrepancy between the WMF essay and WP:OUTING. Thank you all participants for voting on all milieus and proposals, all volunteers (including myself) for closures (and attempted closures ^_^), the proposers, etc. Now I should announce the results elsewhere. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

About this remark, I wonder whether archiving the discussion into Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 27 without a thorough full closure was proper. Pinging Primefac, S Marshall, and KrakatoaKatie if to ask whether they wish to pursue the joint closure further. George Ho (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

After reading responses from Smallbones, I was convinced that a fresher, newer discussion is desired. For those interested in this serious issue, feel free to continue discussing this at WT:PAID then. --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of deletions related to NOTDIR
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. This closure is without prejudice for renomination of any specific page, the original nominator is urged to review the comments below before renominating individual pages. — xaosflux  Talk 03:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

After a great deal of consideration, I have nominated a bunch of articles and templates for deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The policy says Wikipedia should not be a directory of programs aired by broadcasters, which puts quite a few list articles and navigation templates into conflict with the policy. It's not a new policy by any means, but we have collectively been allowing these list articles to be created for years. I think it's time we applied the policy firmly.

Here are the deletion discussions I started today:


 * Eight TV program templates, seven of them violating NOTDIR while the eighth is a container for the seven.
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Seven Network which includes discussion of eight related list articles.
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Geo TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney XD
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by MTV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by GMA Network
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Toonami
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Hallmark Channel
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Animax
 * Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia) (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Science
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Fox Channel Asia
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by MTV in Asia
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by National Geographic
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nat Geo Wild
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (Southeast Asia)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Star World
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Channel V
 * Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by TVB
 * Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ViuTVsix
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Tokyo Broadcasting System
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Arirang TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Korean Broadcasting System
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by JTBC
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by &TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by BIG Magic
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Colors (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by DD National
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel (India)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Life OK
 * Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Raj TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by SAB TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Sahara One
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television (India)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Star Plus
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Zee TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nepal Television
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Hum TV
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Pakistan
 * Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon
 * Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by PTV

I could use help in gathering together more of these list articles and navigation templates so that the discussions are centralized relative to encyclopedia-wide policy rather than limited to users who have a specific area of interest. I bundled eight AfDs at Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Seven Network but those are only for Australia; the same basic policy concerns will be applicable globally. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop nominating immediately. If you're going to go after a whole class of articles, either do it as a single multiple nomination or a single nomination that tests consensus. Starting several dozen discussions at once is some serious bludgeoning of the process. Moreover, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood NOTDIRECTORY. NOTDIRECTORY says we're not a TV guide. It doesn't say we don't create list articles to group closely related articles... Actually, fairly undecided on whether these fail NOTDIRECTORY thinking about it some more. Still, please handle these either in a single nomination or space them out over time. AfD can't handle 50+ nominations from one editor in a day. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread NOTDIR. Key language is this (emphasis mine). Documenting what major programs have aired on a network over time seems completely acceptable, as long as WP:V can be met. --M ASEM  (t) 21:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about selective nominating. Every Australian channel, yet only a handful of other country lists. Also nominates every Australian programming template, but none of the American, British, Canadaian, etc templates? Did the nominator even read NOTDIRECTORY which, as Masem pointed out, explicitly has an exception for "significant program lists." If the nominator wants to revisit the meaning or definitions in NOTDIRECTORY the user should deal with it there, not these very selective AfDs. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor also seems in quite a hurry to nominate without much consideration, reversing his own nomination at Articles for deletion/Star One (Indian TV channel) -- Whats new?(talk) 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I'm targeting Australian TV for some personal reason! The origin of my concern over this kind of TV programming list material came from dealing extensively with the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal which is always coming from Australian IP addresses as I'm sure you are aware, the vandal showing a strong interest in Australian topics, including broadcast TV articles. That's why you saw me assembling the Australian group first. I came here asking for help in bringing all the other nation's problematic TV programming pages to AfD as needed, to cover similar articles around the globe. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this is the closest thing to a combined nomination, I'll go ahead and !vote here (although I recognize it won't necessarily be counted): Keep all (for procedural reasons, if nothing else) - I don't see where these are necessarily in conflict with WP:NOTDIR. They aren't schedules, program guides, etc. -- just a list of [notable] programs on a particular network. Inclusion criteria need to be refined and lists pruned to only include notable examples, but they seem like viable navigational lists if nothing else. If all nominated for exactly the same reason, on the basis that this type of article is inappropriate, separate nominations means everyone has to copy their !vote opining on their suitability to every page. Please consider withdrawing and either consolidating or going with an RfC on this interpretation of NOTDIR. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all, speedy close. A list of television programs is not intrinsically a NOTDIR violation. Discussing these nominations individually would just waste editors' time and energy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Need to be assessed individually. Some of these are, indeed, deletable.  Many are completely unsourced (i.e. List_of_programs_broadcast_by_SAB_TV, which was the first one I clicked on).  This should be more of a criteria for deletion or otherwise than NOTDIR. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all, speedy close, then each list-article can be examined on its own. Sorry, Binksternet, but I broadly agree with the comments made here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support speedy close of all - sorry, wasn't aware this was under discussion here and voted individually on many of them. Artw (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all, speedy close these articles do not violate NOTDIR. Some of them may indeed fail other guidelines, but each needs to be examined on an individual basis and we can't reasonably expect that each AfD will receive sufficient attention with so many open at the same time. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * All of these have been closed, and the articles reverted. When available, I used the rollback function (under guideline 5); I am not going to add 's due to these being rapidly closed in bulk. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock is backlogged
There are 33 unblock requests pending at the time of this posting. —MRD2014 ( T /  C ) 14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider refusing an open unblock request if it's been sitting open for a week or more and you are simply disinclined to unblock the account. At least then, they'd know the unblock request was insufficiently convincing and they are free to make a new one. Several of us try to keep up with the new ones, but a number aren't obvious and then we leave them to others, who are also unconvinced. Leading to a backlog. --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that the number of open requests does not equate to the number that require attention. Many are already being acted on and include an in progress discussion between the blocked editor and others (this is especially true of spam username blocks).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , is not an administrator and should not be encouraged to decline unblock requests. See WP:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2. Patient Zerotalk 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to link to Oshwah's second RfA, where people brought up concerns of him declining unblock requests before he was granted the mop. —MRD2014 ( T /  C ) 13:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the one . Oops. Patient Zerotalk 13:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was meaning to imply admins should refuse an open unblock request, but I agree most reasonable people would have read that as me targeting my advice to MRD2014. I apologise. MRD2014, thank you for raising the issue here! There's often a backlog there. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Magioladitis from COSMETICBOT-related discussions
As a follow up to the ARBCOM case, the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), the bot operating community, and the larger Wikipedia community have made substantial efforts and progress on clarifying our bot policy, particularly clarifying WP:COSMETICBOT (see RFC) and how to deal with issues should they arise (WP:BOTISSUE).

In the wake of the ARBCOM case, has consistently and constantly tried to revisit, question, and weaken the current WP:COSMETICBOT policy, both at the village pump and on the policy pages, by making completely unsupported proposals, attempts to unilaterally change the substance of WP:COSMETICBOT, assertions without evidence that COSMETICBOT is problematic and that it doesn't have support/consensus, concerns that it harms theoretical bots that don't exist, assertions that many people want to change the policy, inventions of terminology such as "low volume edits" as an attempt to get around COSMETICBOT, and so on. The bot policy talk pages are being dominated by Magioladitis' constant tendentious editing and refusal to drop the stick.

Past threads include
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26
 * Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137

Right now, there are
 * Village pump (technical)
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy (this subsection, particularly)

He was told to drop it several times, to no avail, and plans on creating further RFCs on the issue. Dealing with this is extremely taxing on BAG's limited ressources and the community's general patience. Some BAG members have stopped dealing with BAG duties entirely because of the negative atmosphere. I can't say I know for a fact that the community's patience has been exhausted with Magioladitis, but I do know for a fact that BAG's patience has been exhausted. I've checked with several (although not all) members of BAG on their support for the below wording, and the response has been unanimously in support of a topic ban. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban's scope
Magioladitis is topic banned from initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT, or the in discussions concerning the impact of WP:COSMETICBOT on other bot operators (such as whether or not bot operators are allowed, or should be required, to perform WP:GENFIXES with their own bots, or theoretical bots which may be developped in the future). As an exception to this ban, he may make a single !vote with a short (<300 words) rationale if the discussion calls for !voting, and give single short replies (<300 words) to other editors when directly asked a question (1 reply per direct question).

Magioladitis may, in good faith, seek specific clarifications on how to interpret COSMETICBOT for his own bots and projects he is involved with (such as WP:CHECKWIKI), but may only do so on his bots' talk page, at the relevant project's talk page (such as WT:CHECKWIKI or an appropriate subpage), or at WP:BOTN. In other words, asking questions like "When is considered a cosmetic edit?" or "Should 's priority be lowered to 'Medium' or 'Low' importance?" is fine, asking/arguing "WP:COSMETICBOT hampers our ability to do WP:CHECKWIKI fixes, how can we ammend/fix/ignore WP:COSMETICBOT?" is not.

Discussion
Headbomb keeps changing the COSMETICBOT with or without dicussion. E.g.. Moreover, the discussion about renaming the section did not start from me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe meant to link to the sub-section, Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Could you take a look, Headbomb? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The links are a mixture of questions I asked before the ArbCom and bot policy dicussion. The Village pump was in fact a heads up for the bot policy. Not my fault that people keep commenting everywhere. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for everyone's reference, this is the change to COSMETICBOT that now appears to be central to the dispute there, with the discussion that led to that here. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I saw on the Arb email list that someone mentioned this discussion, but it seems to me, and I think that was the tenor of that comment as well, that this is indeed a matter for the community (as is pointed out below) and I don't see any interest among the Arbs to get involved with this. Good luck y'all. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * Support as proposer. Also minor revisions to grammar and sentence flow is quite different from changing the substance of the policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The June discussion is a continuation of the February discussion based on the fact that the dicussion did ot conclude. Moreover, I have stated that this discussion is merely to gather opinions than have a conrete proposal. The reason is that I am on favor of any solution but not with the statu quo in my opinion create dn inbalance. That you don't lik the discussion tht doe not mean the dicussion should not be done. When having bots that perform certain edits and have a policy against them is nonsense. Trying to make it as it is only a personal problem of me you don;t realise that you do not make a safe enviromnt for others to participate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have probably been the BAG member that made the most effort to accommodate you, I tried to see your actions as done under WP:GOODFAITH, I always clarified your confusion with existing policy (although you never listened), I went out of my way to suggest you productive ways of putting your expertise to you (e.g. here), I've gone out of my way to clarify which of WP:CHECKWIKI fixes were high/medium/low priority, and which were cosmetic or not, for the direct purpose of helping YOU navigate this issue. The fact that I'm the one proposing to topic ban you say a lot of just how you've exhausted our collective patience. You were told to stop beating a WP:DEADHORSE, but it seems you just can't help yourself. The policy has wide support, and everyone but you seems to get it. If you feel this is an 'unsafe' environment for you to work in, consider the fact that I'm the one that extended the biggest olive branch out there, successfully argued to ARBCOM not to go for the nuclear option, tried to work with you, created a bunch of phabricator tickets to help you develop AWB in compliance with community expectations (both on your own, and to help you organize hackatons). This isn't about providing you a safe environment to work in. The only evidence you have against this being an 'unsafe' environment is that people were/are fed up with you incessant revisiting of issues long settled, no one harasses you, no one threatens you, no one is mean to you save for the occasional heated discussion when you keep bringing the same thing over and over. This is about providing the community an environment in which they can work, and not be distracted with pointless discussion about long-settled issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are aware of at least one specific editor we have lost over the carping about these policies. I believe that Magioladitis takes a fairly sanguine approach when things get out of hand, but he is also aware, as am I, from discussions both on wiki and off that people are scared to use tools to edit.  I have considered you very supportive to a positive editing environment, and I think the point is that Magioladitis is also seeking the same thing.
 * Perhaps there are other approaches that can be perused to bring this about, but I don't think a T-ban is one of them. What is to happen when someone makes accusations of cosmetic editing either to Magioladitis or someone else?  Is he to stand idly by while they are rail-roaded?
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Support I'm sad that it has come to this, but I completely agree that it's necessary at this point so we can stop having basically the same discussion over and over again. I only hope that this ban will be enough; I worry that he'll just find other ways to be disruptive in bot-related areas, such as flooding BRFA with requests or reporting minor occurrences as if they were major issues, and we'll wind up having to topic-ban him from bots entirely (or just outright ban him). Anomie⚔ 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it's not sad. It's the natural conclusion of a situation that goes for months. There were two ways to solve this: By finding a middle ground or kicking out the opponent. I did not expect you to understand. You think that I am doing this for personal motives while other have been kicked out from Wikipedia, I am still around. My responsibility is that I failed to protect some people more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No one has been kicked out of Wikipedia. Bgwhite left of his own accord, no one kicked him out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Anomie maybe correct here. What about requesting a Arbcom case for this situation? Last time did it, and Magioladitis was warned again. Capitals00 (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a better solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration/Policy, arbitration is only used when the community cannot resolve the issue. The question to ask here is "Can the community stop this disruptive behavior?". If the topic ban is implemented and works, the answer would be yes, and we'd know in hindsight that arbitration wasn't needed. If it can't be implemented due to community indecisiveness or doesn't work, then maybe arbitration would be a good idea. I support this topic ban as something the community can do to try to end the disruption. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Recall that based on my comments Headbomb started a discussion called "WP:COSMETICBOT update" which resulted in the policy to change. So my actions did not weaken the policy but in fact encforced it. The new COSMETICBOT police is up less than 3 months now. Moreover, the discussion or even abandoning the name did not start from me. Saying that I dominate the discussion is not the truth. If all agreed to the previous versions why the policy changed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So the facts: I started a discussion in December 2016. Anomie wrote in 21 January 2017 a draft to summarise the comments from the discussion. In March 2017 Hedbomb started a dicussion WP:COSMETICBOT update. Discussion concluded in 18 May 2017. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I think my feelings on why Magioladitis isn't able to edit productively in this area are best summed up by the man himself a few lines up. He said that the supporters here are "kicking out the opponent". There are no opponents. I think I can safely speak for most BAG members when I say very few of us, if any, actually oppose general fixes as he claims we do. I certainly don't. We're merely enforcing the bot policy, but I've been unable to break through the "us vs. them" mentality that casts the BAG as the "enemy" or "opponent". The repeated process spam to try to push through his desired version of the bot policy is making it incredibly hard for us to do our job. I've spent more time dealing with discussions about myself and the bot policy than any other activity this week. For context, Magioladitis' actions toward me specifically have been rather extreme, with two discussions recently effectively closed telling him to stop harassing me. See Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 15 and Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group. This comes on the back of him openly speculating about my location multiple times on-wiki in the midst of disputes: . This needs to stop. I see this topic ban as a potentially effective manner to end at least some aspects of the disruption, so I'm all for trying it. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This is all my opinion, but it seems every discussion involving Magioladitis ends up the same: going in circles, losing scope, and discouraging other editors from participating while Magioladitis comments ad nauseam with vague and round-about replies and cherry-picked "facts". I tried working with their BRFAs and some of the proposals and got nowhere. Others have and got nowhere. And this is just on bot-related pages. With the number of people already involved with dealing with one editor on one minor topic, I can't see any other recourse. I could understand someone being upset and heated for a discussion of two, but this is systematic. Either they are doing this deliberately or they just don't realize, despite being told so many times. Despite being asked to slow down, they keep WP:BLUDGEONing the process. I'm not liking commenting on this and I care little for on-Wiki politics and editors themselves, but this has become disruptive even to those who just wish to comment on the COSMETICBOT and related matters and could otherwise not get involved in extended back-and-forth. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, unfortunately. It is my belief that Magioladitis erroneously views the underlying wikitext as our end product, rather than the output that follows post-processing. Accordingly, much of his energy is directed towards ensuring the wikitext is perfect, even to the detriment of the good functioning of the project (e.g. unnecessarily clogging watchlists with cosmetic or "low-volume" edits). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As for those thinking about Arb, I would disagree. Arb is only for situations that the community can't deal with using existing mechanisms and this isn't one of those cases.  Looking through the archives, it seems pretty obvious that a serious bludgeoning is going on and a lot of time wasting.  If after the tban, it spreads to other bot related areas, a broader tban of *.bot.* can be considered.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - as per above. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I recall my ArbCom case saiid that the community is encourage to discuss these issues not just hide them under the carpet. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And the community has: RFC on COSMETICBOT update, efforts at CHECKWIKI, bunch of AWB issues that would help with related issues). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support serious issues with not getting the idea. And they still are not getting it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Headbomb True. CosmeticBot changed. AWB changed. Should the community encourage more edits to be done and in which way? This still has to be solved. The answer may be "no". But I am trying to propose things as I ve been doing for years. I created a bunch of similar (but not equal) questions. Some of the things you mention here were before the RfC and in fact thee RfC was the result of these questions. Now I seek answers to the BRFA process which may lead or may not lead to policy changes. Recall that other things I suggested in the past also seemed immature but finally were adopted by the community. (The ISBN fixes, the wikiproject name convetion, the hatnote standardsation, the removal of persondata, the infobox parameter standardisation are some examples) I have a double aim this time: If the community decides the edits should be done in bunches we then start decribing the edits that can be done in groups. If the community decides that all MoS edits can be done but seperatelly then we can to a dicussion whether the watchlist argument is corect or not. There are so many similar questions to solve here. In a fw days we moved from a chaotic question a made to a compalsory series of edits and then for a "nice reminder" for bot editors. These things are not equal things. The discussion keeps moving and progressing. I beleive I contributed in a positive way in these discussions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After all these months and I still comments that mix AWB's general fixes, with Manual of Style changes, with CHECKWIKI, with html fixes and with template bypassing. This explains why the questions I pose seem like I keep askingg the same thing over and over while I don't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So in fact we have 2 "discussions" that I started that happened before the ArbCom and actually led to a discussion that actuall changed the policy. Still people believe I deserve a topic ban for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Specific comments on HB's links:
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26 This discussion led to a draft rewrite and to an actual policy change
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26 Only a heeads up for the discussion below. No actual discussion'
 * Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137 An initial discussion onbot editing with no concrete proposal. Let's call this Discussion #1
 * Village pump (technical) Again mrely a link to start a discussion in a other place
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy continuation to Discussion #1 with conrete proposals
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy different issue
 * Wikipedia talk:Bot policy not even started by me. Different issue anyway. Many people in favor of finding a differen nam for the section -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me dispel the notion that your comments somehow lead to change the wording on WP:COSMETICBOT. It's the ARBCOM mess that led to this, and your constant refusal to abide by the policy. It was recognized that the passage was pretty vague, and unhelpful in terms of actually defining what was meant in practice, so Anomie and I wrote the draft for the adopted language, with the input of several members from BAG and the bot community in general. While you were certainly part of those who commented on the draft, it would have happened regardless of if you commented on it or not, and I do not recall any specific changes on the substance of the draft as a result of your comments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I've been watching this from afar, but it's clear that this is just going to keep repeating itself until a topic ban is enacted. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY  <sup style="color:#c22">[u+1F602]  <em style="font-size:10px;">20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A perusal of the situation, and this very discussion itself, shows how serious Magioladiis' WP:IDHT proclivities are. I think this topic ban is necessary, and should be taken by him as a warning that the next step is likely to be a site ban: nobody, Magioladitis, is so essential to this project that we can't like without their contributions.  We have limited time and resources to deal with such a recalcitrant editor who will not drop the stick and accept the consensus opinion of his own bot-operating compatriots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And would Magioladitis, who is an admin, and who has been on Wikipedia for going on 11 years, please,PLEASE, PLEASE, learn how to properly indent his comments in a discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken I suggest that we create a bot to auto-fix indent spaces :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you respect community convention and do it yourself, by hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am not an admin, and I try not to get involved in block/ban/deletion discussions unless they are housekeeping-related, so I don't know what the precedent is here, but I have followed all of the linked discussions above with a mixture of compassion, sadness, and frustration. If it is as clear to the rest of you that Magioladitis has a terrible case of IDHT, along with some sort of inability to express himself clearly and consistently using the English language, that may make it fruitless to attempt to engage in rational, productive conversation. If you are frustrated, can't you all just ignore this editor who is clearly baiting you? Stop rising to the bait. If you must reply, perhaps respond with something like "Oppose. I have read this. Thank you for your passion/concern/incoherence." (Choose a noun appropriate to the situation.) And then move on. I now return you to your regularly scheduled chorus of "Support"s. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95 I did not get the comment about "inability to express myself clearly". I 've seen comments that mix CHECKWIKI with general fixes and main/secondary tasks with "cosmetic changes". Maybe we need to create a dictionarry because it tuns not everyone cna distinguish between the various kinds of edits. So I am not sure why you think it's my "inability" while I have invested hours and hours exactly to distinguish all kinds of edits. On the other hand, the people who claim that bot editing hides valdalism never bother to present a comphrehesnive report on that other than sporadic comments and unverified claims. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The defense rests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Not at all related to the discussion above, but, Magioladitis could you please spend some extra time on ensuring your comments are a bit more comprehensible when writing them. I had to read your above response carefully, twice to get a coherent picture of what you were trying to say. I'll rewrite the comment with general fixes to show you how much you missed and how much is still missing from it; I did not get the comment about my "inability to express myself clearly". I've seen comments that mix up CHECKWIKI with general fixes (editor note; I didn't know there was a difference to be entirely honest) and main/secondary tasks with "cosmetic changes".unclear (reason; a task and a change are completely different things, it should not be possible to mix them up) Maybe we need to create a dictionary because it turns out that not everyone can distinguish between the various kinds of edits. So I am not sure why you think it's my "inability" (your inability to do what?) when I have invested hours and hours into trying to distinguish [distinguish is presumably meant to be; clarify the differences] between all of the various kinds of edits. On the other hand, the people who claim that bot editing hides [hides is presumably meant to be; serves only to hide/intended only to hide] vandalising edits never bother to present a comprehensive report on that (present a report on what? universal statistics about all bot edits? the function of bots? something else?) other than leaving sporadic comments and making unsubstantiated claims (again, about what?). To be clear, excluding typos which have no bearing on your English writing ability, that comment displays a writing at the En-2 level. You have a sizeable vocabulary and ok grammar, but, are missing vital information that would give the reader a clear picture of what you want to say. At En-4 the only issues you should have is with colloquialisms and cultural references. Meaning that I should be able to understand you just as easily as you would be able to understand me. I read several of your other comments here, you have a lot of typographical errors in your comments (which could be rectified by doing a copy-edit or two before posting) and some grammatical errors (probably due to being ESL (English Second Language) or ExL (English xth Language)). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, simply ignoring him or replying with a content-free oppose won't work. If we don't reply, he'd claim WP:SILENCE and/or he'd claim consensus based on what few other comments people post. If we post a content-free oppose, he'd WP:BLUDGEON each one then claim consensus on the basis of WP:!VOTE. And in either case we'd still have to read everything that gets posted in the discussion if we want to follow what's going on in bot-related discussion spaces. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ima not going to claim aything. I have respected consensus more than others in this process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do you know what initiated the recent discussion? Th fact that people claiming that some tasks are very minor to do in their own, when they had to chance to do thaat with a task that covers 200,000 pages they insstead procceded in allowing bots to do it without even bothering to ask whether more fixes could be done in the same pages. The same people who claimed that when a bot edits may cover vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support How long has this been going on for? How many times has Magioladitis been brought to ANI about this very issue? This is the very definition of WP:IDHT. If this was a non-admin, they would have been indef'd years ago.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * what ths issue? Of my starting dicussions? I have never brought to ANI for that. Provide link or remove your comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment shows exactly that some people supporting this santion did not even bother to rrad the discussions started. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support And if this doesnt work, the next step will no doubt be banning them from any and all bot-related editing. I will start the stopwatch now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Only in death does duty end from bot activities? Why? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I made a comment on the ArbCom case, I am a bot operator. Having read the summary and looking at the linked discussions I can come up with very few conclusions that do not lead to very unfortunate circumstances.  The proposed restrictions above are the least measures that can be taken while at the same time allowing the community to get on with it's processes instead of having to revisit the same points when the consensus hasn't changed.  I also note Mag's badgering of every oppose only reinforces my view that they cannot self restrict the concerning behavior. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, although I fear that it won't be sufficient. Fram (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Please stop there is clearly no consensus. --  Green  C  20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I only started a single discussion in continuation to an older thread. There is no consensus to discuss? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "I only started a single discussion". Is that true? I count multiple threads. Being "in continuation" isn't true because the threads are all active at the same time, you didn't close them out or redirect participants to a single location. You interleaved posts at bot policy and Village Pump as evidenced by time stamps. Furthermore, you keep changing the proposal wording so previous participants have to re !vote over and over again while watching multiple threads. You've stated (above) you won't stop until you reach a "middle ground" ie. get something into the policy. When I (and others) said you have no consensus, you don't recognize it apparently believing you can keep making proposals forever under the guise of mere "discussion". -- Green  C  14:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on the repeated failure to get the point at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy, it seems this is the only solution, so reluctantly support.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose
 * It's a shame that some people feel compelled to reply to every post Magioladitis makes on the subject - if you don't want to discuss the matter you don't have to.
 * The COSMETICBOT wording has come on considerably as a result of these discussions, if people don't think it's worth their time, then they needn't take part. I think it has been a valuable exercise.
 * There is no doubt that that there is a chilling effect on clean-up tasks, partly for fear of inadvertently failing to adhere to COSMETICBOT. Some are no doubt delighted, having an obsession with rules and the status quo.  However as far as the encyclopaedia is concerned this is in general a bad thing.   People should not be afraid to improve the encyclopaedia.
 * Some "usual suspects" accuse other editors of breaking COSMETICBOT, even when they don't understand the letter of the policy, let alone it's spirit.  Closing down those who wish to support constructive editing furthers the agenda of these combative editors, and undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Oppose as it is based on a false premise. Agathoclea (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain which premise you believe is false? Anomie⚔ 11:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the discussion I raised are not closely related to COSMETICBOT but are more of a bot strategy we would like to follow as community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless Agathoclea is your sockpuppet (for the record, I don't believe that's the case), it's not helpful for you to try to answer for them. Anomie⚔ 15:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the time I placed my "Oppose" the discussion had already shown that the listed "discussions" used as proof of a TB worthy behaviour are in fact red herrings. While the blocking of improvement of the wiki by a few powerful (or should I say vocal) people is usually the forte of deWiki, we should not let that happen here. Agathoclea (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there are a lot of people on the support side that have been dealing with this for awhile that I wouldn't like to subjugate to more, Rich's argument is convincing.--v/r - TP 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Oppose While I'm not a bot-op, I've actually seen people comment multiple times that the rules for COSEMETICBOT are not well understood, in that case, why not make them better understood and clean up the stuff that doesn't need to be there.  That's what Mags is trying to do. <span style="border:2.5px solid silver;background:black;padding:0.1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   13:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Months ago, WP:COSMETICBOT underwent a major re-write to make it clear as day. Please do read the text of it now to see how concrete it is. Even after this re-write (which Magioladitis took part in discussing and was aware of), the discussions persist – at least three this week – to outright get rid of it or otherwise encourage the changes covered by COSMETICBOT. Magioladitis is not trying to clarify existing policy. He's trying to change it entirely to be the opposite of what it is now. He's repeatedly received poor reception to his proposed changes and yet keeps advancing proposals at rates that reasonable editors cannot keep up with. This is the fundamental issue that a topic ban can solve. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly because I am aware of the result I started the discussion to move the discussion a step further based on the new consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean further? There was a discussion confirming the contents of COSMETICBOT but adding some clarity. In that discussion, almost everyone supported the general spirit of the section. That's the same consensus there's always been, with new wording to make things clearer. What "new consensus"? I just shouldn't engage. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey
'''Moved from WP:ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC) '''

Bonjour!

I am conducting a survey of administrators for my master's thesis in the sociology of TPA. Please could you indicate your intention to participate by responding to this thread appropriately and I will contact you individually, or if you have any further questions please do advise!

Merci for your time!

Mme. Duffy, student, Sorbonne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.147.177 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2017‎ (UTC) (on WP:AN)
 * You might want to read WP:Ethically researching Wikipedia and other related pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup for your help. Vous est un real gentleman. 46.193.147.177 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Trez beans mon ami!!! ;) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ITNC
Currently five items ready to be posted at ITN. It's now becoming less "In The News" and more "Was In The News". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this thing on? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I'm interested in helping build an encyclopedia and I don't see ITN as part of that goal -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How helpful. Thanks for your response.  Anyone else?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If nobody has actioned this by the time I get home (in about ~7 hours), I'll take a look. Is there any documentation over what needs to be done?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
 * , thanks for offering, but I think that the situation is under control (at the time of writing, at least!) In the news/Administrator instructions is what you might be looking for. BencherliteTalk 08:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad someone was able to come to the rescue! Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Thank you Lankiveil and Bencherlite for your interest and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is still problematic, particularly over the weekend... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request at Cheri DiNovo
As Talk:Cheri DiNovo is currently semi-protected, I suppose this would be the best place to request an edit to the article. I'm hoping to have Category:LGBT Christian clergy replaced with Category:LGBT Protestant clergy. As an aside, I should note that I have reached out to the protecting administrator regarding unprotecting the article and its talk page. Thanks, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. In the future this request should be made at the article's talk page. —Guanaco 07:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Doh, just saw that it was the talk page you said was semi-protected. Sorry. The right place would actually be WP:RFPP. —Guanaco 10:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding help for IPs creating AfDs
Please come participate: WP:VPPOL. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions
I'm lightly "involved" in the editing of mansplaining, a controversial article about gender-based condescension. I, reverted some obvious POV pushing/vandalism, and have been active on the talk page. I believe this article falls under the Gamergate discretionary sanctions as "any gender-related dispute or controversy". Can I add the talk page header or does that have to be done by an uninvolved admin? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think adding the header isn't really an admin action. You wouldn't want to impose sanctions on the article, but I can't see any harm in adding the header simply notifying everyone that the article could by subject to discretionary sanctions by another, uninvolved admin.  I could be wrong, but I think that determining what articles are and aren't under DS is an editor consensus thing, not admin decision.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds logical, but I'm not very familiar with the bureaucracy surrounding discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading the article, I'm not sure it completely fits under "any gender-related dispute or controversy". The article isn't about a particular controversy, or event.  It is about a gender topic, but not sure that all gender related topics neatly fit into DS. Had I stumbled upon it, I would have not thought that the article automatically falls under it. That doesn't mean that there will never be NPOV edits and the like, but this strikes me as a bit too broad to be under the GamerGate/Gender controversy banner, as it is essentially an expanded definition of a somewhat popularly used neologism, and the amount of controversy surrounding it is rather tame and (according to the article) not drawn strictly around gender lines. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree this isn't within that topic area, but to answer the broader question, anyone can apply the discretionary sanctions template to a talk page. That isn't an AE action; it's just a notice. Be careful not to apply any templates that actually set new sanctions (e.g. American politics AE), as that's something only an uninvolved admin can do. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it does fall in the topic area. Especially when MRA's are involved.  It's a controversial topic.  But, regardless, I agree with Rob & Dennis that adding the template is not an admin action.  Anyone can do it.--v/r - TP 03:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how broadly you construe "broadly construed". It seems a bit more controversial than I initially expected.  I guess I could raise the issue at the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, it's the arbs' opinions that matter. Try WP:ARCA, . ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 10:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Tony Chang page history from Zhang Shang

 * Main article page: Tony Chang


 * Summary: (History from Zhang Chang) --_> please merge into ---> Tony Chang.

Can an admin please merge into the page history for Tony Chang, the prior history from page Zhang Chang ?

Thank you !

Prior history current page to merge other history into. Sagecandor (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * please bring this up at the very busy Articles for deletion/Tony Chang. — xaosflux  Talk 19:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem the right place. It's a page polluted with discussion for a totally different purpose. I guess I could ask again, after that discussion there is closed later. Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't generally do hist merges in the middle of AFDs, ugly or not. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can understand that, it can certainly wait til afterwards, no problems. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:Changing username
I invite you to an ongoing RFC discussion about allowing global stewards/renamers to process usurpation requests. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder
Some of you may remember User:Guido den Broeder. He was later renamed to User:Roadcreature. The userpage of the later says "Originally banned by the community on December 19, 2008. Unbanned by the Arbitration Committee on May 21, 2009. Re-banned by the Arbitration Committee on June 1, 2009." As late as November 2015h he was still socking here (Sockpuppet investigations/Roadcreature/Archive), confirmed both by checkuser and by editing behaviour (the user also was sockblocked at nlwiki, where the master account was also indef blocked a long time ago). One of thie discussions about the socks are Jolly Bard here, with the socks editing about Paraduin and Liberland. Note that at no point the socks have admitted being Guido den Broeder though.

I will not reiterate everything from 2008 or before, let me just point to Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder, a 2008 RfC about his extensive COI editing / self-promotion in mainspace, which only was closed without a formal summary because he was indef blocked anyway. Other evidence of the period can (by admins only) be seen at this page.

His original ban was based on an already extensive block log, including for making legal threats / taking legal action against other editors, edit warring, and conducting a rather disruoptive "social experiment" with enwiki. Arbcom tried an unblock with restrictions, which lasted from 21 May 2009 to 1 June 2009; 2 months later his email had to be disabled, 3 years later his talk page access, and another 3 years later we had the above socking.

Despite all this, ArbCom thought it wise to unblock him without consulting or even informing the community about this, on 23 April 2017.

Guido den Broeder has used his time since then to create an article about a non notable micro-nation Paraduin of which he is the founder and "prince", and which links to obviously primary sources but also to e.g. an article written by Guido den Broeder, and the main page of Wikisage, a partial wikipedia clone / substitute founded by Guido den Broeder, and supposedly the basic "economic" activity of Paraduin. Paraduin has supposedly also contributed to a movie with Kristina Pimenova, an 11-year old model sometimes described as "the most beautiful girl in the world" apparently, whose page has also been substantially edited by Den Broeder. One of the sources he added was again written by "Ogidius", i.e. himself. Another article he edited was Liberland, another micronation which claims the same bit of land Paraduin does (and which has received a lot of attention, contrary to Paraduin). There as well he added two sources by himself. Paraduin has already been submitted to prod, which Guido of course reverted, and most editors commenting at the page seem to agree that it is an utterly non notable topic. He is already edit warring to keep it in other lists and templates, see.

I don't know why Arbcom thought it wise to quietly unblock a long-term banned editor, who socked as recently as 2015 (and denied the socking, even though the evidence is extremely obvious); but since it turns out that his return is not to help Wikipedia, but to promote his own, well, let's call them "ideas" or "interests", I see no reason to let him continue editing, or to wait until all previous problems, not just the severe COI editing and the edit warring, reappear. There is no evidence that anything has changed since 2008 (or since 2015), so I suggest to simply reinstate the community ban. Fram (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You write that he is currently banned since June 1, 2009 when a test run failed. So the previous ban was reinstated by ArbCom if I read the archives correctly. So what change are you actually requesting? Regards  So Why  09:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The text comes from User:Roadcreature. However, in April Arbcom silently unbanned User:Guido den Broeder. You can find the link in his block log (which ArbCom updated), not on his user page or talk page. So at the moment Guido den Broeder is no longer blocked or banned (though technically the community ban never was lifted I think, only the ArbCom ban was undone?). Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it wasnt silent as such, he did lodge a formal request in public. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And it is still on the talk page, see User talk:Guido den Broeder. Regards  So Why  10:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what happened. He logged it at requests, but it was closed less than 2 days later by a clerk (correctly) saying per WP:UNBAN it needs to be done via email. Which is probably why no one noticed it. (Since Arbcom bans are not subject to community involvement in lifting.) So not so much silent as 'working per the current written process'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Silent" as in not announced here, which is what usually happens when ArbCom unbans someone (an ArbCom announcement here and at their noticeboard, and a discussion if necessary at the talk page of the noticeboard). And that's not taking into account the fact that he was community banned in the first place of course. Fram (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well unfortunately the unbanning process at the time for community imposed bans was... Arbcom. So cant do much about that. Banned by community, unbanned by Arbcom per the process at the time, rebanned by arbcom, unbanned by Arbcom per the current process. Granted from looking at this COI editing I'm with FPAS that he should probably be re-banned. (Pimenova has been on my watchlist since User:Lyrda was banned.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case we shouldn't hold whether the unban was silent or not against Guido den Broeder, so I probably shouldn't have included that bit anyway. Fram (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

So is that whats behind the Kristina Pimenova stuff recently? If he is back to the same problems that got him banned in the first place, then thats probably the best option. (Original community ban here for reference.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Polling

 * Support re-ban, this is pretty horrible COI editing, and if that's what he wants to be doing here, he should go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support community ban, per FPaS. BTW, Paraduin is at AfD. . Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ban Never should have been un-banned to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support re-ban. Been watching Kristina Pimenova for a while, and them being involved that article's COI-editing rings all sorts of alarm-bells. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support community ban - So that this can be over once for all again. Capitals00 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ban. Once again, Arbcom neglects transparency. If they had done their usual due diligence and posted a notification on WP:ACN, people may have been able to monitor this user and raise a red flag before this became an issue. Evidently we get notified of new clerk trainees, but not a long term community banned editor being unbanned. The user's conduct is clearly unacceptable for Wikipedia, whether in 2008 or 2017. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support re-ban - As you can see above, he still denies most of the socking, despite ArbCom/functionaries confirming that Guido den Broeder = Roadcreature = The Jolly Bard. This involved cross-wiki data (CUWiki). You can read my summary of the investigation. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RE Lectonar and my previous comments above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Please don't WP:bludgeon the polling. Since you insist on commenting on every vote, please do so here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (to Only in Death) At the time, some people misinterpreted an essay I wrote. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (to Lectonar) I also uploaded the image, and my COI's are properly declared on my user page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there is no conflict, I suggest a normal evaluation of my edits after three months by User:Opabinia regalis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not User:The Jolly Bard. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (to Salvidrim) Well, you're a poor investigator, as really all you had to do to solve this was mail me. Regardless, he didn't create any problems either, and this was taken into consideration when the decision to unban me was made. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (to The Wordsmith) This shows exactly why you weren't notified, for what we have here is a lynch mob, while there is absolutely nothing to see. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, for the record, I have never made a legal threat in my life. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nor do I editwar, despite being baited regularly including by several participants in this thread. I am always the one initiating discussion and trying to build consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, I have yet to see a single diff of any wrongdoing on my part. The same was true in 2009. People just jumped on the bandwagon then, as you are doing now. Do I edit articles that I have a potential COI with? Yes. Is that a problem? No. It's normal. The difference is that I declare any COI, while other editors don't. Bottom line, the bulk of my edits stand, the articles are in much better shape than before and with far more consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, this was decided on and closed quicker than any unban decision ArbCom ever made: high marks for efficiency. I could leave a note in response to Fram's comment on OR's talk page, but there's just too much righteous anger in that section, which I neither wish to endorse or counter. We decided to unblock Guido with some restrictions, yes--this is the thing ArbCom does. We all knew that Guido had a problematic past (and I knew this from the Dutch wiki too), yet we gave him a chance. I see comments in here that suggest the man is a nutcase, has always been a nutcase, and will always be a nutcase--I don't subscribe to such opinions, and I and others prefer to see the glass as half-full, and editors as being capable of improvement. If we had known he would go all Paraduin we wouldn't have unbanned him; that he did doesn't mean he shouldn't have been unbanned, it just means that he should have better used the opportunity, because now the likelihood of his ever returning to Wikipedia (legally) is pretty much zero. I'm not signing for the committee here, but as one who proposed unbanning him, and one who hoped at the time he would use the opportunity wisely. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Was there any reason the unban wasn't announced on the Arbcom noticeboard? kcowolf (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nice that you see editors as "being capable of improvement", but unbanning without any evidence of such improvement is foolish. I don't think anyone commented anything like "has always been a nutcase". However, he has been behaving more and more like one, from demanding that his wiki-history be removed from Google search results (as reported in the press in 2014) to his whole Paraduin fiasco (which ArbCom could have predicted if they had paid some attention to the edits by his socks). Instead of hoping for an improved editor, any decent check of his history since the original bans would have indicated an editor which we should be happy to have already ditched in 2008 and not later, as things only got worse, not better. Why anyone at ArbCom thought he could ever be a net positive here is beyond me, and why you of all people proposed the unban is staggering, as you could easily understand his history at nlwiki, or find and read his Paraduin pages. Fram (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Long-term rangeblock proposal: 163.232.0.0/16


Through reverting vandalism and RC patrolling, I have come upon a ton of IPs within this range, most of them with a very long history of blocks and vandalism warnings. The WHOIS/geolocation says that it belongs to "Department of Finance - Western Australia" (which is very likely operated by a school system/district). All of the edits from this range can be found here and can be seen by date and time at the "Result by time" section. I have yet to find a recent constructive edit from this range at all... regards. 67.169.192.85 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * appears to cover the range commonly used for vandalism. —Guanaco 05:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I range blocked 163.232.200.0/22 for six months. Should give us a breather. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please block one of my alt accounts
I stopped using User:XBot22408 ages ago, and I have forgotten the password for it. It wasn't linked to an email AFAIK. Can an admin block it? Thanks – XboxGamer 22408 talk 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Technically, there is no way to be certain you are the same user as the one behind XBot22408, but considering you're an experienced user I think good faith is enough. Plus, the username by itself might have been enough for an impersonation block if it wasn't you. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the user page of that account used to say that it was a bot operated by XboxGamer22408, however I never got around to confirming it, which I eventually did do for my public computer alt . Anyways, thanks. – XboxGamer 22408 talk 06:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Next time just use "p@ssw0rd". Nobody will ever guess that one. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 02:58, 18 March 2017 User account XBot22408 (talk | contribs | block) was created by XboxGamer22408 (talk | contribs | block) (Alternate bot account.) So yes, it is possible to be certain :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's my bad. I checked the creation date in Special:ListUsers but not the actual user creation log. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy of old text of a previously-deleted page
Hoping I got the right place to post this, but referencing here where I originally asked the question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Recreation_of_a_Previously-Deleted_Page

I was looking up the musician Matt Lange, and noticed that he didn't have a page yet. I wanted to contribute by creating the page, but I noticed it had been previously deleted for non-credible citations. Is there any way I could get a copy of the deleted page (or at least, the sources they used) so that I can avoid making the same mistake?

Thanks! Vorsipellis (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I copied it to User:Vorsipellis/sandbox. -- John Reaves 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * by cut and pasting the article you've separated the content from the history. I'll deleted the subpage you created and then move the restored article to the sandbox.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You guys are awesome, thanks a lot! Vorsipellis (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Bgc7676
Hi, Could an admin restore User talk:Bgc7676 please?, It was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bgc7676 (2nd nomination) however as per WP:DELTALK talkpages should never be deleted, I had asked the closing admin but they've not been on since 10/11pm so figured I'd try here, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - much appreciated, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RFPP is backlogged
I just filed a request at RFPP and found that there are about 45 unanswered requests. — MRD 20  14  01:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I was wondering how long RPPs typically take to be answered, as I currently notice many requests have gone unanswered for at least 24 hours. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving a draft to a redirect
Hello administrators, I have received a request to move an article to a redirect (I have added a rough translation of their original request). I am unsure and need a second opinion/suggestion here. Should the draft be moved? Thank you --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As it's not totally obvious, the draft page is here. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac, yes, that's the draft page, do you think the article should be moved? Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence. There are two full sections that are unreferenced, but there are a fair number of sources in the bibliography. Personally I'd like to see some of those incorporated as footnotes; I know we don't have to go to WP:BLP-levels of inline citations, but a few in the body of the text would be nice.
 * In other words, I won't stop anyone from moving it, but I won't be doing it myself. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While the article could be improved, the request is fairly uncontroversial, so I've deleted the Orinoco Basin redirect to make way for move. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Ban Proposal
There is a proposal for an interaction ban which may be of interest to some administrators who do not regularly patrol ANI. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI close review
This is about Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive957, and the close by User:Dennis Brown, in this diff.

I don't believe the close reflects the discussion. I discussed with Dennis at their talk page: User_talk:Dennis_Brown.

My concern is that I brought up issues with respect to User:Joobo who was indeffed here about a year and a half ago, went to de-WP and got blocked 7 times over the course of a year, requested an unblock a while ago here without mentioning de-WP, and was unblocked with ROPE, and has disrupted the same areas here again in my view. Nothing about that in the close. I don't mind being spanked a bit in the close - am not disagreeing with that, but the silence on Joobo is hard to reckon and will just embolden Joobo, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Dennis' close was a fair summary of the discussion. You certainly did raise concerns about Joobo's editing - but there was absolutely no appetite shown in that discussion to sanction them, or really even to censure them.


 * As to the substance of your concerns, I've spent two hours or so reading through the evidence you presented there; it all seems pretty thin to me, even bearing in mind their history. I've ignored things which you characterised as "all prior to their initial indef" or "mostly fussing with images" as I can't see their relevance.  You claim that these diffs are "adding content about Muslim immigration".  I can't see it.  The first is reordering a list (in a way that's at least arguably helpful to the reader) and the second is adding sources to content that's already there.  This is your prize diff at the AfD article; I'm not really seeing the massive POV in it.  On Presidency of Donald Trump, I'm seeing a fairly neutral, sourced description of a Supreme Court ruling, adding a date to an image caption, removing images of Trump meeting the Pope from a section on foreign relations (arguable, I guess), removing an image of Trump meeting Jewish leaders from a section on Russian influence on the US election, removing a section on Trump's "authoritarian tendencies" (which, at least in some versions, contained gross BLP violations)...  Your main beef with them, really, seems to be the Nationalism versus German Nationalism dispute, and I'd agree they were showing worrying signs of edit warring - except that you seem to have conceded in the course of the ANI report that here it was you who was editing against consensus established in an RfC.  As for Talk:Melania Trump, while they haven't covered themselves in glory in that discussion, they're not the one arguing that reliable sources should be ignored because, well, Trump.  I'm not that surprised no-one supported sanctions.  GoldenRing (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed the issue although without examining the details. The unfortunate situation is that Wikipedia and its processes cannot attain perfection. My experience tells me that whatever the dispute was, it is extremely likely that Jytdog was correct. The fact that an editor retired (and requested an indef) is regrettable but does nothing to change my assumption about which side was probably correct—if anything, it confirms it. However, it is just not worth digging up the ANI discussion. If there is a new problem, make a new report. If there is a not a new problem, there is no need to revisit the issue. Who cares if someone made a close that might have gone another way? Those who vigorously defend the encyclopedia attract an army of haters and associated misguided commentary, and there is no way to stop that derailing some ANI reports, sorry. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnuniq and GoldenRing. I discussed all their edits so as to give the complete picture.   A nasty thing that people do when they discuss others, is cherry pick. The intention was to show everything that Joobo has been doing since they were unblocked.  I think the disruptive behavior at German nationalism and the AfD party are clear. Not horrible on their own, if that is all there was.
 * But really. How many users are indeffed, go and get blocked 7 times in the same topic area at another project over the course of the ensuing year, and then get unblocked here at all?  The gift that was given to them was extraordinary, and we should have no tolerance for further disruption in the topic. Re-imposing the indef is not crazy; a topic ban is reasonable..  but I will settle for a warning. I anticipate they will continue doing exactly what they have been doing, and worse, if they are not topic-banned -- the community should warn them, at least. Just looking for this to be in the close.  It is not unreasonable given the extraordinariness of the unblock.  Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "I noticed the issue although without examining the details". Perhaps, just perhaps, that is what you should have been doing before stating "it is extremely likely that Jytdog was correct". How can you say that if you apparently are not even familar with the details? Me, as well as the other editors who were bluntly accused of being a "gang" for no other reason than us being involved in one single (respectiveles two) article and having a different opinion. We merely had other views concerning certain aspects. If that is enough to make us a gang or giving us some sort of sanctions then WP is dead- not as you describe it User:Johnuniq. Jytdog still does not seem to understand that he is not the only one trying to bring this project forward. Merely if someone disagrees with him does not make him or her automatically a villain who needs to be equally "spanked". Till this day i do not believe that you Jytdog questioned one single thing you did concerning the AFD article or the German Nationalism article. And i am not even disagreeing with all you did there (eventhough i believe you do disagree with quite everything others did there). However some things were simply factualy incorrect. And if someone questions that or reverses that and points out to what is to some extend obviously incorrect- then that does not mean automatically POV- but is actually bringing the project forward. Till today I am still not sure if you genuinely understood the original and basic definition of G.Nationalism. Howbeit, the only thing here presented by Jytdog is a reference to another language Wiki (no influence here at all) and the former block of me in this Wiki. How and actually why I should be sanctioned for something from the past I really cannot see, as since the unblock I sticked to what I stated in my unblock appeal. Maybe all this long lasting quarrely finally eases, and as the closing admin said everyone takes a step back and reconsiders the own action.--Joobo (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not on either side. But this is your thread to lose.  If you keep your mouth shut, it's likely to close as Dennis' original close was reasonable.  If you open your mouth, you'll likely give them a new reason to close against you.  Read WP:ANI advice.--v/r - TP 14:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And always remember that you can be wrong about anything. It might sound condescending, but a number of people have difficulty considering that possibility. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that this has played out a bit,, the user that was most at risk of getting blocked in that discussion was you. You were warring against what appears to me be a clear consensus in an RFC.  Frankly, I don't care how it is linked, but I do care about preserving the outcome of an RFC.  My focus in that ANI report was to get you to agree to stop reverting until a new RFC could take place that showed a different outcome.  Your argument centered on the claim that the link they talked about was in the infobox only, saying it should be linked differently in the article.  That is absurd.  The RFC demonstrated that the community wanted to link to "nationalism" not "German nationalism", and while it said infobox, common sense says it meant in the body as well.  You came very close to getting blocked, I checked your block log, and put some effort into convincing you into backing down because I really didn't want to have to block you.  No one formally challenged the RFC outcome or close, so I have no choice but to consider it consensus, and it was as plain as day on the talk page. You calling the report "pre-emptive" is meaningless.  They filed a complaint that you were warring against consensus and the diffs clearly demonstrated that.  That was cut and dry, just like the outcome of the RFC.  Once it was clear you wouldn't war to change the wikilink, I closed the report, taking you 100% at your word.  I see it as successful because no one was sanctioned and the warring stopped.  If you want to file a separate report that isn't just muddying the waters in a clearly valid complaint, then do so.  It had no place in that report because your violation was crystal clear to everyone, and if anything, I handled it rather gently.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, dirty hands and all. Well we will be revisiting the Joobo issue later, I am sure.  So be it.  Challenge failed, and withdrawn.  Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this banner a violation of WP:CIVIL
Just a quick question:
 * Please see the following banner from User:SkepticalRaptor's userpage:

Is this a violation of WP:CIVILITY and indicating WP:NOTHERE?

Thanks, Carl Fredrik  talk 07:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point 5 is certainly problematic. But why are you edit warring on Chronic Lyme disease? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument put forth against inclusion of the term (a synonym) is that "it is not in common use" — but frankly that is irrelevant. I came to discuss the issue and found this banner – which at the very least dissuaded me from discussing the issue as I would have otherwise. If the issue persists I will go through ordinary channels to solve it, and I'm not really ready to call this minor dispute an edit-war. This post was not meant to be a way to WP:GAME in order to win that dispute. You are however correct that I should have been forthcoming that this was how I came across the banner — but I thought it would be clear to anyone who visited the talk-page, because of my post there.
 * To me, the reason why I saw the banner as problematic — and also why I did not want to post on the article talk page: the issue isn't about the article at all. It's about adhering to WP:MEDMOS — and discussion on user-talk-pages is often more amenable to such information that does not need to be discussed with all editors of an article. This is what I found to be WP:UNCIVIL, and if everyone behaved in this manner it would be very disruptive to the general editing process, because we could never gently inform editors of policy or guidelines. To ask for a unique process, where others must be involved even in issues where there is nothing but lack of knowledge of specific policies or guidelines — is disruptive and indicates WP:NOTHERE. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring and the fact that you stopped at 3RR and did not exceed it, only mitigates slightly . I will have a word with SkepticalRaptor (as you could have done before coming here) and ask him/her to tone down that message and consider removing point 5 entirely. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Partially struck above as you only made two reverts. But the second revert was not a good idea. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit-wars are problematic, but this was very far from being one — and when some editors ardently defend their position, despite lack of policy or any other rationale to back their action — we can not simply concede. This is very often the case in medicine, where tempers run high, and there are many who know nothing of the field and just think they're right. Carl Fredrik  talk 10:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in policies that says editors cannot "simply concede" when there is a difference of opinion about how to present possible synonyms for a medical condition, and instead spend their time doing something that they believe will improve the encyclopedia without embroiling them in time-consuming conflicts. Walking away, whether just to take a WP:WALK or to permanently move on to other subjects, is one of the ways that we keep the community functional.
 * Also, in the instant case, there was subsequent discussion about the edit, and (the last time I looked) the consensus was trending against the proposed (i.e., that specific three-word proposed change), and CFCF has not attempted to make that change again. So whether or not someone might feel justified in calling it a brief edit war last week, there is not any edit war now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Point 5 is just ignorable. Since many processes (that dont involve admins) require posting to their talkpage. Otherwise, since that banner clearly indicates they are not a nice person, why would you want to talk to them unless you are required to by process? If it bothers you, nominate it at MFD for being functionally incompatible with wikipedia's collaborative process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We would not delete a user talk page so I am not sure I understand the purpose of MFD in this case. The best approach is to discuss with the user in question, followed by a discussion here if necessary. Both of these have now happened (though in the wrong order) so suggest waiting for response from SkepticalRaptor. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MfD can also be used to delete part of a user talk page, so if someone objects to this sufficiently, nominating it at MfD is an option. Personally, I'd just ignore the entire box, as it's clearly not enforceable, and the editor is obviously an asshole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the top says 'userpage' rather than talk page. So yeah, MFDs probably not the best option. But generally if a user has on their talkpage a 'dont talk to me' notice, it gets ignored as unenforceable. If it makes them feel happy... The real problem with notices like that is that it may deter newer editors who dont know that it is complete rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just ignore if it bothers you. You aren't going to change what they think or how they maintain their talk page.  Does it really matter that they epressed a general opinion without any corresponding action?  --DHeyward (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that the box serves a very useful purpose in that it serves to illustrate that this is not a person worth interacting with if you can help it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
 * his ethnicity on his user page is more of a problem. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, they're definitely not Jewish and using the terms ironically? ;) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No one does. Because no-one's asked. We have an article that might be relevant here: Reappropriation. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For my money (which is not much!), I think anonymity is a wonderful thing and support it very much. But I also think it means you don't get to use the identity defense in situations like this, especially where the language is inflammatory.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest immediate removal of point 5 per WP:NPA - clearly an attack on younger users. As for the others, well, they are still aggressive in tone, so they too should be deleted. A particular editor - naming no names - was recently criticised for saying "don't bother coming here if you want to throw a wobbler" on their talk page - this is much worse than that, so I am surprised at the laissez-faire attitude of a lot of people here. Patient Zerotalk 13:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the whole thing abrasive, but I can't call it a personal attack because it isn't singling anyone out, so it isn't "personal". I suggest ignoring it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "In conclusion, just stay away from my page, because I just am uninterested in engaging in conversation with anyone" Maybe I'm naive, or reading this wrong, but isn't this a violation WP:NOTHERE with Little or no interest in working collaboratively or Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, Point #5 especially?
 * I do respect your opinion, - sometimes it is easier to simply ignore such comments, but quite frankly it is a grossly inappropriate statement - and as Sir Joseph said, questions need to be raised about the attack on Jewish individuals within his user page. I do think both of these need removing by an administrator, as, like I said previously, comments that were nowhere near as bad as this, made by other users, have had to be removed before. A warning on incivility is also in order. Patient Zerotalk 13:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Counteracted, however, by their perhaps somewhat emphatic insistence on taking discussions to article talk pages, which is very much what we advise. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't like it either, but I don't like lots of things here. He does say to leave discussions on the article talk page, which is the better way so everyone can participate, and frankly, you can ignore his banner and leave any template you want if it applies.  His banner isn't enforceable.  I'm not against trying to coax him into modifying 5, I'm just not comfortable sanctioning or forcing a change over it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Notwthstanding the merits or otherwise of this banner, I do wish people would stop applying to NOTHERE their own idiosyncratic interpretation of what it actually says. It does not say 'An editor who says things I don't like' and does not apply here. This (~five years' tenure, >3.5K edits, no blocks) says they are very much WP:NOTNOTHERE. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Refusing to cooperate is very much Carl Fredrik  talk 10:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see this banner on his talk page currently, but as another edited above noted, he does have his ethnicity listed on his User page as kike and lox-eating big nose amongst other things, this should likely be actionable as unambiguous racial slurs deserve very little leniency. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is done as parody, given he also lists it as "Member of the Worldwide Conspiracy" and others. I'm more inclined to agree that this is a problem than the talk page header.  I will go edit this myself.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Reappropriation :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally aware of that and understand, but this isn't really a Free Speech area. If someone self-identified as a nigger on their user page, people would be up in arms over it, and that is a very classic example of re-appropriation.  There is a time and place for everything, but my opinion is that the consensus of editors do not believe Wikipedia is that place.  Also, we can't verify that someone really is Jewish, or using that as a mask to put hateful words on a page.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, at least he's honest about being obnoxious. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (Martin) has left a reasonable request on his page. I think that is probably all we need to get the process started.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts can be succintly summarised as: there are better things to waste peoples' time with. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point #5 is definitely a violation of WP:CIVIL, and the whole thing seems jerkish.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  15:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 15-year-olds are too stupid and don't know anything, eh? Well, then I guess the ones who are running websites using their own money are just getting lucky because they don't know anything. Please. I've seen 10-year-olds more mature doing adult-type stuff like coding websites and the like. May not be using their own money at that age, but that's beside the point. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that 15 year olds are too stupid, but there are some things you get better at as you get older, like writing and how to evaluate and use secondary sources. You will get better at something after studying it for 15 years. Coding a website is not really comparable—it would take further years to begin to develop critical analysis—this is where maturity is an asset. We do need this as editors when using sources, because usually standards here are very high. We have to be able to distinguish between what is OR and evaluate what is due weight, and that can be challenging even for professions academics and PhDs. But there is no need to call other editors stupid, just because you are an adult does not necessarily mean you are better at these things. Some teenagers are very talented, and we don't pass these kinds of judgments on editors because of age, education, professional background—only quality of their edits, so I think it does cross the line. The best thing would be for the editor to follow community advice and moderate the tone of his comments. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was basically my point. And just to be on the safe side, I should clarify that the first part of my comment was sarcasm. I can see, though, how it could be taken as me calling them stupid if read just the right way. I wasn't, though I'm not saying you were implying that, either. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Eh. It pushes the envelope a bit, but in the end there is a line separating merely obnoxious from NPA. I don't think this crosses that line. Further I agree with some of the above comments that this serves a useful purpose in that it is like a giant flashing neon warning sign alerting anyone who might have stumbled onto the page that it is the home of a someone that pretty much any normal person is not going to want to interact with if avoidable. Beyond that, while it's not a guideline and therefor not actionable. I would point the user to WP:DICK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the absurdly untrue personal attacks often made at ANi that are ignored or celebrated there is nothing actionable on that banner. Parts of it are even a good idea. I agree with him about 15 year olds. I remember being 15 a long time ago - it took me months beyond 15 to finish high school and start selling real estate. Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think lecturing 15 year olds about their life style decisions and personal comments about weight/exercise are appropriate. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for that, and I do think it crosses the line between the normal obnoxious comments that editors make to one another in the course of content disputes and ANI discussions, to something that is offensive and without any redeeming value. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also comments like this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkepticalRaptor&diff=624045839&oldid=623944490] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Technophant/sandbox2&diff=623918248&oldid=623874472] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Wakefield&diff=prev&oldid=765915510] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=prev&oldid=616890030] -basically calling others editors comments nts and edits "bullshit" regularly is not ok. This seems like a case of a competent editor who seems to believe he is within his rights to put down other editors. I know how frustrating editing can be, I have been frustrated many times myself, but there are certain standards of civility that all editors are expected to maintain. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way I would sanction or even warn someone for those three year old diffs. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are they that old? I didnt notice, thought it was within the last 1500 edits at most. I think have over 5,000 edits and I havent even been here a full year...seems peculiar. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if they happened today, I wouldn't warn. We aren't school marms, we don't paddle people for saying "bullshit".  It might be gruff, rough, crass, or however you want to phrase it, but we generally don't sanction for anything less than a flat out personal attack.  Even then, we don't automatically sanction unless it is a pattern.  People are people, they are blunt sometimes, they pop off sometimes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didnt say anything about sanctioning him, but he should tone it down. The fact that you think something is bullshit or ridiculous does not mean you should say that, this is part of our WP:CIVIL policy and the fact that we often pretend violations of that are "generally ok" for seemingly arbitrary reasons usually ends with disputes escalating to a point where sanctions do become necessary. Sure, everyone should let it go, but the editors on the other end become frustrated too, and sometimes they are the ones who are sanctioned in the end, and we know that can be 1) bad for editor retention and 2)counterproductive. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if item 5 were civil (it's not--we've had discussions about aspersions on groups of persons), there is also WP:SOAPBOX, and I might make the claim that he is soapboxing from a very tall soapbox in the item. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which subsection of WP:SOAPBOX are you referring to? He isn't promoting an idea, which is what that policy is about. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of the bulleted items, I would suggest #2. However, both the first sentence of that section (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground [...]. This applies to [...] talk page discussions, [...] and user pages. as well as the final closing statement of the section (Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages [...], as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Talk page guidelines).) indicate some intent that the template's bullet #5 is off the mark. My 2 cents. --Izno (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not using his talk/user page as a platform for pushing a belief. He's saying "leave me the hell alone".  Soapbox just doesn't apply here.  Maybe civil does a little, but not soapbox.  Maybe some other, but I've yet to see the policy it clearly violates.  It isn't polemic either.  Really, I still feel we just need to leave it alone.  I did change his user page which did have some offending material, but this doesn't qualify for admin action. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is much ado about nothing. We don't need to police user talk page banners so strictly. As noted multiple times already, this banner serves to inform any visitor to the page that the editor in question is not worth their time and trouble. The condescending user page is similarly useful. We've already given this contemptuous, contemptible individual enough attention. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been a sore point since 2012 . While I sympathise with the feelings, the tone does not support a collaborative environment.  The same things could have been said without annoying other volunteers.  And it is a given that we do expect people to be responsive to their talk pages, if not actually on their talk pages, regardless of how misanthropic they are, or wish to appear.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC).


 * I would note that I DID change his user page over a day ago without a problem. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole thing doesn't benefit a collaborative environment, but only point 5 is a serious issue. It should be removed or significantly refactored. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 10:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am with Rich Farmbrough on this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dennis here. Frankly, in the vernacular, this is a bloody storm in a teacup. Get over it. There are plenty of obnoxious little shits on WP. Choose American politics or the Balkans, and many other places too. Ignore them and don't feed the drama. When they ignore community norms in their editing behaviour (not their user pages), THEN we censure them. Sure, user pages aren't a blog, but if they show this level of disdain for others' views on their user page, surely they create enough drama elsewhere to block them for being WP:NOTHERE? I'm happy to do it, but show me the editing behaviour that violates our norms... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This user did not respond yet to my request at User talk:SkepticalRaptor so I have removed the part of the message which many people believe violates the Civility policy. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is a statement of WP:NOTHERE to work collaboratively. Delete it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV
There's a bit of a backlog at WP:AIV at the moment, over 20 pending requests. Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Closers needed for a very sensitive RfC.
In about a week the RfC at Village pump (policy) will close, and I would like to have at least two (three would be better) experienced administrators write up the closing comments and close the RfC.

This has a strong potential of becoming as controversial as superprotect was, so any closing admins need to be willing to take some heat.

So, any volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) The consensus appears to be rather overwhelmingly in favor of the silent option. Why do you expect that this will be highly controversial?  (2) The problem with superprotect was that it was imposed without community discussion, which obviously won't be the case if we send WMF a request and they fulfill it.  Why do you say that it may well be just as controversial?  (3) Therefore, did you accidentally link the wrong section?  Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I already requested a closure at WP:ANRFC, Nyttend. I think Guy Macon is requesting team closure because GLAM has been dependent on Wikipedia and the statistics coming from " " itself. Also, the volunteers tried to convince those favoring "silent referrer" to reconsider, but the voters aren't well convinced. --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If we send WMF a request and they fulfill it, all will be well, but there is a distinct possibility that we will send the WMF a request and they will refuse to fulfill it.
 * I expect that this will be highly controversial because:
 * There is a high high probability that GLAM, having failed to get a consensus for sending referrer information, will attempt to persuade the WMF to ignore the consensus of the community.
 * The WMF imposed this on Wikipedia without consulting the community, and there is a high probability that now that I have consulted with the community, the WMF will take the position that they know what we need better than we do.
 * If we send the WMF a request and they refuse to fulfill it, this will almost certainly cause a storm of controversy centering on whether the Wikipedia community or the WMF is in charge of the content of Wikipedia, with side arguments about whether referrer information is content.
 * Perhaps this will go smoothly and none of the above problems will happen, in which case we will have wasted some time an effort. But if the above problems do happen, I want to avoid any accusations that the closing admin got it wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nyttend that there is a clear consensus evident in the RfC. If the WMF were to decline to respect our wishes, they would probably justify it by claiming that the participants in the RfC are not representative of the community as a whole. If that happened, it's possible we could override the WMF with a local technical solution, but then the WMF could override that as well.- MrX 14:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, I hope that this does not happen, but if it does it would make things a lot clearer if there were three expereienced administrators who agree on what the consensus is. I would also like to see three admins saying something along the lines either "Question X violates policy Y" or "Question X does not appear to violate any policy", just to handle the inevitable claims that the consensus should be discarded as being against policy.
 * As for us overriding the WMF with a local technical solution and then the WMF overriding that, that is exactly what happened with superprotect. I think that we all agree that we don't want to get into a fight like that again.
 * I hesitate to even bring this up, and I am assuming good faith and assuming that it isn't true, but the fact remains that several high-ranking members of the WMF have close ties to large silicon valley interests such as Google. and may be tempted to -- consciously or unconsciously -- put the needs of facebook, google, etc. above the needs of the Wikipedia readers.


 * So, do we have any volunteers, or should I drop it? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, Guy Macon, don't drop it. Well, I requested teamwork closure because the proposer was unsure about how to request a closure and a few editors disagreed on whether a teamwork closure. Also, I did request a teamwork closure on another discussion, but just one volunteer stepped in and performed the closure. In other words, you can request a teamwork closure all you want, but I expect one or more can do the job. Regards, George Ho (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ---Well, I'm willing to volunter. Winged Blades Godric 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Did I mention that anyone who volunteers to close this RfC will get twice the pay that Wikipedia administrators usually receive? Such a deal! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you need a closer, I'll volunteer.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * fwiw, if this is really anticipated to be extra sensitive, perhaps run it for an additional month? There is no deadline and the extra consideration will give it extra credibility, perhaps? Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great idea. Could someone uninvolved please do this? I don't want to because I am involved, and I don't want there to be any hint of me trying to bias the end result. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Well, I believe the RFC had enough people dwelling on it.(And may be more folks will give their valuable input in the next 7 days!)Thus, I would advice against a relist. Furthermore, if Jytdog is suggesting a relist  to satisfy WMF that we got a consensus--I dare say, that hardly affects the prospects! Winged Blades Godric  03:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine either way -- relisting or not relisting. Whatever the consensus here is, I support it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll relist it when the expiration is nearing, Guy Macon. --George Ho (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC); see below, 17:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that depends in light of newer questions/proposals and votes. I counted carefully: I saw seven people favoring other options without counting more votes by similar people, while more than 40 favored "silent referrer" option. But I might relist if others implicitly opposing "silent referrer" if they continue to persist and more votes on any option other than "silent referrer" are produced. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --I certainly don't have any problem in that case.But please notify me before relisting.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 02:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly there is zero need for more than one editor to close this, let alone multiple admins. The consensus is clear *by any interpretation* of consensus you would like to use. That something is potentially 'sensitive' or may result in further problematic actions should not be a consideration of closing, otherwise you risk impairing your judgement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Curious: how was the joint closure of NSPORTS "inclusivity" discussion at WP:VPP, Only in death? One person said the joint closure was unnecessary; other person said it might be needed. Do you think I should have requested such a joint closure on NSPORTS talk at WP:VPP? --George Ho (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "further problematic actions", it is a rare RfC that by itself has zero effect on Wikipedia content or policy, cannot possibly result in anyone on Wikipedia either abiding by or refusing to abide by the result, but is instead a first step towards a discussion at another venue that we do not control. Given the fact that so many of those who oppose Wikipedia becoming a silent referrer work for the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that it would be wise to anticipate some of the possible problems ahead and prevent them with a well-thought out joint closing. To this end, I would like to see:
 * Three admins certifying what the consensus is, to prevent claims that it was something else.
 * Three admins certifying that they see no violation of any Wikipedia policy, to prevent claims that the outcome of the RfC should be thrown out as violating policy.
 * Three admins adding a thoughtful joint statement regarding whether Wikipedia or the WMF controls Wikipedia content.
 * In my opinion, this will prevent a lot of conflict later on. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said I offered to close, but I think I will wait until this thread is resolved.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 23:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Because the discussion had gotten so lengthy, I went ahead and moved it to a subpage of the village pump, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy, so that the village pump is more accessible. I apologize if any confusion resulted from this. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted I have relisted the discussion, i.e. gave the discussion additional 30 days. Therefore, more participants would be welcome to comment there during the extended time. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I don't want to clog up speedy deletion with a mass nomination, so can I please get an admin to delete Category:Dragonlance articles by quality and Category:Dragonlance articles by importance, plus all of their subcategories? They're all obvious speedy candidates for G8 (parent Wikiproject no longer exists), C1 (empty category), and G6 (uncontroversial housekeeping). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Regards  So Why  14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dragonlance is part of wikiproject D&D isnt it? Im pretty sure that still exists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Yes, but that has it's own categories which are now populated by the redirected WikiProject banner. No pages were left in the old "by quality" and "by importance" categories and should never be populated again. I did leave Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dragonlance articles by quality log though which might be useful for the new merged WikiProject (or at least merits discussion). Regards  So Why  15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Publications recommending disruption
There's a discussion at WT:COI that should give everyone something more to worry about. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V
The discussion "Wikipedia talk:Verifiability" started in April. Then the discussion got larger and larger, making the discussion very complex. I discussed it with the proposer, who says that several closers are needed. I welcome at least two volunteers. --George Ho (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --I am willing to serve as a closer. Winged Blades Godric 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Godric, and I welcome that. I also need another or more closers for teamwork closure. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I created the subsection Wikipedia talk:Verifiability for team closers to discuss preparing the closure. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to serve as a closer as well, but I will defer to almost anyone else who wants to do it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tazerdadog. I notified the participants about this. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Godric: Tazerdadog will team with you on the closure. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If necessary, time for one or two more. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I read a word that Primefac will be the third teammate. That should suffice, though I welcome more teammates if necessary. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The close has been posted. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Community ban discussion (moved from WP:ANI)
In looking over WP:BLOCKBANDIFF and WP:BANREVERT, I believe it's necessary to propose a formal community ban for.

The user appears to have been blocked since March 2016, and in looking through the sockpuppet case, created many sockpuppets from March through September of last year, disappeared for a while, then returned in May and has been active since then (These two cases are also mentioned on the user page, though I'm not exactly sure how they're connected). The user has also used many IP addresses for disruption; for example, see recent history of User talk:FlightTime and my talk page, in addition to the other edits coming from these IPs.

Edits coming from accounts and/or IPs of this user have been reverted, but what has driven me here is the user's decision to dispute this process and waste the time of an AGFing administrator attempting to assist the user with their editing, apparently unaware of the history of the account operator. Per WP:BANREVERT, even activity like this can be reverted without question, user talk page access can be immediately revoked from accounts/IPs, and this user can be prevented from wasting more editors' time than they already are. The fact that this user pulled an administrator that close to considering an unblock casts doubt on a "de facto" ban and therefore leads me to bring forward this proposal.

Proposal/polling
Proposal: User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" is formally banned from the Wikipedia community. Home Lander (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not a big fan of random banning, but the serial nature of this person might make policing easier for reverters. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - They have exhausted any good faith about their edits a long time ago. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 20:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A ban makes it easier to revert on sight. Nobody's going to unblock this user in the near future. --Yamla (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This person's blend of general disruption and WikiLawyering calls for a community ban. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support about time, I originally tried to propose a ban last year but nothing really came out of that. Sro23 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This persons actions merit a ban. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Ban em. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Not sure how quickly threads are archived here, so I figured I'd write something to give this more time for any others. Home Lander (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We like to see more participation, but it is unanimous, so an uninvolved admin needs to close the discussion and file a little bit of paperwork. I think the outcome is pretty obvious at this point.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Multiple account question
Would an admin mind taking a look at User:Fighting Poverty. User:Nuggets of Knowledge and User:Eating Nicely to see if they are acceptable per WP:MULTIPLE. They are all the same editor and I remember discussing this with them back at User talk:Eating Nicely. It seems that the editor wanted to have a role account for different topics on Wikipedia; for example, they wanted to use the "Eating Nicely" account for food/nutrition related articles. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 13 and the responses seemed to indicate that while making these accounts was pointless and might cause confusion, they would not be considered WP:SOCK as long as they are declared and don't start making inappropriate edits. The "Eating Nicely" and "Fighting Poverty" accounts have been inactive since late 2015, so I figured there was no longer any need for concern. The third account "Nuggets of Knowledge" was created around the time the other two stopped editing. All of the edits made with it appear to have been good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, so that did not seem inappropriate as well. Yesterday, however, the account made some edits to User:Fighting Poverty which added WP:UP type content. If the editor's reason for wanting multiple accounts is to keep their watchlists and editing separate, then that might OK. If, however, they are going to use one of the accounts to edit the user pages of the others, then that should not be OK. If the editor no longer intends to use these other accounts (i.e., WP:CLEANSTART) or cannot use them anymore for one reason or another, they should be left alone and not updated or maintained. They can be redirected to the remaining active account if the editor still wants to be associated with them, can't they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong here related to these accounts. I'm not sure why it was brought straight here without discussion elsewhere first, either at their talk page or back at WT:SPI where the previous discussion was held. I don't see anything wrong with what they wrote on the old account userpage.
 * WP:SOCK says that [e]ditors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to: follwoed by a list. Then we have a section WP:SOCK, which says that [i]f you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy. The question is: Is the use of these 3 accounts designed to look like it's separate people in a single context (discussion, revert war, one user supporting the actions of an other, etc.) If not, the there is no violation here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As he's linked all three accounts quite clearly and never (as far as I can tell) overlapped them in any discussions, this is fine. We discourage the use of multiple accounts like this but don't prohibit it outright. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to unblock IP
dear sir you block the user  for infinite time. It is humble request to you that please unblock Abrish211 because lot of students are connected with that IP address. Due to mistake of this idiot other students are facing problems on creating new accounts and editing WP. So please unblock Abrish211 or IP address. We will be very grateful to you on your act of kindness. We hope you will do something for us. Thank you in advance. Regards: Hide07 and many students. Please Help Us Hide07 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * . - Given that the account was initially banned due to concern over it being used by multiple people, I don't think that a request for an unblock on the grounds that it is stopping multiple people using the account is going to fly. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Hide isn't requesting an unblock for the account; this is a request to remove autoblock and the prohibition on account creation. No comment on whether or not that's a good idea.  Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - thanks for the clarification. Comment struck off. - Stormy clouds (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This ip adrees is still block for creation of new accounts can any body hep us to unblock? Please help us we will be very greatful in this act of kindness.Dennis Brown Hide07 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Dennis Brown dear i check it today it is still blocked. when it will be unblock have you any idea? Hide07 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * did the original block, including against account creation and extended it.  The autoblock should be expired now, and this shouldn't be an issue.  Is  saying they still can't create accounts or log in using the same IP, which appears to be a shared, static one? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The two admin involved have been pinged. Their input is wanted before any consideration takes place. I'm not sure that the IP is still blocked, however.  The IP might have gotten caught up in a different rangeblock. , as I'm not completely sure how that works. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hide07, what other accounts do you have and why would you create this one rather than make your request via your normal account?

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) There is more:
 * All three of these accounts are the exact same person and I have indeffed Hide07. This admission links two of the accounts and there are obvious reasons why Hide07 is the same editor. Behavioral duck and will justify by email if need be.
 * All three of these accounts are the exact same person and I have indeffed Hide07. This admission links two of the accounts and there are obvious reasons why Hide07 is the same editor. Behavioral duck and will justify by email if need be.
 * All three of these accounts are the exact same person and I have indeffed Hide07. This admission links two of the accounts and there are obvious reasons why Hide07 is the same editor. Behavioral duck and will justify by email if need be.
 * All three of these accounts are the exact same person and I have indeffed Hide07. This admission links two of the accounts and there are obvious reasons why Hide07 is the same editor. Behavioral duck and will justify by email if need be.

Also, we do need a checkuser because I'm planning to hardblock the 150.107.97.0/24 range for a month because this is a spammer/marketing range and the current edits for the last month are the same exact person. may want to look at all of those external links that were added. I removed a few which were still in article space. One tripped the blacklist (vmumbaiescorts.com) but the others are:



— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit more out there:




 * Blacklisted. MER-C 06:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The range these socks are operating from is too wide for me to do anything about. In response to 's question, there's limited collateral with a hard block of 150.107.97.0/24 (though a soft block will probably do it). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you and . I have anon-blocked the /24 range for a month.

Mass cat-a-lot reversion of User:Skr15081997 required
has used Cat-a-lot to copy en mass a huge number of former British MPs from (e.g.) Category:UK MPs 1922–23 to the parent category Category:20th-century British politicians, against the requirements of Categorization. Although he argues that the categorisation is correct, he has made no attempt to justify it, or discuss it anywhere before-hand as far as I can tell, and therefore I believe all the edits (which seems to be over 4,000 edits made in about an hour this morning) should be reverted. Do others agree that this is the case, and if so, are Cat-a-lot or any other tools suitable for carrying this out? I don't use cat-a-lot myself so I don't know what it's capable of. Optimist on the run ([[User talk:Optimist on the run|talk]1]) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Running at 1 edit per second for an hour is not an acceptable edit rate for non-bot flagged accounts making this type of edit. — xaosflux  Talk 15:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * but their actions run counter to that. This needs to stop. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support reversion - unnecessary over-categorisation. Pam  D  16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support reversion. This is clearly contrary to WP:SUBCAT. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I rolled the edits back where they were still the top edit. : please do not undertake any large-scale scripted efforts like this without first obtaining consensus for the task; see WP:MEATBOT. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * a few edits I could not rollback might need to be manually undone: Special:Permalink/788160096. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 20:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks. I am just setting up an AWB job to do the rest. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All now done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose ban on use of Cat-a-lot by Skr15081997
It's clear from the discussion on at User_talk:Skr15081997 that has no idea of why this was disruptive. So to avoid further disruption from the use of this powerful tool, I propose that Skr15081997 be indefinitely banned from using Cat-a-lot. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An indefinite ban from the tool is unusual and rather harsh for a first-time offense. A ban on undertaking large tasks without discussion may be more in-line with community norms. For instance, a restriction stating "Skr15081997 may not use Cat-a-lot or other semi-automated tools to perform large-scale actions affecting more than 100 pages without seeking consensus at an appropriate venue." ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the case for a milder sanction, but I don't think that proposal has much left in it. Cat-a-lot can recategorise large sets of pages in seconds, so it would be easy for a user of that tools to recat dozens of smaller sets of pages in a few minutes, and still fall inside that limit. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I did not count them, but the claim of 4,000 edits in an hour appears to be correct. An editor should know, without the need for any guideline, that an undiscussed bot run like that would be inappropriate regardless of its merits. The slip-up and its underlying reason would be unimportant if the editor immediately recognized the need for discussion in advance—that does not appear to have occurred. Providing some upper limit, say no more than 100 articles per day, would send the wrong message, namely that fait-accompli editing should be done with stealth. Any indefinite ban can be overturned in a week if proper acknowledgment occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support They have been here a while and have a couple of extra bits, so they absolutely should have known better. The ban can be lifted when the community is convinced the proper amount of clue exists.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from Skr15081997: Mass reversion has already been done (Check Category:21st-century British politicians and Category:20th-century British politicians). From the discussion above it appears that century categories shouldn't be added directly to politician biographies. So Category:21st-century American politicians, Category:21st-century Indian politicians, Category:20th-century American politicians, Category:19th-century American politicians and many others should be removed from politician bios. Actually I had done this after seeing adding xx-century politician cats to bios. The admin proposing me to be indefinitely banned from using Cat-a-lot had a discussion with Ser Amantio di Nicolao that reached nowhere. Addition of century categories to bios weren't reverted and there was no such proposal for Ser Amantio di Nicolao and no discussion on ANI regarding this issue. It will be good if this opportunity is used for reaching a consensus on addition\removal of these politician by century cats to politician biographies. If there has never been a previous consensus regarding the addition of century cats, banning me doesn't make sense. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not specifically that century categories shouldn't be added directly to politician biographies, it's the general policy that category X should not be added when an article is already in a sub-category of X (thus placing it indirectly in X). So a century category added to a politician biography is fine if that article is not already in a sub-category of that century category. At least, that's the way I understand it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The mass reversion has been done, but not by you. Other editors had to put in a ;lot of work to undo the mess which you had created, and it is disappointing to see you expressing neither regret for the disruption nor remorse for putting others to that work. "Thanks and sorry" goes a long to way to demonstrating good faith.
 * As to my discussions with, they reached the point that there was zero support for SAN's desire to ignore WP:SUBCAT, but SAN was not prepared to accept that this long-standing principle applies unless there is an actual consensus to create an exception by making some categs non-diffusing. It is shameful that SAN does not appear to accept WP:SUBCAT, but SAN's misconduct is not a licence for you to do likewise.
 * It is notable that none of your comments here demonstrate an understanding of WP:SUBCAT, let alone a comitment to work within it. That's one of the reasons why I propose depriving you of the use of this powerful tool. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons raised above. I did the same thing, and this sanction was never suggested - I think it's unfair to suggest it for one editor and not for another. I have also made my reasons for my edits fairly clear, I think, and would welcome a forum to hash them out further. As it stands, I feel that the reasons behind the "20th-century [anything]" categories need some clarification and sorting out. (Also, for what it's worth, sometimes I think it might be time to consider an approval list for Cat-a-Lot, too. As a sometime user I'll be about the first to admit that it can be terrifyingly powerful.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. This was not intended to be a witch-hunt. I support the idea of an approval list however. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry that reverting these moves was "a lot of work", but should similar circumstances recur I would rather put that work in myself than see someone sanctioned for an honest mistake. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC).

When considering their future use of the tools, Skr15081997 should seek other role models. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Skr15081997 should not be too encouraged by the support which they have received here. Rich Farmbrough has been subject to long-term sanctions for their use of unauthorised bots, while Magioladitis has been in long-term trouble with WP:BAG for the way they ran their bots. Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been busy using the tools for just this sort of edit to try to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, despite being that it contravened WP:SUBCAT, anf has refused to clean up after himself (see User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao (permalink).
 * Support banning per WP:CIR. BHG is right to prevent further abuse. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB
Skr15081997 currently is on the check page for AutoWikiBrowser, which allows editors to theoretically make dozens of edits per minute that affect far more than just categories. AWB use had nothing to do with this particular incident, but given the trust required to operate that tool, I question whether we should be considering removing access. If I recall correctly, I was the one who originally granted it, but I could be wrong. Thoughts? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above, however should be reminded to slow down the edit rate - I counted 10 in a minute for some of his recent editing. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , please remove AWB access, he's now doing the reverse on non-diffusing categories (using AWB) where being in the lower level and upper level is actually ok -- political party affiliation vs political party affiliation by region. All this after this thread was started, clearly implying that some sort of edit countitis is on and he sees no reason to discuss any such large scale change before doing it or even discuss it after similar problems have been brought to his attention. The problem isn't doing this once, but rather continuing to do it after the issue has been brought to his attention. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This had previously been discussed at WT:INDIA (March 2017). If the state-specific party category had been added to a page then the party and state categories are redundant provided the "[xxx politicans from yyy]" category is a proper subcategory of both these cats. The K. G. Marar article you cited above was already present in Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians from Kerala which in itself is an indirect subcategory of both Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians and Category:Kerala politicians. Even before this discussion, admin (in February 2017) had removed the sate category from several biography articles on Indian politicians citing that they were already in a subcat. Hope that clears your doubts. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians from Kerala is a subcategory of Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians so not sure what the problem is? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The political party cats here have specifically been made non-diffusing by state because many of the politicians span states. e.g. this one as is obvious from the rest of the categories on the page should belong to two of the state subcats if it isn't part of the main. I think (not entirely sure?) is the one who defined the category structure, perhaps he can explain better? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If they span states then multiple party-state subcats can be added. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A frequent problem with these categorizations has been people who originate in one state/province but whose political career is somewhere else. How to categorize Lal Krishna Advani or Prakash Karat? --Soman (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Soman: Just apply the principle set out at WP:COP: categorise by notable association. So if a person was raised in state X, became notably politically active in State Y, and held office in State Z, then categoise them under States Y & Z, but not X. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is incorrect. I have just checked using Petscan, and none of the categories of Indian-politicians-by-party-and-state has been tagged as non-diffusing (with Non-diffusing subcategory). That would be a controversial move, so if you want to do it, I recommend an RFC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sleeper socks trolling RfA
A few weeks back, we had a long-dormant account claim he was an old admin account with no confirmed contributions for about 15 years, which was subsequently blocked. Today, we had another long-dormant account attempting to resurrect a long-dormant RfA, and one of the few that wasn't cleared out of the backlog of stale ones a few months' back.

The common feature of these two is they have taken an account created years ago with zero edits, made trivial edits on their user and talk pages to get autoconfirmed status, then let fly with the trolling. This makes me think they are trying to crack old accounts and succeeding.

I don't think we can realistically do much other than wait until it happens again, then block, rinse, repeat. Has anyone seen this kind of stunt being pulled before - I know dormant admin accounts have been hijacked for malicious use, but not normal user accounts to bypass semi-protection? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The way this happens is simple. Those individuals used the same password for multiple sites and one of them had a security breach. There's no way we can proactively stop it other than to delete old accounts with zero contributions (which I doubt anyone would agree with). We'll have to be reactionary on this one and remind everyone to use a unique password for Wikipedia. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I always assume people are trying to crack passwords of admins and the like. Really, that is something that should be handled at the Foundation level by developers, looking for script kiddies trying to brute force passwords.  That isn't something the community can fix.  I will say, we have caught them and blocked them fairly quickly, including this chap, whom I just removed talk page and email access from.  I doubt the person behind the latest cracking had any intent except trolling, after proving he could crack a password.  ie: all done for Jollies. Your first example was a bit more dangerous, but there were a dozen people tearing through archives to disprove him within an hour.  We did let ourselves get trolled a bit, in the name of good faith, but the system worked. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * to determine if the two accounts above were done by the same person.
 * The two accounts would be ✅ but they hide behind proxies. See also . Kind of a pattern, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, whoever it is understands Wikipedia pretty well so it sounds like a banned editor trying to get his own back if you ask me. In all cases, if you pin them down to what they want to do, they just say "so I can get back to editing". The trouble is, a checkuser can't detect sleepers with 0 edits, can it? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the definitions of a sleeper is an account with zero edits, but a CU has to be looking in the right place to find them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is that these accounts don't appear to be sleepers. They're just dormant and then have their passwords compromised. Unless we target all dormant accounts, we can't prevent this. discussed brute-forcing attempts, but I highly doubt that's what's going on here. It's more likely the same password was used across multiple sites and one site's passwords were compromised in a data breach. That's how admin accounts have been compromised in the past. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely not sleepers, as the accounts weren't created in good faith and just got pwned. And that makes sense Rob, we are just one more site they got a password for when they cracked that person's Google or other account. All we can do is recognize and play whack-a-mole. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they probably aren't cracking anything. I wrote up more info, but I'll email it to you for WP:BEANS reasons. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would characterize these accounts as throwaway sleepers and with the possible exception of the first account, Liniey, they were not compromised at all but were rather held in control for quite some time. The CU result helps with a threat assessment that we are not dealing with different hackers but one sockmaster who had these accounts. There hasn't necessarily been any compromised accounts. Password48's global registration was "04:53, 16 April 2013" while Qwerty's global registration was later that same day at "21:55, 16 April 2013" and neither of those accounts have names suggesting that they were created for sincere use. No sudden compromises there, the same hands have had them.


 * They claimed that was one of their accounts and based on the CU results, I believe him. I was already looking at something which seemed like too much of a coincidence concerning that claim. Liniey's global registration was "06:19, 17 March 2015" when they apparently checked in to do that out of the blue. One day later, Scottishwildcat made this demanding post at " 07:13, 18 March 2015" at the Teahouse asking among other things how to become an admin with the micro-managed trolling "Provide the exact codes, and give as detailed answers as possible. Do not say anything like "go to this article and read it". The answers to each questions should be numbered in exactly the right order." Since the sockmaster is currently trying to troll RfA, it makes sense. I notice that after the IP posts to Scottishwildcat's userpage that no link is ever made to the account that they would presumably create to carry on editing. Most users losing passwords will usually make that link. They stopped editing a little over two months after their post to the Teahouse without ever responding to it.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The glass is half full. The socks were confirmed with a nice silver lining that the person trolling was caught by our checkuser before they could convince a well-meaning admin to unblock them under another account. Thank you, Bbb23 for checking and preventing that account from causing disruption.

Long-term abuse/My Royal Young (Input Requested; see this discussion, too)
As of recently, a well-known and respected vandalism fighter has just been blocked for socking as User:My Royal Young. Apparently, they had made an LTA page on User:My Royal Young (themselves), likely in order to avoid detection, scrutiny, etc. Now that the account that created this LTA is blocked, there is currently a discussion on whether or not Long-term abuse/My Royal Young should be deleted per WP:DENY (deny recognition) or to keep it since others have edited it too (though at the time, they obviously had no idea that the user who created Long-term abuse/My Royal Young was actually a sock of User:My Royal Young). If anyone would like to join this discussion please do so here. Thanks. 98.223.4.183 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding probable gaming DS-notification logging
, currently blocked, registered a DS notification against at General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant log, although Erlbaeko gave Softlavender the DS notification after he received an identical DS from her. I made a note about that, providing also the required diffs, at the sanctions page. To me, this looks like a clear case of WP:GAME. Should this notification be withdrawn altogether? Thank you. Dr.  K.  11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't quite get my head around this. Softlavender left Erlbaeko a warning, then Erlbaeko left Softlavender a warning.  And... what?  A bit tit-for-tat, yes, rather pointy, perhaps.  Is this really an issue for ANI?  Am I missing something?  Since a notification is a prerequisite to sanctions under the GS, and Softlavender had breached 1RR on an article covered by those sanctions (see below) it seems a reasonable enough move to me.  One might opine that it showed a certain amount of cheek for Softlavender to leave the first notification, having just breached 1RR herself.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Erm, once someone leaves a notification for you, wouldn't you think that they know about the notification they just left you? And if they do, why would you leave them an identical copy? That's, obviously, not intended for information, but for disruption and gaming. Second, your comment Is this really an issue for ANI? is a bit perplexing. Last time I checked this is AN not ANI. Dr.   K.  12:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. K is referring to logging the notification at General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, clearly an aggressive move (and one I hadn't partaken of). It's one thing to apprise someone of GS; it's entirely another to officially log the notification as if it were a sanction in itself. (After Erlbaeko logged the notification I took the liberty of logging my notice to him, just so the chronology was clear). Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the logging was part of gaming and battle. I should have mentioned this in my reply above. Also, there was no "cheek" involved, since I believe you were not aware of the 1RR conditions of the topic area. Dr.   K.  12:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Coffee time, it seems. I've struck the 'I'.  Yes, I agree it was pointy and tit-for-tat.  Disruptive?  Well, I guess.  Gaming?  I'm not really seeing it.  What advantage exactly do you think they've gained from playing this game?  Since Erlbaeko has left several such notifications in the past year, we can assume they were aware of the GS, so Softlavender's notification was also unnecessary.  In DS enforcement, I'd consider this to be exploring the edges of disruptive editing; editors are expected to ensure that their notification isn't the second in a year, and by extension I'd consider alerting someone who is already expected to know about the sanctions because they've logged alerts themselves to be bad form.  It's not a sanction, it's not meant to look like a sanction.  The instructions at the top of the log say, "List here editors who have been placed on notice of the remedies in place".  Aren't we getting rather excited about what is, after all, only a log entry?  GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * These are arbcom logs. I think that anyone who logs anything in them should act without intent to game the system by adding a "black mark" on their opponent's reputation. Demanding due diligence of someone who uses these logs is not equal to "getting excited". Caring for the proper function of these arbcom-initiated logs is not the same as "excitement". Don't get me wrong, if the opinion implied in your rhetorical question prevails, I would be the first one to not give a damn about the proper functioning of these logs. Dr.   K.  13:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see logging an alert as a black mark. But I'll leave it there for others to have their say.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I think you are technically correct, based on the definition of what a DS notification is. Based on that, logging, technically, should be no big deal either. But. at least in my opinion, to the eyes of an edit-warrior, a page which has names attached not only to notifications, but also to sanctions, looks like a good place to have their perceived opponent's name appear.  Dr.   K.  13:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * GoldenRing, it wasn't "tit-for-tat", because I did not log my initial notification to Erlbaeko. Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received a GS notification for Syria "in less than a year", and GS notifications are required and necessary before reporting someone at AE, and there is no conceivable reason to search extensively through someone's edit history to see if someone has "left several such notifications in the past year", which would be irrelevant, and it is definitely not "bad form" to post a required notification, any more than it is "bad form" to post a required 3RR notice to someone who is "already expected to know about" 3RR. You seem to be conflating standard talkpage notifications with ArbCom-related logs, when they are two different things and two entirely different levels of communication, escalation, and reporting. Dr. K's point is that it was a BATTLEGROUND move, just like all of Erlbaeko's edits prior to his block. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also we have to see this from an involvement perspective. I haven't checked, but I believe Softlavender when she says that she is not involved in that area, and that she came to that article through 's talkpage. So we have Softlavender who is new to that article, and, through unfamiliarity with the restrictions of the topic, she breaches 1RR in a single day but she does not continue, after she gets reverted. Compare this with the other party, who has been edit-warring for days, and has to have the final revert. Even now, the blocked editor, in his unblock request, still thinks he has done nothing wrong. He thinks that NPOV trumps 3RR, although this is his second 1RR block. Based on these observations, the disruption-meter does not point anywhere near Softlavender, although it beeps loudly in the blocked editor's direction. Dr.   K.  13:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Logging of notifications is 100% necessary. It's the only easy way admins know a notification occurred. Notifying someone of general sanctions is almost always fine, unless perhaps if someone was mass-notifying just to be a dick. It was certainly fine here where Softlavender wasn't aware of the sanction in place on the page and accidentally violated it. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As an aside, you did not need to give a notice, as the editor in question had already received one. These are general sanctions, not discretionary sanctions. Notices apply indefinitely and don't need to be "renewed" after one year. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK Rob, but there was no way for me to know any of that, or even to know the editor had received a previous notice. Nor did I even know the log board existed until a red light popped up in my notifications when Erlbaeko added my username to the log. I've received at least one DS (GS?) notification in the past and never received a red notification (indicating a logging). Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * [GS] Notices apply indefinitely and don't need to be "renewed" after one year. At GS#Community sanctions it is stated that "Full procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described here." The question is, if GS notifications mirror the conditions of the DS ones, then they should also mirror their expiry terms. That would preclude them from being valid indefinitely. Dr.   K.  18:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That contradicts WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, which is what I was going off of, since that's the topic area specific description of the general sanctions approved by the community. The practice in this topic area has been one notice. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rob for the link. Obviously, if that has been the practice under which the GS notifications are issued, then that's that. Having said that, in your link, the validity intervals of the notifications are not stated explicitly. In any case, this seeming conflict between these declarations may have to be ironed out. Dr.   K.  19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that clarity could be useful. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Imo, it always is. Dr.   K.  19:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved from my ('s) talk page:

You need to calm down and check things. To pick up on a few things from your comment at ANI:
 * I didn't say your notification of Erlbaeko was tit-for-tat; rather that his notification of you was.
 * The general sanctions on Syrian Civil War are not authorised by the arbitration committee and you can't take enforcement actions to the AE board (at least you can, but no-one will be interested because they're not arbitration remedies).
 * The processes around GS are not as well-documented as AC/DS, but even with AC/DS it is not necessary to alert an editor if the editor has given the same alert to someone else in the past year - see point three of WP:AC/DS. In the case of general sanctions, there is no requirement to notify every twelve months and, according to that very useful log, Erlbaeko has received a notification previously (from EdJohnston in 2015).
 * If, as you say, GS notifications are required and necessary before reporting someone at AE and so there is nothing wrong with you having done so, what is the big problem with Erlbaeko having notified you - especially when it is now well-established that you had just violated the GS in place? He has a fair history of issuing such alerts and you can hardly claim that he's singled you out.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to search through someone's contributions to see if they've left notifications because they're all supposed to be logged in the central notification log, which is why we're all here in the first place. In the case of Erlbaeko, a quick search through the current text of the notification log you were editing would have told you all you need to know as his name appears many times.
 * It is very much bad form to post a non-required notification and it can be the basis for sanctions - see WP:AC/DS.

I have not conflated anything; you appear not to have actually read the policy related to general sanctions, discretionary sanctions and alerts. GoldenRing (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The thread is not about Erlbaeko's talkpage template to me; it is about his logging at General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but you appear to keep talking about his talkpage template to me, which is not what is under discussion, and since I had not logged at the GS/SCW, that wasn't tit-for-tat. Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year". As for everything else, please read my reply to BU Rob13. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since you're supposed to log all GS notifications in the central log anyway I still really don't see the point of all this. If you didn't know about the log, fair enough.  I've added a note to the relevant template's documentation pointing people gently in the direction of the notification log.  As an admin who's activish in arbitration enforcement (and as Rob said at AN) I value the central logs; as you rightly point out, manually searching a user's history for notifications is a pain (though the DS notifications are at least meant to trigger an edit filter that makes searching easier; I don't know, off the top of my head, if the GS notifications do the same).  I would gently point out, in response to your Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year" that you still don't seem to have grasped WP:AC/DS so let me spell it out: point 3 says In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict.  Erlbaeko has given three such notifications in the past twelve months, according to the log.  There is some ambiguity here, as WP:AC/DS only talks about duplicate notifications, not unnecessary notifications, which is why I described it as "exploring the edges of disruptive editing", not actual disruption.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * GoldenRing, you yourself said above "even with AC/DS it is not necessary to alert an editor if the editor has given the same alert to someone else in the past year" and you yourself pointed out that the last notification he received was in 2015, and my response ""Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year"" was responding to that. As to everything else, as I said before, please read my reply to BU Rob13 above. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking at entirely crossed purposes. When I said, even with AC/DS it is not necessary to alert an editor if the editor has given the same alert to someone else in the past year what I was saying was, even with AC/DS it is not necessary to alert Erlbaeko if Erlbaeko has given the same alert to someone else in the past year.  Whether Erlbaeko has received a notification since 2015 is irrelevant since he's given three this year (bearing in mind of course that the 12 months is a DS thing not relevant to GS, but leave that aside for the moment).  Have I made myself clear?  It's a tangled minefield, I know.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My error, I quoted the wrong part of your statement. My comment "Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received 'more than one alert per area of conflict per year'" was in response to your statement "In the case of general sanctions, there is no requirement to notify every twelve months and, according to that very useful log, Erlbaeko has received a notification previously (from EdJohnston in 2015)." By your logic, Erlbaeko did require, or at least bear receiving, another notification, since as you noted he hadn't been notified since 2015. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I... look, this isn't getting us anywhere. Dr.K. seems to have accepted (at least as a technicality) that there is nothing sinister about adding someone's name to the notification log, so I think this can be closed.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to prolong this conversation, as my initial motivation was to get some advice regarding the notification issued by ErlBaeko and perhaps get that notification removed from the log. Given that aware.aware of DS (the GS notifications process should, on paper, mirror that of the DS) says that an editor is considered aware if In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict;, then ErlBaeko having received his notification from SL two minutes prior, he should not have issued SL with a counter-notification, as both logically redundant and counter to aware.aware. That he did issue the notification is, in my opinion, an attempt at getting even. In my opinion, the timing of Erlbaeko's actions indicates disruptive use of the DS notification system and its (supposedly) mirror GS notification system. Needless to say, I am not one to keep conversations going on noticeboards for ever. I understand that the opinion of admins who commented in this thread, including you GoldenRing, is that the log should not change and that Erlbaeko's actions are within the normal spectrum of GS. I accept that opinion, and move on. Thanks to everyone who offered their comments in this thread. Dr.   K.  16:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack
The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack is currently under sanctions, "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed."

Currently blocked Erlbaeko added a POV tag and got reverted. Erlbaeko restores and Softlavender reverts. The time of Erlbaeko isn't important as it falls outside of the 24 hour period. Erlbaeko reverts that followed by Softlavender's second revert and Erlbaeko's second for which they were blocked by me after seeing the report.

The question is should Softlavender have been blocked as well. She did make two reverts on the page but may have been confused by Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack/Archive 1 because Erlbaeko didn't seek consensus first. What do others think. I have notified both Erlbaeko, who can't reply here, and Softlavender and will leave a note at User talk:NeilN. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not aware the article was under GS when I made a second revert. I had seen a discussion of edit-warring against consensus on 's talkpage, in which, as an involved admin, requested NeilN's intervention: User talk:NeilN. Since NeilN is on vacation, I intervened with the edit-warrior, making two reverts. I stopped when I realized the article is under GS. Being apprised of GS is a condition prior to sanctions, and I was neither aware nor apprised nor warned when I made the second edit; I was simply acting according to NeilN's sanction on the article: " Consensus required : All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." (viewable in the edit window: ). I don't edit on ME articles and so I wasn't aware of the GS (or even that this was a ME article) until I took a closer look at the talk page and its banners. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The now blocked user Erlbaeko gave Softlavender a templated blanking warning which included references to the sandbox etc. I find this type of warning heavy-handed and indicative of typical POV-pushing, which coupled with the days-long edit-warring in that article, indicates WP:BATTLE mentality. This is why I intervened by filing a 3RR report for Erlbaeko. Please see also how Erlbaeko gamed the DS-notification and logging system, as outlined in my report above. This does not include his aggressive edit-warring and threats on my talkpage. Softlavender, in any case, did not revert the second revert of Elbaeko, clearly indicating that she had no intent to continue edit-warring in that, unfamiliar for her, area. Dr.   K.  12:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like "trout and move on" to me. GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The series of edits from Erlbaeko was a clear violation of the sanctions on this page, which they were well aware of.  . Whether or not it was the original reason for a block, a short-term block is clearly warranted. The continued edit-warring after those edits just makes it worse, see . As for, they had never received a general sanctions notice in this area until after the edits in question according to the log. While one isn't required for a 1RR block, I almost always prefer to give one and a warning. Not really fair to block someone for something they're unaware of. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm agreeing with you. No qualms at all about the block of Erlbaeko; my comment was that I thought Softlavender's actions deserved a trout for 1RR violation and no more.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've said numerous times before, there was no way for me to know that I was violating any sanction or that there was a 1RR restriction on the article; and I stopped immediately upon figuring that out, even though the edit warrior was clearly in violation of at least two sanctions that he clearly already knew about. By the way, thank you Rob for removing the non-consensus tag that the edit-warrior was warring to retain. Softlavender (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that Softlavender isn't planning to revert again or continue anything resembling disruptive editing in that area, so I would hope that common sense prevails and we all agree that AE sanctions would not be appropriate in this case. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Softlavender is not edit warring - let us use common sense. We all make mistakes. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

1st initial prods
hello, ive noticed ive made several successful prods and because i there is no log of the pages deleted, i would like to know the first two prods which had been deleted. thank you.68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Show (After Crying album) and Das eiserne Gebet. I strongly encourage you to consider creating an account. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Happyme22 • Dragons flight
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Zad68

Guideline and policy news
 * The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news
 * Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
 * A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous
 * A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
 * A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
 * Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Request review of Black Kite's conduct by uninvolved admin
When an issue regarding my editsums was raised at ANI, rather than acting appropriately and professionally (who I have no previous history with), while blocking me, told me to "grow up if you want to continue editing wikipedia" and then said something on ANI about calling people "childish names" and being "9 years old". When challenged on his behaviour by, he replied "Perhaps my comments might actually persuade him to act like an adult.".

The word "creep" describes a person who is strange, eccentric and frightening on some level. Characterizing that description as "childish" is specious, but OK I got the message. Don't call a billionaire who wants to get blood transplants from young people to extend his lifespan and secretly buys citizenship in my country when he has no intention of living there a "creep" (even if I think he is one). Got it. Served my time, moved on.

Black Kite's behaviour, however, falls well short of the standards expected of admins, per WP:ADMINCOND. I don't know if this is a one-off or a pattern, but admins who insult editors when they block them have no place on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think that was a reasonable summing-up of your conduct, especially for a long-term (and presumably adult) editor who should have known far better. It is indeed the sort of comment I would have expected from a very young editor.  Perhaps you feel it was a little harsh, and if so I apologise, but I don't think it was inaccurate. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologise or don't, but don't give me the "sorry but" bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Using edit summaries like "This creep has spent about 12 days in his entire life in NZ", "If he's a kiwi then I'm a Dutchman. And yes, he is a creep" and "It is not simply a part of his "personal life" when the decision to grant his citizenship is hugely controversial. And I'll call a creep a creep if I want to" as you did on Peter Thiel, a BLP, is childish, and deserves to be commented on. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'll call a creep a creep if I want to? I saw that and immediately imagined you sticking your tongue out, so yeah, it was childish. What's next, rolling around on the floor, kicking and screaming if you don't get your way? Black Kite called it correctly. If you're going to move on, then do it. Katietalk 12:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Appropriate block for unacceptable behavior in a BLP. @MaxBrowne, don't ever do that again.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have any of you even read WP:ADMINCOND? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly have, and he was justified in what he said to you. You acted like a petulant child. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps review WP:BOOMERANG. --Izno (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour there was totally inappropriate and childish, User:MaxBrowne. Appropriate block with appropriate description. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that they cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct."

Well done admins, you have driven away another productive content creator. I'm sure you don't care. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Farewell, sweet prince. Dumuzid (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rubbing salt into wound, good one. If you admins can't see that your comments are unnecessary, unprofessional, and WP:personal attacks, then I think your heads have swollen from carrying around your tools. You also seem to have no comprehension how a 1-week block can sit with an editor, and for a long, long time. It isn't your job or perogative to insult & demean in addition to being janitors, no matter how entitled and superior you think you are with your double-downs. --IHTS (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was filed vindictively to get back at the admin that blocked them, plain and simple. He told Black Kite to fuck off whom he misquoted above in his initial post in this thread (Black Kite didn't tell him to grow up, he told him to grow up a little...there is a difference). This filing was every bit as immature as his preceding behavior. Doctrine of Clean Hands applies here. As for salt in wounds, no, he's lucky he didn't get hit by a boomerang.

GAB's RFA
Just leaving a heads-up that I just applied semi-protection on the RFA page for three hours due to sock puppetry (two accounts in less than a few minutes). Cheers --  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERM is backlogged
Requests for permissions is backlogged at the moment. If you feel comfortable reviewing requests for autopatrolled, new page reviewer, page mover, etc., please process a couple when you have a chance. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV is also quite backlogged at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Access blocked
I wanted to check if the G11 deleted article Freshens Fresh Food Studio was also a G12 of part of their website, but the latter is refusing access. Can anyone else (perhaps US-based) access their website and check for copyright violation? Thanks <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jimfbleak - I don't see text copied from the site's homepage, but I do see where the user took some text from their "about us" page and altered some of it to be different here. It's not blatant copypasta, but I do see a correlation to some of the text on the article and on this external page... but not all of it though. I'm trying to see if the rest is a copyvio, but so far I haven't hit anything from any searches.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~ , thanks for looking. The "about us" link is blocked as well, so I assume that access is restricted to US users. The article was, as you have seen, spam probably posted by the company, it looked like it might me a copyviol too, so that's why I asked, thanks again <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  15:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jimfbleak - You bet. Always happy to lend a hand :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a closer match to their facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/notes/freshens-fresh-food-studio/fresh%C3%ABns-has-never-been-fresher/177468125923/, and similar enough that I'd have G12'd it even if it weren't spam. —Cryptic 16:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cryptic, thanks, I should have thought of looking at Facebook, <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://freshens.com/about-us/ blocked also?-- Auric    talk  20:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Auric, no, I seem to be able to read that, thanks <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

MadmanBot down or malfunctioning?
The that has operated WP:inactive administrators subpages and notified administrators for their inactivities seems to be either down or malfunctioning a bit. Its operator Madman, an admin, has been inactive since August 2016. Currently, Xaosflux has been manually adding the list of inactive administrators in the "August 2017" section of WP:inactive administrators/2017. I thought about reporting this to WP:VPT. However, this is about a bot listing inactive administrators. --George Ho (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At xaosflux's request, I plan to take over that task. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 09:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... nifty! --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion, sock puppetry, and CNN-related articles
I'm creating this AN discussion to notify administrators here that I'm currently tracking a person whose using IP addresses and creating accounts to repeatedly vandalize CNN-related articles over the last hour or so. The SPI I've created to track this person and for record-keeping is here. After blocking the fifth IP and third account for this, I've begun semi-protecting each CNN article that's been hit for repeated sockpuppetry and for one day. If anyone has objections, questions, comments, or input - feel free to add them here or on my user talk page. Cheers :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like the one day semi-protection I applied on each CNN article this user hit has put a stop to it all for now; I haven't seen any further instances of sock puppetry or IP block evasion by this person since doing so - hopefully what I did is all it takes to encourage him/her to move on. I'm hoping (s)he won't be back after the page protections I applied have expired, but I guess we'll find out :-). Of course, right after I save this update this user going to come back and vandalize more CNN articles just you wait and see! Here it comes... OH NO!    ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   07:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this crap is Trump-related, so they'll probably be back with friends. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to remove duplicated categories from pages
Currently there are 800 pages with duplicated categories. Duplication may case problems when recategorising using a bot or even HotCat which is the most popular tool. I ould lik to clean those. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CheckWiki shows only 416, but I'm sure that number fluctuates fairly rapidly. This seems like it would make a good bot task, given that AWB already fixes these automatically during runs. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac Add to this CHECKWIKI/WPC 017 dump 810 pages. The number is increasing to the last 3 months. I would be happy if you adjust your bot to cover this. I can provide technical support fo you need. I can even do it via my bot if there is consensus for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, duplicate cats is marked as a "cosmetic but occasionally problematic" issue at the CheckWiki page, but an 800-page run isn't huge. I'm sure one of the two of us could get a BRFA pushed through, provided that it was deemed enough of an issue to deal with all at once. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is and I'm the one who marked it as "deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT." but I did so mostly based on WP:SILENCE. The practical issues that this can cause in reality is the following: someone thinks they have removed a category, or updated a specific sort key in that category -- however, because of the dual listing, the article remains improperly categorized/improperly sortkeyed. I feel those reasons are sufficient enough to override WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How would a bot address a situation in which the two category calls had different alphabetical sorting? If the answer is "it would log them for human review", that's fine, and yes this is an actual error that I think should be fixed, regardless of COSMETICBOT.  Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two options, one would be flagging for human review, the other is removing the sort key that is unused (possibly indicating what the unused sort key in the edit summary, so it's easy to retrieve). Flagging will obviously create better cornercase handling. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From a very quick skim of the list, it looks like half-to-three-quarters of the entries are literal duplicates, with the remainder having different sort options. Cutting 800 pages down to 200 would make it well manageable for humans to fix the remaining oddly-sorted cases. If I get a chance I'll run the hard numbers. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be a bot task to remove duplicate category entries with no sort keys (if one has a sort key, leave that anad remove the other; if neither has a sortkey, remove one) and report any with multiple sortkeyed entries of a single category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * someone may want to close the discussion at ANI about Mags use of AWB, because given the consensus that has formed there, it will have an effect here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to close this discussion, but as I've been made aware of this discussion, I would, in turn, like to make the participants here aware that I have closed the ANI discussion concerning Magioladitis AWB use. The closure (of which there is a general comment and then two more detailed comments for the two competing proposals) can be found here. Nick (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a minor task, I'll put this forth in a BRFA in the next day or two, provided the is no major opposition. As a note regarding functionality - AWB automatically removes identical categories, as well as when one cat is sorted and the other isn't (e.g. if and  were present, the former would be removed). This will only leave the edge cases where both cat listings are sorted differently, which is only about 20 pages. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All of my requests have threes options to reply to them: A) DO them B) DO them by bot C) Don't do them. All there are the following options regarding the current active restriction: a) DO without AWB b) DO with AWB but only after the restriciton is lifted c) DO before the restiction is lifted as an exception. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, as this has potential to confuse editors. Editors could think they're removing a category when they're really just removing one copy. It likely also confuses HotCat, although I haven't tested that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I am just creating a BRFA then. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would probably wait a week for clearer consensus here before submitting a BRFA (which would just be held for a week for this discussion). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CHECKWIKI right nows has 112 errors. We can wait for the results but we have also to speed up the process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated myself for BAG
Hello everyone!!! I just nominated myself for BAG membership. Your participation would be appreciated.

Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 3— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 23:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another AIV backlog
There are 11 pending WP:AIV reports at the time of this posting, including one IP that DatBot has reported twelve times. — MRD 20  14  02:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of Jeffmcneill
Hello,

Jeffmcneill has asked for a renaming, arguing that his online reputation would suffer from what is written on his talk page. As global renamers, we are not allowed to rename a blocked account. However, are you OK for exceptionally granting the renaming? Thank you! Litlok (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Link: m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/34454/view --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of those very talk page comments veer dangerously close to NLT territory. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  10:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree which is why I removed their talk page privileges yesterday. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And just what you get paid for, Doc :) better call the union! Many thanks, all the same.  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  18:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. We would have done this under the old system. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the entire talk page history has been moved to "User:Renamed User XYZ", but the 130+ userpage history was left behind at User:Jeffmcneill, which is no longer an existing username (and could in theory be scooped up). Is there any reason (policy or otherwise) not to move the deleted revisions to the userpage of the new account name (restore-move-redelete)? It really seems best to me and I was gonna just do it but realized maybe there was a reason it wasn't done already. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine, . –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Side-note, your edit summary of the rename has been truncated breaking the latter part including a CentralAuth link... is that a known bug of whatever renaming interface is being used? Really looks like it should be corrected. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not something I'd noticed... What you're looking at is the move summary for automatically-moved-pages-during-rename though, not the rename summary itself. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, exactly. Links being cutoff just shouldn't happen. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)